FreeDuck writes
Quote:Well, I first went to Morocco in 1999, I think. So my impression is one of progress with reservations. I dont know that I can go into my reservations without derailing the thread further, but suffice it to say that progress does not always affect all populations equally. We were talking about people, muslims in particular, and I think that Moroccan people in general are a great example of Islam as lived and I (always have) felt very welcome and safe there. I didnt conduct a poll, but the people I talked with about it abhor terrorism.
I'm sure that 90% or more Muslims in the world abhor terrorism. That isn't the problem however. The problem is that it appears that most peaceful Muslims are afraid to speak out publicly against Muslim terrorist activity when retribution or threat of retribution is so often swift and certain against any Muslim who presumes to disrespect Mohammed or the Quran or Osama bin Laden etc. Even non Muslim's are not immune to this phenomenon. One example: a certain Danish cartoonist. I imagine Salmon Rushdie still watches for assassins in the shadows.
By contrast, almost all Christians everywhere and media sources do not fear to voice or print scathing criticisms of or ridicule of Church leaders and practices. Any Christian group practicing terrorism of any kind would have almost universal condemnation directed toward it.
Foxfyre wrote: The problem is that it appears that most peaceful Muslims are afraid to speak out publicly against Muslim terrorist activity when retribution or threat of retribution is so often swift and certain against any Muslim who presumes to disrespect Mohammed or the Quran or Osama bin Laden etc.
On what do you base this? Many muslims and Islamic groups have, in fact, spoken out publicly against terrorism. I mean, Im sure that people who live in areas of Afganistan that are controlled by the taliban feel like they cant speak out for fear of retribution, as Im sure that many people who live in mob-controlled areas of Italy or Sicily also dont speak out publicly against criminal activity. Do you really think the average muslim is afraid of Osama bin Laden? I can tell you my friends and family in Morocco are not afraid of religious extremists as they know that they are in the minority. Obviously I cant speak to other parts of the muslim world, but I think you are making a very general statement about people that is, at least, incorrect.
I just googled -- muslims condemn terrorism -- and found this
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php. Thats just one site and those are just in English. I dont get the same impression that you get.
This does provide the first valid rebuttal I've seen to the article I posted. I'm not sure that CAIR qualifies as a Muslim group but I won't dismiss it out of hand. You are coming relatively late to the thread and may not have seen the article that started this whole line of discussion
NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE HERE
And there are a lot of sites like this too:
FREEMUSLIMS.ORG
Most of the links on your list have several years age on them as does mine. I wonder if we can find something more current? Perhaps later. Right now it's time for "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader".
This is an interesting article, published in
Pakistan Daily, about an Arab-American Muslim writer who lives in Florida. It addresses many of the questions raised earlier. Longish, but interesting read.
Following the February declaration by Muslim scholars at the Darul-Uloom in Deoband, India came this - a fatwa condemning terrorism:
Quote:India: Anti terror fatwa: But who Is listening?
11-06-2008
By Salil Kader
31 May 2008 was an important day for all those opposed to acts of terrorism being carried out around the world and which are wrongly attributed to Islam and its teachings.
On a hot Saturday afternoon New Delhi 's historic Ram Lila maidan witnessed a huge turnout (between 10,000-15,000) of Muslims at a peace-conference organised under the aegis of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and Darul Uloom, Deoband.
This meeting was supported by other important organisations including All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow , and leaders of different faiths and sects.
The aim of this anti-terrorism and peace conference was summed up by Darul-Uloom's deputy rector Hazrat Maulana Qari Sayed Mohammed Usman, "Terrorism is the gravest crime as held by Quran and Islam. We are not prepared to tolerate terrorism in any form and we are ready to cooperate with all responsible people."
The highlight of this meet however was a fatwa sought by the Jamiat leader and Member of Parliament, Maulana Mahmood Asad Madani and issued by the Darul Uloom, Deoband.
This fatwa was against all forms of terrorism.
The fatwa clearly stated, "Islam is a religion of peace and security. In its eyes, on any part over the surface of the earth spreading mischief, rioting, breach of peace, bloodshed, killing of innocent persons and plundering are the most inhuman crimes."
...
It is absurd to argue that Islam is a terrorist religion, but it is equally absurd to argue that there is some sort of parity between Christian extremist violence and Muslim extremist violence.
A handful of Christian extremists, in the US, committing murder in response to abortion, while in no way excusable, cannot be compared to the global threat of extremist Islamists. To argue otherwise is just incredibly stupid.
This is not a contest between religions, nor a contest between the Bad Guys of one versus the Bad Guys of another.
That the societies that, generally, are associated with Christianity have advanced well beyond those that are associated with Islam, says little about either religion.
The teachings of Christ have not propelled the West towards modernity, nor have the teaching of Mohammed mired the Middle East in its current backwards state. However it is ridiculous for those who reflexively desire to take the West, Christianity, The US etc down a peg (in the name of objectivity), to suggest that the current extremists of Christianity pose the same threat as the extremists of Islam.
We all know about the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Thirty Years War. We all should also know that none of them are even remotely contemporary.
We have seen arguments that the turmoil in Northern Ireland is a religious war, but this is incorrect. Few, if any, wars are fought on the strict basis of differences in religious dogma, but there is virtually no reason to believe this was the case in Northern Ireland. The conflict in Northern Island was the result of class and political differences that could be associated with, but in no way flowed from, the teachings of a religion or religious sect. IRA bombers never recited passages from the Roman Catechism as they planted their deadly devices. Gunmen from the Royal Ulster Constabulatory never chanted anti-liturgical slogans as they mowed down their Catholic foes.
That Islamist extremists rely upon the very wording of the Koran to justify their crimes does not, necessarily, indict Islam, but it does reveal a foundation of religion in their movement that simply didn't exist among the Irish extremists.
It is wrong to condemn the totality of a religion and its followers for the actions of extremists. It is entirely unnecessary, intellectually dishonest, and politically revealing to attempt to counter this wrong-headed argument with an equivalent condemnation of any other religion (and most pointedly, Christianity).
There is a structual aspect of Islam that makes it difficult for moderate muslims to counter the extremists: There is no central governing bodies that transcend nation-states and regional territories. If the Iman(s) of a certain area ( ie Iran) find favor with extremist behaviors, there is no religious authority to which moderates can look for support and leadership. Unfortunately, a large share of the regional religious hierarchy seems to be more favorably disposed to extremism than moderation.
In any case this is the problem that faces the true believers of Islam. They can cede their religion to extremists or they can exert control. Obviously it will take courage, but that is standard fare for the truly religious. It is not the responsibility of non-believers to accept their claims that Islam is a religion of peace and justice.
It is amusing, to say the least, to see the greatest critics of Christianity come to the defense of Islam. Familiar religion is abhorrent, while the exotic sort is to be understood. Once again a familiar aspect of the anywhere but here, anyone but us loathing of Liberal intellectuals.
(I would have used "self-loathing," but these folks don't loath themselves. They consider themselves above and beyond the failings of their neighbors)
old europe wrote:Following the February declaration by Muslim scholars at the Darul-Uloom in Deoband, India came this - a fatwa condemning terrorism:
Quote:India: Anti terror fatwa: But who Is listening?
11-06-2008
By Salil Kader
31 May 2008 was an important day for all those opposed to acts of terrorism being carried out around the world and which are wrongly attributed to Islam and its teachings.
On a hot Saturday afternoon New Delhi 's historic Ram Lila maidan witnessed a huge turnout (between 10,000-15,000) of Muslims at a peace-conference organised under the aegis of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and Darul Uloom, Deoband.
This meeting was supported by other important organisations including All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the Nadwatul Ulama, Lucknow , and leaders of different faiths and sects.
The aim of this anti-terrorism and peace conference was summed up by Darul-Uloom's deputy rector Hazrat Maulana Qari Sayed Mohammed Usman, "Terrorism is the gravest crime as held by Quran and Islam. We are not prepared to tolerate terrorism in any form and we are ready to cooperate with all responsible people."
The highlight of this meet however was a fatwa sought by the Jamiat leader and Member of Parliament, Maulana Mahmood Asad Madani and issued by the Darul Uloom, Deoband.
This fatwa was against all forms of terrorism.
The fatwa clearly stated, "Islam is a religion of peace and security. In its eyes, on any part over the surface of the earth spreading mischief, rioting, breach of peace, bloodshed, killing of innocent persons and plundering are the most inhuman crimes."
...
The religiously political equivalent of an obscure monastic order in Scotland rendering a judgment on a certain Christian behavior.
Not to be dismissed, but to be applauded and encouraged, and yet as evidence that Islam is self-regulating? Please.
In India, of all places, 10,000 to 15,000 people can hardly be considered a "huge turnout."
Finn dAbuzz wrote:The religiously political equivalent of an obscure monastic order in Scotland rendering a judgment on a certain Christian behavior.
Are you referring to the Darul Uloom Deoband and its influence in Islam? Because in that case, the problem seems to be your ignorance rather than the insignificance of that particular Darul Uloom.
...
And your unwillingness to spend 30 seconds Googling and reading up on a topic before publicly displaying that ignorance.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:In India, of all places, 10,000 to 15,000 people can hardly be considered a "huge turnout."
Finn seems intent on displaying other varieties of ignorance. Since 1947, when West Pakistan and East Pakistan (Bangladesh) were separated from the rest of the subcontinent which became India, there has been no significant population of Muslims in India in any concentration outside of Kashmir. So 10,000 to 15,000 people who are interested in Islam is a large turn out in India, indeed.
Finn displays his ignorance in other ways, as well. I have already pointed out that the difference between the people in "christian countries" and those in "muslim countries" is largely economic. In the places which can be called "christian countries," the population has something to lose.
Finn ignores the evidence about christian extremist groups in the United States. Finn constructs a strawman to the effect that christianity has assured economic and cultural development in the west, while Islam has retarded such development in the middle east--i made no such argument.
But he ignores the point about the Serbs altogether. Radovan Karadić, the wacko Sarajevo psychiatrist who became the spiritual leader of the Bosnia Serbs is a fugitive, accused of war crimes, specifically that he ordered ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. One of his earliest and most effective moves in Bosnia was to hammer on the use of the term "Turk" for Bosnian Muslims, knowing the ancient antipathy of Serbs toward Turks would help to demonize the intended victims.
Finn displays an appalling ignorance of the situation in the Six Counties (Ulster is not an appropriate name, given that three of the nine counties of Ulster lie in the Republic). A few people in the Republic, and a great many people in the Six Counties will ask a person their name, knowing how easily one's religion can be identified by their family name. For ambiguous names, they'll even ask how it is spelled--for example, Kelly is a Catholic name, while Kelley is a Protestant name. Finn probably is ignorant of the fact Ian Paisley, the First Minister in Northern Ireland until he resigned just a little over a month ago, has been a Protestant radical since the 1950s. When the Presbyterian church in Northern Ireland would no longer allow Paisley to use their churches for his gospel mission, he founded the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. Paisley and the Free Presbyterians have publicly condemned the Catholic Church and various Popes, stating that Catholic doctrine and liturgical practice mean that they are not christian. But Finn doesn't think it's about religion.
There appear to be a lot of things which Finn things for no better reason than that he thinks he can contruct a position from which to argue--as opposed to thinking them because he has informed himself well and has come to a carefully considered opinion based on the information he has absorbed.
Finn dAbuzz wrote:The religiously political equivalent of an obscure monastic order in Scotland rendering a judgment on a certain Christian behavior.
Is this the relevance you assign to all fatwas, or just the ones that go against your accepted view of Islam?
Perhaps, in your mind. I do not understand what you say. Why do you not just explain yourself, rather than use "sums up"?
Notice the cartoon has no caption, so there can be more than one interpretation. Captionless cartoons usually have ONE obvious meaning to all. This cartoon's meaning is understood, based on a reader's perspective. Therefore, can you give your perspective?
Foofie, even you can't be so dense as to think that anything Buttercup there says makes sense. Buttercup (a.k.a. Zippo) lives in his own little world where the only things that matter are the hatred of Jews and the hatred of Bush.
