How To Solve The Problem Of Terrorist Islam?

While I'm at it, here's another statement from the bible which impacts upon I-slam:

Book of Hebrews, opening paragraph:

Quote:

CHAPTER 1

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Now, the critical idea in that statement is in the first verse, and here is what that means.

It amounts to a clear statement that by the time of Jesus, there were no more prophets in the world, nor have there been any since then. It amounts to a clear statement that in ages which at the time of Jesus were past and prolog, God had spoken to the world through prophets but that, since that was no longer feasable for whatever reason, he was sending a message to the world via a messenger, which was Christ, and that Christ was of the spirit of God himself and not any sort of a prophet or errand boy.

Between the time of the flood and the age of classical Greece, religious practices amounted to attempts to directly communicate with God and the spirit world, and this involved oracles, prophets and prophecy, divination, familiar spirits, idols and idolatry and God knows what all else and, by some point in time two or three centuries before Christ, all of that had ceased to work. It involved trance states and a different paradigm for using the human mind which in our modern world produces only madness and schizophrenia. The best book on the topic which has ever been produced is Julian Jaynes' "Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. You can still find it and I recommend it. It explains the whole thing about prophets.

The last real prophet died somewhere around 2500 - 2700 years ago, i.e. at the time of Zechariah, and there have been no more since then. The one other guy (besides Muhammed) who ever made such a claim was Joseph Smith, who has been shown to be deluded at best, and a fraud and charlatan at worst. In particular, several of the Egyptian items which Smith claimed to have deciphered with "prophecy stones" were later translated using the knowledge gained from the Rosetta stone, and Smith was not even in the ballpark.

0 Replies

Rickd',

Quote:

Do you really think that the Crusades were started just to retake land? Oy, I suggest you read up on the Crusades. The Pope wanted to distract the attention on the internal struggles in the Church by beginning a war what in essence was, a war against Islam. It is not a question whether the retaking of the Holy Land was justified; it is of no importance. The Crusades were very bloody, beginning against a lot of European Jews who were meant as an "appetizer" for a lot of Crusaders, and later on it were a lot of Muslims in the Middle East who were killed by the Crusaders, women and children too, mosques rebuilded to churches and sacred sites abolished. There was nothing sacred about the Crusades; it is one of the darkest periods of Western civilization.

You are absolutely 100% correct. However, that does not change a whit my answer below.

Quote:

They were a justified attempt to RETAKE the land which Islam conquered. More specifically, they were a reaction to new Islamic conquests by the new Seljuq Turk rulers.
To put it bluntly, Emperor Alexis of the Byzantine Empire did not request help from the Pope and Europe until Islamic fanatics took over all of Anatolia (Turkey).
Islam had been invading and conquering for 500 years previous to this.
Apparently, Anatolia was Alexis's 9/11

The Crusaders also ending up sacking Constantinople (the capital of The Roman Byzantine Empire) to add to their list of crimes. However, it was still a reaction to new Islamic fanaticism (before the Seljuq Turks took over, Christian pilgrims were allowed to go to Jerusalem without being kidnapped and killed).

The main point I am trying to make is that the Christians did not suddenly and arbitrarily embark on the Crusades. It was a reaction to bloody Islamic conquests.

And yes, the Christians were far bloodier in the end than Islam. But, guess what, Christianity has reformed itself.
There are not a lot of Christian slaughters of innocents going on today.

There is a great international slaughter of innocents by Muslims, justified by the same religion they practiced 1,000 years ago, all over the world, in the name of Allah going on today, Now, as I write.
It is disgusting and it needs to be crushed.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

There is a great international slaughter of innocents by Muslims, justified by the same religion they practiced 1,000 years ago, all over the world, in the name of Allah going on today, Now, as I write.

Sorry, but I just have a problem with how easily you can say "slaughter of innocents by Muslims" and "they". You do not know the effects of generalization I'm afraid. Try "Islam and the West: a new political and religious order post September 11" by Robert Van der Weyer. It is not a one-way story; these conflicts do not represent a presumed big threat of Islam. The West is far too powerful for that. You can even say, Muslims have even more the right to be "afraid" of the West than the other way around. Sadly enough, that would make our Western life, or better, the life of our democratic leaders...

pretty...

dull.

PS: This is only a reaction to the so-called Islamic threat to the West, it is not a reaction on internal Muslim affairs. It is not even denied by Arab Muslim intellectuals that the rights of the Muslim women are not as good as some tend to portrait them, to give an example.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

There is a great international slaughter of innocents by Muslims, justified by the same religion they practiced 1,000 years ago, all over the world, in the name of Allah going on today, Now, as I write.
It is disgusting and it needs to be crushed.

Hence my statement concerning a myriad of "Islams," if you like.

--Ibn

0 Replies

Ibn_kumuna wrote:

Moishe3rd wrote:

There is a great international slaughter of innocents by Muslims, justified by the same religion they practiced 1,000 years ago, all over the world, in the name of Allah going on today, Now, as I write.
It is disgusting and it needs to be crushed.

Hence my statement concerning a myriad of "Islams," if you like.

--Ibn

Aside from the little problem of prophecy and prophets having disappeared from the world 2500 years ago (which I mentioned above), there is another problem with islam which muslims need to consider.

This other problem has to do with the muslim conception of paradise (the thing about the 72 virgins), and the question is, does somebody who goes through life treating women the way muslims do want to then contemplate spending an eternity having to deal with these same women at seventy two to one odds?

Consider that each and every one of those seventy two virgins will be somebody who spent 50 - 80 years in this life being treated the way women are treated in the muslim world. Some of them will have sharp instruments in their hands, some whips and riding crops, some red-hot instruments and branding irons from the balcksmith's shop and the forge... I mean, we're talking big-time S and M here.

Is that really something you'd want to look forward to?

0 Replies

Ibn,

There is no use arguing with swolf. Her religion is hate. She does not know Christianity.

This whole prophet thing is pure hogwash.

Jesus called John the Baptist a prophet. (Matt 11)
It is clear from the writings of the Apostle Paul that there were prophets in the early church (1 Cor 12)

Swolf knows very little about either religion. She is dishonoring both.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Ibn,

There is no use arguing with swolf. Her religion is hate. She does not know Christianity.

This whole prophet thing is pure hogwash.

Jesus called John the Baptist a prophet. (Matt 11)
It is clear from the writings of the Apostle Paul that there were prophets in the early church (1 Cor 12)

Swolf knows very little about either religion. She is dishonoring both.

You believe everything you read in the bible? Take everything literally??

I mean, the new testament was apparently written down for the first time something like 150 years after Jesus died. That would be like you writing about your own ancestors at the time of the American civil war.

Any reference to prophets at the time of Jesus is a misuse of language. I'll say this again, this is not an opinion or an interpretation, a serious study has been made of what prophecy amounts to, and there is scientific reason to believe that it vanished from the Earth around 2500 years ago.

The book is called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes, who was a philologist and a psych professor at princeton. The book created a sort of a mini sensation in academia in the late 70s.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0618057072/marcelkuijstenspA/002-4896235-9205617

0 Replies

Quote:

Moishe3rd wrote:
There is a great international slaughter of innocents by Muslims, justified by the same religion they practiced 1,000 years ago, all over the world, in the name of Allah going on today, Now, as I write.
It is disgusting and it needs to be crushed.

Hence my statement concerning a myriad of "Islams," if you like.
--Ibn

Yes, yes, yes.
Ibn,
You noted previously that we should inquire into the various "real" factors that create this fascist ideology within Islam.
I would beseech you to enlighten me.

I really am serious in trying to come to grips with the particular "myriad" that seeks the destruction and subjugation of "the House of War."

I suspect that, as a Muslim, you are less than happy with the course of world events.

So, I refer you to my original question.
How do we solve the problem of Terrorist Islam?

If Jews or even Americans were blowing up and murdering innocent men, women and children every day, whether they were fellow Jews or Americans or whether they were "the other," I would join the forces that were pledged to stop them by any means possible - because murder and destruction of innocents goes against everything that I know and believe, both as a Jew and as an American.

I want this insane Islamic ideology to stop.
How?

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

I want this insane Islamic ideology to stop.
How?

The biggest thing which is needed is to get the United States out of the business of importing oil.

I say again, there isn't that much difference between $45/barrel and $60/barrel for oil. An American government with the balls for it could stop importing oil right now, put the country on a war footing, and start developing and using our 1000-year supply of shale oil. Within two years, shale oil would fall to $35/barrel, and OPEC and AlQuaeda would both starve.

And then of course there is the question of deep oil reserves which we haven't even started to look at, which could easily bring the cost of a barrel of oil under $10 within the next ten years, never to rise above that again.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645

0 Replies

Quote:

The biggest thing which is needed is to get the United States out of the business of importing oil.

It's a nice idea, but the U.S. is not going to overthrow capitalism. Now, drilling in ANWAR we could do. And we should do. G-d willing, we will do soon. However, as much as it sounds like a solution, it is not.
If this were only about tribal oil lands, we could win in a flash.

This is about religious ideololgy. It's gone way past oil

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

Yes, yes, yes.
Ibn,
You noted previously that we should inquire into the various "real" factors that create this fascist ideology within Islam.
I would beseech you to enlighten me.

I really am serious in trying to come to grips with the particular "myriad" that seeks the destruction and subjugation of "the House of War."

I suspect that, as a Muslim, you are less than happy with the course of world events.

So, I refer you to my original question.
How do we solve the problem of Terrorist Islam?

If Jews or even Americans were blowing up and murdering innocent men, women and children every day, whether they were fellow Jews or Americans or whether they were "the other," I would join the forces that were pledged to stop them by any means possible - because murder and destruction of innocents goes against everything that I know and believe, both as a Jew and as an American.

I want this insane Islamic ideology to stop.

How?

The real factor, I believe, behind what ye might call "terrorism" is something a little short of secular nationalism entangled with terse Marxist arguments reincarnated in "Islamic" revivalism. If you look very closely, you'll locate an impulse that abuts upon the same foundations of a Marxist critique. After the Six Day wars, the Arabs were embarrassingly defeated and muddled on what to do with Israel. So, instead of arguing for a "secular" state, they transferred all the arguments to religion. Secular nationalism became "Islamic" nationalism (Islamic state), Marxist criticism became religious criticism of America's capitalism, and such qualified the effete belief of "ends justifies the means" to implement such a state. Mix all that together with a dose of victimhood and what do you get?

The Myriad is obvious. Muslims in Palestine argue for something entirely differently from what, say, a Kashmiri Muslim might argue for. Not to mention, the various interpretations and manipulations of Jihad and so on. Historically Muslims had different conceptions of Jihad at different times. For example, during the Crusades the Muslims in Syria made it compulsive to wage war against the non-Muslims--while the Muslims in Baghdad and Medina felt war was optional.

Today's events strike a terrible hole within my heart. It just stymies efforts to engage in dialogue with non-Muslims all the more difficult. If anything, the terrorists have made Islam an embarrassment rather than a unique faith---I hope to finish up a paper on this point in the near future.

The solution is easy to explain but ardorous to implement. The solution, in my opinion, is education by two ways. First, we (and I mean Muslims) must educate the Muslims world to a more objective way of thinking. Too many a Muslim are spoon-fed victimological studies. (If it weren't for those Americans and Zionists we'd be a great race once more!) Sadly, such a fever causes Muslims to be bitter and exclusive. It's this "victimology" that is the impulse why so many Arabs hate Jews.

My second solution is an end to authority-worship. A quantity of Muslims zealously follow behind some authoritive figure and assume that "his" way of going about Islam is "perfect" and unquestionable. If these "authoritive" figures are the base for education, then---it's not at all difficult to see the root of resentment.

These points might be hard to implement and might lead to some Muslim intellectuals to be branded "kufar" or "western apologists," but I believe it's the base for change. After all, no one said the Sirat Mustaqeem ("Right Path") was going to be short and sweet. And no one said there would be an alternative to such a lengthy walk, either.

As for Egbrown, I completely understand what you mean.

--Ibn

0 Replies

Moishe

I disagree with many of your views, but I felt compelled to give you some unsolicited advice (call it my 2 cents, subject to devaluation of course).

Don't worry about all of the ranting and raving you received from your post. Most of those deriding you are extreme "liberals" (and I use the term liberally as I like word liberal, leftists would be better applied), who have too much time, and far, far too many opinions. As you can see they are irrevocably opinionated and are used to browbeating those who disagree with them off their sites and threads. Now I won't mention any names Ebrown, but it is rather funny to see their umbrage at the mention that you believe some else than they.

Best of luck. (Don't agree with you, but we both shouldn't care).

P.S. Contradict make-love-not-war and see what an uproar that will cause. LOL

0 Replies

0 Replies

Quote:

The real factor, I believe, behind what ye might call "terrorism" is something a little short of secular nationalism entangled with terse Marxist arguments reincarnated in "Islamic" revivalism. If you look very closely, you'll locate an impulse that abuts upon the same foundations of a Marxist critique. After the Six Day wars, the Arabs were embarrassingly defeated and muddled on what to do with Israel. So, instead of arguing for a "secular" state, they transferred all the arguments to religion. Secular nationalism became "Islamic" nationalism (Islamic state), Marxist criticism became religious criticism of America's capitalism, and such qualified the effete belief of "ends justifies the means" to implement such a state. Mix all that together with a dose of victimhood and what do you get?
The Myriad is obvious. Muslims in Palestine argue for something entirely differently from what, say, a Kashmiri Muslim might argue for. Not to mention, the various interpretations and manipulations of Jihad and so on. Historically Muslims had different conceptions of Jihad at different times. For example, during the Crusades the Muslims in Syria made it compulsive to wage war against the non-Muslims--while the Muslims in Baghdad and Medina felt war was optional.
Today's events strike a terrible hole within my heart. It just stymies efforts to engage in dialogue with non-Muslims all the more difficult. If anything, the terrorists have made Islam an embarrassment rather than a unique faith---I hope to finish up a paper on this point in the near future.
The solution is easy to explain but ardorous to implement. The solution, in my opinion, is education by two ways. First, we (and I mean Muslims) must educate the Muslims world to a more objective way of thinking. Too many a Muslim are spoon-fed victimological studies. (If it weren't for those Americans and Zionists we'd be a great race once more!) Sadly, such a fever causes Muslims to be bitter and exclusive. It's this "victimology" that is the impulse why so many Arabs hate Jews.
My second solution is an end to authority-worship. A quantity of Muslims zealously follow behind some authoritive figure and assume that "his" way of going about Islam is "perfect" and unquestionable. If these "authoritive" figures are the base for education, then---it's not at all difficult to see the root of resentment.
These points might be hard to implement and might lead to some Muslim intellectuals to be branded "kufar" or "western apologists," but I believe it's the base for change. After all, no one said the Sirat Mustaqeem ("Right Path") was going to be short and sweet. And no one said there would be an alternative to such a lengthy walk, either.

Mr. ibn,
(yes, i know son) You have written a thoughtful, intelligent post of which I have absolutely no disagreement.
(Well except for the part about ebrown, which baffles me.)

I have copied your post and sent it on elsewhere as to what a Muslim solution might be to,... to,... okay, reb kumuna, what should we call it? A struggle against what?

And, to tax your industry even further, how would you go about implementing the excellent suggestions you made?

I look forward to your thoughts.

Smile

0 Replies

And, here is an article from another Muslim.
Would you condemn this man as a racist?

From Pakistan Today

Quote:

0 Replies

Lusatian wrote:

Don't worry about all of the ranting and raving you received from your post. OL

To everyone else:

Don't worry too much about Lusatian's silly mantra of "ranting and raving". His own political views are so extreme that he is too ashamed to post them here.

So in lieu of intelligent debate his only stock and store on A2K is to troll.

A big part of that is simply dismissing the disagreement he encounters as "ranting and raving" as he lacks the ability to rebutt them on an intellectual level.

So ignore the playground tactics.

0 Replies

Craven,
Admittedly, Lusatian contributed nothing to my question, but you pointedly contributed less than nothing.
As you are a critic of the idea that Islamic Fascsism is an evil that is necessary to defeat or at least deal with,...

How would you respond in an intelligent fashion to either of the above posts, both written by Muslims?

Smile

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

Craven,
Admittedly, Lusatian contributed nothing to my question, but you pointedly contributed less than nothing.

My charge was that Lusatian has contributed nothing to pretty much any discussion, i.e. the site on the whole.

I do.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

Craven,
Admittedly, Lusatian contributed nothing to my question, but you pointedly contributed less than nothing.
As you are a critic of the idea that Islamic Fascsism is an evil that is necessary to defeat or at least deal with,...

Moishe,

It seems like you're arguing for something like this:

We make Iraq the 51st state in the U.S. And make all the rest of the Mid-East countries additional U.S. states. Tax their oil money heavily. Use the oil money to build prisons and hire tons of anti-terrorist military/mercenary/police and sweep everything up. Put them all under U. S. law. Kill anyone that looks slightly like they might be terrorist. Throw the rest of them in prison for life. Outlaw Islam religion.

Heck, why not just take over every country that has resources and make it a part of USA. Make them all Americans!

Is that your solution?

Imagine this dude who posts with a picture of the Iraq flag, and he asks: "How to deal with the problem of the Imperialist America, (or Terrorist Israel).?"

There are some who think with our current actions, we are actually creating MORE terrorists. For generations and generations to come. They've been at war in Israel off & on for over 2,000 years. We just happened to get into this mess now. They've been at it for 2,000 years. And we're going to solve it in 6 months or something, because we're USA?

0 Replies

Quote:

It seems like you're arguing for something like this:
We make Iraq the 51st state in the U.S. And make all the rest of the Mid-East countries additional U.S. states. Tax their oil money heavily. Use the oil money to build prisons and hire tons of anti-terrorist military/mercenary/police and sweep everything up. Put them all under U. S. law. Kill anyone that looks slightly like they might be terrorist. Throw the rest of them in prison for life. Outlaw Islam religion.
Heck, why not just take over every country that has resources and make it a part of USA. Make them all Americans!
Is that your solution?

No.
Do you have any solution? Is there a problem?

I perceive a problem. Perhaps you do not perceive a problem. If you do perceive a problem, do you have any ideas as to how to solve it?

Quote:

Imagine this dude who posts with a picture of the Iraq flag, and he asks: "How to deal with the problem of the Imperialist America, (or Terrorist Israel).?"
There are some who think with our current actions, we are actually creating MORE terrorists. For generations and generations to come.

Based on what the response has been thus far, with the notable exception of Ibn_kumuna, it would appear that there are none that think.
I make this rude assumption partially based on the non-response to the question and partially based on the abysmal lack of knowledge of things like basic history and religion, such as:

Quote:

They've been at war in Israel off & on for over 2,000 years. We just happened to get into this mess now. They've been at it for 2,000 years. And we're going to solve it in 6 months or something, because we're USA

No tcis, not even close. Not only are you not playing in the same ballpark, you aren't even playing in the same country.
Assuming you are search engine literate, it wouldn't take much to check out the history of the Middle East in its relation to Israel in particular, or Jews in general, as the modern State of Israel did not exist until 56 years ago.
You might be a bit closer to the mark if you thought that Europe had been at war with Islam for 2,000 years, off and on. It wouldn't be correct, but a little bit closer....
Rolling Eyes

Read. Learn. Study History. Ask questions.

0 Replies

How To Solve The Problem Of Terrorist Islam?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know