Setanta wrote:Moishe3rd wrote:Are you theorizing that only Muslims who have "religious brief" have the authority to issue fatwas? Maybe you could clarify this statement in light of your previous post . . . You may refuse to recognize bin Laden's "religious brief," but apparently, based your understanding of Islam, millions of other Muslims might feel "constrained" to do so....
That is absolutely hilarious. I point out that there is no priesthood in Islam, no centralized authority, and you seem to think that is a basis for claiming a contradiction. No Muslim is
constrained to acknowledge a
fatwah by bin Laden, they only acknowledge it by choice--that is why i specifically used the word constrained. See if you can understand that distinction, i'm not wasting time on you in the future, so you need to absorb it now.
Odd.
My original point was:
Quote:By implication therefore none of the multitude of other "fatwas" by Muslims against the West constrain any Muslims?
Your reply was that OBL had no "religious brief."
Again, you would like it both ways: There is no priesthood, therefore Muslim "fatwas" are meaningless, as no Muslim is "constrained" to follow them.
Or, it is bin Laden that has "no religious brief," even though "religious brief" has no meaning according to your definition, and therefore no one is constrained to follow him.
Either way, your point is both ridiculous and untrue. Fatwas are religious ruling. If you believe in the authority of those that issue such fatwas, you are bound to follow the ruling.
If you are trying to point out that no Muslim is constrained to follow any fatwa, then why mark bin Laden as a special example in the first place?
Quote:Quote:There is certainly a difference of opinion here.
I would suggest that a more careful reading of history did indeed pit Muslim religious authorities against the established state, resulting in religious usurpation of power.....
....Your odd belief that the Turks were irreligious and wished only to impose a "weak hegemonic authority" on their fellow Muslims as opposed to renewing religious authority is also at odds with historical fact.
All wars of conquest in Islam were religious.
You provide the refutation of your own claim. In all of these cases to which you allude, a tribe or a clan simply used religious heterodoxy as the excuse for their grab for power.
Your indifference and opposition to religious values again makes you attribute all motives to a "grab for power;" or conflicts over land; or any other cause, as long as it has no basis in religion.
It is one point of view, but history and the simple declarations of Islam refute your belief.
Muslims proclaim it is about religion.
You disagree.
Quote:you do mischaracterize Muslim terrorists when you call them facists.
Quote:Fascism is a political philosophy; movement; or system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. (Edit: this is false, racism is not a necessary component of fascism) You may choose to add whatever qualifiers you like, but the above is the definition of fascism.
That is simply a more verbose statement than was mine. It does not apply to the Muslim terrorists, who are state-less.
Again, you choose to define words or philosophies as suits your beliefs.
I am simply quoting the dictionary or historical sources.
The above is a definition of fascism.
You choose to change it to suit your purposes.
Quote:Quote:Again, you write as if the Saud/Wahhab alliance sprang full-blown from the forehead of Churchill, ignoring 150 years of warfare and consolidation.
The only reason England dealt with the house of Saud was because they were the de facto rulers of the Nejd and had continuously, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, fought against the ruling Ottomans; the Egyptian rulers of the Hijaz; the al-Rashids; the ruling Hashemite dynasty of Mecca; and, meanwhile, just for fun, the entire Shia population of northern Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Southern Iraq. All of these wars were fought on the basis of establishing the Wahhabi cult under the patronage of the Saudi tribal sheiks. These were religious wars, in addition to being wars of conquest for land. They went hand in hand and the result is self-evident in modern day Saudi Arabia.
To suggest that the English were responsible for these conquests and wars is absurd.
It is a mischaracterization to state that i suggest that the Saudi/Wahhabi alliance had sprung from the head of Churchill. You again attempt to distort my statement to serve your silly argument. I have stated that the alliance was nugatory until a deal was cut with the English. Rant for all their might, the Saudis and Wahhabis were absolutely ineffective at opposing the Turks until the English began to make war on them, and were not able to assert authority in the Arabian penninsula until they had English backing. You yourself show that they were not successful in their attempts to impose their authority before the English defeated the Turk. I have not suggested that the English were responsible for the
failed attempts at conquest by the Saudi/Wahhabi alliance and the wars they waged. Once again, it is a schoolboy technique to ascribe to me statements i did not make for the purpose of ridiculing the argument, and it verges on the erection of a strawman.
Quote:Except that it was not acceptable to the "other Arabian tribes," as I have pointed out above. Neither with English support, nor during the 175 years before World War I.
Sufficiently acceptable that there has been no serious challenge to that authority in more than 80 years. The amount of financial aid and military stores provided by the English was pathetically small--whom the Saudis had previously failed to conquer, they now bought off with promises of future oil wealth--promises they kept; and with promises of religious purity, promises they attempt to keep while keeping a low enough profile for it to go unremarked in the west. If their rule were not acceptable to the other tribes, precisely how do you suggest they gained and maintained control?
Wahhabism is a Sunni Muslim religion practiced in Saudi Arabia. It began in the mid-18th century from the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab. He was a religious reformer who wanted to rid Islam of innovations and restore what he believed were the religious practices of the Prophet Muhammad and his immediate successors. He established a political covenant through marriage in 1744 with Muhammad bin Saud. He received bin Saud's protection and in exchange legitimized the religious rule Saudi conquests over the surrounding Arabian tribes.
These are the roots of modern Saudi Arabia.
Wahhabism has as a central tenet, the concept of the militant jihad, or holy war, which Wahhabis believe is to be applied universally - including against fellow Muslims who are not sufficiently religious according to the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab.
Under the Saudi/Wahhabi conquests, this particular brand of Islam became associated with a brutal history of political expansion that led to the massacre of Muslims who did not adhere to its tenets.
The Saudis conquered surrounding Central and Eastern Saudi Arabia during this time.
For 50 years they instituted progressive attacks against the Shia of Eastern and Northern Saudi Arabia, conquering Al Hasa, parts of An Nafud and killing all who would not change their beliefs to the Wahhabi cult. They reached Kerbala in Southern Iraq in 1802, sacking it and massacring the inhabitants.
They similiarly sacked and massacred the Sunni city of Taif in the same year, before conquering Mecca in the western Hijaz, placing the Kaaba under Wahhabi control.
With this control, the Wahhabists could institute their philosophy, upon pain of death and torture, as the only true Islam.
By 1818, Mohammed Ali, the governor of Egypt had successfully counterattacked this Saudi/ Wahhabi threat to the Orthodox Sunni Ottomans and they were driven from Mecca, their capital city of Dar'iya was destroyed and the ruling Sauds were executed.
The House of Rashid was given the Nejd, but by 1824, the Saudi/Wahhabi dynasty was still firmly ensconced in their city of Riyadh.
From there, over the next 40 years, they re-conquered most of the Nejd and Al Hasa until they had their own civil war and dynastic squabbles, and the Ottomans and the house of Rashid again took control. The Saudis retreated into what is today Kuwait.
By 1902, Abdul Aziz ibn Saud again re-conquered Riyadh, decisively defeating the Rashids and by 1906 they controlled most of the Nejd. The Ikhwan was formed at this time. It was the spearhead of the Wahhabi movement, the fanatical military branch of the Saud dynasty. By 1913, they had re-conquered Al Hasa and controlled all of what is today Saudi Arabia except for Mecca and the Hijaz. At every turn the Ikhwan forced the stark Wahhabist religion upon the conquered tribes under pain of death and torture.
By 1924, when the Ikhwan conquered Mecca, forming the kingdom of Saudi Arabia as we know it today, the Sauds also had to contend with their former English allies, which allowed the Hashemite dynasty, also allies of the English, to escape Mecca, rather than be slaughtered by the new conquerors.
However, the Wahhabist Ikhwan, now in control of Mecca, revolted against any form of Saudi control.
By 1930, Abdul-Aziz defeated the renegade Ikhwan and instituted a milder form of Wahhabist philosophy that was subservient to the newly formed kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
And it goes onÂ…
Your suggestion that this alliance between the Wahhabi and the Sauds was of little or no importance before England stepped in is, as I have already stated, absurd.
This alliance shaped the conquests of the Saudi's; it shaped the brief alliance Saudi Arabia had with England; it shaped the structure of the present government of Saudi Arabia; and due to its dominance of Mecca, it has shaped the philosophy of Islam for the last century.
It is the most influential factor in all of the Islamic world today.
To suggest otherwise is to deny history.
Quote:Quote:You transfer your disdain for religion into all peoples, including Muslims.
That is a lie. I have always been able to and careful to note that i condemn organized religion but do not necessarily condemn the adherents thereof.
I will refrain from reposting the rest of your anger at being misjudged. The above is sufficient.
In your writings here, you categorically deny religious motivation for political actions.
You declaim that Muslims are simply acting out of "political expediency," and not out of any religious belief.
It is painfully obvious from the day Mohammad left Mecca that this is a ridiculous notion. All of the wars Mohammad and Islam fought from that time until now have been religiously motivated.
Quote: Quote:You do see your world through the eyes of unbelief and refuse to allow anyone else, particularly Muslims, religious motives for their actions and, in this case, conquests.
This is hilarious--i haven't denied their religious motivation, i've simply pointed out that they were relatively militarily ineffective. Islam has been spread not by its original adherents, because they couldn't maintain sufficient unity and military fervor. Islam only spread because of its adoption by Berbers, Turks and Tatars, and that is the point i have made.
The above is a mass of contradictions.
You are stating Mohammad and his followers were "relatively militarily ineffective."
You are stating that it wasn't until the "Berbers and, Turks and Tartars," that Islam was spread.
Again, you obviously do not mean what you are writing, but it is equally obvious that your resistance to the idea of religion as a motivating and "militarily effective" force overwhelms your desire for rational examination of history.
Quote:Quote:Again, your belief is belied by the avowed statements of the leaders of Dar Islam today.
Islam was and is a religion tied together with conquest and control. The conquests of the tribes that you dismiss were indeed religious conquests.
This is historical fact, despite your efforts to dismiss it.
I haven't dismissed it, i've simply noted that it hasn't worked out for them the way they had hoped.
I believe "they hoped" it would conquer the entire planet with time. And, I believe that there are many who still hope this will happen.
If that is
not what you are saying, then how hasn't it "worked out for them the way they had hoped?" Do you believe that Islam being possibly the most widely spread, dominant religion in the world isn't "working out as they had hoped?"
Quote:Quote:And, there is no historical record of any Islamic conquest ever peacefully co-existing with its "neighbor" until the particular Islamic kingdom was defeated.
Prior to the nineteenth century, the same can be said of the Christians. Give the Muslims a couple of centuries, huh? They got a late start.
Yes, the same could be said of the Christians. Except that personally, I didn't like the result of dominant Christianity exterminating large numbers of people. I see no reason to continue to put the world through Muslim Hell because the Christians did it.
That is childish to the extreme in a sort of creepy ghoulish manner.
Quote:
Quote:I don't even know why you try and put the effort into implying that Islamic countries will peacefully co-exist without being defeated.
Because there are so many that do. There are more Muslim nations that are at peace than there are that are at war. The vast majority of Muslims in the world live in nations which do not make war on their neighbors.
What Muslim majority country in the world outside of the former Soviet Union (give them time) has not warred on its neighbors or on itself (the Near Enemy) in the last few decades, unless it had already been decisively defeated previous to this time?
Quote:Quote:I confess to being bemused by your conclusion.
You appear to be writing that if only the United States (and?) would stop stealing and invading, there would be peace in the world.
I am sure that is not your conclusion, but I can draw no other inference.
The United States, specifically in the middle east, has been driven by a politician's nightmare--the need to support Israel because of the Jewish electorate and a good deal of the Christian electorate, although mostly fanatical sects; and the need to secure access to petroleum--of which the middle east possesses the largest reserves of the best quality of petroleum. Governments which the United States has propped up in the region, such as the Shah and the Saudi monarchy have been supported because of the issue of petroleum. Certainly the world would be a much more peaceful place if idiots like the Shrub and his Forty Theives of Baghdad were not attempting to implement the PNAC agenda for conquest of Iraq and the establishment of military bases in southwest Asia. It is wholely irrelevant to the hunt for al Qaeda.
This restatement of your previous conclusion makes no more sense that the first one.
Quote:Quote:Islamic fascism needs to be crushed until the point where Islam at large reforms its ideology.
Uh huh, you and whose army? Not ours--even our electorate is smart enough not to get sucked in again. You'll have a long wait to see the United States invading Iran. The Persians will have to do us some serious dirt before the people here will tolerate such a military adventure.
Quote:This has been true of most conflicts in history.
Why do you believe that this one is so different?
This is an unwarranted statement. You have not supported such a contention. Wars have usually been about conquest, but no one has been much concerned with "reforming ideology" with a few very specific exceptions. Conquerers don't give a rat's ass about ideology. They are motivated by power, plunder and tribute--and sadly, often by simple blood-lust.
Which, brings us around again to the beginning. You cannot conceive of a religious motivation, so therefore, wars are always about "power, plunder and tribute--and sadly, often by simple blood-lust."
I would humbly suggest that about a billion Muslims, from the educated professor in a college university; to a tour guide in Thailand; to the rulers of the Middle East; to the bin Laden and Hamas fanatics of the world, disagree with you.
Again, I find your conflict odd.
On the one hand, you see my wish for fascist Islamic death cults to be destroyed as an example of vile hatred, yet, on the other hand, you label bin Laden, Hussein, Hamas, and other perpetrators of this cult of death, as being "motivated by power, plunder and tribute--and sadly, often by simple blood-lust."
The attributes to which you give these "would be conquerors" are certainly destructive to what most people including, I suspect, the majority of Muslims, would call civilization. Yet, you find the wish to destroy what I see as perversions, offensive.
It's bec. man has this bad case of soul-cancer, which is why we all need healing.
