Reply
Sat 17 May, 2003 08:56 am
I have heard mouthed many times in the last 2 years that Islam is a peaceful religion and we are not at war with it. The question I would pose is-is Islam at war with the rest of the world. It appears that Moslems fall into two groups those who are actively involved in terrorist activities and those who support the terror organizations and their activities. Although, there are denials aplenty their belief in religious dominance and conversion by the sword seems never to have wavered. One need only look around the world to anywhere there are a substantial numbers of Moslems and you will have your proof. We indeed may not be at war with Islam however, the question still remains is Islam at war with the non Moslem world?
au1929 wrote:.. It appears that Moslems fall into two groups those who are actively involved in terrorist activities and those who support the terror organizations and their activities. Although, there are denials aplenty their belief in religious dominance and conversion by the sword seems never to have wavered. One need only look around the world to anywhere there are a substantial numbers of Moslems and you will have your proof ..
Au, I have lived in a number of Islamic countries until only recently and I find your statements quoted above to be far too excessive and generalized (and IMO largely fabricated). I do agree that what you wrote does apply to many people, though not nearly to the extent that you apparently believe. You have to recognize that within the Islamic world there are many different races (Arab, African, Asian, etc..), cultures, upbringings, feelings, ideas, etc.
The incredibly hospitable, noble and peaceful Muslims I have known are legion.
Just my $0.02
Monger
I value your two cents. My post only reflects an opinion formed based upon what we see and hear happening around our world. Other opinions and in your case personal experience is clearly welcome.
I am looking, and I see no proof. A handfull of fundamentalists compared to the vast numbers of the rest of the Muslims proves absolutely nothing other than the fact there are fundamentalists among every group. Even Americans ;-)
Exactly. Fundamentalists will naturally generate a lot more news than peace-loving Muslim nations going about their lives.
Islam is not more peaceful, and not more belligerent than any of the existing monotheistic religions: everything depends on exegesis of the written sources.
The problem is as follows: the superpowers created the monstrous Islam for their geopolitical needs in the past. Britons revived the Arab nationalism to help them to destroy the Ottoman empire, the Arab socialism owes its successes mainly to the Soviet support, and militant Muslim fundamentalism on the early stages of its resurrective development in the modern times was from the first sight loyal to the USA and was regarded as a counterbalance to pro-Soviet political movement.
The problem is that neither Arab nationalists, nor Islamic fundamentalists planned to be anyone's marionettes from the very beginning. They pretended loyalty to their supporters while they needed support in establishment. When they developed enough, their geopolitic interests started contradicting interests of their former allies, and they did not hesitate to attack the latter. They were supposed to be Golems submissive to their creators, they appeared being Frankensteins. They have leaders of their own that are greedy for power and that are not tied by the restrictions stemming from different conventions signed by leaders of the Judo-Christian civilization.
But the very fact of their former loyalty to the West must not stop from defining them now like real enemies. And they should be treated respectively without regards to political correctness and other "pink" stuffs. If it is necessary, the punitive operations should be launched on their national territory without asking permission of the UN (where Syrian regime, that is an ally of the fundamentalist Iran, has its representative in the Security Council); if their expatriate communities serve interests of their overseas leaders, then Muslim immigration to the First World is to be reduced to zero level, and existing immigrants should be forcefully repatriated in case when their loyalty to the host country proves being dubious (and hell with HRW, ACLU and other organizations that prefer to neglect the existential danger to the Western civilization). Conversion to Islam of any Western national should deprive him/her from possibility to be employed at the workplaces where he/she can get access to sensitive devices or information, and such a person is to be monitored by the different national security offices.
The enemy does not recognize and respect the Western code of making war, therefore it should be spoken to in the language they understand best of all: the language of overwhelming responsive violence, intimidating their leaders and depriving them of hope that they have any chance to impose their will on the West.
Dagmaraka wrote:A handfull of fundamentalists compared to the vast numbers of the rest of the Muslims proves absolutely nothing other than the fact there are fundamentalists among every group.
Hitler started with handful of wackos in early '20s. Majority of Germans have never been devout Nazis. The results are known.
Monger wrote:...peace-loving Muslim nations...
I want to get an example of even one. This will help me feel better.
I can only speak for the Muslim countries I have lived in for a considerable abount of time (other than when I was really young)--Djibouti (96% Muslim) & Ethiopia (about half/half Muslim/Christian).
The Djiboutian president seems peace-loving to me (by the way, Djiboutian officials cooperated fully in the "war against terror"). The President of Ethiopia is not a Muslim.
The general populations of both countries seemed non-violent by nature to me. For example, though Ethiopia ties with several others for 2nd poorest country in the world (according to world-atlas.com), I could walk the mostly unpoliced streets of Addis Ababa at night without much concern. Its Christian & Muslim populations get along just fine too, even at holy sites such as Harar (it's the 4th "holiest Muslim city" and has more mosques per square meter than any place on earth, as well as a number of Christian churches).
Djiboutians on the whole were the most friendly people I've lived with.
These are of course only my personal experiences.
steissd wrote:Monger wrote:...peace-loving Muslim nations...
I want to get an example of even one. This will help me feel better.
There had been times, Turkey was quoted such - but that before they didn't want to become an ally against Iraq.
Au & Steissd
Since you are both Jews, I think it appropriate to point out to you both that the single instance of Jews of the Diaspora achieving a fairly decent relationship with the people among whom they sojourned -- was with the Islamics during the 200+ year Islamic dominance of the Mediterranean littoral.
Jews were treated respectfully and were accorded the same dignity Islamics accorded fellow Islamics.
This does not forgive what is going on now, but I think it is something you ought to at least consider and acknowledge.
Mr. Apisa, it seems to me that you deny the fact that the Jews can unbiasedly discuss the affairs pertaining to the Muslim world. The point of view appearing here is not influenced by some alleged wish to retaliate to Muslims for Israeli casualties. By the way, the tolerance toward Jews was not a general Islamic policy (Jews of the medieval Bukharan emirate, Persia and Baghdad Khalifate prior to its conquest by the Turks suffered not less than these of the Medieval Europe), but it rather referred to tolerant policies of the specific country, namely the Ottoman Empire. BTW, the modern Turkey continues the above policies. There were tolerant countries in Europe as well, and Netherlands are the best example.
Militant Islam endangers not only Israel; it threatens all the existing world order.
steissd wrote:Ethiopia is not a good example: Muslims are minority there, it is a largely Monophysite Christian country. And seemingly low level of violence there may refer only to the tourist's impressions. This country wages intermittent war against Erithrea, and both sides are deeply involved in deliberate atrocities against civilian population.
I was not there as a tourist. I lived there for nearly 2 years, including during wartime with Eritrea. The war, which only involved a small border strip of Ethiopia, was largely fueled by personal disputes between the 2 leaders (they're cousins, and both Christian). Ethiopia's population was not behind the war. Muslims are not a minority there either, they are in equal number with Christians (about 45% each).
Turkey, Mr. Hinteler, is a secular (unlike Iran) and democratic (unlike Saddam's Iraq and contemporary Syria) country; it is not an Islamic country in the same meaning Iran or Saudi Arabia are.
steissd,
They are not providing exceptions to a rule, they are simply opining in contrast to your entrenched prejudices against Muslims and Arabs. You simply seek to paint it as exceptional circumstance and your bias as the rule.
Frank
Yes there were times when Jews lived in Islamic countries when the were treated almost as equals. Yet there were times that just the reverse was true. However, although you may have interpreted it that way the question is based upon their actions around the globe today. From the Philippines to Malaysia through India and points west. It would appear as I said there are those who commit the atrocities, those that fund and support it and the rest who cheer it.
I should note that religion although not the root of all evil, it leaves very little to other causes.
In reading the story concerning the bombings in Saudi Arabia and the reaction of the citizens of that nation. It appeared to me that they were bemoaning the loss of their citizenry but were not too concerned if at all about the loss of life among the foreigners.
au
Unfortunately I neither understand nor can read Arab. So I must relay, what translated press reviews (like WorldPressReview et. al.) report.
There, I've found nothing like you report: " It appeared to me that they were bemoaning the loss of their citizenry but were not too concerned if at all about the loss of life among the foreigners."
(It least not more, than US are any other country's media report about accidents/attacks etc with both domestic and foreign victims.)
In reply to Monger and Dagmaraka, it does seem to be an influential handful, if handful it is. Sufficiently influential to support AU's question that Islam is at war with the rest of the world, possibly. "Handfull", in any case, sounds somewhat subjective.
Personal experience is priceless. I would like to hear more, Monger.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace