TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Hell as frozen over...Muslims asking for crackdown on Muslim extremists groups
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Hell as frozen over...Muslims asking for crackdown on Muslim extremists groups

They need to do more of this else where...

quote:

SBY urged to bring militants into line The Jakarta Post, Jakarta Religious leaders from the country's major Muslim organizations and activists have demanded President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono crack down on extremist groups that commit violent acts in the name of religion. Activists grouped in the Alliance for an Antiviolent Society and leaders of Indonesia's largest Muslim organizations, Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah, have warned the nation's integrity is under threat from the groups. They urged the police to stop radical groups from taking the law into their own hands. They were responding to a number of violent incidents recently. On Tuesday, the Islam Defenders Front (FPI) demanded former president Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid leave the podium at an interethnic and religious discussion in Purwakarta, West Java. They said Gus Dur should not have been allowed to attend the discussion because he rejected the pornography bill, and that the discussion should be stopped because the organizer used the term pluralism. In Bekasi, police arrested Bekasi Islam Defenders Front chairman Abdul Qodir, along with 20 other FPI members, last Monday because they had damaged property, including alleged houses of prostitution. Armed with sticks, the group raided several cafes in Kampung Kresek in Pondok Gede, Bekasi, after participating in a mass protest Sunday in support of the pornography bill. Former first lady Sinta Nuriyah Wahid reported the chairman of the Betawi Brotherhood Forum (FBR), Fadloli El Muhir, to Jakarta Police last Monday for allegedly slandering activists who took part in a rally against the pornography bill. Fadloli said during last week's live broadcast on Metro TV that the women who participated in the rally were "evil, wretched women who did not have good morals". The FBR also threatened singer Inul Daratista, telling her to leave the capital, and raided her karaoke lounge in North Jakarta after she appeared in a rally against the bill. The executive director of the International Center for Islam and Pluralism, Syafi'i Anwar, said the phenomenon indicated that the state endorsed violence. "The state must be responsible for protecting its citizens. But what we see now is that the state lets some groups use violence to force their beliefs (on others)," he said. He said the police seemed afraid to act because the groups used Islam as a cover. "Sooner or later, the international world will see this as a threat". Nahdlatul Ulama executive Masdar F Mas'udi said the groups' actions were contrary to Islam. "Islam teaches people not to use violence or to force their beliefs on others." He said their actions should be seen as criminal. "The state has the responsibility, because citizens can make mistakes. However, our President and Vice President have not taken any action, even though they have seen violence happening in this country," he said. Entertainer Rieke Diah Pitaloka said the groups had been singling her out for harassment since she asked the government to issue a policy on the pornography bill. "The police did nothing to protect me". Din Syamsuddin, the chairman of Muhammadiyah, has also expressed concern about the groups' lawlessness. He specifically referred to the harassment of Gus Dur. He urged police not to hesitate to take action against the perpetrators, regardless of whether they claimed to be defenders of Islam. "Muhammadiyah is gravely concerned about the violence a group of people committed in the name of religion," Antara quoted him as saying Thursday in the West Kalimantan capital of Pontianak. "Violence and anarchy undermine the nation's integrity and the democracy that Indonesia is rigorously pursuing," he said. A member of the House of Representatives, Badriyah Fayumi, called on all Indonesian people to respond in a measured way. "Do not fight violence with violence. Let the police handle the problem," she said.(05)

>Source<

I wouldn't say this is so unusual that hell *has* to have frozen over. There have been similar voices of moderation elsewhere, including Arabic countries. Sadly, it seems that the "live and let live" version of Islam doesn't carry quite the same attraction among rulers and the illiterate masses on the street as the "behead the infidels" one. Meanwhile:

quote:

Iraqis shot 'for wearing shorts' The coach of Iraq's tennis team and two players were shot dead in Baghdad on Thursday, said Iraqi Olympic officials. Coach Hussein Ahmed Rashid and players Nasser Ali Hatem and Wissam Adel Auda were killed in the al-Saidiya district of the capital. Witnesses said the three were dressed in shorts and were killed days after militants issued a warning forbidding the wearing of shorts. Other Iraqi athletes have been targeted in recent incidents. In this case, according to accounts, the men dropped off laundry and were then stopped in their vehicle by gunmen. Two of the athletes stepped out of the car and were shot in the head, said one witness. The third was shot dead in the vehicle. "The gunman took the body out of the car and threw it on top of the other two bodies before stealing the car," said the witness, who requested anonymity. He said leaflets had been recently distributed in the area warning residents not to wear shorts. Last week, 15 members of Iraq's taekwondo team were kidnapped between Falluja and Ramadi, west of Baghdad, said a member of the Iraqi Olympic Committee. The kidnappers have demanded $100,000 for their release.

quote:

Hell as frozen over...Muslims asking for crackdown on Muslim extremists groups

I can see why this would make you so happy (there seems to be some sort of culture amongst certain circles that all Muslims either are or support extremist Islam) but come on, where have you been for the last, what, half a century?!

Muslims are the ones that have been cracking down on extremist Islam sinse extremist Islam burst onto the scene!! The west only started doing it properly after 9/11...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The west only started doing it properly after 9/11...

Properly?

Can you please give some examples of how the West are properly sorting out Muslim Extremists

quote:

Originally posted by Wicked Neo Properly? Can you please give some examples of how the West are properly sorting out Muslim Extremists

By attacking and invading countries thats how they beat those evil extremists.

quote:

Originally posted by Wicked Neo Properly? Can you please give some examples of how the West are properly sorting out Muslim Extremists

Properly as in giving it the attention it warrants, or taking the threat more seriously than they did before 9/11

And I'm not sure whether your question is rhetorical or not but I'll answer anyway...

The Afghan war is the main example of the West sorting out extremist Islam, other examples are the intelligence operations going on throughout the world. Obviously there is still much more that needs to be done (eg winning hearts and minds) but the Middle Eastern regimes have been battling against extremist Islam since the begining of Political Islam (bout the 40s I think in Egypt?) which is hardly suprising as it is those regimes, not the West (as we believe, or are led to believe) that is the true target of Islamic extremism.

Re: Hell as frozen over...Muslims asking for crackdown on Muslim extremists groups

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r >Source<

This is really excellent news. Thanks for the share Firestarter!

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I wouldn't say this is so unusual that hell *has* to have frozen over. There have been similar voices of moderation elsewhere, including Arabic countries. Sadly, it seems that the "live and let live" version of Islam doesn't carry quite the same attraction among rulers and the illiterate masses on the street as the "behead the infidels" one.

Exactly. A similar event happened a while back to a Muslim who converted to Christianity in Iraq and everybody wanted him beheaded. For me that was extreme and should not be allowed. Hopefully they crack down on those guys as well.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I can see why this would make you so happy (there seems to be some sort of culture amongst certain circles that all Muslims either are or support extremist Islam) but come on, where have you been for the last, what, half a century?! Muslims are the ones that have been cracking down on extremist Islam sinse extremist Islam burst onto the scene!! The west only started doing it properly after 9/11...

While I agree that the West has been slow on this one, I don't think that saying "Muslims have been cracking down on extremism" is any less of an unjustified generalization than "Muslims are extremists":

quote:

Understanding Saudi Arabia, is it a Friend or Foe? Since it was discovered that 15 out of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudis, every aspect of Saudi Arabia has come under scrutiny by members of the U.S. government, advocacy organizations and members of the media. Ironically, the increased scrutiny of Saudi Arabia has not brought America any closer to understanding Saudi Arabia. The confusion about Saudi Arabia is in part due to the credibility of the parties who have made irreconcilable conclusions about whether Saudi Arabia is an ally in the war on terror. On one hand, President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz have argued that Saudi Arabia is a strong ally in the war on terror and a great friend to the United States. On the other hand, certain members of congress, various think tanks and other non-profit organizations have argued passionately that Saudi Arabia is no friend of the United States and a major supporter of extremist ideologies and groups. Most recently a Washington Post article written by Nina Shea of the Center for Religious Freedom at Freedom House revealed language from Saudi text books that encourage an ideology of hatred towards Christians, Jews and Muslims who don�t follow the Saudi version of Islam (Wahabism). Nina Shea argued that the disturbing material found in Select Saudi text books �are shaping the views of the next generation of Saudis and Muslims world wide. Unchanged, they will only harden and deepen hatred, intolerance and violence toward other faiths ad cultures.� So is the Saudi Arabian government a friend of the United States or does Saudi Arabia propagate hate and intolerance among American Muslims and Muslims world wide? The answer to both of these questions is yes. The Saudi Arabian government is a great friend to the United States and at the same time many in Saudi Arabia, including some who receive government funding propagate hate and intolerance against anyone who does not share their Wahabi inspired ideology. The answers to both these questions may seem inconsistent and counter intuitive but these seemingly inconsistent answers reflect the complexity of modern day Saudi Arabia. By now everyone has heard of the historic compact between the Saudi Royal Family and the fanatical Wahabi religious establishment. According to this agreement, the Saudi Royal family deals exclusively with matters of state while the Wahabi religious establishment deals with issues of morality which includes substantial control over the education system and the substantive interpretation of Islam. It is this division of power that produces the two faces of Saudi Arabia. As mentioned earlier, the Saudi government is a great friend to the United States. Their assistance in the first and second Gulf war was indispensable to the United States military. For the last 30 years they have implemented policies that supplied cheap energy to the United States and the rest of the world. They support the U.S. dollar by accepting only dollars for their oil and they have underwritten American debt by investing in U.S. government bonds. They also strengthen the U.S. economy by investing billions in the U.S. private sector. For many, it may come as a surprise to hear that the Saudi Royal family is for the most part progressive and if they had their way Saudi Arabia would be a much more tolerant country today. However, to become more tolerant and progressive, Saudi Arabia requires strong leadership that has not existed in that country for the last 30 years. For most of the 20th century, the Saudi royal family was substantially stronger than the Wahabi religious establishment. However, due to shortsighted policies and a lack of leadership from the Saudi government, the Wahabi religious establishment has gained substantial influence in Saudi Arabia. Over the last 30 years, radical Wahabis have become restless and unsatisfied with Saudi Arabia�s historical division of power. In response to the Wahabi�s increasingly assertive demands, the Saudi government adopted a policy of appeasement. The decision to appease the Wahabis has resulted in the legislation of internal social policy that is based on the most extreme common denominator. As is clear, Saudi Arabia�s policy of appeasement has backfired and has resulted in the propagation of a wicked, backward, violent and intolerant interpretation of Islam the likes of which the Muslim world has not experienced in 1400 years of history. In recent years, Saudi Arabia has become a victim of terrorism with several bombings that killed hundreds of people. In response to terrorism on its own soil, the Saudi government has finally declared war on terrorism. It now appears that the Saudi government realizes that the status quo cannot continue and are taking baby steps to reform their policies by organizing tough police actions and ideologically challenging the terrorists� theological justification for violence. The Free Muslims Coalition regularly monitors Saudi TV and while we have witnessed intolerant rhetoric by radical Wahabi religious figures, we have also witnessed a sharp increase in the number of religious and government figures who aggressively advocate tolerance, respect for other religions and attempt to discredit the ideology that leads to extremism and terrorism. Nevertheless, while we recognize that the Saudi Arabian government has taken steps to fight extremism and terrorism, it is not yet doing enough. Last year, the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism criticized the Saudi Islamic Academy, a Saudi funded elementary school in Virginia, for using textbooks that taught first grade students that Christianity and Judaism are false religions. We were particularly outraged by that text book because it was published after Saudi Arabia vetted its curriculum for intolerant material. Despite our harsh criticism of Saudi practices, we recognize that they are sincerely trying to reform. However, for the sake of long term stability, Saudi Arabia feels that change must be gradual. Truth be told, we recognize the enormous challenges the Saudi government has in correcting more than 30 years of unconditional appeasement. In the mean time, neither the United States nor any other country has to wait on Saudi Arabia to figure out how to reform 30 years of shortsighted policies. The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism makes the following recommendations to protect the United States and American Muslims from the propagation of intolerant material from radical elements in Saudi Arabia: 1. THAT U.S government officials reach an unofficial secret agreement with the Saudi government so that neither the Saudi government nor individual Saudis may build Islamic schools or mosques in the United States. 2. THAT the Saudi government immediately stop the distributing of religious books to American Muslims and American Muslim institutions. 3. THAT The Saudi government terminate the payment of salaries for Imams and other religious figures in the United States. 4. THAT the Saudi government prevent Saudi charities and religious organizations from sending books, building mosques, schools or paying the salaries of Imams in the United States or otherwise operate in the United States. 5. THAT the United States impress upon other nations to implement the steps mentioned above. In conclusion, the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism believes that the building of mosques, Islamic schools and production of religious books must be financed exclusively by American Muslims. By funding their own religious institutions, American Muslims can better protect themselves from the influences of radical groups from abroad. Moreover, the Free Muslims Coalition believes that placing unofficial pressure on Saudi Arabia is in the best interest of the Saudi government. The last few years has shown that the Saudi government takes tough action only if their security is in jeopardy or they can justify tough action by referring to the pressure they are receiving from the rest of the world.

(Source - emphasis mine)

You might also want to check this for an example of a government actually furthering the cause of extremists.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic While I agree that the West has been slow on this one, I don't think that saying "Muslims have been cracking down on extremism" is any less of an unjustified generalization than "Muslims are extremists": (Source - emphasis mine) You might also want to check this for an example of a government actually furthering the cause of extremists.

Well I didn't mean ALL Muslims! When I said Muslims I was refering to the fact that, contrary to what the original poster was implying, Muslims have been cracking down on extremist Islam since this ideology burst onto the scene.

The original poster gave the impression that the fact that some Muslims are now asking for a crackdown on extremists is somehow a new thing. It's not. And that's all I said

The West has done little or nothing with regards to stopping the spread of radical Islam - if not they actually increased its exansion tenfold by the uses of torture, wars, humiliation, desecration, disrespect, disillusionment etc. etc.

The only people who have ever actually done something positive to slow down this horrendous wave were well educated Muslims. But, unfortunately, what they're doing is tiny when compared to the efforts of USA, Israel and UK who are the major reasons for the increase of radical extremism in more than just Islam and not only in Middle East.

Radicals can see their effects on the media and the population. They understand that no matter how brutal their campaigns are, they are the most effective at spreading their message and does more psycological damage. And until the West reviews their campaign against radical Islam, it will only be a matter of time when a radical group hijacks a country with a nuclear capability and launches an all-out nuclear war to annihilate the world.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium The West has done little or nothing with regards to stopping the spread of radical Islam - if not they actually increased its exansion tenfold by the uses of torture, wars, humiliation, desecration, disrespect, disillusionment etc. etc.

I can agree with that sentiment. I mentioned "winning hearts and minds" earlier and this HAS to go hand in hand with physically fighting Islamic terrorists in places like Iraq or Palestine. The West, unfortunately, seems to be content with just the fighting part, and has given no consideration to winning over Muslims.

quote:

The only people who have ever actually done something positive to slow down this horrendous wave were well educated Muslims. But, unfortunately, what they're doing is tiny when compared to the efforts of USA, Israel and UK who are the major reasons for the increase of radical extremism in more than just Islam and not only in Middle East.

Not sure what your on about with "well educated Muslims"? Middle Eastern regimes have been the ones stamping out radical Islam but they suffer the same problems as the West's approach (to a far greater extent) And it is this - the oppression, lack of freedoms, unrestrainted use of force combined with the failure of these regime's ideology (pan-Arab nationalism) to improve the lives of people in the Middle East - that has, imo, made the most contribution to the rapid spread of extremist Islam.

quote:

Radicals can see their effects on the media and the population. They understand that no matter how brutal their campaigns are, they are the most effective at spreading their message and does more psycological damage. And until the West reviews their campaign against radical Islam, it will only be a matter of time when a radical group hijacks a country with a nuclear capability and launches an all-out nuclear war to annihilate the world.

Erm...

Radical Islamists (adherents to the Political Islam ideology, the same one Al-Qaida follows) do not want to take over or destroy the world!!!

Well-educated Muslims is I mean by not brainwashed ones. The ones that believe in Islam, and see that it is used incorrectly by some as a tool for extremism and destruction, hatred, and other factors. Of course Muslim countries are far behind the Western World when it comes to freedom, equality, freedom of speech, etc. Women for example are considered as property of men, as insane as that may be.

Radicals dont want to take over the world, you misunderstood me. Nuclear weapons are not for that. They're for destroying the enemies which radicals hate so much and cant wait for revenge. The problem with a nuclear warhead launching is that it can start a whole nuclear war (if USA thinks Russia is attacking it, etc), that can bring an end to us.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I can agree with that sentiment. I mentioned "winning hearts and minds" earlier and this HAS to go hand in hand with physically fighting Islamic terrorists in places like Iraq or Palestine. The West, unfortunately, seems to be content with just the fighting part, and has given no consideration to winning over Muslims.

I'm wondering what you think would constitute "trying to win hearts and minds"? AFAIK the west has been financially supportive of most of the middle east, and Europe in particular has been politically supportive of the idea of a Palestinian state for a long time. Moreover, the West has invited bright students to do part of their studies in the west, and has ever been willing to trade with Muslims. If this is not "trying to win the hearts and minds", what is?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Radical Islamists (adherents to the Political Islam ideology, the same one Al-Qaida follows) do not want to take over or destroy the world!!!

I'd go check the stated goals of Hizbu-tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood if I was you. It's a mistake to assume that radicals just want to live in peace by themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I'm wondering what you think would constitute "trying to win hearts and minds"? AFAIK the west has been financially supportive of most of the middle east, and Europe in particular has been politically supportive of the idea of a Palestinian state for a long time. Moreover, the West has invited bright students to do part of their studies in the west, and has ever been willing to trade with Muslims. If this is not "trying to win the hearts and minds", what is?

Well Palestine is probably the best example. Its something that alot of Islamists use to justify their belief that the West is against Islam (which is what I'm talking about "winning hearts and minds" - proving to Muslims just the opposite) Europe, including the UK, support a seperate Palestinian state but unfortunately, without strong US backing Israel is under no pressure to let that happen. The Islamists then take that and use it as an example that America supports Israel and not the Muslims, and Europe is happy to play along with it. The war in Iraq also plays right into their hands as well. You also mention the financial supprt the West gives to the Middle East. Well that's fair enough when they give money to help the Palestinians, but when they give money to support the regimes in the Middle East that are so oppressive and backwards (eg Saudi Arabia), then that agains plays into the Islamists hands.

quote:

I'd go check the stated goals of Hizbu-tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood if I was you. It's a mistake to assume that radicals just want to live in peace by themselves.

That is certainly true but their first objective is to establish the Caliphate, which is the reason they currently attack the Middle Eastern regimes (and the West). They have widespread support now through the population, not because the people there share their world view, but because the people need a new ideology to improve their lives where they are now - not for some fantasy about spreading the message of Islam around the world!

Ideologies usually start off very grand in design but usually settle for what they have got when they realise they can take it no further. I think the same will be said for Political Islam (in fact they wont even be able to establish the Caliphate which is the first stage)

I think Hamas and Hizballah will/have taken Political Islam as far as it can go - resigned to one country (and content with it)

But I still don't buy the idea, that many do, that the West has become a target of extremist Islamist groups because those actions are some kind of a wider plot to take over the world. Those attacks have a specific individual purpose and it is an attempt (a bad one!) to rid the Middle East of Western influence and culture (which again is a very localised aim, not a global one) which is also a stated aim of the groups you listed above

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Well Palestine is probably the best example. Its something that alot of Islamists use to justify their belief that the West is against Islam (which is what I'm talking about "winning hearts and minds" - proving to Muslims just the opposite) Europe, including the UK, support a seperate Palestinian state but unfortunately, without strong US backing Israel is under no pressure to let that happen. The Islamists then take that and use it as an example that America supports Israel and not the Muslims, and Europe is happy to play along with it. The war in Iraq also plays right into their hands as well. You also mention the financial supprt the West gives to the Middle East. Well that's fair enough when they give money to help the Palestinians, but when they give money to support the regimes in the Middle East that are so oppressive and backwards (eg Saudi Arabia), then that agains plays into the Islamists hands.

I understand and agree that there are points that Islamists can use to drum up hate towards the US (are you sure that the US sponsors Saudi-arabia, though?), however, if we follow your logic here, it seems that the West should appease every goddamn whim of Muslims in order to be seen as non-satans. I don't subscribe to that kind of definition of "trying".

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley That is certainly true but their first objective is to establish the Caliphate, which is the reason they currently attack the Middle Eastern regimes (and the West). They have widespread support now through the population, not because the people there share their world view, but because the people need a new ideology to improve their lives where they are now - not for some fantasy about spreading the message of Islam around the world!

But that is irrelevant to the point that we were arguing about : Do radicals want world domination? They do, and until we hear from their supporters that they do not want the same, we have every reason to fear that they do.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ideologies usually start off very grand in design but usually settle for what they have got when they realise they can take it no further. I think the same will be said for Political Islam (in fact they wont even be able to establish the Caliphate which is the first stage) I think Hamas and Hizballah will/have taken Political Islam as far as it can go - resigned to one country (and content with it)

Iran? Isn't that the Caliphate right there? And why don't you think that Islamism can go further? I do see obstacles, such as the failure of Muslims to foster decent leaders so far, and the fighting among the different factions, but these are by no means evidently insurmountable.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley But I still don't buy the idea, that many do, that the West has become a target of extremist Islamist groups because those actions are some kind of a wider plot to take over the world. Those attacks have a specific individual purpose and it is an attempt (a bad one!) to rid the Middle East of Western influence and culture (which again is a very localised aim, not a global one) which is also a stated aim of the groups you listed above

I don't care much about Islamic terrorism, and the reasons behind it, as it is so limited in scope. I might even buy your explanation of sending a "US out of the Middle East"-message (even if you do not back it up with any quotes from actual terrorists).
However, I *do* care that "Danish citizens" attack police men because they arrest a couple of Imams. And I *do* care that young "danes" beat up a Jewish professor in Copenhagen because of him being Jewish. And if I lived in the UK I *would* worry about 40% of the Muslim population wanting to live under Sharia - yet not wanting to move back to the Middle East where it is available for all who seek it.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I understand and agree that there are points that Islamists can use to drum up hate towards the US (are you sure that the US sponsors Saudi-arabia, though?), however, if we follow your logic here, it seems that the West should appease every goddamn whim of Muslims in order to be seen as non-satans. I don't subscribe to that kind of definition of "trying".

I'm not saying that at all and have no idea where you got that from?

quote:

But that is irrelevant to the point that we were arguing about : Do radicals want world domination? They do, and until we hear from their supporters that they do not want the same, we have every reason to fear that they do.

It is relevant cos you have to ask whether that aim is just a dream or is it somthing they think they can actually acheive?

quote:

Iran? Isn't that the Caliphate right there? And why don't you think that Islamism can go further? I do see obstacles, such as the failure of Muslims to foster decent leaders so far, and the fighting among the different factions, but these are by no means evidently insurmountable.

Er no, Iran is not the Caliphate. And I dont think it will work for many reasons, the main one I shall mention is that I dont really think that is what the people there want

quote:

I don't care much about Islamic terrorism, and the reasons behind it, as it is so limited in scope. I might even buy your explanation of sending a "US out of the Middle East"-message (even if you do not back it up with any quotes from actual terrorists). However, I *do* care that "Danish citizens" attack police men because they arrest a couple of Imams. And I *do* care that young "danes" beat up a Jewish professor in Copenhagen because of him being Jewish. And if I lived in the UK I *would* worry about 40% of the Muslim population wanting to live under Sharia - yet not wanting to move back to the Middle East where it is available for all who seek it.

Well of course I care (we actually got bombed as a result of this ideology) but to say you care about the actions without caring about why they do it is a little daft if you ask me - how exactly do you propose to stop it if you dont understand the reasons behind it? And even if you do understand the reasons behind it, how do you propose to stop it if you do nothing to address those issues? You'd just end up like Israel

The Muslim world has been plagued with extremist elements for the a while now, so this is nothing new. They've been dealing with terrorism for the longest time and now it's finally spilled over to the West (the cause of it in the first place).

@ trancaholic: I didn't read all of your post or comments on this thread yet, but I caught part of one. (And don't take this the wrong way or anything, but) what the fuck are you on? How has the West (refrence to dominant West governments and corperate/business interests) ever given Muslims a reason to trust them? Infact, their actions (the West) have only demonstrated the exact opposite.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z They've been dealing with terrorism for the longest time and now it's finally spilled over to the West (the cause of it in the first place).

I'm not sure that's entirely true. You can say it's true in so far as the early Islamists were repulsed by Western culture but that's there problem, nothing we should have done to change (altho interestingly enough something the religious right in America would agree wholeheartedly with!!!)

The Middle Eastern regimes originally caused this ideology to form, due to their oppressive nature and the fact that their own ideology failed to improve the lives of their citizens. The West was dragged into it when it was perceived as taking the Jewish side over the Arab side during that conflict (and American aid to Israel proved that) That was followed by the capitalist exploitation of the Middle East for oil. Then we get the wars etc etc and that is when the West started to "cause" Islamic terrorism (but they weren't the original cause, only if you stretch the truth as per the paragraph above)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I'm not sure that's entirely true. You can say it's true in so far as the early Islamists were repulsed by Western culture but that's there problem, nothing we should have done to change (altho interestingly enough something the religious right in America would agree wholeheartedly with!!!)

What time period is this in reference too? Westerners meddling in the affairs of Middle Easterners and South East Asians is a pretty old phenomenon, dating back to the colonial era (well, that's where it starts anyways). That's when certain groups became radical or had splinter groups that were just insane. And after the colonial/post WW2 era, and I don't know if you realize this, but the US has financed and supported many of these wackos to serve their own purposes (*cough* taliban *cough* Saudi Arabia *cough* wahabis *cough* Israeli support -> Palestinian militantism *cough* Iran coupe & Shah *cough* hadith fabrication *cough*)). I could "cough" some more, but I really don't feel the need to after that .

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The Middle Eastern regimes originally caused this ideology to form, due to their oppressive nature and the fact that their own ideology failed to improve the lives of their citizens.

Yes, repressive brutal regimes supported by the US, but you already know that.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The West was dragged into it when it was perceived as taking the Jewish side over the Arab side during that conflict (and American aid to Israel proved that) That was followed by the capitalist exploitation of the Middle East for oil. Then we get the wars etc etc and that is when the West started to "cause" Islamic terrorism (but they weren't the original cause, only if you stretch the truth as per the paragraph above)

I don't see how I'm stretching the truth here. Read above.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z What time period is this in reference too? Westerners meddling in the affairs of Middle Easterners and South East Asians is a pretty old phenomenon, dating back to the colonial era (well, that's where it starts anyways). That's when certain groups became radical or had splinter groups that were just insane.

But the Muslim Brotherhood was formed in 1928, six years after Egypt gained independence...

quote:

And after the colonial/post WW2 era, and I don't know if you realize this, but the US has financed and supported many of these wackos to serve their own purposes (*cough* taliban *cough* Saudi Arabia *cough* wahabis *cough* Israeli support -> Palestinian militantism *cough* Iran coupe & Shah *cough* hadith fabrication *cough*)). I could "cough" some more, but I really don't feel the need to after that .

You forget the tired and worn excuse pro-Israelis come out with when asking why America supports Israel "it's a strategic asset" for that vital region. Well that was true after WW2 (which you refer to) during the Cold War when the Arab (socialist) regimes sided with the Russians. The regimes America supported tended to be the monarchies and then later, Egypt. We're basically talking about the late 70s onwards (by which time Political Islam was firmly establish as a movement, altho it's extremist element did not really become established until the 80s)

quote:

Yes, repressive brutal regimes supported by the US, but you already know that.

But we're debating the origins of Political Islam, and America did not start supporting these regimes until much much later. Today your sentiment is true as to what partly motivates Political Islam (the extremist militant strand) but that is not true of the movement's inception.

quote:

I don't see how I'm stretching the truth here. Read above.

Your stretching the truth by saying the West caused Political Islam to be born as an ideology. That is only true if you say Western culture was part of the reason the movement was created. Not the actions of the West.

Sayyid Qutb spent time in America (I think it was the 40s?) and was so disgusted by what he experienced (young people doing what young people do to have fun if you catch my drift!) that he was determined not to allow that same culture to gain any foothold in the Middle East. Like his contemporaries today in the American Christian Right, he saw the answer in religion. The Middle East should be governed by the Sharia Law. The Caliphate should be reestablished to enforce that law on the traditional Muslim lands. The obstacle, and the other factor in Political Islam's foundation was the Middle Eastern regimes (remember the time we're talking about here, before WW2 and just after)

These regimes clung to power and brutally put those down who did not tow the party line. The Muslim Brotherhood was brutally pursued by the Egyptians and later (80s) by the Syrians. As time went by, it became apparant that the Arab Nationalist policies these regimes were pursuing were failing to improve the lives of the citizens of these states and Political Islam became more and more popular as a new ideology promising to correct these failing policies.

The West got dragged into the region with Israel. This conflict has impacted on most Arab states and is an issue that the people there feel strongly about. As the West became more and more dependent on the flow of oil from the Middle East, more and more investment in the region and more and more support for Israel (to protect that investment against the Soviet threat and their Middle Eastern allies) began to occur. The West (America) then began propping up those Middle Eastern states that would side with America, but the same regimes that were so brutal to their citizens.

The intervention by the West in the Muslim lands (for Israel, for oil, all the wars, all the coups etc etc) was proof enough to the followers of Qutb's (and Banna's, Maududi's, etc) legacy that not only was the West trying to control their Muslim land, that also Western culture would follow (and it has to a great extent)

So, I am not saying Western intervention is not currently playing a huge part in the spread of extremist Political Islam, but I am saying that the West had very little to do with the ideology's creation. You can stretch the truth and say the West played a part in it's creation only if you're talking about Western culture, in which case, that is nobody's fault (especially not the West's fault) but the prejudices of the founders of the movement. However, when you say "the West caused Political Islam", refering of course to the militant version we see today, then you attach to that sentence blame (against the West) when there was no blame at all (and that's why I said it was stretching the truth, to have a pop at the West for no reason)

I think (as you refer to colonialisation) that you are confusing the roots of Pan-Arab Nationalism with the roots of Political Islam. Pan Arab nationalism emerged from Colonialisation but was a modern (ie 'enlightened') ideology, not a religious movement. During the 60s, 70s and 80s most international terrorism can be attributed to Marxist groups (typically Palestinian or European or a lot of the time working together) who had their roots in Pan Arab Nationalism. At this point in time there simply was not any Islamist international terrorism, that is a reletively modern phenomena. I think what you might be doing is looking at that period, to those groups, and confusing them with today's Islamist groups (that are acting similarly)






(Of course, this is all my own opinion and is very general, there will be, I'm sure, lots of examples of various Political Islamist groups refering to Colonialisation as a reason for their creation but, if there are any examples, will be few and massively overshadowed by those Pan Arab Nationalists who did actually use Colonialisation as one of their main motivations)

Sorry for late replies, guys. I've been really hammered by work these last months, and it sort of grew worse a couple of weeks ago.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I'm not saying that at all and have no idea where you got that from?

I sort of extrapolated it from your reply. I listed a number of things that I thought were examples of the West trying to win hearts and minds (seeing that you said that the West did not do this). Your post pointing out things Muslims *could* bitch about seemed to indicate that the West isn't trying until there's no more spots to find. If that wasn't your contention then ignore my comment.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley It is relevant cos you have to ask whether that aim is just a dream or is it somthing they think they can actually acheive?

I don't want to go for Godwin here, but don't you see the obvious parallel to that German guy who had a dream and pursued it? Nobody thought he would be able to do it, and in the end he failed, but a lot of people got hurt on that occasion.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Er no, Iran is not the Caliphate. And I dont think it will work for many reasons, the main one I shall mention is that I dont really think that is what the people there want

I might be misunderstanding the meaning of "Caliphate" then. Care to explain why Iran is not a candidate?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Well of course I care (we actually got bombed as a result of this ideology) but to say you care about the actions without caring about why they do it is a little daft if you ask me - how exactly do you propose to stop it if you dont understand the reasons behind it? And even if you do understand the reasons behind it, how do you propose to stop it if you do nothing to address those issues? You'd just end up like Israel

Isn't it kind of arrogant to claim that you know what spurs Islamic extremism, when the extremists themselves are so very clear on that point?
I saw the following comment on The Times Online and came to think of you and this thread:

quote:

Come to Londonistan, our refuge for poor misunderstood Islamist victims ACCORDING TO REMARKS attributed in the past few days to security sources, no fewer than 1,200 Islamist terrorists are biding their time within British suburbs. Yet does Britain even now fully understand the nature of the threat it is facing, let alone have the will to deal with it? The recent report by the Commons Intelligence Committee on last July�s London bombings barely scratched the surface of the failure by the security establishment. It failed to note, for example, Britain�s dirty little secret: that from the 1990s, Islamist radicals had been given free rein in Britain in a �gentlemen�s agreement� that if they were left alone, they would not turn on the country that was so generously nurturing them. The result was �Londonistan�, as Britain became the hub of al-Qaeda in Europe. This intelligence debacle, however, was only the tip of the iceberg. Among Britain�s governing class � its intelligentsia, its media, its politicians, its judiciary, its Church and even its police � a broader and deeper cultural pathology persists to this day. Londonistan is more than the physical presence of Islamist extremists. It is also a state of mind. To a dismaying extent, the British have signed up to the false narrative of those who are laying siege to their society. The problem lies in a refusal to acknowledge that Islamist extremism is rooted in religion. Instead, ministers and security officials prefer to think of it as a protest movement against grievances such as Iraq or Palestine, or �Islamophobia�. They simply ignore the statements and signs that show unequivocally that the aim is to Islamicise the West. In large measure, this is the outcome of a profound loss of cultural nerve. The doctrines of multiculturalism and minority rights, themselves the outcome of a systematic onslaught by the British elite against the country�s own identity and values, have paralysed the establishment, which accordingly shies away from criticising any minority for fear of being labelled as bigoted. As a result, it ignored the radicalisation of many British Muslims by extremist Islamic institutions. Worse still, �grievance culture� has meant that instead of fighting the paranoia and lies driving the Islamists� hatred of the West, British society is afflicted by the very same pathology. Minority rights doctrine has produced a moral inversion, in which those doing wrong are excused if they belong to a �victim� group, while those at the receiving end of their behaviour are blamed simply because they belong to the �oppressive� majority. Britain effectively allowed itself to be taken hostage by militant gays, feminists or �anti-racists� who used weapons such as public vilification, moral blackmail and threats to people�s livelihoods to force the majority to give in to their demands. So when radical Islamists refused to accept minority status and insisted instead that their values must trump those of the majority, Britain had no answer. This was disastrous because Islamist violence is fuelled by precisely this false sense of victimisation. The mendacious message preached by Islamist leaders, that Britain and America are engaged in a war on Islam rather than a defence of their societies, is a potent incitement to terror by whipping up a hysteria that Muslims are under attack. So any attempt by the West to defend itself against terror becomes a recruiting sergeant for that terror. The more atrocities committed against the West, the more the West tries to defend itself; and the more it does so, the more hysteria among Muslims rises that they are under attack, and the more they are thus incited to hatred and to terrorism. The circle is completed by British fellow-travellers who promulgate the same morally inverted thinking, and thus help further to incite both Muslim extremism and Western defeatism. After the London bombings, this gave rise to the widely expressed view that the major problem was not Islamic terrorism but Islamophobia. It is impossible to overstate the importance � not just to Britain but to the global struggle against Islamist extremism � of properly understanding and publicly challenging this moral, intellectual and philosophical inversion, which translates aggressor into victim and vice versa. For it has destabilised debate by allowing Muslims to argue that British and American foreign policy is unfair and aggressive towards the Muslim world. So profound is the fear of being branded a bigot among British liberals that the obvious examples of illogicality, untruths and paranoia in such discourse have never been challenged. The British Establishment also ignores this because it is in a state of denial. With few exceptions politicians, Whitehall officials, senior police and intelligence officers and academic experts have failed to grasp that the problem to be confronted is not just the assembly of bombs and poison factories but what is going on inside people�s heads that drives them to such acts. Transfixed instead by the artificial division it has erected between those who actively espouse violence and those who do not, the British Establishment rejects the idea that the hatred of Jews, Israel, America and the West that suffuses the utterances of the Muslim Brotherhood forms an ideological conveyor belt to terrorism. The result of this institutionalised denial has been that the Government has settled upon a disastrously misguided strategy. Believing that Islamist terrorism is merely about grievances, it thinks it can appease Islamist rage by pandering to extremism and inviting Muslim Brotherhood radicals into the heart of the British Establishment as advisers. In Britain, hundreds of thousands of Muslims lead law-abiding lives and merely want to prosper and raise their families in peace. But truly moderate Muslims are finding that, through such appeasement, the host community is cutting the ground from under their feet and delivering them into the hands of the extremists. This is a deliberate policy of riding the Islamist tiger. But those who ride a tiger may get eaten.

I don't know as much about England as you do, but reading bits of your news here and there, I'd say that her points are both well-timed and seemingly remain unchallenged?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z @ trancaholic: I didn't read all of your post or comments on this thread yet, but I caught part of one. (And don't take this the wrong way or anything, but) what the fuck are you on? How has the West (refrence to dominant West governments and corperate/business interests) ever given Muslims a reason to trust them? Infact, their actions (the West) have only demonstrated the exact opposite.

I haven't said that Muslims should trust the West. In fact I rarely advocate that anyone should trust someone that isn't me. What I said was that the West has done *lots* to help out Muslims (I listed things above, and to that you can add the war against Serbia, the extreme diplomatic and financial resources used to get Israel and its neighbours talking to each other, the presence of troops in Somalia back in the days, and Gulf War I). From where I'm sitting it seems that the average Joe in the middle east doesn't want to see all this, but *chooses* to focus only on the bad things done by the West.
This insistence on the West being all bad, becomes absolutely ridiculous when one considers the good that Muslims have done for Muslims. Look at the latest lists of the most wealthy individuals in the world, and you will see that most of them are Arabs. But what have they done for their fellow Muslims? Nothing. What have the Muslim politicians done for their fellow Muslims? Nothing. I do know that the MB is active in helping street youths in the bigger cities (and so is western relief organizations), but I can point to loads of problems caused by, escalated by, and maintained by Muslims. Even the be-all end-all problem of Palestine was partly fueled by Muslim leaders' useless and hasty attack on Israel, and their urging of Palestinians to get out of Israel (while the fightings would go on).
And we can go even further: What good have Muslims done to non-Muslims? Darfur? Somalia? Afghanistan? Iran? Indonesia? Oh, someone is probably going to say that I cannot compare like that, because, you know, Muslims are oppressed and thus do not have the surplus of resources to be nice to others. But what then about back in the days? Back when Muslim civilization was the dominant one. Did Muslims do something nice for non-muslims then? I have only heard about raids in Europe and slave trade, but I really would like to be better educated on this one?

Damn trancaholic, I was just reading an article that was very close to what your saying...

Nice post btw

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic And we can go even further: What good have Muslims done to non-Muslims? Darfur? Somalia? Afghanistan? Iran? Indonesia? Oh, someone is probably going to say that I cannot compare like that, because, you know, Muslims are oppressed and thus do not have the surplus of resources to be nice to others. But what then about back in the days? Back when Muslim civilization was the dominant one. Did Muslims do something nice for non-muslims then? I have only heard about raids in Europe and slave trade, but I really would like to be better educated on this one?

Umayyad ruled Islamic Spain was one of the only bastions of religious tolerance in the known world for several hundred years, it was also the most advanced state in the world providing major advancements in alchemy, medicine, chemistry, astronomy, architecture, sanitation, art, et al, which proved to be the catalyst for the Renaissance (without which there would have been no Renaissance for at least another few hundred years) It was the first place in the world where Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scientists worked together in the name of Science.

It's bitterly ironic that when Islamic Spain was threatened by Christian revivalists in the North they enlisted the help of Islamic mercenaries from Morocco (the Moors?) which prooved to be their downfall. These North African Muslims were so disgusted at this display of tolerance towards Christians and Jews that they turned against the Umayyad Emir - and while Muslim fought against Muslim the Christians annexed more and more land ultimately ending 800 years of Islamic rule.

There's also a few more Islamic leaders but my memory is hazy so Shaolin will deal with that

quote:

Originally posted by tathi Umayyad ruled Islamic Spain was one of the only bastions of religious tolerance in the known world for several hundred years, it was also the most advanced state in the world providing major advancements in alchemy, medicine, chemistry, astronomy, architecture, sanitation, art, et al, which proved to be the catalyst for the Renaissance (without which there would have been no Renaissance for at least another few hundred years) It was the first place in the world where Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scientists worked together in the name of Science. It's bitterly ironic that when Islamic Spain was threatened by Christian revivalists in the North they enlisted the help of Islamic mercenaries from Morocco (the Moors?) which prooved to be their downfall. These North African Muslims were so disgusted at this display of tolerance towards Christians and Jews that they turned against the Umayyad Emir - and while Muslim fought against Muslim the Christians annexed more and more land ultimately ending 800 years of Islamic rule. There's also a few more Islamic leaders but my memory is hazy so Shaolin will deal with that

I asked what good Muslims had done for non-Muslims, and simply tolerating their existence would not fall in this category. I'm talking about behaviour so good that it justifies Muslims to look down their noses on the efforts of the West today.

As to the contributions to science and the arts, I don't consider those good deeds, as they were (and are) primarily made in order to benefit one self. That others subsequently gets benefits from imitating you and build on your techniques doesn't make the original act of development "good".

Adding an aside to that, I would say that your description seems to be a little on the too rosy side: I did a wiki search and of the two articles dealing with Muslim Spain, the most optimistic one has this to say:

quote:

Tolerance or Repression The treatment of non-Muslims (specifically Jews) in the Caliphate has been a subject of considerable interest from scholars and commentators, especially those interested in drawing parallels to the co-existence of Muslims and non-Muslims in the modern world. Some argue that - for at least part of the history of al-Āndalus - Jews were treated significantly better in Muslim-controlled Spain than in Christian Northern Europe. However, the exact extent and nature of this period of tolerance (sometimes called a "Golden Age") has become a subject of debate and is often used to back personal or political agendas. Bernard Lewis in Chapter 1 on page 4 of his book "The Jews in Islam" states: The claim to tolerance, now much heard from Muslim apologists and more especially from apologists for Islam, is also new and of alien origin. It is only very recently that some defenders of Islam have begun to assert that their socety in the past accorded equal status to non-Muslims. No such claim is made by spokesmen for resurgent Islam,� and historically there is no doubt that they are right. Traditional Islamic societies neither accorded such equality nor pretended that they were so doing. Indeed, in the old order, this would have been regarded not as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. How could one accord the same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it? This would be a theological as well as a logical absurdity. Princeton University Professor Mark Cohen, in his 1995 book on the subject, Under Crescent and Cross, discusses how the belief of a so-called "Golden Age" of peaceful co-existence in al-Āndalus (between Muslims and dhimmis, especially Jewish ones) was bolstered in the nineteenth and twentieth century by two sources. On one side, Jewish scholars like Heinrich Graetz used the story of tolerant Al-Andalus to draw contrasts to the increasing oppression of Jews in mainly Christian Eastern Europe; European intolerance of Jews did eventually lead to the Holocaust. On the other side, Arab scholars who wanted to show that modern State of Israel shattered a previously existing harmony between Jews and Arabs in Palestine under the Ottoman rule pointed to the supposed utopia of the Golden Age as an example of previous relationships. Cohen argues that the image is overstated, but that the "countermyth" of persecution is also an oversimplification. The debate about the conditions of non-Muslims continues however. For example, Mar�a Rosa Menocal, a specialist in Iberian literature at Yale University, has argued that "Tolerance was an inherent aspect of Andalusian society"[1]. Menocal's 2003 book, The Ornament of the World, argues that the Jewish dhimmis living under the Caliphate, while allowed fewer rights than Muslims, were still better off than in other parts of Christian Europe. Jews from other parts of Europe made their way to al-Āndalus, where they were tolerated - as were Christians of sects regarded as heretical by various European Christian states. The work of Menocal and other such scholars has been the subject of criticism from commentators such as Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom, who regard Menocal's description of al-Āndalus as a myth that ignores the realities of dhimmi life. These critics cite Muslim restrictions on dhimmis: they could not build new churches or synagogues or repair old ones, they had to practice their faiths quietly and privately, and they were not to proselytize. Dhimmis were required to wear an identifying belt called the zunnar, which was easily recognized because of its color - blue for Christians and yellow for Jews. Dhimmis were also prohibited from employing Muslims and had to pay a poll tax (jizya). They were also forbidden from holding public office. According to David Wasserstein of Tel Aviv University, however, In economic life there were scarcely any real restrictions on Jews, or dhimmis, qua Jews or dhimmis. In religious life real constraints on Jewish practice were minimal and relatively unimportant... In literary activity, there was scarcely any discrimination against Jews, and indeed it may be argued, with great force, that, at least in literary terms, the Jewish encounter with Arab Islam was highly productive, and especially so in al-Andalus (1995, p. 103). Other proponents of the "tolerant Andalusia" theory point out that there were many examples of dhimmis holding state offices, despite the technical prohibitation. One notable Andalusian example among these is that of Hasdai ibn Shaprut (915-990), a prominent Jew who controlled the customs (among other duties) in C�rdoba, but other Jews served as Viziers or court physicians. Proponents argue that dhimmis enjoyed considerable autonomy within the Islamic state; in matters of family law and religious practice, they were governed by their own authorities. These authorities collected the poll tax and mediated between the state and the dhimmi community. Within their allotted bounds, the dhimmis had a certain freedom, yet were always second-class citizens when compared to Muslims. However, it must be noted that non-Muslims were treated with much more tolerance in Islamic Spain than non-Christians or even non-Catholics (Arians) were in the rest of Europe at the time, as well as for many more centuries to come.

While I do agree that the treatment given to non-muslims are far better than those given by other religious groups to outsiders in that period, I have severe troubles seeing it as "good" treatment. If you counter that we should not judge people of the past by the norms and standards of today, then the whole issue becomes a non-issue, and we are back to observing Muslims' treatment of non-Muslims today (Darfur, Somalia...).

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.