Difference between Islam and Extremism

[Lester Burnham]

Surely, a more basic question, one which no 'believer' seems to think significant, is why people such as you attach any importance whatsoever to mere beliefs? Is it fair to assume from what you have written here that you consider yourself a 'moderate' Muslim (one of the good guys)? I see nothing moderate in the fantasies of either arm of your cult. Both sets of beliefs are equally preposterous.

The fact that there is serious debate about whether God has zero, one or two shins is instructive. The irrationality is hard to comprehend. The op appears to be of the zero shin faction - 'God is without a place, direction, form, shape, colour and any other created matter'. Yet he repeatedly refers to God as 'He' or 'Him'. God has no attributes, particularly not a shin or shins, yet is male. I'm inclined to respect Wahhabi more, because at least it reflects God as being a creation of man. He has human attributes, like the Norse or Greek Gods.

But of course it's all nonsense, as is Christianity, Judaism and any other belief system that relies on a particular translation of a text written in an ancient language where God is purported to have revealed his rules to select members of feudal desert tribes. If these books are the word of God and not man, how strange it is that they don't have any revelations beyond that of men (and only men) trying to get ahead in shitsville, Palestine many centuries ago. No mention of the oil under their feet that could allow them to rule world. Instead of advice on how to keep food cool there is a ban on pork products. Slavery seems to be cool too.

The op ascribes himself to the moderate Muslim camp, the true Islam, by explaining that his interpretation of the Qur’an is the correct one. And the solution is to extremism is to 'educate' Muslims who don't subscribe to his preferred version.

* that. How about we educate people by rejecting antiquated absurd belief systems that are used to control what people think, what they say, what they eat, what women wear and whether people can change their beliefs without being killed.

 

[fleabitten]

Okay, it's a pretty important question, so I'll try it this way...

What do YOU think should be the punishment for apostasy?

 

[telsor]

The fact that there is serious debate about whether God has zero, one or two shins is instructive. The irrationality is hard to comprehend. The op appears to be of the zero shin faction - 'God is without a place, direction, form, shape, colour and any other created matter'. Yet he repeatedly refers to God as 'He' or 'Him'. God has no attributes, particularly not a shin or shins, yet is male. I'm inclined to respect Wahhabi more, because at least it reflects God as being a creation of man. He has human attributes, like the Norse or Greek Gods.

But of course it's all nonsense, as is Christianity, Judaism and any other belief system that relies on a particular translation of a text written in an ancient language where God is purported to have revealed his rules to select members of feudal desert tribes. If these books are the word of God and not man, how strange it is that they don't have any revelations beyond that of men (and only men) trying to get ahead in shitsville, Palestine many centuries ago. No mention of the oil under their feet that could allow them to rule world. Instead of advice on how to keep food cool there is a ban on pork products. Slavery seems to be cool too.

The op ascribes himself to the moderate Muslim camp, the true Islam, by explaining that his interpretation of the Qur’an is the correct one. And the solution is to extremism is to 'educate' Muslims who don't subscribe to his preferred version.

**** that. How about we educate people by rejecting antiquated absurd belief systems that are used to control what people think, what they say, what they eat, what women wear and whether people can change their beliefs without being killed.

I wouldn't necessarily go that far.

I would however teach people that the rules of the society they live in supercede their beliefs and that the only allowable reaction to views (however expressed) that they strongly disagree with are those that are within the laws of that society.

Absolutely zero tolerance or allowance for illegal actions should be given because they were done due to religious beliefs (and yes, that should apply to all religions). Indeed, should a legal system have additional penalties for 'hate crimes', then these should be applied in such circumstances (personally I disagree with such laws, but that's a seperate issue).

 

[tesseract]

Okay, it's a pretty important question, so I'll try it this way...

What do YOU think should be the punishment for apostasy?

I'm not a Muslim, but I and those that share my faith wouldn't offer personal opinions on such. To offer such is to be judgmental, and such is not our place. I assume that devout Muslims would refer to the Qua'ran, just as a Christian would refer to the bible.

To preempt a logical follow-up question that may be directed to me: what the bible states as punishment for apostasy isn't to be carried out by humans.

 

[Schism]

Well there are many mistakes on her side. She should have told you what she believed in and the rules of the Religion to begin with (If she even knows about the rules). All of that could have been avoided if she properly practiced the Religion. Actual practicing Muslims (pious Muslims) would not be caught out in a party or in her situation. Fair to say that she definitely was not a pious (practicing) Muslim.

Again, you cannot blame the Religion for what a couple of individuals have done.
My post is not aimed at discussing the current day Muslims, because many many Muslims have not learned the Religion. I could go on and on about the many mistakes that the current day Muslims engage in (almost daily). Ignorance about the Religion is widespread, not just among the non-Muslims, but also among the Muslims. You don't see many pious Muslims that have learned the Religion properly nowadays anymore. Very rare to come across one, particularly in the Western Countries.

You sidestep the entire issue i brought up. Whether they are pious or not, i guess is not for you to decide, but God. We both went into the relationship with our eyes open, as i said i gave up sex for the entire 9 months i was with her, among many other sacrifices, compromises and a general swallowing of pride. She and her family all attend mosque regularly, so if they are not "pious" or are uneducated then where does the blame lie?

The entire point of my experience being, obviously, that even with someone as devoted and faithful as i was to her, because i am not a muslim, it would never be allowed. It is a bigoted and dangerous practice and, along with other reasons, will mean muslims will never truly be able to be a part of western society. How can you be a part of our society when you threaten your daughters with honour killings, or any punishment for that matter, for being with someone who loves her? I mean come on, i abided by the rules of Islamas best i could, just to be with her,better than 99% of the muslim guys i know.

Strange how muslim men are all allowed to go clubbing and having sex with who they want when they want. But my girlfriend couldn't come for coffee or a movie. It's ****ed in the head, and we all know it.

The main issue for me is the bigoted/racist view of even so called moderate westernised Muslims. You only have to read my story to see how bad it is. Seriously, if someone treats your daughter like a queen and is loyal and faithful and loving then you should be happy, regardless of his religious beliefs.

Would have been easy if she was shia, right? Could have just entered into short term sex contracts with her family. Then she wouldn't go to hell, cos short term contracts to get around the no sex laws is totally what acceptable to Allah i am sure

 

[telsor]

Compellingly



http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

Jimmy Carter was in the 1970s.

Islamic extremism started well before then.

Hell, even the first US war with Islamic nations came from the Barbary pirates raiding their ships (this was also the reason for the creation of the US Navy). The Pirates first attacked the US in 1777 (Morocco was the first nation to recognise the US, and then immediately raided them). The US stopped the raids/piracy by paying tribute that amounted to 20% of the federal budget, but when some of the pirates decided this wasn't enough, the US went to war (1801, and again in 1815 because the pirates ignored the treaty). In Spite of what the US would like to think though, the problem ended because European nations at the Congress of Vienna (end of Napoleonic wars) decided they'd had enough and collectively agreed to crush them (ending in 1830 when France conquered Algiers because they wouldn't stop).

So tell me again how the US 'started' Islamic extremism?

 

[Schism]

Jimmy Carter was in the 1970s.

Islamic extremism started well before then.

Hell, even the first US war with Islamic nations came from the Barbary pirates raiding their ships (this was also the reason for the creation of the US Navy). The Pirates first attacked the US in 1777 (Morocco was the first nation to recognise the US, and then immediately raided them). The US stopped the raids/piracy by paying tribute that amounted to 20% of the federal budget, but when some of the pirates decided this wasn't enough, the US went to war (1801, and again in 1815 because the pirates ignored the treaty). In Spite of what the US would like to think though, the problem ended because European nations at the Congress of Vienna (end of Napoleonic wars) decided they'd had enough and collectively agreed to crush them (ending in 1830 when France conquered Algiers because they wouldn't stop).

So tell me again how the US 'started' Islamic extremism?

Interesting stuff. I shall read up more on this. Thanks!

 

[telsor]

There are a lot of people that need to learn nowadays, but there are learned individuals that know and understand the Religion.

There are details to this and I've briefly mentioned it in the other Paris thread, but there is no caliph (or an Islamic state for that matter) in todays time, so it won't add to the current discussion. The Shari^ah Law is applied in an Islamic State. The last time that there was a Caliph (or an Islamic State) was approximately 100 years ago. The collaboration of some European nations dissolved the Caliphate and made it into national countries. If there is a punishment to be carried out, it is generally done by the Caliph or his deputy. And just for clarification, the current so-called ISIS is NOT an Islamic State. That is NOT how you establish an Islamic State.

So I'll leave this topic at this.

The Ottoman Caliphate was falling apart for a long time prior to WW1 and it's dissolution as other Islamic territories increasingly refused to accept their authority. The final nail in the coffin however was when the Turkish people, led by Kemal Ataturk overthrew the last vestiges of the Empire and created the (nominally secular) state of Turkey.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Jimmy Carter was in the 1970s.

Islamic extremism started well before then.

Hell, even the first US war with Islamic nations came from the Barbary pirates raiding their ships (this was also the reason for the creation of the US Navy). The Pirates first attacked the US in 1777 (Morocco was the first nation to recognise the US, and then immediately raided them). The US stopped the raids/piracy by paying tribute that amounted to 20% of the federal budget, but when some of the pirates decided this wasn't enough, the US went to war (1801, and again in 1815 because the pirates ignored the treaty). In Spite of what the US would like to think though, the problem ended because European nations at the Congress of Vienna (end of Napoleonic wars) decided they'd had enough and collectively agreed to crush them (ending in 1830 when France conquered Algiers because they wouldn't stop).

So tell me again how the US 'started' Islamic extremism?

You're saying this is Islamic extremism, and it bears a link to what we see now? C'mon.

 

[telsor]

Interesting stuff. I shall read up more on this. Thanks!

I know it was more a 'history board' response, but I get a bit worked up when people how say things 'started' with little regard for history.

 

[telsor]

You're saying this is Islamic extremism, and it bears a link to what we see now? C'mon.

My point is that Islamic 'extremism' is more due to Islamic people resisting change and retaining the mindset they've had for a very long time.

The western world has moved on with a much more tolerant, humanist society, and 'extremism' is a resistance to that change by those who want things to stay as they were. If you took Christians from around 400 years ago (before the 'age of enlightenment') and put them into modern society, they'd be 'extremists' too...Indeed, Christianity had similar resistance to change.

 

[Juddism]

Jimmy Carter was in the 1970s.

Islamic extremism started well before then.

and then you have the likes of Illich Sanchez and the BM Group who weren't even Islamic but committed acts of terror in the name of the Palestnian people.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

My point is that Islamic 'extremism' is more due to Islamic people resisting change and retaining the mindset they've had for a very long time.

The western world has moved on with a much more tolerant, humanist society, and 'extremism' is a resistance to that change by those who want things to stay as they were. If you took Christians from around 400 years ago (before the 'age of enlightenment') and put them into modern society, they'd be 'extremists' too...Indeed, Christianity had similar resistance to change.

This retreat into extremism can be linked directly to US foreign policy.

The Iranian islamic revolution occurred 26 years after a more liberal head of state was toppled because he was not helpful to Western oil interests. Cue a oppressive police state, and the complete rejection of the West manifested in the ayatollahs.

Look at what bin laden said about US bases in holy lands.

Hell look at how the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has led to a more virulent brand of extremism.

It's ignorant to underestimate how the West has played a profound role in ensuring liberalism doesnt flourish in those lands.

 

[clogged]

This retreat into extremism can be linked directly to US foreign policy.

The rise of the House of Saud has nothing to do with US foreign policy.

 

[telsor]

This retreat into extremism can be linked directly to US foreign policy.

Only if you choose to ignore all facts that don't suit your argument.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Only if you choose to ignore all facts that don't suit your argument.

What facts are these?

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

The rise of the House of Saud has nothing to do with US foreign policy.

It's continued existence does.

 

[telsor]

What facts are these?

Reread my post and consider history from before what you mention.

Until you actually do so, your 'contribution' is little more than a repeated rant the likes of which would get you banned from the thread if you were conservative.

 

[clogged]

It's continued existence does.

Sitting on the largest oil field in the world has a bit more to do with it.

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

Reread my post and consider history from before what you mention.

Until you actually do so, your 'contribution' is little more than a repeated rant the likes of which would get you banned from the thread if you were conservative.

I did. You made some point about them retaining the same mindset; which seems to dispell any notion of historical or ideological link between those historical events you mention, and the issues we see now.

Islamic extremism these days is a direct response to Western foreign policy that effects them. Their actions and words reflect this. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia; don;'t ignore it.

Pretending otherwise is sticking your head in the sand.

And about the last line, enough with the conservatives are oppressed rubbish; leave it on the Bolt blog where it belongs.

 

[fleabitten]

I did. You made some point about them retaining the same mindset; which seems to dispell any notion of historical or ideological link between those historical events you mention, and the issues we see now.

Islamic extremism these days is a direct response to Western foreign policy that effects them. Their actions and words reflect this. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia; don;'t ignore it.

Pretending otherwise is sticking your head in the sand.

And about the last line, enough with the conservatives are oppressed rubbish; leave it on the Bolt blog where it belongs.

What a load of dribble.

It's got nothing to do with the West, it's about bronze age barbarians who want to take us all back to the bronze age. They're not throwing gay couples off of buildings because of anything the West did. It's not the US that makes them massacre Yazidis and Assyrians.

 

[telsor]

I did. You made some point about them retaining the same mindset; which seems to dispell any notion of historical or ideological link between those historical events you mention, and the issues we see now.

Islamic extremism these days is a direct response to Western foreign policy that effects them. Their actions and words reflect this. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia; don;'t ignore it.

Pretending otherwise is sticking your head in the sand.

And about the last line, enough with the conservatives are oppressed rubbish; leave it on the Bolt blog where it belongs.

How many centuries back are you suggesting this western foreign policy has been going on for?

 

[skilts]

To preempt a logical follow-up question that may be directed to me: what the bible states as punishment for apostasy isn't to be carried out by humans.

For this to occur, it would appear that the bible would have to be read by non-humans. Otherwise, how would these other, unspecified beings know what was expected of them? Upon what evidence do you assert the existence of these non-humans? Have you ever met any? If so, did they speak English. Do they live in houses? What do they eat? It hardly seemed possible, but you have become even more unhinged.

 

[awaremind]

The arabs have been helping the west by fighting wars for them for 100 years this year, 1915 being when arabs under TE Lawrence were fighting the turks, and palestine was being promised by the British to both the Zionists and the Arabs. The Zionist financed the war the Arabs lost over 100000 men. The muslim brotherhood was supported in ww2 by the allies and the mujahideen again supported by the US against the soviets. Now the syrian rebels are the latest extremist arab force to be teaming up with the west. It seems to be getting messier in that part of the world- I guess as trauma becomes more widespread.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Hell, even the first US war with Islamic nations came from the Barbary pirates raiding their ships (this was also the reason for the creation of the US Navy). The Pirates first attacked the US in 1777 (Morocco was the first nation to recognise the US, and then immediately raided them). The US stopped the raids/piracy by paying tribute that amounted to 20% of the federal budget, but when some of the pirates decided this wasn't enough, the US went to war (1801, and again in 1815 because the pirates ignored the treaty). In Spite of what the US would like to think though, the problem ended because European nations at the Congress of Vienna (end of Napoleonic wars) decided they'd had enough and collectively agreed to crush them (ending in 1830 when France conquered Algiers because they wouldn't stop)

Dress them up however you like - privateers, buccaneers, commerce/merchant-raiders... Most cultures have taken a stab (with or without a rusty cutlass, arrrrrr!) at piracy at some point.