Return to: Home | Blogs | The God Blog
Which Islam are you afraid of?
- Posted by Sholto Byrnes
- 21 October 2009 13:43
Fear and obsession narrow the mind
It cannot have escaped the attention of anyone who regularly reads the blogs on the NS website, and particularly those of my colleague Mehdi Hasan, that many who post comments are obsessed with and fearful of Islam. When I blogged the other day about the American Justice of Peace who refused a marriage licence to a mixed race couple the first comment, from "Matt", was: "Good call there, Sholto. Any excuse to ignore the Islamisation of Europe."
Quite apart from the fact that this seemed a rather off-beam response (should I not have blogged about it?!), I am left less angry and more saddened and baffled that so many people appear to identify this one major world religion as such a threat - to their way of life, to their values, even to the very future of western civilisation, according to some. Because what they are doing is taking the views and actions of a minority of extremists and then claiming that they are representative of all Muslims.
It's one thing when controversialists use this odious tactic to further their media presence. When I interviewed the US commentator Ann Coulter in New York a few years ago, she consistently used the world "Muslim" when she meant "Muslim terrorists". Her response when I picked her up on this was merely to say: "You can make that argument, but all I see is Muslims killing people." (A further flavour of the irrepressible Ms Coulter's views can be found in her response when I asked her to imagine how she might feel if she had been brought up as a Muslim. "In that case," she said, "I would like a steak knife, please, so I can cut your throat and disembowel you. And then I shall kill all the Jews!")
It's another when otherwise reasonable, well-intentioned people -- and I am willing to admit that some of those posting pretty vehement comments may be precisely that -- do so too. Over lunch after the London bombings a very old friend of mine, who might be regarded by some as such a caricature of the relativist British liberal that he is even the son of a "gay vicar", told me he was scared about "Muslims". "What do you mean," I asked. "Which ones?" "All of them," he replied.
I found this honest response profoundly chilling -- not least for the ignorance it showed about the many and varied shades of Islam as it is practised around the world. Yes, there are countries that have incubated terrorism and blind hatred of the West. But that is just one extreme. What about the other hundreds of millions of Muslims? What about the liberal, syncretist cultures of Malaysia and Indonesia, the compromise with state secularism in Turkey, and the many countries, such as in the Maghreb, where Islam is more identified with than observed?
Even in Saudi Arabia, a country always viewed as a stern, backward-looking, Wahhabist monoculture, my family found plenty who differed when we lived there in the 1980s. "Please don't think this is true Islam," were some of the first words spoken to us by the Qureshis, our Pakistani neighbours in Riyadh, a family who exemplified the warmth and hospitality I have found in every Muslim country I have visited.
Some may consider these virtues, as well as an interest and appreciation of different cultures that makes an embarrassingly large proportion of British expats appear unblushing philistines in comparison, to be cultural rather than specifically religious. Perhaps so. Perhaps the ingrained sense of family, respect and courtesy that the west has discarded in favour of an individualism that celebrates freedom above all else -- too often failing to realise that it is a brutal indifference that is being placed on a pedestal -- is also primarily cultural. Nevertheless, they are characteristics that can be found in Muslim countries; and I think that religion can claim credit for their presence too.
So, two points to end with:
1.I don't know what "Islamisation" of Europe means. Again, I ask, which Islam? (Let's leave aside quite how this is supposed to happen; base scaremongering about millions of immigrants overwhelming the continent is just too ridiculous to bother engaging with.)
2.But if "Islamisation" means learning from what is best in Muslim countries around the world -- certainly the ones I spend a lot of time in -- then frankly, I'm all for it. The idea that the West could be some kind of liberal utopia if only "alien" religions are kept out or kept underfoot is not only offensive but nonsensical. Anyone who thinks so needs to collect a few more stamps on their passport.
Post this article to
41 comments from readers
-
Adrian Morgan
21 October 2009 at 14:38 You care to exalt Malaysia as a "liberal, syncretist culture"? A country where everyone is issued with an identity card at age 12, stating one's race and religion. And where no Muslim is allowed to leave Islam? And where Malays are given special privileges denied to the Indians and Chinese who comprise 40% of the population.
Please do some research and look up "ketuanan Melayu" and also Google the names "Lina Joy" and "Kamariah Ali" to see how wicked and unjust Malaysia's "liberal, syncretist culture really is.
Your article was almost reasonable until then. and you look for good things in Saudi Arabia where Bibles and crucifixes are banned. Muslims are given full freedoms of equality in the West. When Christians are accorded the same rights in Muslim countries, you may have a case to imagine that Muslim countries are "liberal and syncretic"..
-
Rev JDSpears
21 October 2009 at 14:40 Sadly, Sholto, your approach is far to reasonable for those that fear. You are correct that extremest of every religion, Christianity included, paint a poor picture for their religin but are not typically representative of their religion. It is exceedingly sad that most people respond with emotion were thought needs to advnaced.
-
Delves
21 October 2009 at 15:32 I'm afraid you only need to look at the projected population growth figures in todays papers. Islam is a political/cultural movement as well as a religion. I don't need a passport to visit Leicester or Bradford---yet.
-
Sholto Byrnes
21 October 2009 at 15:45 Adrian:
Identity cards are common around the world, but I take it that wasn't your point. You should know that many people in Malaysia are unhappy about race having to be on the cards, and the privileges extended to the Malays are unlikely to last in the long run. Of course you can look up Lina Joy, and you could find other examples very easily too. But all this is very unrepresentative of what it's actually like there. I spend a lot of time in the country - my wife is Malay - and I can assure you that in everyday life religion hardly has to affect you at all if you don't want it to. I don't know if you've ever been, but I would be quite surprised if you had going by your post - I understand you picking up on these things because the Western press seizes on little incidents that cause no more than a minor fuss there (like the supposed fatwa on yoga) and blows it totally out of proportion.
I didn't say Saudi was syncretist btw - I was just marking the fact, ironic perhaps, that it was in that country of all places that my family came to know, socialise and befriend Muslims of very different stripes. Once you realise that people of other religions are in most of the important ways just like yourselves, any reason to fear that difference disappears. And it's a great gift to be able to learn that at a young age.
-
c.s.athauda
21 October 2009 at 16:08 I thought this question was answered by Edward Said in 'Orientalism', which is really a study on the fear of Islam and the lengths cultures take to get their heads around it.
In India pre-mutiny, the British considered Muslims more trustworthy than Hindus. Post-partition they were used as a tool to fight the Soviets. It's an on-off relationship, and seems to stretch back hundred of years. Why do people hate Muslims these days? It's because they are sitting on a whole pile of oil and there has to be a way of frightening everyone to accept that killing/bombing/invading in the name of wmd/democracy/hijabs is necessary to get at that oil.
May be this fear will abate once the oil runs out and a new bogey man is found, possibly China or India?
-
syedmakki
21 October 2009 at 16:27 I think some of the fault in perception must be accepted by Muslims themselves. Take the example of Pakistan. Here the vast majority of Muslims are from the Sufi, Barelvi School's of thought. The vast majority that Musharraf used to call the the great silent Majority. Until recently these Muslims were ignored and the role they played in the creation of Pakistan and the spread of the Islamic Faith in the Sub-Continent overlooked. The richness of the local culture the contribution to the arts that the Sufi's made including to classical music, poetry, literature and learning in general was conveniently forgotten as Saudi Money fed a more vocal and unhinged version of Islam. The Russian invasion and the subsequent pouring of money and arms gave a certain legitimacy to the sudden rise in the Deobani, Wahabi, and the even more austere Salafi schools. Seen as zealot fighters and determined individuals the state under Zia and his protege Nawaz Sharif encouraged their growth and even nourished them with state subsidies of land for Madrassahs, while the Sufi and Barelvis were left to their own devices.
However, even with nearly 30 years of unfettered access to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Wahabi and Deobandi schools made little inroad to the major centres of Pakistan such as the Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan and even Kashmir and the Northern Areas (now called Gilgit-Baltistan). Even in the North West Frontier Province their influence was maginal at best as the Tribal Elders held sway.
The Pakistani population has now seen the true face of the Wahabi, Salafi and Deobandi sects and in its support of the Army's recent operation of Swat and Malakand and current operations in Waziristan have made it clear, that Pakistan is and always will be the land of the Sufi's and Saints. That the vast majority of the Pakistan Armed forces are drawn from Kashmir and the Punjab, fearlessley Sufi in thought, and Sindh which is a centre of Sufi way of life, confirms that the Wahabi gains, made either with money or through force of arms were short lived. As the recent response by The Daily News to the bombing of the mainly Saudi backed Islambad Islamic University suggests, the hardcores have had their time, it reads 'Godless bomb in the name of God'. That zealots who claimed to be custodians of a sacred war, are openly being declared Godless by a liberal leaning newspaper in Pakistan today, confirms for me that a form of Islam is being rejected for it's alien culture and vision of Pakistan's future.
The challenge now is whether the Silent Majority that I spoke of earlier will rise up and present itself as the true face of Islam. And if people are sincere in wanting to learn all that is best in Islam they will see that all that is best in Islam can be attributed back to the work and contribution of the Sufi's through the ages. From the well known in the West such as Al-Ghazali and Rumi to the lesser known Sufi such as Ghalib, Allam Iqbal, Shah Waliullah, Hassan of Basra, Shirazi and of the Saint of Saints Sheikh Abdul Qadir of Gilan. That in nearly 100 years of the rise of Wahabis, Salafis and Deobandis, they have with all their money yet to put forward a jurist, thinker, poet or writer of any substance, is ample evidence of their moral and intellectual vacuity. Time will tell if the world can see through the Wahabi fog and see the true Islam. Sufi's and true Muslims around the world would be worse for it if they fail to help those seeking the true Islam, from reaching their goals
-
Adrian Morgan
21 October 2009 at 19:18 Dear Sholto
Thank you for responding, but I can hardly say that you are being fair to people like Lina Joy and numerous others who are trapped by Malaysia's legislation by describing their plight as "little incidents that cause no more than a minor fuss there".
Lina Joy cannot marry her Christian boyfriend as the National Registration Department (which issues the MyKad identity card) refuses to declare her to be a Christian on her MyKad. This is not a "little incident" to her, and you seem to show a lack of humanity to suggest so. Her case its well-publicised, but it exemplifies the problems in the 1988 amendment (121-A) to the constitution, which prevents the courts from interfering in any matter that also comes under the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.
I have not visited the country, but articles I have written on Malaysia's bizarre legislation have been reprinted on Malaysian websites and elsewhere as - for those who are non-Malay citizens of Malaysia - they reflect a reality they can recognise.
http://www.fsmarchives.org/article.php?id=910262
http://national-express-malaysia.blogspot.com/2009/09/malays...
-
Adrian Morgan
21 October 2009 at 19:20 I did not include two other relevant links, as when four were included on my post, your website software thought they were spam.
http://mymalaysia.wordpress.com/2006/11/24/malaysia-ruling-p...
http://www.persecution.org/suffering/newsdetail.php?newscode...
Please read at least one of these articles, and (though some links are now dead) please look at the active hyperlinks within.
-
John Carp
21 October 2009 at 21:33 Another article on Islam. Wow, have I begun logging on to the Middle East version of the New Statesman this month or what? You couldn't guess that the New Statesman editor is a Muslim could you?
I think the fact that you claim Turkey and Malaysia as something the 'west' can learn from just about sums the article up. Ever been to Eastern Turkey, Sholto? In fact, even 20 miles east of Bodrum? Not very tolerant or liberal, are they? I fondly remember the day they threw stones at my girlfriend because she was not wearing a scarf on her head in Milas, a few kilometres east of the touristy resort of Bodrum. Perhaps we should ask the Kurdish people in Turkey what they think of 'state secularism'? Or the Armenians?
Ever met any Christians in Malaysia or Indonesia, Sholto? Ever talked to them about the consistent, state sanctioned persecution they suffer in every day life, due to their religion?
The clash between Sunni and Shiites which has been going on for thousands of years in dozens of countries scares the shit out of the 'west' for good reason. It is non-sensical, violent, anachronistic, and self-defeating. What exactly is it we can learn from countries with Muslim majorities. Your article fails to point to anything tangible.....
-
John Carp
21 October 2009 at 21:35 *The clash between Sunni and Shiites which has been going on for over a thousand years
-
Brett Breitwieser
21 October 2009 at 22:22 Europe was "Islamicised" long ago by the Moors in Spain. It was a good thing. Took us out of the Dark Ages into the Renaissance. To this day our Judges and Scholars wear Moorish robes to celebrate the fact.
-
Duckham
22 October 2009 at 00:48 Sholto Byrnes thank you for that article. I have spent a couple of monthst now engaged with the opposite wiewpoint on the MyT blogs and had begun to lose sight of the truth. I began to think the world was full of people scared stiff by something I could not recognise or something, Islamisfication, I do not even think exists.
I live in Indonesia and am the head of a Muslim family but am not a Muslim. I have written extensively on Islam in Indonesia and much of that is on my blogsite at http://duckham.tk
Thanks again for a refreshing burst of reality about Islam. I have been ground down by the attitudes on MyT and those to be found in the comment threads of Ed West and James Delingpole on the Telegraph news blogs. Must look in here more often!
-
Duckham
22 October 2009 at 01:07 sayedmakki:
I hope what you call for comes about. The demise of Sufism and the rise of radical Islam has been forecast in Indonesia, where I live, since independence in 1945. This view was given an important boost by the publication in the 1960's of Clifford Geertz influential book, 'The Religions of Java'. However the reality is that Sufism and the 'abangan' syncretism that modifies Islam into a religion that works well with democracy are gaining ground not only in rural areas but also in urban areas.
Julia Day Howell of Griffith University in Australia has been tracking this development : http://tiny.cc/JD243
-
Duckham
22 October 2009 at 01:24 John Carp
I live in Indonesia and there is no state sanctioned persecution of Christians. Our local RT (elected village rep) was round last night looking for donations for the recent earthquake in Sumatra. He also mentioned the up-coming wedding of another already pregnant member of our community and again she is Christian and wanting to marry a Muslim. Four months on she is according to the RT. No secrets here. So the usual compromise will be reached and the boy will convert for the ceremony and afterwards return to Islam. The child, or no doubt children, will be whatever the parents like.
The RT's wife is Christian and he is Muslim. Their childen are all Chrisitian. This latest quicky marriage is the fourth recently and all have been between mixed religion couples. The system is you get preggers to force the issue as a baby on the way trumps religious sensibilities every time.
Within walking distance of me there are two Catholic Churches, two Protestant and one Pentecostal Church. There are instances of discrimination but this is a massive country and the everyday reality is that the Consittution guarantees religious freedom and religious freedom there is. It is easy to quote instances of discrimination, Indonesia is a big country, but to claim these are the overall reality of life here, or that they have government sanction, is completely untrue.
This article decribes the tolerance here. There is much more in the archives on the site. http://tiny.cc/JD574
-
Just Observer
22 October 2009 at 02:03 Great article, Sholto. Demonization of any religion based on stereotypical mindsets and biased media reports should be condemned. People with limited knowledge about a new religion/culture/way of life always make the most noise. What democracy does the west brag about when they are the root cause for human right violations in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Indonesia etc. If the west thinks that Islam is an extreme religion based on the acts of a few fundamentalist regimes (which by the way are fueled by the west for their oil/financial gains), then Muslims and the rest of the developing world have every right to think that the west is also a terrorist lot based on the acts of George Bush, Tony Blair, Nixon etc. It works both ways and there is always more than one side to every story.
-
Kofi
22 October 2009 at 04:09 c.s.athauda
21 October 2009 at 16:08
c.s. athauda above said, "It's because they are sitting on a whole pile of oil and there has to be a way of frightening everyone to accept that killing/bombing/invading in the name of wmd/democracy/hijabs is necessary to get at that oil."
That is precisely the point. And even well meaning analysts lose sight of this obvious, fundamental fact. The overwhelmingly superior propaganda tools at the disposal of the Americans and West in general is one reason for such myopia and accompanying, ludicrous essays about "Good Muslims and Bad Muslims". To borrow a term from John Pilger, "industrial scale" killings (Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) require a response and is a legitimate and moral right. "Good Muslim and Bad Muslim" analyses fall into the planned propaganda morass.
-
Erwin
22 October 2009 at 11:14 What a load of crap!
Like there's more than one Islam.
Of course every muslim has his/her own ideas about what Islam entails, but that doesn't mean you can't make any general observations about islam.
Islam is what muslims make of it. Influenced by local customs and the explanation of the scriptures, for which common folk (cattle) usualy turn to imam's etc.
Segragation, intollarence, holy war (jihad through bomming or not), opression, etc. is wat Islam (again "in general") entails. And muslims (in general) act accordingly with a holier than thou attitude.
No story about a single (liberal, tollarant, etc) muslim whipes this away.
The silent majority thesis is bulloks.
Beïng wittingly silent, is a silent approval of all the cruelties. And the un-wittingly silent are dangerous as well, because they do as they're told (as puppets) by the ones who shout loudest. Which are usualy the extremists.
You refer to Malaysia and Indonesia. Huhh?
You haven't followed the news for a while, have you now.
You refer to the compromise with state secularism in Turkey. You're kidding right?
State secularism constantely needs deffending (even with help from the armed forces) because is constantly under attack by ...
You can fill in the blanks now, I hope.
-
Mehdi Hasan
22 October 2009 at 11:47 John Carp - hello again. Your comments delight me. (a) I find it amusing that you seem so repulsed by Islam-related blogs but that never seems to stop you from commenting on them and coming back for more. We must be doing SOMETHING right!, and (b) your grasp of the facts once again seems shaky. The editor of the New Statesman is not a Muslim. His name is Jason Cowley. Look him up...
-
terence patrick hewett
22 October 2009 at 12:41 It may be instructive to analyse why the left are so attracted to Mohammedanism; because of their hatred for Christianity, my enemy’s enemy is my friend, so they hope to set one against the other, resulting in mutual destruction. They are attracted by its authoritarianism and its sublimation of the individual to the tribe. Which brings us full circle to why they hate Christianity so much; it is because Christianity regards the individual soul of infinite worth and of equal importance to the whole of creation. They correctly surmise that individual conscience is the whole basis of western civilisation and in their addiction to slavery and cowardice, they wish to destroy it.
-
moongus
22 October 2009 at 13:00 Adian Morgan
"I have not visited the country..."
If that's the case, then why on earth do you think you're qualified or informed enough to write about it? I read some of your pieces you link to and quite frankly, they're hysterical and ridiculous.
You write: "Malaysia in many ways resembles a regime with little difference to Stalin’s Soviet empire. "
What?! Where to begin with such an absurd and idiotic statement? Of course there are big problems in Malaysia - but Stalin's soviet empire? I've lived in Malaysia, but I don't remember ever coming across any gulags, forced starvations or knocks on the door in the middle of the night.
Can I suggest that you go and get yourself a passport, buy a ticket to KL and spend a few weeks travelling in Malaysia and meeting Malays? I guarantee you will find it nothing like Stalin's Russia. Far far from it.
Until then, please stop embarrassing yourself.
Many thanks.
-
jay
22 October 2009 at 13:07 WOW!!! we force our views on the islamic world and we feel threatened, if anything maybe if we leave people alone than we may not have anything to fear from. Islam does not want to convert people and muslims certainly can't force islam on people.
-
A.Kadir
22 October 2009 at 15:34 Sholto Byrnes has written this article with good intention, which should be recognised. For those of you with Negative views on Islam or any other religion are indeed narrow minded and lack wisdom..
Islam has given so much to the western world, which still continues to benefit them, even the haters of Islam benefit from Islamic, Advancement in Medicine, establishment of Hospitals, mathematics etc, Every nation has its extremists.
There are many of those who are still waiting on the Muslims to integrate into the society. Which according to News reports are increasingly binge drinking, having pre marital relationships, and are lacking in good family values. The Muslims are already integrated, they are waiting for the western society to decrease binge drinking and increase good social and family values in order for them both to work together in moving Britain to be recognised again as Great Britain.
-
Revd Donald Reid
22 October 2009 at 17:03 Thank you for this thoughtful article with which I wholly agree. Islam is much maligned by ignorant people and sensationalist media and is in fact a truly great, rational, spacious and humane religion which has been - and still is - a force for civilising society. Not to say that there are not those who espouse Islam but misdirect their energies - but this happens in all great belief systems. And not to say there are no issues where western liberals (like myself - in case you think I am religious conservative) might differ - issues which are not resolved in our own societies either, in most cases.
But, yes, the community, courtesy and warmth with which Muslims have preserved is a gift to the brutalism of western econo-culture, from which we can learn. I have experienced this many times here in Scotland where I live and count Muslims amongst my closest friends; in Algeria which i have just visited and in many other countries.
I just wish when people made comparisons they would compare like with like, not "our" best features with "their" worst, for any society / system has good things and bad - and it would be more intelligent to acknowledge this and glean wisdom from both.
-
Michael
22 October 2009 at 22:04 As one who married a Pakistani and have extensively travelled in Islamic countries and researched the history and theology of Islam, I do not see that there is anything that we can possibly learn from Islam, except what happens when we follow the teachings of a lunatic.
Show me one Islamic country where freedom of thought and inquiry is encouraged. I'm not extolling the virtues of Western liberalism, in fact I despise it. But I'm not out their killing people.
It is impossible to deny that the majority of terrorist groups are Islamic. When you follow precisely the modely that Muhammad gave, you are going to get murder, mayhem and racism. Follow the teachings of Jesus, and you're not going to get that.
As someone who is threatened with death, just for being in a Muslim country, I do find Islam appealing in any way shape or form.
You talk about how Muslim families are close. The majority have the view that family is their to guard their back. They don't even trust other Muslims and I'm regularly told that, by Muslims.
Muslim academics will openly tell you that you can't trust historical documents from Islamic lands because they write what they want and makes them look good. I suppose you think that this is the best of Islamic culture?
I love Muslims and welcome them into our home. We shelter Muslims who are being attacked by their families. We are grateful that there are not more Muslims who closely follow the example set by Muhammad or we'd be caring of a lot more people.
-
Ignorance buster
23 October 2009 at 00:11 If you add up the cost of Christian endeavours to human lives as a direct result of the crusades, the British colonisation of half of the world in the name of Jesus and empire, the apartheid in S. Africa, the mass murder and ethnic cleansing of Red Indians in America and other parts of south America, the two world wars, the genocides in Bosnia, the war on Iraq and Afghanistan, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israel on behalf of western powers (and the list goes on) you could easily reach half a billion deaths. Yet when a bunch of Muslim fanatics trained in the art of killing by CIA and MI6 agents in Al-Qaida camps in Afghanistan kill a couple of thousand innocent people on Western soil then all in a sudden the religion of Islam becomes a threat to world stability. It is either I am useless in maths or many of the commentators missed the sum class in junior school! If you should be afraid of something, it is your ignorance of Islam not Islam itself.
-
Ignorance buster
23 October 2009 at 00:37 I wondwer what would happen if we take out the word Muslim from many of the anti Muslim comments and replace it with Jewish (who also commit terrorist acts in Palestine)!
Complete outrage! Public apologies would have to be made, the magazine would be threatened with closure, people could lose their jobs because of their anti-semitic views, etc.
It seems fashionable now a days to engage in Muslim bashing. Well I guess the jews had had the flack before, then the blacks and now it is the Muslims who are bearing the brunt of it. For the Chinese readers of this column, prepare yourself! You might be next my friends.
-
Just Observer
23 October 2009 at 02:04 Michael,
Majority of listed terrorist groups are Islamic - I dont know if that is true but its entirely possible - however, it is definitely not that way because of Islam but only because of the mass murders which the liberalized west and its oil/defence companies has committed in Islamic countries for financial gain. Religion is but an excuse. The real trouble lies in the social and economic set-up which are that way primarily because of decades of western imperialism. The terrorist groups in the west (read governments) are disguised and sophisticated killers who have strong backing in the media. Of course, they are not listed on any terrorist database unlike the Islamic terrorist groups - but that does not mean that the war crimes they have committed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Palestine and countless other places, whether or not with religious backing, are any less heinous.
What these so called Islamic terrorist groups and repressive fundamentalist regimes proclaim is a warped interpretation of a peaceful and progressive religion. I cant understand how you can come up with your conclusions if indeed you have 'extensively' researched the history and theology of the religion, in an unbiased manner without getting misled by popular and stereotypical western notions about Islam.
-
Ian
23 October 2009 at 06:42 Majority of wars are happening in Muslim countries and to answer Michael, do you know why?
Palestine: occupied by you know who
Chechnya: occupied by Russia
Iraq: occupied by USA and UK
Kashmir: occupied by India
Afghanistan: occupied by USA and UK
Kosovo: was occupied by Serbia
Sudan: junta funded by USA
and the list goes on...
We all need to watch the 'mayfair set' and the film 'charlie wilson's war' to get an idea of whats happening and why.
Plan to invade Iran now.
well expect more disgruntled and hopeless people joining terrorists groups.
-
TJ_Lives
23 October 2009 at 16:04 Why is poverty seen as an excuse for terrorism? I don't care how poor/undeducated/oppressed you might be, when you fly an airplane into a building into my country, this means war. This constant hand-wringing and lamentation over the poor self esteem that those Muslims might have or how everything is somehow the fault of the West will cause more harm than good. We need to act like men in the face of adversity and conflict, not a bunch of harping old ladies.
So there's conflict in Iraq because the USA and UK are occupying it? How was it beforehand? Hmm? Have we forgotten that it was ruled by a despot who would regularly murder his own citizens and had even used chemical warfare on more than one occasion? Iraqis are murdering each other because they have no concept of "democracy" or "individual rights." In fact they would probably be more comfortable being allowed to murder one another to their heart's content.
Individually, Arab people are among the most friendly, outgoing and hospitable people I've ever met. But they can't form a decent government to save their own lives. Literally.
-
TJ_Lives
23 October 2009 at 16:11 I believe that where Christianity and Islam differ can be boiled down to essentially 1 quotation by Jesus: Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's. This is a basis for the separation of Church and State coming straight from the mouth of the man himself! Islam has no such division and doesn't many Muslims don't see politics and religion as separate from one another. This leaves the door wide open for radicalisation, political violence, religious extremism, and terrorism.
If they are unhappy with the "western-funded" juntas and oppressive governments and have a natural desire for freedom, justice, liberty, and equailty, let them show it. I haven't seen any Muslims demonstrating or protesting against 9/11 or the Madrid bombings or the London Underground bombings. The last time a revolution occurred in a Muslim country it was to install an ayatollah-led theocracy.
What was the first thing that the Sunnis and Shi'ites started doing the minute Saddam was out of the picture? They started offing each other in record numbers. Honestly, not even the Balkans are such a powder-keg anymore.
Are these the trappings of a "modern, peaceful, enlightened religion"? I think not.
Perhaps Islam works for the individual and the family. But as it has no history of subordinating itself to the state (except in Turkey, where secularism is now under threat...) and is liable for radicalisation, in its current form it is quite a barbaric religion. It needs to undergo a Reformation like Christianity did 500 years ago.
-
TJ_Lives
23 October 2009 at 16:12 *many Muslims don't see politics
-
Duncan
26 October 2009 at 11:05 I think the trouble is not people "taking the views and actions of a minority of extremists" as representative of the religion, but rather taking a plain reading of the Qur'an as being so; not unreasonably. The Qur'an certainly seems very insistent on the following points (1) Islam is an proselytising faith (you ought to try to convert people), (2) adherence to Islam requires adherence to the many behavioural rules prescribed by Islam (including dress codes for women), (3) the world of Islam should consider itself in a battle, literal or metaphorical/spiritual, it is unclear, with the rest of the world until there is total conversion to the faith.
Are there reasonable, liberal people who ignore these stipulations of the religion? Absolutely. But their creeds are as much perversions of the religion as the Wahhabi-ists. What you see there is the innate decency which many (though sadly not all) human beings possess overcoming the strictures of faith. But you cannot change the Qur'an, and as long as there are a large number of people who will read the Qu'ran and hear what it has to say and take it in wholesale, not piecemeal, then there will be people who will adhere to the above three tenents which, though modest, have the following consequences:
1) A growing number of Muslims, trying to convert others to their faith,
2) An absolutist attitude towards morality, a natural corollary of which is the belief that your own moral tenets should be established as secular laws,
3) The likely tendency to vote en masse (as American Christians do) to politicians willing to pander to (2).
True, much of this is the case with Christianity, but thankfully Christianity has had much of the stuffing knocked out of it in Europe and in this country is almost totally emasculated, so it is no longer a real threat to me or my way of life as it would be if I lived, for example, in medieval (or even modern) Europe or in contemporary America.
You only need fear what poses a threat to you, and that being the case moderate (as opposed to extremist or ultra-liberal variants such as that espoused by your good self) Islam does pose a real, forseeable threat to my way of life, increasingly so as the percentage of adherents in the population rises.
I wish to distance myself from the contemptible xenophobia you've correctly identified as underlying much of the opposition to Islam, and iterate that I am a liberal and a supporter of free migration of peoples and the freedom of individuals to practice whatever religion they choose, but though I am hopeful that suggestions made by the likes of Reza Aslan that Islam may be about to undergo a fundamental, liberalising change nevertheless in the present form I and other reasonable people do fear it and, I think, with good reason.
-
Duncan
26 October 2009 at 11:19 @Ian
Much as I love Adam Sorkin the reality of the Afghan-Soviet war was considerably different from what was depicted in the film. The Soviets had a plausible justification for being involved, in that they were invited by the then-government which was concerned about the rise of Islamist groups which constituted the later Mujahideen, posing a danger to the communist government. If you're paying attention at home this is the same justification that America currently has for fighting Pakistan's enemies in the north, the only difference being that Pakistan's government isn't communist. It isn't particularly democratic either though, so we shouldn't get ourselves too worked up on that point: my contention here is that the USSR had as much of a 'formal' justification for being in Afghanistan as the US and allies have for being in Pakistan today; to condemn one is to condemn the other.
The reason the US had for becoming involved wasn't the altruistic one presented in the film; it was solely to screw with the Soviets. And on that ground, mission accomplished. While they may have, as Wilson was quoted as saying in the film, 'screwed up the end game' America achieved the objectives they had for getting involved in the first place (and then some; arguably it contributed more than any other distinct factor (I don't consider 'economic backwardness' to be a distinct historical factor) to the breakdown of the USSR) so there was never any likelihood that they'd remain.
But it wasn't that by failure to set up schools etc they created a breeding ground for Islamists; they put the Islamists in power in Afghanistan. There was never any confusion about who the Taliban were or what they represented; those facts were the cause of the Afghan-Soviet war in the first place and no one involved was ignorant of them.
I'm not sure this undermines the point you were trying to make, so much as underlines it.
-
A.Kadir
27 October 2009 at 16:06 The Americans, and British Aided and installed Saddam Hussein in power, Bin Laden Given Training and resources to Oust the Russians, These are Facts Look them up.. Muslims have condemn and continue any acts of terrorism.
Forgive me, but the war in Iraq is in question over its legitimacy, Many have questioned the US use of force against Rag Tag armies. And the loss of civilians in the countries they have invaded.
1. No weapon of mass destruction. 2. Growing concerns over 9/11 maybe an inside job. 3. Concerns over fabrications, alterations on intelligent documents by USA & UK. 4. The Abuse of Abu Garaib prison. 5. The Illegal use of Torture methods against prisoner Many whom have never faced trail.
All of the above warrants suspicion against powerful nations of USA & UK and their agenda. However all this can not excuse terrorism or killing of unarmed civilians. Nor the indiscriminate use of force, which killed Ten times more civilians then both Saddam and Bin Laden put together. You only need to see the Red Cross reports to know that.legitimacy, Many have questioned the US use of force against Rag Tag armies. And the loss of civilians in the countries they have invaded.
1. No weapon of mass destruction. 2. Growing concerns over 9/11 maybe an inside job. 3. Concerns over fabrications, alterations on intelligent documents by USA & UK.
All of the above warrants suspicion against powerful nations of USA & UK and their agenda. However all this can not excuse terrorism or killing of unarmed civilians. Nor the indiscriminate use of force, which killed Tens times more civillians then both Saddam and Bin Laden.
-
Helen
28 October 2009 at 00:37 My gripe with Islam is that the so called moderates and ordinary muslims do not show enough disapproval of the extremists. It sends out a feeling that they are all going to stick together, against the infidels. I do not believe in the fact that their religion is their whole life, regardless of the laws of Britain. I don't like religion of any kind, but if people must have one, do ahead and good luck, but do not try to make Britain an Islamic country.
-
Cerlygerl
28 October 2009 at 14:54 John Carp running away from arguments again. Fancy that.
-
Matt Schwartz
30 October 2009 at 17:05 Islam variations? Maybe you need to study the religion...
Islam, in its core beliefs, preaches violence, etc. Islam is truly violent, there is no way around that.
There are MANY non-violent Muslims, though. I agree with you on that. However, Islam, in its truest sense, is violent.
One more thing, I fear Islam coming to America, etc too. Muslims have taken over Britain are are changing it to what THEY want it to be, no longer what the British want it to be. Muslims do not care about others, it would seem. Everywhere I go, in my hometown especially, they come and try to change the way we do life. I don't care who are, what you believe, etc, this is the way we have been doing things for years and it has worked well. How dare ANYONE, Muslim or not, come here and tell us (Americans, British, etc) how to run OUR country!
-
Adrian Morgan
03 November 2009 at 11:02 @ moongus
Are you a resident of Malaysia?
If so , then perhaps you MAY be qualified to have an opinion on what one may find, using your logic. But such arguments would suggest that no-one has a right to have an opinion, or even do research, on countries they have not seen from the perspective of being a tourist. Historians would not be allowed to write histories unless they had time-machines.
Malays - I am sure- will give a good account of their country as they are granted special privileges. I am much more concerned with the plight of the Buddhists, Christians and Hindus with whom I am in contact, who do not find that their rights are respected.
Perhaps you would demand that no-one has a right to express an opinion on Iranian election abuse, or Chinese oppression of Uighurs, unless one has lived in Tehran or Urumchi?
And perhaps no-one except Malays (what about non-Malay citizens of Malaysia?) would be allowed in your petty little worldview to sign petitions such as these:
-
Adrian Morgan
04 November 2009 at 15:49 And of course, it is absolutely verboten in moongus' little mind for me to think that it is wrong for the Malaysian government to forbid Christians to use the term "Allah" for God - even though for a couple of hundred years the term has been in use in Malasia/Malaysia and Indonesia:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/04/world/main5522082....
I think that such things are Stalinist. Stalin began with banning books. But then, according to moongus, as I did not know Stalin personally, I should not dare to criticise him.
-
A.Kadir
05 November 2009 at 13:58 They are the narrow mined, and ignorant few who fail to see that western foreign policy is forcing nations to change their way of life in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan..
They argue, its better than how Saddam ruled, yet they are the ones who put Saddam in power, its better than the Taliban rule, yet they help put Taliban in power.
Now there people crying because in their eyes UK or USA is being changed? Truly that is not the case, all that is happening is that the believers are practicing their faith, which is their right to do so in the country they have legally migrated to. There are an estimated 310 thousand ethnic minority SMEs in the UK, contributing an estimated £20 billion to the UK economy per year.
And in return to their contribution, we invade their countries, and force upon them our very own system of democracy.
So please stop your crocodile tears, and false sense of fear. We are here, we are helping and we do care about the countries we live in.
-
Falsificationist
20 November 2009 at 18:08 Compatibility of liberal democracy with Islam? I am afraid that the Organisation of the Islamic Conference has already given the answer, with the ‘Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam’. Anyone who has never heard of this document ought to look it up and think about the conceptual compatibility of liberal democracy with islam.
