Islam Hasn't Changed: We Have

[Mole]

I think Islamism is just another form of fascism.

If Islam were just another form of fascism, we would not have so much to worry about. But Islam is another totalitarian ideology, and we have a great deal to worry about.

But instead of facing the awful reality of totalitarianism, we make ourselves feel better with fantasy.

 

[Mole]

I am not surprised to see your response, once again, glorifying the Occident. After all, it was through British imperialism and colonialism, that your convict ancestors elevated their status in life. I can see why you would vehemently defend it so. Rags to riches. Indebted to the master.

We deferred to the Sahib long enough. That's where you and I differ.

I am not going to argue this, when better arguments have already been made, so I'll quote one, who has tackled such myopic (and predictable) views such as yours.

Edward Said: " "It is therefore correct that every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was consequently a racist, an imperialist, and almost totally ethnocentric."

Pound for pound? Exaggeration for exaggeration.

- <3 from the Orient


Sorry, all of that, once quoted, is in italics. Can you specify what you need clarification on?




I think we are so preoccupied with how to punish them, that the authoritarian parent (West) fails to see its own failings and ways, which contributed to the conflict. Or, at least, choosing to ignore it. Change what you can control. Your own actions.

This is the expression of Left Wing hatred for common decency.

Even Edward Said is discredited and out of fashion.

While you openly promulagate old fashioned racism.

 

[Riva]

Sorry, all of that, once quoted, is in italics. Can you specify what you need clarification on?

which inevitably means it becomes authoritarian itself.

You mean the western ideals or Islamic rule?

I think we are so preoccupied with how to punish them, that the authoritarian parent (West) fails to see its own failings and ways, which contributed to the conflict. Or, at least, choosing to ignore it. Change what you can control. Your own actions.

The issue is not when Islamist destroy the rights of their own people in their own lands, the issue is when they emigrate to secular democratic nations (usually nations with high living standards like European nations, Nothern America or Australia), gain all the comforts privileges freedom and equal rights of these lands - which are not allowed in Islamic lands -, and when grow in population ask Sharia Law to be implemented, threaten to kill anyone who questions Islam, threaten to kill the Jews and control even non-muslim women, rape the women who don't cover themselves up and then try to rule the country they emigrated into according to Islamic methods (which have never been successful in any nation which they have been implemented on).

When Islamists make issue in African and Asian nations one can argue that their rights may have been violated, but when they go to some of these secular democratic nations with high living standards and ask Sharia to be implemented it's high time you admit that there is an Elephant in the room.

 

[Qre:us]

You mean the western ideals or Islamic rule?

Islamic rule, as doled out by extremists.

The issue is not when Islamist destroy the rights of their own people in their own lands, the issue is when they emigrate to secular democratic nations (usually nations with high living standards like European nations, Nothern America or Australia), gain all the comforts privileges freedom and equal rights of these lands - which are not allowed in Islamic lands -, and when grow in population ask Sharia Law to be implemented, threaten to kill anyone who questions Islam, threaten to kill the Jews and control even non-muslim women, rape the women who don't cover themselves up and then try to rule the country they emigrated into according to Islamic methods (which have never been successful in any nation which they have been implemented on).

When Islamists make issue in African and Asian nations one can argue that their rights may have been violated, but when they go to some of these secular democratic nations with high living standards and ask Sharia to be implemented it's high time you admit that there is an Elephant in the room.

You're missing the point that I made. These reactions by the extremists are exactly that, reactions, motivated by geopolitical agenda. They're not happening in a bubble, isolated from any influence outside themselves. It seems you're not very educated about the evolution and rise of Islamic Terrorism, and the gradual rise of fundamentalism.

These extremists feel justified, in whatever twisted logic they have, to enforce their ideals into new territories, especially the secular, democratic West, because they feel that the West have been doing the same to them. Hence, my analogy. Rebelling against the authoritarian rule by turning into authoritarians themselves. "You did it to us. We're coming to you." The West have been going into THEIR countries, telling them how to live, "liberating" them, and waging wars that ravages their countries and their people.

When I say, "control your own actions", this is what I speak of. Rather than doing the blame game, which is rather ridiculous, ignorant and lazy (and dangerous), the West has to look at its own actions that contributed to the creation of such evil. And, cease and desist.

Why did they go to Iraq? Weapons of mass destruction?
Why is the West supporting Israel?
Fallout of the Cold War...


And many, many more........

It's interesting that the West, in its pure, noble pursuit to liberate oppressed people from tyrannical rule, has focused the majority of its energy on the Islamic states, while leaving civil war torn countries in Africa to deal with their own warloads and utter terror, with a few soldiers/UN sent as aid (compared to the military force they deploy for the Middle East). The torture that had been experienced by the people of Congo makes ISIS look like kindergarten kids. Why is nothing being done? Because it's contained. Let them kill each other. Let Africa burn. Yet, why not employ the same logic to the Middle East? Because the West has been entangled with them for far too long. The history of how Islamic Terrorism evolved cannot be written without mentioning the key involvement of the West. And now, the tension has reached its climax. And, interestingly enough, the West hasn't touched Saudi Arabia. Geopolitical motivations.

To focus on Islam, the religion, as the culprit for the rise of terrorists is a diversion from the real elephant in the room. These terrorists are using religion as a shield, as a justification, and you're buying their marketing.

 

[Qre:us]

This is the expression of Left Wing hatred for common decency.

Even Edward Said is discredited and out of fashion.

While you openly promulagate old fashioned racism.

Oh, please, your intellectual dishonesty is reeking, as per usual. You and those of your ilk, with your transparent, racist and ethnocentric agenda, with your anti-Islam, and glorification of the Western Enlightenment and colonialism, are of course going to deny any credibility when it comes to Said. "Out of fashion"? Tells more about you, than any statement of fact. Predictable. It's a psychological defense that's pathological in you.

God Save the Queen!

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

These extremists feel justified, in whatever twisted logic they have, to enforce their ideals into new territories, especially the secular, democratic West, because they feel that the West have been doing the same to them. Hence, my analogy. Rebelling against the authoritarian rule by turning into authoritarians themselves. "You did it to us. We're coming to you." The West have been going into THEIR countries, telling them how to live, "liberating" them, and waging wars that ravages their countries and their people.

I've actually come to the opinion that geopolitics is not really the primary factor. I agree that ISIS would not exist if it was not for Iraq, and Iraq was a colossally stupid and wrongheaded endeavor from every point of view. The idea that you can export democracy to people that don't actually want to be democratic is never going to work, and as for stamping out terrorism...

But, whatever propaganda victory Iraq might have handed to Islamic fundamentalists, and whatever value it might have had as a recruitment tool, doesn't really explain what Islamic fundamentalism is "about."

Or, put simply, Islamic fundamentalism makes more sense as being a reaction to the same kinds of things Christian fundamentalists react to, even if the methods are different. Both Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists are opposed to the enlightenment. They dislike secularism and a worldview that considers anything other than belief as paramount. They both believe in returning to a "golden age" of the religion that probably never existed. And they are split into lots of groups that regard the other fundamentalist groups as apostates. Mostly, Islamism is a reaction to the west only in the sense that secularism and the enlightenment came from the west. But, it is telling, and worth remembering, that Christian fundamentalists oppose those same things.

Moreover, they are not really Luddities, and the aspects of modernity they oppose are not really technology so much as aspects of society. Hence, they can use the internet and so forth to spread their ideas without hesitation.

I think various fundamentalisms are another form of fascism because we are not talking about 20th century Europe, it gets called something else.

Fascism, too, is obsessed with a glorious past (that probably wasn't that glorious), believes in repressing expression, opposes the enlightenment even if they really like using various technologies produced by the enlightenment. And whatever the personal opinions of classical fascists might have had towards religion, might have been, they found it necessary to utilize religion in some sense as a way of gaining widespread public support.

 

[Kullervo]

 

[Mole]

Oh, please, your intellectual dishonesty is reeking, as per usual. You and those of your ilk, with your transparent, racist and ethnocentric agenda, with your anti-Islam, and glorification of the Western Enlightenment and colonialism, are of course going to deny any credibility when it comes to Said. "Out of fashion"? Tells more about you, than any statement of fact. Predictable. It's a psychological defense that's pathological in you.

God Save the Queen!

You express familiar sentiments. So I wonder how they are held. Are they sentiments you have picked up as a school boy? They seem like school boy sentiments to me.

 

[Mole]

I've actually come to the opinion that geopolitics is not really the primary factor. I agree that ISIS would not exist if it was not for Iraq, and Iraq was a colossally stupid and wrongheaded endeavor from every point of view. The idea that you can export democracy to people that don't actually want to be democratic is never going to work, and as for stamping out terrorism...

But, whatever propaganda victory Iraq might have handed to Islamic fundamentalists, and whatever value it might have had as a recruitment tool, doesn't really explain what Islamic fundamentalism is "about."

Or, put simply, Islamic fundamentalism makes more sense as being a reaction to the same kinds of things Christian fundamentalists react to, even if the methods are different. Both Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists are opposed to the enlightenment. They dislike secularism and a worldview that considers anything other than belief as paramount. They both believe in returning to a "golden age" of the religion that probably never existed. And they are split into lots of groups that regard the other fundamentalist groups as apostates. Mostly, Islamism is a reaction to the west only in the sense that secularism and the enlightenment came from the west. But, it is telling, and worth remembering, that Christian fundamentalists oppose those same things.

Moreover, they are not really Luddities, and the aspects of modernity they oppose are not really technology so much as aspects of society. Hence, they can use the internet and so forth to spread their ideas without hesitation.

I think various fundamentalisms are another form of fascism because we are not talking about 20th century Europe, it gets called something else.

Fascism, too, is obsessed with a glorious past (that probably wasn't that glorious), believes in repressing expression, opposes the enlightenment even if they really like using various technologies produced by the enlightenment. And whatever the personal opinions of classical fascists might have had towards religion, might have been, they found it necessary to utilize religion in some sense as a way of gaining widespread public support.

It can't be Iraq as the totalitarian ideology is held by diverse peoples across the world. And the only thing uniting these ideologists is a political religion.

 

[Firebird 8118]

It was sarcasm, hence, the mention of Jains.

Also, to note that while I discuss violence in the name of religion, it is the only religion, that, in its long history, have never incited violence in its name. Thus far.....

Ah, okay but yeah - go Jains!

Yeah, I also hope it stays that way. I may not be a Jain myself, but I've got a great deal of respect for them and the values they stand for.

 

[21%]

Islamic rule, as doled out by extremists.




You're missing the point that I made. These reactions by the extremists are exactly that, reactions, motivated by geopolitical agenda. They're not happening in a bubble, isolated from any influence outside themselves. It seems you're not very educated about the evolution and rise of Islamic Terrorism, and the gradual rise of fundamentalism.

These extremists feel justified, in whatever twisted logic they have, to enforce their ideals into new territories, especially the secular, democratic West, because they feel that the West have been doing the same to them. Hence, my analogy. Rebelling against the authoritarian rule by turning into authoritarians themselves. "You did it to us. We're coming to you." The West have been going into THEIR countries, telling them how to live, "liberating" them, and waging wars that ravages their countries and their people.

When I say, "control your own actions", this is what I speak of. Rather than doing the blame game, which is rather ridiculous, ignorant and lazy (and dangerous), the West has to look at its own actions that contributed to the creation of such evil. And, cease and desist.

Why did they go to Iraq? Weapons of mass destruction?
Why is the West supporting Israel?
Fallout of the Cold War...


And many, many more........

It's interesting that the West, in its pure, noble pursuit to liberate oppressed people from tyrannical rule, has focused the majority of its energy on the Islamic states, while leaving civil war torn countries in Africa to deal with their own warloads and utter terror, with a few soldiers/UN sent as aid (compared to the military force they deploy for the Middle East). The torture that had been experienced by the people of Congo makes ISIS look like kindergarten kids. Why is nothing being done? Because it's contained. Let them kill each other. Let Africa burn. Yet, why not employ the same logic to the Middle East? Because the West has been entangled with them for far too long. The history of how Islamic Terrorism evolved cannot be written without mentioning the key involvement of the West. And now, the tension has reached its climax. And, interestingly enough, the West hasn't touched Saudi Arabia. Geopolitical motivations.

To focus on Islam, the religion, as the culprit for the rise of terrorists is a diversion from the real elephant in the room. These terrorists are using religion as a shield, as a justification, and you're buying their marketing.

YES!

I was waiting for someone to post something like this. I didn't feel like I had sufficient knowledge to make any claims, as I couldn't have backed it up with anything. I believe that there's a lot that goes on inside governments that the public has no idea of. Saudi Arabia is left untouched because there's a secret deal that allows dictators to continue ruling their regime and keeping their people ignorant, as long as they occasionally do someone favors with oil prices -- like now when they are trying to hurt Russia. And the media and NGOs are also being used to muddle things up.

Africa is left alone because no one cares about it. Once there is profit to be made, however, suddenly the world will be trying to 'liberate' the people of Africa.

It's all games, and it's a sad world.

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Maybe but you need to be careful about how to fight these kinds of movements.

What you resist, persists and political islam sorely needs resistance, opposition and an other to constitute a threat or oppressor in order to exist.

For as long as the mobilised masses can believe that their poverty and oppression is a result of foreign devilry or something like it the longer the very conditions which keep them down will persist because they are not paying attention to the proper things to change to improve their lot.

For a moment I thought how accurately this depicts Western feminism.

@OP I think most of the "beliefs" have had their moments of violence. The crusades come to mind and no I'm not just talking about the "popularized" ones, but the other kind as well; Albigensian Crusade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or how about the Northern Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Habba]

most violent religion on earth

The article makes an outrageous claim without any proof. Lost all credibility right there.

 

[Firebird 8118]

The article makes an outrageous claim without any proof. Lost all credibility right there.

Well, I did warn you guys in a later post to take that article with a grain of salt. In case you didn't notice it, though, here it is word-by-word:

Perhaps I haven't explained my own viewpoint clearly enough. My apologies!

Guys, I'm not against Islam, and I'm not against Muslims. In fact, I would take this article with a grain of salt. However, this is the point I want to make clear to you: asking other religions to remove their symbols and all, while wanting to have your symbols out there, seems quite hypocritical to me. I think people from all religions have a right to express their beliefs and wear their symbols freely, without worrying about offending others.