reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
The list of terrorist organisations is defined by the West. ''One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'' and all that.
Thankyou for indirectly proving my point. These terrorist organizations, all of which are Islamist, are not fighting western leaders; but western
style governments/culture/society, which they consider to be a perversion of true Islamic values.
Now, if they are opposing WESTERN style government, does that not mean they oppose western civilization?
If they're supported within Libya, then what's the problem ?
No problem. Just a conflict of interests, thats all. Atleast understand that Shari'a, what most Muslims living in the wider middle east seem to want,
is incompatible with western civilization - democracy, equal rights, freedom of speech.
Also, on a deeper level, Islamic jurisprudence has always divided the world into two categories - Dar Al Islam - the house of submission, and Dar Al
Harb - the house of war. Strange to call the land of infidels, the house of war. What does that imply to you?? Perhaps that these are lands yet to be
conquered; that they are destined to be won through Jihad - holy war, in the name of Allah?
The majority of Islamic countries do not have Sharia law as the basis of their legal system, so that rather casts doubt on your assertion.
Hence, WHY THEY ARE OPPOSING THEIR WESTERN STYLE GOVERNMENTS! In India, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan etc...
Do you understand why ISLAMIST terrorist groups are attacking their own governments? What do you think its about?
Islamism = a fundamentalist Islamic revivalist movement generally characterized by moral conservatism and the literal interpretation of the Koran and
the attempt to implement Islamic values in all aspects of life
The above governments do not adhere to the above criteria.
The fact of the matter is that religion is observed and interpreted differently between cultures, regions and individuals, so to attempt to claim that
a far-flung religion like Islam has some unique, ''catch-all'' interpretation amongst its adherents is crazy.
What does this have to do with the simple fact that in the New Testament - that portion of Christian scriptures which supercedes everything in the Old
Testament - there is NOTHING militant, there is no calling for cutting off of hands, as there is in the Quran for theft.
It is much easier to reconcile christian scriptures with the modern world (being a consequence of Christianity) than it is the Quran. Thats a simple
Additionally, as is well known to anyone remotely knowledgeable of Islam, statements made in the latter part of the Quran - which is called the Quran
of Mecca, nullifies statements found in the beginning of the Quran - the Quran of Medina.
The Quran is essentially a treatise for how Allah wants man to live on earth. Thus, in the beginning of the Quran, where Mohommad has still failed to
convince the people of his prophetic mission, exhorts his followers to respect the religious inclinations of all peoples. This is interpreted by both
Sunni and Shiite as a prescription for how to deal with alien cultures when the Umma is in a state of political subjugation; act tolerantly.
Conversely, when Mohommad began to gain followers, he annulled pacts he made with the tribes of Mecca. This being a proscription for how Islam is to
conduct itself when in a position of strength.
I think it's more likely that these countries will have more cuddly, ''democratically elected'' pro-Western puppets, in the Hamid Karzai mold.
Uhh... Karzai was put in place by a coalition of Western forces. Libya, conversely, is being taken over by the Libyan Islamic fighting group:
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group is the most powerful radical faction waging Jihad in Libya against Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi's regime
Nice try Sherlock.
And in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has enough support to become the ruling party
According to a Pew Research poll
Some 75% [Egyptians] had a favourable view of the Muslim Brotherhood, but only 17% believed they should lead the next government.
Bearing in mind that this is a western, and thus biased research company, 75% in support of the MB is a ridiculously high percentage. Also, im having
difficulty understanding how such a large number could be 'favorable' towards the Muslim Brotherhood, yet only 17% would want them to be in power.
Its a bit of a contradiction. Muslim brotherhood seeks a complete overhaul of Egyptian society. How can you be 'favorable' towards this, yet not
want it to become realized through an Egyptian government?