A Western Response to Islamism

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 





No, do you understand what a request is?


Yes, I do understand a request. A request made between one party and another is a reasonable request. A request that's made between one culture - Islam - with the west, asking the latter to abide by the moral protocols of the former, is not a fair request. In fact, it nullifies the very nature of the latter's philosophical position.

Sure, they can ask; but the ask always carries with it the threat of: in our culture, if someone made a video like that, he would be killed. That is the extremity of their law. It's not like they just dislike the insult to their religion; they vociferously loathe it. They go to the furthest extent possible to punish those who do it.

It is nothing but idiocy and shoddy reasoning that see's this request of the party which rules Egypt as being 'nothing but' a request. It's a demand of Shari'a, and given Islams history, shari'a demands certain things of non-Muslims, one of which, you cannot insult or deprecate the prophet of Islam, or the Sunnah. The consequence for such an infraction is death, by the law.




No one is imposing anything that you speak of, requests have been made which don't have to be met.


I realize that. But I also suspect a desire to impose their culture on us; the very act itself testifies to it.

Let me give you an example from myself. I don't approve of homosexuality mainly for metaphysical reasons. However, since I know the position of the other - that which is not myself - and can see how they can feel as if it is a justifiable act, I accord them the right to do so. Thus, my desire will never actually infringe on their right; I will not go about telling homosexuals "not to" go about. I may not like it, I may find it obnoxious when they kiss in public, but I'll keep shut about it. It's my own personal affair.

This is what democracy requires. If they can't shut their mouth and do what I just described before, that is, recognize the ideological basis of those who defend the right to free speech, and respect that right, then they show that their culture is incompatible with democratic society.

And it also justifies my caution in forewarning those who don't know this that democratic law does not permit them to live in strict obedience to Shari'a law. If you live in a democratic society, democratic law is supreme; Shari'a may govern matters similar to how Halakah works with Orthodox Jews, but the final say is democratic law, based on the constitution and bill of rights.

This is a basic logical fact. Not even to mention the indisputable fact that the Muslim Brotherhood actively works within the US Link, even trying insinuate shari'a law into American court under the rubric of "transnational law" where US courts would make decisions for Muslims plaintiffs based on not US American law, based on the constitution, but under Shari'a law, Islams constitution.

If you don't see a problem with the US court adjudicating according to Islamic thinking, where women can be exploited in divorce cases (which is what shari'a accords the man) etc; and this doesn't even touch on radical shari'a affirmation of honor killings, wife beating, killing those who insult Islam, and it's overall attitude to non-Muslims.




posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Hey, I do not see one difference between Sharia and Sunni. The problem is this. When it comes down to it, they both murder people for extremist reasons. Whether its stealing a loaf of bread, adultery or any other crime. If you are going to label Sharia extremist then you may aswell label the entire religion as one extremist.

Just because the Saudis and Pakistan or any other western backed Muslim country are on your payroll, doesn't mean they are tolerant Muslims who love the western way. They still kill, stone, lash, hang people for breaking their religious laws (either side).



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


So they shouldn't tell us what to do? But....we can send millions of soldiers to their country and tell them what to do, is that what you think is ok. How would you like it if they set up embassies in America and five Christians attacketed someplace in an Islamic country to protest. Then they declared war on us and bombed our neighborhoods with women and children. That would be OK



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 





Hey, I do not see one difference between Sharia and Sunni. The problem is this. When it comes down to it, they both murder people for extremist reasons. Whether its stealing a loaf of bread, adultery or any other crime. If you are going to label Sharia extremist then you may aswell label the entire religion as one extremist.


That's not entirely true.

In the early days of Islam, there were the Mutazila such as Al Kindi, Avicenna and most famously, Averroes.

Islam already has a rich history of an interpretation of Quran that corresponds to classical Hellenistic wisdom, seeing God as reason bound as opposed to God as Pure Will, which is what the mainstream of Islam believes.

So while I agree that Islam has historically been interpreted in basically only one way, there are still those who believe Islam should be interpreted according to Averroes, also known as Ibn Rushd.



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
If you can't handle it, don't pay attention to our culture. Ignore us. But DO NOT tell us how to think, or feel or act.

I'm afraid that's an untenable proposition for those who adhere to Islam's fundamental tenets. For, Allâh (surely He is merciful and surely He is thusly ignored) rewards those who enact upon the "disbeliever" or those "gone astray" (Jews / Christians), or anyone, that blasphemes His teachings - "the truth" - which were handed down via the one and only true prophet, Mohammad (many a 6yo loli be upon him).

As such, the lure of paradise in the afterlife - especially for those feeling disenfranchised in this o so 'cruel' world - is far greater an incentive than any rationale the "kafir" can propose--a perceived infidel 'tacit of deception' the Qur'an repeatedly entreats its readers to take especial care to avoid.
(...Not to mention the fact that those who enact violence in a the name of a deity likely haven't the intellectual wherewithal to even spell 'rationale', let alone contemplate its meaning).



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Sablicious
 


That was a very well written post. I thoroughly enjoyed it.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Muslim Cleric came on Australian TV and started telling us hoow we muct abide by islams laws. Australian women must wear cloting like good muslim women do, and a whole bunch of other stuff about Australian Kafir's do not have any rights at all..

They have done it many many times on TV here. How about the Sydney riots, all over muslim values and scantly clad girls on the beach, telling us how to dress in their presence on our own beaches..

List goes on, Muslims in the west constantly tell people of their host countries how to live and act.

We laugh at them because they are a .00% minority in Australia and the way things are going right now, it will stay that way for a very long time..

There won't be any muslim take-overs here like they have in european countries. They have done their dash by with the AU community, they won't ever be allowed to gain in numbers sufficient to introduce pre-historic laws
edit on 9/21/2012 by Ironclad because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Fascinating debate. In the middle Ages, Islam was progressive and open with many technological advances to its name. At the same time, Christians were suffering the Spanish inquisition and a fierce clampdown on their faith. Now in some parts of the world, there is the exact opposite - so it must be the interpretation of the faith not the faith itself.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
One of the 10 Commandments from Moses (revered by both Islam and Christians) is "thou Shalt not Kill".

Yet we see people of both religions side stepping this tenet when they seem fit. [Probably worst is Tony Blair who became a devout catholic after leaving office - having spent many hours egging on Bush for war].



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by templar knight
One of the 10 Commandments from Moses (revered by both Islam and Christians) is "thou Shalt not Kill".

"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of the disbeliever]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and [all] religion is for Allah." -Surâh 2:191-193

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." -Surâh 2:216

"Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." -Surâh 4:74

”O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." -Surâh 5:51

Need we continue...?
edit on 21-9-2012 by Sablicious because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Here's an odd question: What if they don't want our democracy?

What if they want to create a form of democracy, or whatever form of government they choose, that fits their lifestyles and beliefs?

The most important thing we can do is let them decide for themselves and not put criteria or expectations on something that is not ours.

It's their government and countries......let them build it the way they want.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 





What if they want to create a form of democracy, or whatever form of government they choose, that fits their lifestyles and beliefs?


It would have to be a rapprochement with democracy.

An Islamic society should never, in my opinion, be another America or European country. That's not what should be expected of them. Rather, they should engage democracy by separating religion and state, formally recognize human rights in a constitution or bill of rights, but at the same time, emphasize the place of Islam as the national religion.

There's no reason why they should go the full way. It would be unnatural, and frankly, unfair of anyone to ask Muslims to just become 'secularists'. European secularism would never jibe in the middle east; rather, Shari'a could be made consonant with democratic values if the popular theology tended more towards the Mu'tazil instead of Al Ghazali.




The most important thing we can do is let them decide for themselves and not put criteria or expectations on something that is not ours.


The problem is the imperialistic core of their religious conception of Allah. It's their metaphysics and subsequent theology that is of concern, since it demands of Islam political power; since Allah is power, Islam cannot allow other 'powers' in the world to coexist with it.

If however Muslims return to the interpretations of Islam of Avicenna and Averroes, then Islam could make room for other religions. Without that shift in perception, whether you recognize it or not, non-Muslims are not protected from the imperialist ambitions of mainstream Islam.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I think you're missing the point. What Islam is and how it conducts itself in government affairs is none of our concern.

It's none of our business!

Let them figure it out and let them create whatever system they desire. We can spend our time making ourselves better and not forcing our arrogant opinions on what other people are doing.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 





I think you're missing the point. What Islam is and how it conducts itself in government affairs is none of our concern. It's none of our business!


You're missing the point, entirely.

The theology of Islam demands that it take over the world. This is nothing other then their metaphysics of Allah as Pure Will, put into action.

You think as if there isn't a continuum between the metaphysical and theological doctrines of the elites of Islam (it's sheikhs and imams) and the way in which Muslims live and act. The former forms the latter. Just as my air forms the plastic walls of a balloon. The act cannot be separated from the active agent. The fact is, Muslims are the "Act" which essentially consists of the designs imposed by Islams theologians.

All societies work this way. Our "metaphysical" existence, if were from the west, is conditioned by Christianity, Secularism and Liberal democracy. We think in these terms. Muslims on the other hand have their own history of thinkers, who in turn determined the thinking of 1300 years of Islamic peoples. Now, of course, there is the different 'sects' of Shi'ite and Sunni. But between them, the idea of Allah as pure will seems coherent. Although some Shi'ite groups, such as the Ismaili, have an idea of God closer to Hellenism.

Apart of this fundamental viewpoint of life is the fervent belief that Islam, as a political religion with a political doctrine *Shari'a* for living, naturally must be spread the world over. It is a simple cause and effect scenario. Islams theology already divides the world into two categories or "houses"; Dar al Islam - the house of Islam, and Dar Al Harb - the house of war. It is a house or abode of war because it holds within itself, in it's very essence, the fact that Islam is at war with it; Islam's mission is to bring the world To Islam.

Thus, anyone who is not aware of the insinuations of Islam into western life, as is already occurring muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com... is either ignorant or brain dead. They are already actively involved in preparing this. Right now were simply hearing about quiet demands to curtail free speech towards Islam, which in turn enables Islamists to affect their ends.

One wonders, what is their end? The end is the conversion of the western population to Islam. How can that be done? It can be done through normal proselytizing, or through intimidation.

Who knows how this world will look 5 years from now. But if we do descend into a post modern epoch in which the United states is no longer as internally stable as they've always been, then that 'lip' already opened by Islam will grow much wider when times get tough.

Also, it cant be denied that the 'war on terrorism' is being used as a weapon against peoples civil liberties. Of course, it would be downright idiotic to think they've invented Islamic radicalism, but they sure as hell enable it through funding, and apologizing for it every time a terrorist attack occurs and again it's a Muslim extremist. The fact is, it exists, so Islamism is a problem. Another problem is the western establishment who ignores the problem for the purpose of destabilizing western societies, with the intention of curtailing civil rights in situations where Muslims are under attack - and so outlawing all anti-Islamic speech - in addition to passing 'terrorist laws' that make freedom of movement and activity in many different domains almost impossible.

Two enemies exist. Ignoring the western establishment is dumb, and so is ignoring the reality of the Islamist threat. It's a double whammy.
edit on 22-9-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by InhaleExhale
 





No, do you understand what a request is?


Yes, I do understand a request. A request made between one party and another is a reasonable request. A request that's made between one culture - Islam - with the west, asking the latter to abide by the moral protocols of the former, is not a fair request. In fact, it nullifies the very nature of the latter's philosophical position.

Sure, they can ask; but the ask always carries with it the threat of: in our culture, if someone made a video like that, he would be killed. That is the extremity of their law. It's not like they just dislike the insult to their religion; they vociferously loathe it. They go to the furthest extent possible to punish those who do it.

It is nothing but idiocy and shoddy reasoning that see's this request of the party which rules Egypt as being 'nothing but' a request. It's a demand of Shari'a, and given Islams history, shari'a demands certain things of non-Muslims, one of which, you cannot insult or deprecate the prophet of Islam, or the Sunnah. The consequence for such an infraction is death, by the law.




No one is imposing anything that you speak of, requests have been made which don't have to be met.


I realize that. But I also suspect a desire to impose their culture on us; the very act itself testifies to it.

Let me give you an example from myself. I don't approve of homosexuality mainly for metaphysical reasons. However, since I know the position of the other - that which is not myself - and can see how they can feel as if it is a justifiable act, I accord them the right to do so. Thus, my desire will never actually infringe on their right; I will not go about telling homosexuals "not to" go about. I may not like it, I may find it obnoxious when they kiss in public, but I'll keep shut about it. It's my own personal affair.

This is what democracy requires. If they can't shut their mouth and do what I just described before, that is, recognize the ideological basis of those who defend the right to free speech, and respect that right, then they show that their culture is incompatible with democratic society.

And it also justifies my caution in forewarning those who don't know this that democratic law does not permit them to live in strict obedience to Shari'a law. If you live in a democratic society, democratic law is supreme; Shari'a may govern matters similar to how Halakah works with Orthodox Jews, but the final say is democratic law, based on the constitution and bill of rights.

This is a basic logical fact. Not even to mention the indisputable fact that the Muslim Brotherhood actively works within the US Link, even trying insinuate shari'a law into American court under the rubric of "transnational law" where US courts would make decisions for Muslims plaintiffs based on not US American law, based on the constitution, but under Shari'a law, Islams constitution.

If you don't see a problem with the US court adjudicating according to Islamic thinking, where women can be exploited in divorce cases (which is what shari'a accords the man) etc; and this doesn't even touch on radical shari'a affirmation of honor killings, wife beating, killing those who insult Islam, and it's overall attitude to non-Muslims.




No one is imposing anything that you speak of, requests have been made which don't have to be met.


"I realize that. But I also suspect a desire to impose their culture on us; the very act itself testifies to it."

Like how western troops have had their feet on Middle East soil the last 15years imposing freedom.

Are you the Caliph that Islam has been waiting for, you always speak for all of Islam, how do you know the minds of all these people to be able to speak for them?





new topics
 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join