"The policies of my opponent [Kerry] are dangerous for world peace," [George W.] Bush said. "If they were implemented, they would make this world not more peaceful, but more dangerous."
It's not american-centric per se. It is about the survival of the Western Democratic Tradition more than anything.
A single act of terrorism, however terrible, is not threatening to the survival of the "Western Democratic Tradition".
(The Bush administration's gleeful legislative reaction to that act of terrorism may well be a threat to the survival of democracy in the US, but we'll hope not.)
But the issue is not about a single act of terrorism. It is about a philosophy (Wahabbist Islam) which, like Nazism, and Communism, desires to dominate the entire world, and brooks no other. In that, Huntingdon was right.
Do we have the right to say who's religion is right? Aren't we doing exactly what you're crisisising them of? The western democratic process is not exactly at threat at the moment.....
The reason we got involved in WW2 was that Germany invaded poland, and in the cold war both sides had their faults, but you're not complaining about fundamental christians.
Yes we do, when a religion dictates that unbelievers be killed and that apostates be killed.
Religion is only a set of ideas after all (how very chaos magic), and criticising ideas is a basic human right.
As for fundamentalist christians, oh yes I am. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova for an article I wrote about fundamentalist christians :-)
"when a religion dictates that unbelievers be killed and that apostates be killed."
But Islam doesn't dictate that. As far as religious works go the Koran is on a par with the Bible and the Tora for its temper (as well as inconsistencies). The terrorists may preach they are following Islam but they are not. The one sure way to alienate the peaceful majority is to declare their religion as "evil" and open season on all Arabs. Without stopping the radicalization of the population you'll never solve the terrorist problem as they will always be able to recruit some gullible fool into being the next martyr to the cause.
And pointing out the hypocrisy of the western nations is currently getting easier rather than harder.
"Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/apostasy.htm
Now I would agree with you about the equal bloodthirtsyness of the other monotheist religions. I grew up in a fundamentalist christian family, I have first hand experience of how bad it can be.
But the Hadith are not the word of God, they are a scholars interpretation - there is some latitude there. And you can't jump from a selective quotation of one collection of Hadith to writing off a whole religion. Otherwise you could apply the same logic to any religious group.
I'm not going to defend the Koran (after all I'm an atheist) but I object to the vilification of a whole religion based on the actions of a very small minority of nutters.
I didn't - you'll note I specially referred to Wahabbist Islam. Which only accounts for a few percent of Muslims worldwide at most. There is much in certain aspects of islam to be commended, as indeed in certain parts of Judaism and Christianity.
But the issue is not about a single act of terrorism. It is about a philosophy (Wahabbist Islam) which, like Nazism, and Communism, desires to dominate the entire world, and brooks no other.
Even if you take that as a given, it is truly American-centric to associate Wahhabist Islam with 11-9-2001. The term was derived after a famous scholar Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703 -1792), and has been the official form of Islam in Saudi Arabia since 1924. Further, Wahhabist Islam (or Muwahhidun, as its adherents prefer) has, in and of itself, nothing to do with world domination (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/wahhabi.htm).
In that, Huntingdon was right.
I understand that Samuel P. Huntingdon also argues that Hispanic immigration is undermining the United States.
No, Strict islamist theology, as espoused by the likes of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and other Al-Queda subgroups, splits the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-harb. The Dar al-Islam is all those lands in which a Muslim government rules and the Holy Law of Islam prevails. Non-Muslims may live there on Muslim sufferance, i.e. under the strict restrictions of dhimmitude. The outside world, which has not yet been subjugated, is called the ,I>House of War, and strictly speaking a perpetual state of jihad, of holy war, is imposed by the law. The law also provided that the jihad might be interrupted by truces as and when appropriate.
As for Huntingdon, I have read his book in question "Who Are We" and I disagree with it. The US has always been a melting pot, and I doubt massive hispanic immigration will change that or that we should care even if it does.
But this does not mean his work in Clash of Civilisations is any less correct in that Michael Moore's TV Nation is any less valuable for his subsequent descent into lunacy.
No, Strict islamist theology, as espoused by the likes of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and other Al-Queda subgroups, splits the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, the Dar al-Islam and the Dar al-harb. The Dar al-Islam is all those lands in which a Muslim government rules and the Holy Law of Islam prevails. Non-Muslims may live there on Muslim sufferance, i.e. under the strict restrictions of dhimmitude. The outside world, which has not yet been subjugated, is called the ,I>House of War, and strictly speaking a perpetual state of jihad, of holy war, is imposed by the law. The law also provided that the jihad might be interrupted by truces as and when appropriate.
You know, when you invent lengthy spiels about Muslim theology, if you want to be convincing, you need to show where you got it from. None of this corresponds to what I know about Wahhabist Islam, and certainly not about Islam in general.
Michael Moore versus Samuel P. Huntingdon: Moore does good sound research, makes excellent films, and is very amusing. Huntingdon is a racist nutter who isn't even funny about it. No contest. I suspect that if you knew as much about Islam as you probably do about American Hispanics, you'd find Huntingdon's theories about the one as ludicrous as you find the theories about the other.
None of this corresponds to what I know about Wahhabist Islam, and certainly not about Islam in general.
*sigh*.
From http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Dar%20al-Islam, for example:
"Dar al-Harb (Arabic: house of war) is a term used in many Islamic countries to refer to those areas outside Muslim rule. In some conservative traditions of Islam the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of submission or the house of God, and dar al-Harb, the house of war; the home of the infidels or unbelievers (Arabic: kufr). The terms are usually understood to refer, respectively, to those lands currently administered by Muslim governments and those administered by non-Muslim governments. The exact definitions of these territories can vary widely according to the viewer's concept of who is and is not a Muslim, and which governments are or are not Muslim in practice."
As for Michael Moore, once again, it appears you are taking the form of "don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up".
"Dar al-Harb (Arabic: house of war) is a term used in many Islamic countries to refer to those areas outside Muslim rule. In some conservative traditions of Islam the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of submission or the house of God, and dar al-Harb, the house of war; the home of the infidels or unbelievers (Arabic: kufr). The terms are usually understood to refer, respectively, to those lands currently administered by Muslim governments and those administered by non-Muslim governments. The exact definitions of these territories can vary widely according to the viewer's concept of who is and is not a Muslim, and which governments are or are not Muslim in practice."
I'd be more sympathetic to your perspective if the text you quoted actually appeared in the resource you are citing. Several sentences do, but you've chopped and changed a bit. You also omit the point further down, which explicitly draws a distinction between Al-Qaeda and Wahhabism:
The goal of some aggressive Islamist organizations, such as Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, is to expand the borders of dar al-Islam at the expense of dar al-Harb, and to create a universal Islamic community. According to their philosophy, this is the meaning of the term jihad. Another philosophy that espouses this terminology is the Saudi Wahhabist tradition. However, bin Laden and the Wahabbis differ on the important point of whether jihad may be pronounced and undertaken by individuals, or is a power reserved to the state. Bin Laden takes the former view,[...]
It is unclear about the precise interpretation of Jihad favoured by the Wahhabist viewpoint, which doesn't entirely support your assertion that
Wahabbist Islam [...] like Nazism, and Communism, desires to dominate the entire world, and brooks no other.
Desire to dominate the world is not equal to a willingness to commit aggressive war to acheive that end - which you certainly seem to be implying by mentioning the Nazis.
As for Michael Moore, once again, it appears you are taking the form of "don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up".
<cheap shot>while you, of course, are a paragon of open-minded fairness</cheap shot> Keep it civil, please.
From http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Dar%20al-Islam, for example:[...] I'd be more sympathetic to your perspective if the text you quoted actually appeared in the resource you are citing. Several sentences do, but you've chopped and changed a bit.
I'll retract that, as the exact text you quoted is on a nearby page: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/dar al-Harb. Given how difficult it is to cut-and-paste from that site, it's an easily forgivable error.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 06:53 (UTC)A single act of terrorism, however terrible, is not threatening to the survival of the "Western Democratic Tradition".
(The Bush administration's gleeful legislative reaction to that act of terrorism may well be a threat to the survival of democracy in the US, but we'll hope not.)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 07:04 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 07:23 (UTC)The western democratic process is not exactly at threat at the moment.....
The reason we got involved in WW2 was that Germany invaded poland, and in the cold war both sides had their faults, but you're not complaining about fundamental christians.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 07:42 (UTC)Religion is only a set of ideas after all (how very chaos magic), and criticising ideas is a basic human right.
As for fundamentalist christians, oh yes I am. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova for an article I wrote about fundamentalist christians :-)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 08:42 (UTC)But Islam doesn't dictate that. As far as religious works go the Koran is on a par with the Bible and the Tora for its temper (as well as inconsistencies). The terrorists may preach they are following Islam but they are not. The one sure way to alienate the peaceful majority is to declare their religion as "evil" and open season on all Arabs. Without stopping the radicalization of the population you'll never solve the terrorist problem as they will always be able to recruit some gullible fool into being the next martyr to the cause.
And pointing out the hypocrisy of the western nations is currently getting easier rather than harder.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 09:25 (UTC)The Hadith do:
Bukhari, volume 9, #17
"Narrated Abdullah: Allah's Messenger said, "The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Messenger, cannot be shed except in three cases: in Qisas (equality in punishment) for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (Apostate) and leaves the Muslims."
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/apostasy.htm
Now I would agree with you about the equal bloodthirtsyness of the other monotheist religions. I grew up in a fundamentalist christian family, I have first hand experience of how bad it can be.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 09:51 (UTC)I'm not going to defend the Koran (after all I'm an atheist) but I object to the vilification of a whole religion based on the actions of a very small minority of nutters.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 09:55 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 11:03 (UTC)...and which you appear to be extremely ignorant about.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 12:24 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 07:40 (UTC)Even if you take that as a given, it is truly American-centric to associate Wahhabist Islam with 11-9-2001. The term was derived after a famous scholar Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703 -1792), and has been the official form of Islam in Saudi Arabia since 1924. Further, Wahhabist Islam (or Muwahhidun, as its adherents prefer) has, in and of itself, nothing to do with world domination (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/wahhabi.htm).
In that, Huntingdon was right.
I understand that Samuel P. Huntingdon also argues that Hispanic immigration is undermining the United States.
I wouldn't give him any credence, if I were you.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 09:40 (UTC)As for Huntingdon, I have read his book in question "Who Are We" and I disagree with it. The US has always been a melting pot, and I doubt massive hispanic immigration will change that or that we should care even if it does.
But this does not mean his work in Clash of Civilisations is any less correct in that Michael Moore's TV Nation is any less valuable for his subsequent descent into lunacy.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 10:47 (UTC)You know, when you invent lengthy spiels about Muslim theology, if you want to be convincing, you need to show where you got it from. None of this corresponds to what I know about Wahhabist Islam, and certainly not about Islam in general.
Michael Moore versus Samuel P. Huntingdon: Moore does good sound research, makes excellent films, and is very amusing. Huntingdon is a racist nutter who isn't even funny about it. No contest. I suspect that if you knew as much about Islam as you probably do about American Hispanics, you'd find Huntingdon's theories about the one as ludicrous as you find the theories about the other.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 12:23 (UTC)*sigh*.
From http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Dar%20al-Islam, for example:
"Dar al-Harb (Arabic: house of war) is a term used in many Islamic countries to refer to those areas outside Muslim rule. In some conservative traditions of Islam the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of submission or the house of God, and dar al-Harb, the house of war; the home of the infidels or unbelievers (Arabic: kufr). The terms are usually understood to refer, respectively, to those lands currently administered by Muslim governments and those administered by non-Muslim governments. The exact definitions of these territories can vary widely according to the viewer's concept of who is and is not a Muslim, and which governments are or are not Muslim in practice."
As for Michael Moore, once again, it appears you are taking the form of "don't bother me with the facts my mind is made up".
no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 14:28 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-05 16:07 (UTC)