| Author |
Message |
Andre Jute
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:21 am Post subject:
Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A modes |
|
|
Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A modest proposal.
***
In the thread "CURSE OSAMA" I listed some facts about Islam which
lead to the inescapable conclusion that it is a religion of conquest,
force, subjugation, deceit, and oppression, and a clear and present
danger to its own believers and everyone else. The discussion of these
facts has been of an abysmally low standard, with fewer than a handful
of exceptions who spent most of their time correcting the wishful
misconceptions of uneducated and ineducable idiots.
Only one Muslim took part, and then indirectly. Soul of MusicIsLove.com
quoted an anonymous letter from a presumably moderate Muslim, who poor
Soul believes refutes my points. In fact the *anonymous moderate
Muslim*, through a fog of politically correct smog and the usual ritual
abuse, is forced to agree with me in every single fact and conclusion,
as I demonstrate in my reply to him in the thread "CURSE OSAMA".
This *anonymous moderate Muslim* claims that moderate Muslims - he
understandably doesn't say how many or where they are hiding out -
want to "read the Qur'an and the Sunnah in their own ways", that is
ways abhorrent to Muslim tradition, practice and law, because Islam is
unique among major religions in that the interpretation of its holy
texts is officially closed. Mr Soul's *anonymous moderate Muslim*
buddy is presumably anonymous because he knows the barbarian penalties
for heresy and apostasy prescribed by Sharia Law.
That is why we don't find too many Muslims standing up and publicly
condemning terrorist bombers, or the lack of human rights and the
barbaric punishments in Muslim lands under Sharia Law. They fancy
staying alive. Who can blame them?
Islam has in common with Communism that it abhors discussion of either
its philosophy or its methods. Lenin, for instance, hated
"reformists" above all other non-nash (the communist equivalent of
Islam's unclean unbelievers). In that Lenin and the mullahs are as
one. For the communists, reformists stood in the way of world
revolution by force, for the Islamists, reformists stand in the way of
world conversion to Allah's service by force. Not much of a
difference, as Bertrand Russell was the first to point out. Force is
force; it is the religiously sanctioned adherence to force that makes
Islam the religious equivalent of Nazism.
But let's not be negative. Let us help these *moderate Muslims*
reinterpret their faith so that it is no longer a religion with world
conquest as its strategy, fear as its tactic, and terrorist murder of
innocents as its tool. Let's be nice to *moderate Muslims*, because
they won't be long with us before their co-religionists, who have
political assassination available as another religiously sanctioned
tool, murder them.
So, doing my bit for world peace and love, in the hope that I won't
be forced for penance to join the superannuated hippies at
MusicIsLove.com...
Hey, Mr Anonymous *Moderate* Muslim, I am delighted to suggest one way
you can "read the Qur'an and the Sunnah" that will make Islam less of a
danger to world peace and more acceptable to those who believe in
liberty and human rights. You will find that Jesus is one of Islam's
minor prophets. An effective bit of revisionism would be simply to
reorder the importance of Jesus in Islam, and shortly, at the cost of
only a little emphasis-shifting, you will have a religion of love and
goodwill, rather than one of paranoia and threat and force and
nastiness as you now have in Islam.
Simple, straighforward, effective. I'll send a bill for
image-consulting services.
Oh, by the way, if you succeed and survive, welcome to Christianity.
Andre Jute
Skeptic
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zootwoman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:56 am Post subject:
Re: Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A m |
|
|
Dude, George Bush abores discussion about what he does and he and his
friends at the Carlyle Group fully intend to take over the world but
first he and the Chinese are gonna try to buy it while stepping on
everyone.
Global Corps. have much more fire power than any islamic group. You're
team is one empowering Osama with all this jahid power by turning what
should have been a demand for justice into a global fight agaisnt all
islam. After 911 we hand the sympathy of the entire world, after the
invasion of Iraq we lost all credibity and like the Hulk, the more you
bea up radical Islam, the stronger you make it. The same thing happened
in communists States, the more the Christian martyrs or Islamic martyrs
they made, the stronger each respective religion became. The fastest
way to make a religion grow is to persecute it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe mama
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:46 am Post subject:
Re: Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A m |
|
|
"Andre Jute" <fiultra@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126822916.356776.295610@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion?
|
Can the judeo/christian?
Pat Robertson doesn't annoy you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
west
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:46 am Post subject:
Re: Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A m |
|
|
Mr. Jute,
Your post is interesting, but what in the !#$%! does it have to do with
cathode biasing? Please take, for the sake of everyone, unless of course you
hold every Rodent in utter contempt, to some appropriate news group.
west
"Andre Jute" <fiultra@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126822916.356776.295610@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A modest proposal.
***
In the thread "CURSE OSAMA" I listed some facts about Islam which
lead to the inescapable conclusion that it is a religion of conquest,
force, subjugation, deceit, and oppression, and a clear and present
danger to its own believers and everyone else. The discussion of these
facts has been of an abysmally low standard, with fewer than a handful
of exceptions who spent most of their time correcting the wishful
misconceptions of uneducated and ineducable idiots.
Only one Muslim took part, and then indirectly. Soul of MusicIsLove.com
quoted an anonymous letter from a presumably moderate Muslim, who poor
Soul believes refutes my points. In fact the *anonymous moderate
Muslim*, through a fog of politically correct smog and the usual ritual
abuse, is forced to agree with me in every single fact and conclusion,
as I demonstrate in my reply to him in the thread "CURSE OSAMA".
This *anonymous moderate Muslim* claims that moderate Muslims - he
understandably doesn't say how many or where they are hiding out -
want to "read the Qur'an and the Sunnah in their own ways", that is
ways abhorrent to Muslim tradition, practice and law, because Islam is
unique among major religions in that the interpretation of its holy
texts is officially closed. Mr Soul's *anonymous moderate Muslim*
buddy is presumably anonymous because he knows the barbarian penalties
for heresy and apostasy prescribed by Sharia Law.
That is why we don't find too many Muslims standing up and publicly
condemning terrorist bombers, or the lack of human rights and the
barbaric punishments in Muslim lands under Sharia Law. They fancy
staying alive. Who can blame them?
Islam has in common with Communism that it abhors discussion of either
its philosophy or its methods. Lenin, for instance, hated
"reformists" above all other non-nash (the communist equivalent of
Islam's unclean unbelievers). In that Lenin and the mullahs are as
one. For the communists, reformists stood in the way of world
revolution by force, for the Islamists, reformists stand in the way of
world conversion to Allah's service by force. Not much of a
difference, as Bertrand Russell was the first to point out. Force is
force; it is the religiously sanctioned adherence to force that makes
Islam the religious equivalent of Nazism.
But let's not be negative. Let us help these *moderate Muslims*
reinterpret their faith so that it is no longer a religion with world
conquest as its strategy, fear as its tactic, and terrorist murder of
innocents as its tool. Let's be nice to *moderate Muslims*, because
they won't be long with us before their co-religionists, who have
political assassination available as another religiously sanctioned
tool, murder them.
So, doing my bit for world peace and love, in the hope that I won't
be forced for penance to join the superannuated hippies at
MusicIsLove.com...
Hey, Mr Anonymous *Moderate* Muslim, I am delighted to suggest one way
you can "read the Qur'an and the Sunnah" that will make Islam less of a
danger to world peace and more acceptable to those who believe in
liberty and human rights. You will find that Jesus is one of Islam's
minor prophets. An effective bit of revisionism would be simply to
reorder the importance of Jesus in Islam, and shortly, at the cost of
only a little emphasis-shifting, you will have a religion of love and
goodwill, rather than one of paranoia and threat and force and
nastiness as you now have in Islam.
Simple, straighforward, effective. I'll send a bill for
image-consulting services.
Oh, by the way, if you succeed and survive, welcome to Christianity.
Andre Jute
Skeptic
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adam Stouffer
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:46 am Post subject:
Re: Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A m |
|
|
joe mama wrote:
| Quote: | "Andre Jute" <fiultra@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Can the judeo/christian?
Pat Robertson doesn't annoy you?
|
Yeah but he is 100% talk. When he makes kids strap bombs to themselves
and explode in public markets then I'll start to worry.
One of the israeli leaders brought up a good point during an interview.
He said the number of people in israel is 7 million. One million of them
muslims who live and work there. How many jews live in Iran or
Palestine? Probably none, and if they were who would admit it?
Adam |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:46 am Post subject:
Re: Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A m |
|
|
In article <HEqWe.13543$c27.3362@trndny01>, adam_stouffer@hotmail.com says...
| Quote: |
joe mama wrote:
"Andre Jute" <fiultra@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Can the judeo/christian?
Pat Robertson doesn't annoy you?
Yeah but he is 100% talk. When he makes kids strap bombs to themselves
and explode in public markets then I'll start to worry.
One of the israeli leaders brought up a good point during an interview.
He said the number of people in israel is 7 million. One million of them
muslims who live and work there. How many jews live in Iran or
Palestine? Probably none, and if they were who would admit it?
Adam
|
Ever hear of Eric Rudolph? (not directly due to Pat, I know)
2003 11,000 jews in Iran
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html
The Jews in Gaza just left, there are 246,000 in the west bank.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4188216.stm
No one expects the Spanish Inquistion! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Turner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 1:08 pm Post subject:
Re: Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A m |
|
|
west wrote:
| Quote: | Mr. Jute,
Your post is interesting, but what in the !#$%! does it have to do with
cathode biasing? Please take, for the sake of everyone, unless of course you
hold every Rodent in utter contempt, to some appropriate news group.
west
|
Is it not late summer in the northern hemisphere where people have tired of
soldering
their way towards better music?
Do we not have to wait for the cooler times before ppl
retreat indoors and to their house bound hobbies?
Apart from a couple of posts about a 12AU7 and other minor issues,
the World Wide Web newsgroup about tubes has just about ground to a halt.
6 billion ppl out there and hardly anyone wants to talk about cathode biasing,
so the OT chit chat have become centre stage distractions.
If there were 100 posts about other tube related issues,
then nobody would have much noticed LV's initial post about Osama.
I was talking to an old engineer whose turntable I repaired last week
and he reckoned the World Operation Workshop Manual I had also mentioned to him
was the Bible, to which I said, yeah, but some folks would say it was the Koran.
He'd spent a long time in India where he said the muslims in the sth of India
were peaceful moderates having converted to islam by conviction from the
visiting
arab traders, wheras the nothern muslims were muslim by force, as are all
Pakistanis.
Then he had spent 20 years in Indonesia, where moderacy is the way, since
Islam had also come by way of the trader, not the warrior.
If you wish to sell something, you don't point a sword at the customer
over religious issues.
Yesterday another muslim bomber of the Australian Embassy got given the death
sentance.
Indonesia, an officially moslem nation, does not like damned extremists.
They only mean one thing, trouble.
Indonesia is not fond of any criminals.
There is a girl from Oz who was caught in Bali with two tiny little ecstacy
pills and she faces
a jail term of 15 years.
It sends a message to tourists, don't come to Bali if you want to
take drugs like you do in Oz.
So many will stay away.
In many parts of the world, moderate muslim and christian have got on well
for hundreds of years.
My engineer customer said he witnessed all this during his 20 years in
Indonesia,
formerly a Dutch colony, and the dutch were christians.
Plenty of chinese in Indonesia too, rather a complex brew of ppl.
But now we have a "new breed" of muslim who wants everything to be run rather
more
fundementally, and who are prepared to bomb their way towards achieving they
aims.
Sure there is a rising number of fundos everywhere; its a product of greater
communication in our species, more message is out there to be heard,
so more people are attracted to the message.
So we get more born again christians be-moaning what a terrible society we have,
and trying to remove democratic hard won rights, and more muslim bombers
saying the same thing, but prepared to die about it all.
Technology makes it all easier to be connected to the latest message,
and to make the latest type of bomb.
Anyway, Rome finally quit killing christians, and addopted it as the State
Religion,
and it looked like the line of Roman Emperors became the Popes....
How many bloody wars were fought in the name of Christ?
What would Christ have said on 1,001 occasions during the last 2,005 years
about what christians have done to other christians and people of other faiths?
Religion and blood letting have been convenient allies in much human activity.
Religion says you mustn't kill, but all this shit happens in the name of
God, Allah, whoever, whatever.....
I have no intention of regular attendance at a mosque, church or synagogue.
Somehow i don't seem to have needed a priest, rabbi, or omam to ran some BS down
my neck telling me
what i must and must not do, lest i fall into the Pit when i die.
Osama cannot live forever, and like so many zealots, someone with strong
objection
to his advocations will succeed in applying a limit, and hopefully this will be
in a trial
in a fair court where the whole world can see justice to be done,
therefore underpining our convictions about our own righteousness,
regardless of what faith we may be.
Even Christ was apprehended, and nailed to a cross.....
Shit surely happens.
Meanwhile I don't believe I have much to worry about with
the muslims. Road accidents, being mugged by a fellow Oz "christian"
getting prostate cancer, whatever, all pose a far greater threat to me
than some muslim goon with a bomb.
The politicians have to be seen to be doing something.
So laws relating to sedition and terrorism have been revised
so thus limiting what may be said in public.
And if you are whisked away by the secret police late one evening
then don't expect this ever to become widely known; the laws here now
restrict any public knowledge to be gained about such events.
The media have to be seen to be gainfully earning their wages,
so they keep the stream of BS....
The Army must be seen to be active, and not wasting taxes we pay them so we send
them off
someplace for training in the Real World, which is getting more unreal and
uncool each day.
I have removed the cross posting in the address line.
But I am not cross with any of you.
Patrick Turner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ndugu
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 3:06 pm Post subject:
Re: Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A m |
|
|
hey IDIOT
Islam is no more a terrorist religion than Christianity is
judging Islam on the basis of a few wackos out of 2 billion peaceful
Muslims, is like judging Christianity on the basis of the KKK
besides, Muslims killing 3000 is nothing compared to the 100,000+ Iraqis
that Christian Bush has killed, so which is the "real" terrorist religion?
Hmmm?
you see, fanaticism, extremism, fundamentalism, evangelicals, etc. are very
dangerous, regardless of the religion
your terrorist is my freedom-fighter
you know what the British called the American colonists? Insurgents!
"Andre Jute" <fiultra@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126822916.356776.295610@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A modest proposal.
***
In the thread "CURSE OSAMA" I listed some facts about Islam which
lead to the inescapable conclusion that it is a religion of conquest,
force, subjugation, deceit, and oppression, and a clear and present
danger to its own believers and everyone else. The discussion of these
facts has been of an abysmally low standard, with fewer than a handful
of exceptions who spent most of their time correcting the wishful
misconceptions of uneducated and ineducable idiots.
Only one Muslim took part, and then indirectly. Soul of MusicIsLove.com
quoted an anonymous letter from a presumably moderate Muslim, who poor
Soul believes refutes my points. In fact the *anonymous moderate
Muslim*, through a fog of politically correct smog and the usual ritual
abuse, is forced to agree with me in every single fact and conclusion,
as I demonstrate in my reply to him in the thread "CURSE OSAMA".
This *anonymous moderate Muslim* claims that moderate Muslims - he
understandably doesn't say how many or where they are hiding out -
want to "read the Qur'an and the Sunnah in their own ways", that is
ways abhorrent to Muslim tradition, practice and law, because Islam is
unique among major religions in that the interpretation of its holy
texts is officially closed. Mr Soul's *anonymous moderate Muslim*
buddy is presumably anonymous because he knows the barbarian penalties
for heresy and apostasy prescribed by Sharia Law.
That is why we don't find too many Muslims standing up and publicly
condemning terrorist bombers, or the lack of human rights and the
barbaric punishments in Muslim lands under Sharia Law. They fancy
staying alive. Who can blame them?
Islam has in common with Communism that it abhors discussion of either
its philosophy or its methods. Lenin, for instance, hated
"reformists" above all other non-nash (the communist equivalent of
Islam's unclean unbelievers). In that Lenin and the mullahs are as
one. For the communists, reformists stood in the way of world
revolution by force, for the Islamists, reformists stand in the way of
world conversion to Allah's service by force. Not much of a
difference, as Bertrand Russell was the first to point out. Force is
force; it is the religiously sanctioned adherence to force that makes
Islam the religious equivalent of Nazism.
But let's not be negative. Let us help these *moderate Muslims*
reinterpret their faith so that it is no longer a religion with world
conquest as its strategy, fear as its tactic, and terrorist murder of
innocents as its tool. Let's be nice to *moderate Muslims*, because
they won't be long with us before their co-religionists, who have
political assassination available as another religiously sanctioned
tool, murder them.
So, doing my bit for world peace and love, in the hope that I won't
be forced for penance to join the superannuated hippies at
MusicIsLove.com...
Hey, Mr Anonymous *Moderate* Muslim, I am delighted to suggest one way
you can "read the Qur'an and the Sunnah" that will make Islam less of a
danger to world peace and more acceptable to those who believe in
liberty and human rights. You will find that Jesus is one of Islam's
minor prophets. An effective bit of revisionism would be simply to
reorder the importance of Jesus in Islam, and shortly, at the cost of
only a little emphasis-shifting, you will have a religion of love and
goodwill, rather than one of paranoia and threat and force and
nastiness as you now have in Islam.
Simple, straighforward, effective. I'll send a bill for
image-consulting services.
Oh, by the way, if you succeed and survive, welcome to Christianity.
Andre Jute
Skeptic
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Turner
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 4:48 pm Post subject:
Re: Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A m |
|
|
ndugu wrote:
| Quote: | your terrorist is my freedom-fighter
you know what the British called the American colonists? Insurgents!
|
After nearly 20 years of battles on a grand scale, Australia looked supreme on
the cricket field,
Then those damned poms won!!!
Bloody insurgents.
Tea and scones were passed around and it was all a jolly good show old boy....
Osama should learn to play cricket.
End of all our concerns.
Patrick Turner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:26 pm Post subject:
Re: Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A m |
|
|
Andre Jute wrote:
| Quote: | Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A modest proposal.
***
|
(snip)....
I agree, and have taken the liberty of cross-posting your original post
to the alt.religion islam newsgroup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flipper
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:33 pm Post subject:
Re: Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A m |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:06:19 -0400, "ndugu" <party@mypants.com> wrote:
| Quote: | hey IDIOT
Islam is no more a terrorist religion than Christianity is
judging Islam on the basis of a few wackos out of 2 billion peaceful
Muslims, is like judging Christianity on the basis of the KKK
besides, Muslims killing 3000 is nothing
compared to the 100,000+ Iraqis
|
A fabricated number of no meaning, not to mention the attempted false
equivalency and morally vapid suggestion that a death of any sort
justifies murder.
| Quote: | that Christian Bush has killed, so which is the "real" terrorist religion?
Hmmm?
you see, fanaticism, extremism, fundamentalism, evangelicals, etc. are very
dangerous, regardless of the religion
|
There is nothing about fundamentalism and evangelical that, in and of
itself, leads to violent fanaticism, extremism.
| Quote: | your terrorist is my freedom-fighter
|
It is a grand falsehood that 'terrorist' is simply a name for 'the
other side'.
It is difficult to make a short, precise, definition which,
unfortunately, leads to whackos inventing B.S. like that above but one
of the characteristics of terrorism is the intentional and deliberate
killing of civilians/non combatants as the primary, sometimes sole,
means of, uh, 'persuasion'. It is not "collateral" or accidental nor
'unfortunate' or regrettable and the perpetrator does not agonize over
the moral implications.
It's bad enough that wars take place but civilization itself couldn't
exist if every disgruntled person went around murdering just whoever
happened to be convenient when things didn't go their way. Hey, I
didn't like the outcome of the last election so I think I'll kill you
in protest. Bring along your friends too. The more the merrier.
You really want to defend that?
| Quote: | you know what the British called the American colonists? Insurgents!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ian Iveson
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:32 pm Post subject:
Re: Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A m |
|
|
"ndugu" wrote
With you so far...
| Quote: | Islam is no more a terrorist religion than Christianity is
|
Fair enough...
| Quote: | judging Islam on the basis of a few wackos out of 2 billion
peaceful Muslims, is like judging Christianity on the basis of the
KKK
|
Right...
| Quote: | besides, Muslims killing 3000 is nothing compared to the 100,000+
Iraqis that Christian Bush has killed, so which is the "real"
terrorist religion? Hmmm?
|
Whoa! Neither, by your own logic, threatened by insurgent
cleverness.
| Quote: | you see, fanaticism, extremism, fundamentalism, evangelicals, etc.
are very dangerous, regardless of the religion
|
Now your drifting. Shia are fundamentally fanatical evangelical
extremists but most are not dangerous. They beat themselves with
sticks in public.
| Quote: | your terrorist is my freedom-fighter
|
A flawed premise worn ludicrously thin. A workable definition of
terrorism is a problem for politicians, granted, but otherwise it's
simple. Targeting civilians for the purpose of using terror to
bring about political change. Hence freedom-fighters can be
terrorists, depending on their tactics. What happened to guerrillas?
Seems this word is being studiously avoided, so its concept can be
deliberately confused with terrorists. The obvious problem is that
America and the poodle states have for many years been routinely
engaged in terrorism, by any sensible definition. Dresden, Nagasaki,
Cambodia, Belgrade and Baghdad are just a few examples.
| Quote: | you know what the British called the American colonists?
Insurgents!
|
Well, I tend to expect insurgents to surge in somehow. The plot is
to blame Syria and possibly Iran (raising the ugly prospect of
nuclear-terrorist-insurgent-Islam, eek), and deny that Iraqis
themselves are upset.
Syria has been for many years been a force for peace and reason, and
to my mind has seldom put a foot wrong, like Al Fatah as
epitomised by the likes of Hannah Ashrawi. The Syrian ambassador to
the UK in a recent interview made the point that, whereas Syria has
large forces guarding its border with Iraq, in order to prevent
insurgency and protect itself from getting dragged in to the
conflict, neither Iraq nor its occupying armies have any border
patrols at all. They just blow up a border town every once in a
while, for publicity purposes it seems. How terrorist is that?
As for the original post, it is true that some aspects of Islam are
revolutionary, as is Communism. Fundamental Islam is revolutionary
because it is anti-capitalist. Capitalism cannot be reformed into
either Communism or fundamental Islam because there is a chasm that
requires a big leap. However, the UK leads the world in the
provision of Islamic banking, demonstrating that it works, and that
it is radically different, but also that it can, where there is a
will, co-exist.
Whereas Communism looks forward to the future of Capitalism,
fundamental Islam looks back to Feudalism. In this respect there is
some
similarity with the Irish problem, where an agricultural and
catholic south faced an industrial and protestant north. One shared
feature is that those fighting for the past can easily believe that
merely destroying the present is a legitimate strategy.
Highlighting the role of Jesus will get Islam only as far as early
Catholicism, which is not nearly far enough, as that too is a feudal
religion. Luther and Calvin came much, much later, so it's at least
two revolutions away.
Fortunately we can assume that Islam has its own route to
enlightenment. Certainly if you should visit an active mosque and
listen for long enough, you will find tumultuous debate, from which
anyone who gathers a following is allowed a platform to speak in
public. This rather different form of democracy maintains a fluidity
that should ensure rapid progress, if such is possible.
AFAIK no Islamic state makes valves. It's the anti-industrial aspect
we should be taking issue with. Then we would have common cause with
a broad swathe of modern Muslims.
All this is a diversion anyway. The real threat is China.
cheers, Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
west
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:02 pm Post subject:
Re: Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A m |
|
|
<Chief_Billy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126873577.520829.151070@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
Andre Jute wrote:
Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A modest proposal.
***
(snip)....
I agree, and have taken the liberty of cross-posting your original post
to the alt.religion islam newsgroup.
|
GULP! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andy Cowley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 16, 2005 7:46 pm Post subject:
Re: Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A m |
|
|
flipper wrote:
| Quote: | On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:06:19 -0400, "ndugu" <party@mypants.com> wrote:
hey IDIOT
Islam is no more a terrorist religion than Christianity is
judging Islam on the basis of a few wackos out of 2 billion peaceful
Muslims, is like judging Christianity on the basis of the KKK
besides, Muslims killing 3000 is nothing
compared to the 100,000+ Iraqis
A fabricated number of no meaning, not to mention the attempted false
equivalency and morally vapid suggestion that a death of any sort
justifies murder.
|
Or that any number of Muslims killed can possibly be as important
as one dead American?
| Quote: |
that Christian Bush has killed, so which is the "real" terrorist religion?
Hmmm?
you see, fanaticism, extremism, fundamentalism, evangelicals, etc. are very
dangerous, regardless of the religion
There is nothing about fundamentalism and evangelical that, in and of
itself, leads to violent fanaticism, extremism.
|
Oh yes there is. The unshakeable belief that they are right and chosen by
god is the basis of all the fanaticism.
| Quote: |
your terrorist is my freedom-fighter
It is a grand falsehood that 'terrorist' is simply a name for 'the
other side'.
It is difficult to make a short, precise, definition which,
unfortunately, leads to whackos inventing B.S. like that above but one
of the characteristics of terrorism is the intentional and deliberate
killing of civilians/non combatants as the primary, sometimes sole,
means of, uh, 'persuasion'. It is not "collateral" or accidental nor
'unfortunate' or regrettable and the perpetrator does not agonize over
the moral implications.
|
So the bombers in Iraq who are killing US troops and Iraqi security forces
are freedom fighters and not terrorists? Perhaps you could tell your government?
| Quote: |
It's bad enough that wars take place but civilization itself couldn't
exist if every disgruntled person went around murdering just whoever
happened to be convenient when things didn't go their way. Hey, I
didn't like the outcome of the last election so I think I'll kill you
in protest. Bring along your friends too. The more the merrier.
The key phrase above is 'the last election'. Terrorists by and large |
come from areas where there has never been a democratic election, so
your comparison is crap. No amount of American wishful thinking can
change a semi feudal dictatorship into a free democracy overnight.
That will take decades.
Your definitions are wacky. How about the Jewish terrorists that
killed innocent Brits in Palestine, then turned out to be respectable
world leaders and US allies? Was Menahim Begin a terrorist or a freedom
fighter?
The real definition of 'terrorist' is anyone who uses violence to oppose
American Imperial ambitions. A 'freedom fighter' is anyone who uses violence
to oppose the opponents of the US government.
America has so much innocent blood on its hands from South and Central America
and the Middle East that any claim to moral rectitude is so laughable as to be
ridiculous. Just explain how America's blatant interference with democratically
elected government in Venezuela has any morality at all. You can bluster all you
like but the people of the rest of the world can see the US government as the
greedy, selfish, immoral entity that it undoubtedly is. We can only hope that
Louisiana will wake their people up enough for them to put a stop to it.
Currently America is run by and for the interests of the energy cartels.
best
Andy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flipper
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:45 am Post subject:
Re: Can Islam be reformed into a non-terrorist religion? A m |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:46:46 GMT, Andy Cowley <andy.cowley@uwe.ac.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: | flipper wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005 06:06:19 -0400, "ndugu" <party@mypants.com> wrote:
hey IDIOT
Islam is no more a terrorist religion than Christianity is
judging Islam on the basis of a few wackos out of 2 billion peaceful
Muslims, is like judging Christianity on the basis of the KKK
besides, Muslims killing 3000 is nothing
compared to the 100,000+ Iraqis
A fabricated number of no meaning, not to mention the attempted false
equivalency and morally vapid suggestion that a death of any sort
justifies murder.
Or that any number of Muslims killed can possibly be as important
as one dead American?
that Christian Bush has killed, so which is the "real" terrorist religion?
Hmmm?
you see, fanaticism, extremism, fundamentalism, evangelicals, etc. are very
dangerous, regardless of the religion
There is nothing about fundamentalism and evangelical that, in and of
itself, leads to violent fanaticism, extremism.
Oh yes there is.
|
No, there isn't.
| Quote: | The unshakeable belief that they are right and chosen by
god is the basis of all the fanaticism.
|
That may, or may not, be a basis of some fanaticism but it is
certainly not a 'requirement as the mass murders of various communist
regimes attest.
One can become violently 'fanatic' about lots of things and religion
is but one of them.
Second, simply believing one's religion is the 'correct' one does not
necessarily lead to violence nor imposition of it upon others. It can,
for example, lead to an 'extremism', of a sort, in precisely the
opposite direction where the 'true believers' ostracize themselves
from society rather than be 'contaminated' by it.
But the vast majority of the time it is simply a matter of "I'm right,
you're wrong, you're problem." and that's that.
| Quote: | your terrorist is my freedom-fighter
It is a grand falsehood that 'terrorist' is simply a name for 'the
other side'.
It is difficult to make a short, precise, definition which,
unfortunately, leads to whackos inventing B.S. like that above but one
of the characteristics of terrorism is the intentional and deliberate
killing of civilians/non combatants as the primary, sometimes sole,
means of, uh, 'persuasion'. It is not "collateral" or accidental nor
'unfortunate' or regrettable and the perpetrator does not agonize over
the moral implications.
So the bombers in Iraq who are killing US troops and Iraqi security forces
are freedom fighters and not terrorists? Perhaps you could tell your government?
|
You're argument would have at least a chance of getting started if
the, so called, 'insurgents' were, in fact, solely targeting U.S.
forces. Targeting the local security forces reduces the argument and
the fact that they overwhelmingly target civilians destroys it.
And that's before we get to minor things like what they're fighting
'for' and your argument suggest's you consider a WWII German Gestapo
unit defending a concentration camp just as 'moral' as Allied forces
fighting to free it because they're shooting at 'military targets'.
| Quote: | It's bad enough that wars take place but civilization itself couldn't
exist if every disgruntled person went around murdering just whoever
happened to be convenient when things didn't go their way. Hey, I
didn't like the outcome of the last election so I think I'll kill you
in protest. Bring along your friends too. The more the merrier.
The key phrase above is 'the last election'.
|
Actually, no it isn't. It was simply an example and completely
superfluous to the point. It could just as easily have been
dissatisfaction with the price of eggs.
| Quote: | Terrorists by and large
come from areas where there has never been a democratic election, so
your comparison is crap.
|
In the first place, it wasn't a 'comparison' but your argument is,
again, seriously flawed as flying planes into the World Trade Center
is not a means to affect Afghan politics (only picked since that's
where Bin Laden was hole up at the time) nor is it a proper means to
reform Saudi Arabia, his home land.
And it's just as absurd to think that Zarkowi is fighting for his home
land because he ain't in it.
Unless you want to argue that they believe the entire world should be
ruled by Islamic Fascism, so 'everywhere' is 'their land', in which
case you have a true international struggle between Islamic Fascism vs
Democracy akin to the struggle between Nazism and Democracy.
If you continue your own line of logic you're going to argue yourself
into Bush's position.
| Quote: | No amount of American wishful thinking can
change a semi feudal dictatorship into a free democracy overnight.
|
Beside you apparently picking "feudal" simply for the sound of the
word and in disregard for the meaning, no one said it would be an
'overnight' exercise.
| Quote: | That will take decades.
|
If you say so.
What's the point? That 'good' is defined by how little effort it
takes? That's an argument of convenience, not morality.
| Quote: | Your definitions are wacky.
|
They only seem 'wacky' to those who wish to obfuscate by erasing the
meaning to things.
| Quote: | How about the Jewish terrorists that
killed innocent Brits in Palestine, then turned out to be respectable
world leaders and US allies? Was Menahim Begin a terrorist or a freedom
fighter?
|
Besides the obvious fallacy of attempting to condemn 'everyone' in a
'movement' if anyone behaves badly, lets investigate the Israeli brand
of so called 'terrorism' and the King David Hotel bombing is a famous
example that, on the surface, would seem to suit your
'interpretation'.
On July 22, 1946 the King David Hotel suffered an explosion killing
91 people, most of them civilians. The bomb was planted by the Jewish
Irgun.
Simple enough, wouldn't you say?
Now for the rest.
British forces had made the King David Hotel their command center.
Prior to the attack. British forces had forcibly raided the Jewish
Agency (est. 1923, before the British Mandate) and confiscated large
quantities of sensitive documents. Those documents were then taken
back to and secured at British headquarters in the King David Hotel.
So, at the very least, you have an attack precipitated by the actions
of British forces, an attack on those military forces at their
military base, and for the purpose of destroying the confiscated
documents.
Now, for the really interesting part, a warning message was delivered
to the telephone operator of the King David Hotel before the attack,
and also delivered to the French consulate and the Palestine Post
newspaper. British authorities failed to evacuate the Hotel ostensibly
declaring that "We don't take orders from the Jews."
So what on the surface appears to be a simple act of terrorism turns
out to be an attack taken in response to military action, on a
military target, and with warning given to evacuate the premises so
that civilian lives, not to mention even the military lives, would not
be taken.
This hardly fits the terrorist pattern of Bin Laden, Zarkowi, or any
of the rest, whose purpose is to specifically kill civilians, not give
them warning to avoid it.
And then, to demonstrate the fallacy of you accusing 'everyone', the
Jewish leadership publicly condemned the attack.
The point here isn't to justify the existence of Israel or any of
those past events but to show that willy nilly throwing words around
simply because you don't like the other party, so let's toss out every
'bad word' we can think of, is simple minded nonsense.
| Quote: | The real definition of 'terrorist' is anyone who uses violence to oppose
American Imperial ambitions. A 'freedom fighter' is anyone who uses violence
to oppose the opponents of the US government.
|
You've done a good job of demonstrating the kind of obfuscation I just
described up above. For example, "freedom" has a meaning and fighting
for dictatorial rule is not 'fighting for freedom' no matter how many
times you scream it.
If you want to argue that Fascism is 'the way things should be' then
so be it but you'd be a 'Fascist Fighter', not a "freedom fighter."
| Quote: | America has so much innocent blood on its hands from South and Central America
and the Middle East that any claim to moral rectitude is so laughable as to be
ridiculous. Just explain how America's blatant interference with democratically
elected government in Venezuela has any morality at all. You can bluster all you
like but the people of the rest of the world can see the US government as the
greedy, selfish, immoral entity that it undoubtedly is. We can only hope that
Louisiana will wake their people up enough for them to put a stop to it.
Currently America is run by and for the interests of the energy cartels.
|
It would take a book to deal with just half the lunacy of all that
simple minded bundle of false equivalencies, misuse of words,
distortion of history and ad homimems, not to mention the pure
absurdity of tossing a hurricane into the mix, and I'm not inclined to
write a book.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in