Islamic doctrine of "Hijra" - immigration as a weapon for islamic expansionism?

I don't know why I'm doing this, but:

Radicals are radicals. I don't concern or consider anything they do to be valid or sane. People who want to blow others up? Insane. People who want to burn holy books? Insane. People who make political statements by blowing up buildings? Insane. They are not the normal. They are radical by nature and by nature. What they do is of no consequence in how I evaluate the religion/practice/stance they espouse.

My guess is that these people have no effect on the sane elements in their corresponding religion (just saying religion for ease, but this can apply politically or ethically, too -- any stance on any issue, really). Of course I have no evidence to support my theory, but I feel crazy people are born crazy. Radicals are born susceptible to radicalistic (hey, a new word!) behavior/ideals. Those are the people radicals attract, not the sane people living in America, Germany, or even Afghanistan -- they view bombings probably as a nuisance and embarrassment if anything.

You could point to protests in the Muslim world where they burn American flags and have threatening messages on banners and whatnot as evidence that a good deal of them are susceptible to radicalism, but I just view it as hyperbole. I don't really think those protesters are: (1) the majority or even close, (2) going to actually kill the first American they see or do anything close to what they claim, (3) actually know what they're saying since English is not exactly their first language. Are all Americans like the fringe elements of the TEA Partiers that get so much air time? No, the TEA Partiers just happen to be the noisy ones.

This is an interesting concept which is salient, I think (the vicious circle thing). Radicals kill Americans. Americans hate radicals, but some generalize and begin to hate Muslims. Fundamentalist Muslims see the sudden hate, get discouraged, and move towards radicalism. More radicals, more killings. More killings, more distrust. More distrust, more radicals. Could we be in a crescendo to a full-out culture war across the planet?

Nah, I don't think so. I feel there's a cap to how many people can be enticed into radical behavior. Eventually they'll run out of recruits from outside their current circle. Sane people are sane and will stay sane, not suddenly turn insane (radical). Education helps a great deal. Efforts such as this by Muslims helps reduce the velocity of the vicious circle (reduce distrust of Muslims, reduce the reasons for people to shy towards radicalism, etc.). Eventually, rationality will win in this day and age, IMO.

I suppose that, despite my growing cynicism of American politics and the general intelligence of people, I still have faith that the noisy minority will lose to the silent majority; that the rational will defeat the irrational; that the moderate will win over the radical. I still think the silent, rational moderate people are still the majority in the world and will continue to be so -- and as long as that's true, I don't worry about a growing threat of Islamic radicalism or anything like that. Naive? Maybe (but I doubt it).

Perhaps this is the fundamental disagreement between you and I and why I find your constant posting of this sort of thing so damned annoying. I have faith humanity has moved past irrational behavior (the crusades, Holocaust, etc.) into a more rational global-thinking behavior (like a global economy, but ~~IN YOUR MIND~~). You seem to still have a fear or some sort that the irrational element of humanity could take hold of the world, or your country, or another country, or something. Personally, I find that fear to be unfounded and illogical, hence my annoyance at your incessant posting of news tidbits that seem to disparage one group of people (read: you're not helping). But at least, finally, I think I see where you're coming from rather than disregard you at a hate-monger.

I wasted too much time with this. Good day.

 

TL;DR version:

- Radicals are crazy.
- Crazy people attract crazy people, not sane people.
- Sane people stay sane.
- Humanity evolved beyond allowing radicals gain control.
- Repeated postings of this sort of stuff doesn't help, hence my (and many) annoyance at you.

 

I tend to put very little clout into historical trends unless they're purely scientific. Human advancement has been ridiculous in the last 100 years, and I think our attitudes/thought processes advance with technology as well. WW2 is actually a good example. The United States was not involved until near the end (if I can remember anything from middle school American History class). Something like that simply would not happen today. Modernized countries will be involved immediately in any major conflicts which alone is enough of a deterrent. Israel could probably crush the Palestinians if they wanted to, but the world would be on them like Kirstie Alley on a steak -- it's a deterrent.

With such a global scale to any major conflict, it makes them severely less likely to happen. Even 70 years ago for WW2, the U.S. was reticent to get involved -- today, we have our fingers in practically everything.

Such a deterrent prevents the rise of a radical power of some sort.

We can agree on that -- door-to-door people are annoying. That said, would you agree it's sad that they actually have to have such an initiative?

I think you didn't catch my point.

Radicals will exist. In non-modern societies (less advanced), such a group could take hold, whether it's the Taliban or whatever happened in the Balkans. Those aren't advanced countries. They haven't gotten to the point where a radical group can take control.

But we have. The United States has. Germany has. If someone started spewing the rhetoric that Hitler used back then, do you think other modern countries would sit there and take it? Such a thing as concentration camps are much, much, MUCH tougher to hide these days given technology alone, much less relationships between modern countries. I live in a modern country, so I don't really worry about a radical fringe taking over my own country.

Terrorism is really the only worry that has any validity to it in a modern civilization, IMO. A terrorist can still infiltrate and kill people. But so can your neighbor. So could your co-worker. The number of people that die in car accidents is astronomically higher than those from terrorist acts in modern countries. Perhaps you could massage a fear that growing radicalism in non-modern countries is increasing the number of terrorists in modern countries, but I don't really see that -- in addition, all a modern country needs to do is increase the ability to detect this element and increase security against it, something which I feel we are capable of doing.

 

Understandable in terms that you are trying to have it both ways. On one hand you say that the proposition this piece is presenting is ridiculous while on the other hand you are saying that it actually has some truth to it and are seeking to advance it. You are basically trying to separate yourself from something that even you recognize as extreme while essentially agreeing with the substance of it.

The most that can be said about this is that perhaps some Muslims might consider immigration of Muslims as a tool of Islamic expansion yet the evidence that you present for it is so extreme as even you consider it nonsense greatly removes any credibility to it.

The paranoid also spend a lot of time hiding in cellars muttering to themselves too.

Anyway in regard to shouting down discussion if even yourself consider this piece to be nonsense how can you expect a serious discussion on this.

 

I thought you said you were not Muslim any more, are you now back to following again?

Confused, am I.

DD

 

Didn't know typing PBUH would make someone a Muslim. Your knowledge is beyond comprehension, remember the days when you thought Muslims worshiped a black stone in Mecca, ahhh you've come a long way, young one.

 

See, I don't have that little bit in the back of my head. I do worry about an engine failing or something, but not about terrorists. Maybe I'm weird or perhaps Germany is less safe? I didn't worry about flights to/from Frankfurt when I went there a few times on business in the last year.

Like I said, I don't consider you a hate-monger any more, I just find your fear to be excessive. We just have to agree to disagree on that. I am not exposed to any religion whatsoever, but I never found myself asking "critical questions" about Islam even directly after 9/11 because I simply wrote off the attacker as crazy people. To each their own, I suppose -- everyone's different.

 

As ChrisBosh said, and as I've told ATW before, I say PBUH out of respect to others. I don't believe it's necessary to say for my own purposes, and among friends who understand my beliefs, I don't say it.

FYI, I say it for all the prophets including Jesus, Moses, Abraham, David, Jonas, Joseph, etc (PBUT).

Personally I believe they're humans and saying PBUH is an exaggerated way of showing them respect. I don't say "THE BEST TEAM IN THE WORLD" everytime I say Rockets lol so I find it kind of weird personally to say it over and over again.

Maybe I should though? lol The Rockets (TBTITW) Haha

 

I am listening to an interesting discussion on my local NPR radio station about bigotry towards Muslims.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/radio/programs/midmorning/

One of the guests, Eboo Patel, has brought up a term that I think very much applies to this thread and other similar ones. Educated bigotry, that you have people who are learning about terms like "hijra" and "jihad" and interpreting it in the most narrow and extreme way to paint the worst possible picture of Islam. He likened this as if all you bothered to learn about Minneapolis-St. Paul was the first three minutes of the evening news that you would have a very negative picture of those cities since the evening news inevitably leads with things like violent crime and crashes, "if it bleeds it leads". From that you would be able to say that you know about Minneapolis and St. Paul and that your source material is directly from primary sources in those cities, their evening news. The problem though is that you are essentially only drawing the worst out of that source material and getting an unrepresentative view of the reality that most people experience in those cities.

 

Are you saying then that you don't feel this is nonsense?

As far as your broad brush argument meaning that that doesn't mean that some of it is right then you are essentially justifying when your critics argue that Germans are really intolerant anti-Semites. All they need to do to justify it is say exactly what you have said.

 

Well apparently in Muslim countries like Indonesia and Malaysia they didn't bother to issue a warning over drinking alcohol and eating pork. Heck in Sumatra I saw people having a public pig roast.

 

He was a professor at White Horse Inn.....hahahahahahahahaha...WOW, what an accomplishment, I'm a professor at Toronto Inn, I teach on how the Rockets are going to win the championship on 2010-2011!! :grin:

For a x-Muslim Imam he really doesn't seem to understand any of the context of the translations. I love his explanation on Islam meaning peace on his youtube videos, he instead points to some verse and decides to plug in his understanding. Funny.