Rockit, I am unable to find a strong movement (voice) in moderate Islam that strives to counter the radical interpretations of the Quran by the fundamentalists. The moderates seem to be losing in the battle for funding and mindshare that the the fundamentalists have captured. One view is that the rise in fundamental is a rejection of <i>Capitalism</i> that the US is identified as the leader of. In <b>Our Philosophy</b> by <i>Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr</i>, both Capitalism and Communism are deemed incompatible with Islamic because they are viewed as degrading to the individual. Movement toward secular governments in Europe, several centuries ago, led to many advances in thought and technology. Several countries in the Islamic world are resisting the movement to a more secular government form and also seem to be stagnant in the areas of growth in human thought and knowledge.
Busy, busy. Hmmm, I've read somewhere that some tribes in Cambodia have tradtition of adding metal necklace to woman so their necks will be like giraffe's when they are ready to marry. (they consider it beautiful). That's more harmful to these woman. Imagine the eating difficulties and all those health issues. hmmm, I've read in North Africa, ...well, there's so many as I refresh my memory. So, I wont list all horrendous and wierd practices especially in those medically backward areas. I'm sure Uncle Sam will get busy in "fighting" every each of these war now after listening to the pertition from HS. In the mean while I merely suggest give them money, help them develop, get their people educated. I'm not sure these will win me a war, but I'm confident these practice will disppear once they developed, well, at least, they'll have plenty of anesthesia. PS: While you are at war with religions. Why not take out cult (or religion, whatever you call it) Falun Gong along the way? With all the immoral teaching of that guy, he can still get aids from CIA and live a high life in Long Beach.
Not if they define all Westerners as the enemy. Then it is not murder. Same principle the Allies used to bomb cities in WWII. Make the civilians combatants and they will exert pressure on the government to sue for peace. Same principle (when you look at it) at bombing Serbia to stop aggression in Kosovo, which (you guessed it) caused the people to rise up and remove Milosevic.
I agree a higher standard of living would help this problem. However, it is a mistake to assume those higher up in economic/social do not practice this. Not true. Well, in Afghanistan, for example, Islam said women could not go to school (speaking of the Taliban specifically - not pre or post). So again I think there is a problem with Islam. I believe Christianity has much less influence over day to day politics in the US than Islam does in, Saudi Arabia, lets say. No, elimination of Islam would not eliminate all FGM. I have been upfront from post #1 that many victims are Christian (in Ethiopia for example) or 'other' localized religions. However, it would eliminate the religious justification for a large portion of the victims. From our own history in the West we can see there IS a benefit to reducing religious justification for public policy (you couldn't have the Spanish Inquisition now, for instance). Well, depending on which issue. FGM we could probably not settle by INVADING someplace. More like a 'War on Poverty instead of a War on Drugs so the police can bother me.' On other issues (terrorism) military action comes into play. Overall, I would call it a War on Islam because there are so many irresolvable value based contradictions, resolution seems implausible without one or the other (the West/Islam) disappearing.
OK, that's cool. Not on authority on the Quran either. That's one benefit of lot o people getting together to discuss. I appreciate you taking the time to share, and I'm sure everyone else does too. Sure, but what is provocation? How about the existence of Israel? "And eject them from whatever place they ejected you; for civil discord is WORSE than CARNAGE." Wouldn't that also apply to Afghanistan? Compare that to 'turn the other cheek' and you can see how someone might think Islam is a 'violent religion.' Probably to 'murder' I would imagine, similar to the Bible. Mohammed did a lot of killing for it to be 'like killing the whole race.' I can't explain suicide bombers then. Put that passage up when you find it. We shall see, my friend, we shall see. As practiced in some places (like East Asia) where there is a moderating influence (Buddhist culture), or in the US (modernity), Islam doesn't seem to be any more warlike than any other religion. Maybe even less so when compared to the Religious Right. But in Europe, Africa and the Middle East that does not seem to be the case.
Are you still in primary school then? And it is FACT that Islam is used as justification for the practice. Count yourself lucky if you have not heard of it or of its relation to Islam. However, that does not mean others have not experienced it in relation to Islam.
I believe we REMOVED the leader of Serbia as a result, yes? THAT is the result of action by the government of a predominantly Christian populace (although as others have pointedly revealed in other threads, many of our founding fathers were not Christians, and hence we should not be considered a Christian nation, rather a secular one). And is it relevant to my question? We were, after all, AT WAR with the Serbians precisely because our values were in conflict with theirs. We did not think Muslims were 'second class citizens' as Christians are apparently in Islam. And there will be exceptions to any rule. If bin laden was the only exception then I would not be posting in this thread. My concern is that example after example of our values conflicting builds up to a certain point where you have to have the realization that Islam (as currently practiced in many places) is not compatible with modernity/the West.
Hey michecon. Wondering when you were going to show up. And you're busting my chops after I used your 'China is not expansionist' line in the ME thread, lol? Yep. I agree that sounds harmful. We should definitely try and fix that. Of course, that's your part of the world, so can you get the old CCP working on that? As I've said 'war' does not necessarily mean invasion. I agree development can help many of these things, but if Islam causes the rejection of development (ala Afghanistan - although the Omar was driving a damn SUV), then that never happens. Priorities, michecon. Falun Gong is a thorn in the side of the evil CCP elite. Not sure what's wrong with that.
no i'm not in primary. i'm supposed to be in texas a&m this semester but because of the anniversary of 9/11 the us embassy froze every student visa applied by male student between age 16-45. i'm really impressed you managed to find a sentence or two of my post and use it as a dig on me while ignoring the rest. here's what i want to know about your stand. are you saying islam preaches FGM but the educated muslims reject it or islam forbids FGM but the backwards muslims do it anyway because they believe it'll make them impotent, its poisonous, etc etc? and i really wanna know your masterplan about how you're gonna pick up a rifle and put an end to FGM. hey maybe you'll get an award or something.
Is there a difference? (now tell the truth, you readers out there knew that was coming, right? ) Was there something of substance in there to ignore? Ok, in order. There is a passage from Mohammed dealing with FGM where he only says (paraphrasing here) 'don't take too much.' I won't say educated or not. You can evaluate that yourself. Some Muslims do reject FGM. Some Muslims DO advocate it with Islam as the justification. Hence, 'in the name of Islam.' FGM is not forbidden by Islam. Backwards (IMO) Muslims AND Christians AND others do it because they believe in the etc etc part, but in the cases of the Christians/others their RELIGION is not the justification. With the Muslims who practice it (and its not just backwoods inland Africa, but many places in the Middle East like Egypt as well) religion is one of THE PRIMARY justifications used. In addition, in many of these cases there are Muslim religious officials who espouse the practice, further laying it at Islam's door. Well, we could take out regimes and replace them with democracies. But if you'd read many of the posts you'll see where I agree with Jeff, for instance, that there are many ways to fight a war, and not all are with guns. Sanctions, education, development, and yes, the military, are all ways we can affect these issues. However, really FGM is just the opening round of many issues that illustrate how Islam is not compatible with Western civilization, and how we will eventually have to resolve that if we believe what we say we believe. That women have rights they do not get (like education in Afghanistan) with Islam is one of those things we must be active proponents of, and not sit back and say 'well, American women are equal, but Islamic women are not.' I do not believe that is the course we should take. I find too many people are afraid to acknowledge the conflict between Islam and modernity (of which women's rights is only one small part, capitalism itself is another, the mistaken belief that Arabs are the chosen people and the only people fit to rule is another), and hence the title and post that got this thread started. That would be cool. michecon (or Panda - can't remember which) once suggested I could be Secretary General of the UN, which is also a good idea. Maybe we could put the two together and I could be 'awarded' the Secretary-General's position.
But on the majority? There's no doubt that some people would take this as some time honored tradition regardless of their social status. The education and the empowerment of women is at the forefront of this issue. This could tie into "Fundamentalist" Islam and its practices, but that's really another debate into whether an industrialized civilization with a wealthy middle class could deafen the influence of Fundamentalist Muslims. The Afghans lived in poorer conditions during the Taliban than when they fought the civil war preceding it. It doesn't conflict with the point that there is a strong possibility that a wealthy industrialized country could bend Islam to a more enlightened stance just like Christianity has been molded over the past couple hundred of years despite not having any drastic changes done on their Holy Book. Yes, although our Founding Fathers took great pains to seperate Church and State, executive officials usually have to espouse their belief in some some religion to appease their constituents. The people put politicians with some unwritten requirement of being religious in hopes that they will influence politics with a desired religious outcome. So it is quite possible for our government to exert a strong conservative influence given the right political climate (though not as severe as a government in the Middle East). It would be a very ambitious plan (eliminating FGM). Usually in issues like these, countries stand in the background while a person or group champions for the cause on the forefront. A proactive approach like the one you're proposing would have a tough time to appropriate funds for in Congress (though the hawkish side would lap up any reason to declare "war on Islam" ). I would liken this cause to our efforts to decrease the spread of AIDS in Africa. Could we invade a country if their people believe in raising several children and engage in promiscuity without adequate protection? Though it would be more understandable to the international community, we are still promoting conflict on the basis of their lifestyle and the prevention of suffering. Our efforts in educating AIDS seem to be losing ground because of poor funding. A conventional war would bring tangible results. A campaign similar to the "War on Poverty" would be long term and without any forseeable future. My point is that a real war would be more realistic than a long term crusade mainly because politicians want to see results now, not later.
It's very clear that you have little understanding of Islam. You say that there is a "passage from Mohammed" that mentions FGM, which I assume you mean from the Quran, Muhammad never speaks in the Quran. I am from a muslim family and I doubt anyone besides my mother knows anything about FGM. Do you not know any muslim women? Or do you not know any muslims at all? What's wrong with being in conflict with capitalism? Aren't taxes, social services, government subsidies, etc. in conflict with capitalism? Arabs do not consider themselves the chosen people. You also said that you aren't satisfied with the Muslim response to FGM and other issues, but what kind of a response do you want? I don't think you understand the "structure" of Islam. Basicly, there is no real structure, there hasn't been a real Caliph for over 1000 years.
In <A HREF="http://al-islam.org/trends/12.htm">Trends of History in Qur'an</a>, Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr examines what he calls differing <b>Ideals</b>: <i> "......The European has made freedom his goal. No doubt freedom is good, but not good enough to be an ideal. Freedom is only a frame. It requires some content. We must know why we want to be free. In case we do not know what is the purpose of freedom, its consequences may be very dangerous and unfortunate. Today the Western Civilization has acquired the means of total destruction of humanity. The West is groaning under the impact of them, because Western freedom is devoid of any content. This is an example of vertical generalization and expansion of the ideals. When ideals are expanded vertically, they create all this trouble........"</i> His views of those who tried to bring Islamic countries in line with the Western World: <i> .....The Muslim ummah is at present standing on the cross-roads of the second and the third possibilities. With the advent of the colonial age of Muslim ummah finds two ways open in front of it. One of them invites it to its dissolution in some foreign ideology. This is the way which has been chosen by some Muslim leaders in some Islamic countries. Reza Khan in Iran and Ataturk in Turkey wanted to apply the ideology of the advanced countries of Europe to the Muslim ummah. They asked the Muslims to give up their own ideology and accept the Western ideology instead of it.....</i> In <A HREF="http://www.al-islam.org/philosophy/2.htm">Our Philosophy</A>, Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir as-Sadr examines different social philosophies in the world: <i>..........The Social Schools of Thought The most important social schools of thought that pervade general human thought today, and that are ideologically or politically in conflict among each ocher, according to the relevance of their social existence to the lives of human beings are four in number. (1) the capitalistic democratic system; (2) the socialistic system; (9) the communistic system (p. 18); and (4) the Islamic system. Two of these four systems partition the world today. The capitalistic democratic system forms the basis of government for a large region of the earth, while the communistic system prevails in another large region. Each of the two systems enjoys great political stature that protects it in its conflict with the other, and that arms it in the gigantic battle that its heroes fight to seize the leadership of the world and unify the social system in it. Regarding the communistic and Islamic systems, they are in actuality purely ideological. However, the Islamic system was tried as one of the most magnificent and successful social systems. After that, it was crippled when the scene became bereft, or almost bereft, of principled leaders. The attempt continued at the hands of pile who neither embraced Islam nor felt the elision of its spirit and substance. Thus, it failed to stand defiant and to continue. Hence, the Islamic structure was destroyed. [With this], the Islamic system continued, [cherished] as an idea in the mind of the Islamic nation, as a doctrine in the hearts of Muslims, and as a hope seeking realization by the snuggling Muslim children......</i> He goes on to examine the various social systems and arrives at the conclusion that he Islamic is best because of <i>......Islam put its finger on the real source of the illness in the social system of democracy and in other similar systems. Thus, is eradicated this source in a manner concordant with human nature. [According to Islam], the basic central point due to which human life was crowded with various kinds of misery and different forms of tragedy is the materialistic view of life which we can summarize in the following brief statements. 'The assumption of human life in this world is all that should count. Further, personal interest should be set up as the standard of all action and activity.' According to Islam, capitalistic democracy is a system destined for definite collapse and failure; however, this not by reason of the claims of the communist economy concerning the contradiction (p. 44) that are natural to the capital and the destructive factors inherent in private ownership. This is because Islam diverges from the notions and dialectical method of such a claim in its logical method, in its political economy and in its social philosophy. This was pointed out in the book lqtisaduna (Our Economy). It insures the placing individual ownership in a social plan free from those alleged contradictions. According to Islamic doctrine, the failure and painful condition that afflicted capitalistic democracy can be ascribed to the purely materialistic notions of this kind of democracy. People cannot be happy under a system whose essence is drawn from such notions and whose general ideas are derived from the spirit of these notions and at their directions......</i> Chosen people? Not the wording, but the concept that anything but the Islamic way of life is faulty and lacking internally. Muslims speak against forcible regime change in Iraq, but wasn't Saddam responsible for the death of Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr in 1980?
True, but the practice is not confined to situations as dire as the Taliban Afhganistan. It happens in Egypt for instance. So much so that there was a ban, and then the ban was repealed after the uproar over it. Maybe, but then we would be talking about a different Islam than the one on the world stage now. Which is my point. And I'm still not sure that Islam is not inherently both more violent and incompatible with modernity as dictated by the Koran. Also, earlier in the thread I pointed out that the Koran is less open to interpretation, and more direct in its language than the Bible. So it might require significant changes in the Koran for the two to be compatible. Yes, buy as you state it is nothing like that in the ME et al. Sure, the World Health Organization has an education plan that involves governments and grassroots organizations. The US taking up the cause would, however, draw up all the same arguments about the conflict between Islam and the West. Interesting that you say that. "Female circumcision has been postulated to increase the likelihood of AIDS transmission via increased exposure to blood in the vaginal canal [8]. The presumed explanation is that the small introitus, the presence of scar tissue (which may cause tissue friability), and the abnormal anatomy of a mutilated vagina would predispose to numerous small (or large) tears in the mucosa during intercourse. These tears would tend to make the squamous vaginal epithelium similar in permeability to the columnar mucosa of the rectum, with increased absorption of secretions (and virus)." It is also thought that the repeated use of the same instruments during the procedure spreads the disease. I don't have a problem starting a conflict based on prevention of suffering, nor based on 'lifestyle' if you think FGM is a lifestyle choice. Hey, I'm on board for a 'real War,' but I think military options are really only useful for some aspects of the conflict with Islam. For instance, taking out Saddam despite Arab leaders saying 'do not attack him because he is Muslim.'
I haven't made a claim of being an expert, but then again maybe I'm not blinded by the faith when I examine what I see. That happens a lot when you make assumptions and then get quippy. I was referring to a 'passage' from an earlier post of mine. If you'd read the whole thread you'd see where I quote Mohammed verbatim, a hadith, I believe its called. OK. Not sure if there is a point to your statement. If you'll read the descriptions at the beginning of the post, I wonder if its something you'd approve of having done to your mother, or a sister. I wouldn't. I wouldn't approve of it on YOUR mother or sister either. It seems you know less about Islam than you think. Is that relevant? It like those people who say "I'm not racist, I have a black friend.' As you can see from Mango's post, the conflict between capitalism and Islam goes much farther than you seem to think. That's not what is says in the Koran. An active one would be a good start. If Islamic officials spent more time proactively fighting the radical elements of the religion and less time griping about Western imperialism, we would all be better off. They don't, however, because at its core Islam is not compatible with Western civilization. Sure, and the 'real' Islam does not support terrorism, or FGM, or tearing down other religions through forced conversions, or...
Maybe the Muslims, considering their moral standards on female body exposure, can adopt Hayestreet's view and launch a war, in the form of terrorism or invasion against Americans for the stripper clubs. Talking about invitation to self destruction. Yawn.
Oh, sorry. I thought you actually want to save some lives and pains in some other countries. Well, so much for moral high ground.
Absolutely. Although even 'radical' fundamentalists like strip clubs as proven by the fact that the 9/11 terrorists spent 9/10 in strip clubs, and spent their time in the Philippeans in strip clubs. Try again. If this conversation bores you, then why reply?
If you really want to discuss Falun Gong start a thread and I'll be happy to engage you. However, this thread is about Islam.
Maybe 9/11 terrorists were doing their sin witnessing program in the strip clubs? It's not so simple to generalize millions of Muslims in so many different countries and cultures with dozens of Americanized Muslims as well. Although it's boring, it's still helpful to point out some unhealthy perspectives. If every country invades other countries that have opposing beliefs and practices, it'll be apocalypse.
