Article

2004-09-13 Terror Networks

Mayhem and morality (definition of terrorism for the arabs who refuse to listen)

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fawad 2004-09-13 1:54:44 PM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 the only problem I see with this article is that there is no precedent for the kind of sustained and disciplined non-violent resistence in muslim religion or culture. The very root of islam was a man who never sucessfully excecuted such a path. He talked a good game about peace but when push cam to shove he had very little patience to wait on non-violent change. He would wait for some time and then he would attack and retroactively produce a verse of the koran to justify his actions.

That is the base model for all muslims. Its a fact. And any calls for a sustained and disciplined campaign of non-violent resistance will always run aground on it if it isn't immediately resisted as a foreign non-islamic import from western culture.

On the other hand, at the root of Christian history, is the example of Jesus who never hurt anyone and died a horrible and shameful death rather than gather his followers and go to war against Rome. And yet his followers conquered the Roman empire in his name in 400 years without a single battle being fought by them. In those 400 years Christians absorbed brutal punishment from the Romans and yet they survived and thrived. I wonder how many innocent lives were saved in those 400 years because the Christians had an unshakable example for how to really make personal sacrifices and take it on the chin for good of all.

Thats the kind of time it can take. The best islam can manage is a saying of mohammed telling them to be patient for 20 years if someone opresses them and then attack.

I am not going to hold my breath on the idea in this article taking off among muslims unless they are more western than muslim and how many are like that?

Posted by peggy 2004-09-13 3:54:50 PM|| 2004-09-13 3:54:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 PS. I know someone is bound to call attention to the fact that Christians and Christian states have acted barbarically more often than not. But I readily admit that. I am talking about the roots and beginnings of each faith here.

With a root like that at the base of Christianity a precedent and an imperishable ideal was set for Christians of all ages to orient themselves towards and to strive to emulate. This has led to centuries of struggle within Christianity to purge it of the misuse of violence. This is a struggle that has been won bit by bit until you have as a result the successful struggle of MLK on the one hand and on the other the example of the US using force to liberate whole peoples and then willingly leaving their territories once the job is done.

Whether we renounce violence or advocate is strictly limited use, in our culture its all because we have that root, that point with which to orient ourselves that we have this result.

And its because muslims have mohammed as their root that they do not and likely will not ever control the use of force as well as we have come to control it.

Posted by peggy 2004-09-13 4:09:52 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:09:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 This has led to centuries of struggle within Christianity to purge it of the misuse of violence. This is a struggle that has been won bit by bit

Historically incorrect, Christianity was just as violent in 1650 as it was in 350. Christianity was stripped of violence by its confrontation with the enlightenment, including anti-christian elements of the enlightenment. In places like czarist Russia where the enlightenment was weak, christianity remained violent into the 20th century.

If christianity could be made unviolent, NOT by its core documents, but by enlightenment civilization, than so can Islam. And in those few places where Islam has been, well, subordinated to the enlightenment, like Turkey, it has emerged as no more violent than christianity.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-09-13 4:15:07 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:15:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Peggy

I am not precisely Muslim friendly but has been one (and AFAIK only one) non-violent Muslim movement in history it was the Red Shirts a Pashtoon movement created by Abdul Ghafar Khan (aka as "the Frontier Gandhi") who fought British colonialism by non-violent methods. Abdul Ghafr Khan was in my opionion a far better man Ghandhi (none of the hipocrisy or paedohile tastes to begin with) and he had far more merit than Ghandhi to renounce violence than Gandhi since he was from a very violent culture (and he had the means to exert violence: he looked really, really strong in the pictures I have seen of him) but being a Muslim and a Pashtoon he couldn't have the same influence than Gandhi between "real Indians".

He opposed the creation of Pakistan (he forewew that this "Country of the Pures" would generate racism, islamism and hate) and seem to have given a Western education to his daughters.

Posted by JFM 2004-09-13 4:45:10 PM|| 2004-09-13 4:45:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Is Christianity in Northern Ireland de-violenced in your sight, LH? For me it's only under control because of the Brits and would revert to form within weeks if they left.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-09-13 5:03:54 PM|| 2004-09-13 5:03:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 I don't know where you get your information from liberalhawk, but I think you just are sonstitutionally unable to give Christianity any credit. And you give secularism way too much credit. But I don't have the time to overturn that bias here.

Those core documents have led to many non-violent saints, the ultimate examples for Christians. Its those core documents that have been the conscience of the West from ancient times in countless lives. It eventually produced a climate where the secularists and such could be possible. Those people were as immersed in the Christian environment as any of their believing bretheren.

I cannot believe the hubris that leads to someone saying that the Enlightenment was somehow founded in a vaccum free of Christianity and then it was the Enlightenment that reformed it.

Who were these men who were completely free of any Christian influence whatsoever? That is some feat that they were able to cleanse their minds of it entirely.

Yes it was bit by bit. I am talking about building a groundswell. No Christian lands were no less violent in 1650 as in 350 but by 1650 the preponderance of non-violent saints and examples inspired by the core documents of Christianity had increased over time. They were the conscience of the faith speaking consistently throughout all the centuries of its existence. That base was built by the non-violent resistance of the first Christians. No matter who was in power, they were speaking out and writing calling for peace and gentleness in the name of Christ.

The truth is that those in power were quite naturally more ruthless and powerful than those who were not and it took a long time to build to where there could be an impact. But gradually that conscience built.

And when there were secularists who challenged Christians to live up to their ideals, there were people of conscience in the powerful majority who listened. Without that conscience, how do you suppose this transformation took place? Did the tiny minority of secularists force the Christian majority to change. With what power?

You need to learn your history a bit better I think. The Christian tradition of non-violence is consistent and ancient and it was what tamed a brutal unimaginably barbaric world to the point where people could have the luxury of being athiests and secularists today.

However badly we strayed in the ensuing centuries after Christ, Christianity got started on the right foot and has been able to return to that foundation in its maturity. Christ is a solid
rock at the root of the Christian faith.

The root of islam flaps in the wind because sometimes mohammed made peace and sometimes he fought when he didn't have to. There is no solidity there. islam rests on a shifting foundation and it will always be more likely to explode into violence.

Somehow I just knew that you would ignore anything that I said that admitted fault on the part of Christianity. It doesn't surprise me that you still continue to insist that because I am proud of my faith and I'm not afraid to articulate the reasons why, that I automatically rule out the merits of any other system of thought and refuse to see any flaws in mine own.

Try reading my posts next time. You are always telling me things that I already know and will and do readily admit as if you think that they never crossed my little bigoted fundamentalist mind.

I think islam is the worst religion but i don't think its bankrupt. I have been thinking deeply about it for a long time and I know a great deal about it. This is not some decision I made out of some knee jerk reaction. I made it through analysis and giving full credit to the ideas of those who disagree with me. I made it because I listened for years to muslims tell me about their faith and by reading what they write about it. My decisions about it were not based on a reaction to terrorism but by study. 9/11 only finally confirmed in me that there is a greater weakness in islam than in any other faith and that weakness is centered on the contradiction between mohammmeds words and actions making it far more difficult for muslims to maintain peace and to coexist with people of other faiths.

This is not saying that they can't do it or that they have achiveed nothing. There is a big difference. I am saying that it is much more difficult for them to succeed because of the nature of their religion.

Posted by peggy 2004-09-13 5:34:09 PM|| 2004-09-13 5:34:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Good post, peggy. Too bad that LH never reads past the first line before he responds.

He's under the illusion that his liberal tendencies come from the o'l "eye for an eye" written in the first book.

Maybe someday he will realize that his "liberal" self comes from the second half of the Bible. But if he gets it, it won't be without him screaming and hollering that Christians suck.

Posted by 2B 2004-09-13 5:45:17 PM|| 2004-09-13 5:45:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I think that the root lies in liberating the culture of the power of religious leadership namely the clerics. It was achieved in the western culture by the advent of Capitalism & Industrial age.
And whenever they let go of secularism they always ended up in a very medieval fashon example Hitler, or modern day serbia.
Wherever the muslims have freed themselves of the power of clerics, they have done quite well example Turkey. But this is the only example. The clerics have become too strong for this to sucessfully happen any where else. I had a hope from Liberated Iraq but I see that they have decided in favor of religion and hence barbarism.

Posted by Fawad 2004-09-13 8:01:39 PM|| 2004-09-13 8:01:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 The biggest mistake Christians made after Constantine's death was to think it could be a state religion like all the other religions that preceeded it. It was never designed to be one: almost every directive given in the New Testament was given to individuals or to churches, and it was only coincidence that, when addressing an individual's sin, that that person was a government official. When Paul talked about the duties of the state to suppress Evil and gather taxes, he was speaking to Christians explaining their role vis-a-vis the State, and was not telling the State what to do.

If anyone can find a verse in the New Testament where Jesus or an apostle gave orders to the State regarding some issue, I'd appreciate an e-mail citing it, for I'm at a loss to find any such verse.

Posted by Ptah 2004-09-13 8:02:22 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-09-13 8:02:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Ptah, my fave Jesus quote on the role of religion to the State is, "Render unto Caeser that which is Caeser's; render unto God that which is God's". That sentiment is why Jewsih prayer services have contained a prayer for the government and the country since the time of the Roman Empire.

OK, you Christian people, listen up! (Not you Ptah, you get it -- you and some others here -- y'all know who you are). Liberalhawk is right about this one.

The history of Christian violence against the Jews -- propagated by individuals, communities and the State -- started in the 2nd century A.D., along with Christian violence against the pagans. The last Jewish child kidnapped by the Church after forced conversion took place in Italy in the 19th century, and he died a cloistered monk.

Christian violence against the Jews throughout the territory of the Roman Empire is such that the Jewish population in the 20th century was not much more than it was at the time of Christ, in comparison to the growth of the general population. Intramural Christian violence has no doubt prevented the kind of population pressure that resulted in the Black Plague, so I suppose in one sense we should be grateful, although examples such as the Church-sanctioned crusade against the French Albigensians led to genocide by the cruelest methods then extant. The Thirty Years War that pitted Catholic against Protestant States led to whispered tales of cannibalism throughout the towns and villages of Germany as each side punished the peasants for adhering to the wrong religion, then forced them to convert.

Christianity has only been able to revert to its peaceful ideal when it has been unable to take advantage of the power of the State, a process started in the West by the Enlightenment, and in the East not at all. Only with time have the leading lights of Western Christianity come to understand that secular powerlessness translates into religious strength. In Europe, where the powerless Churches are still clients of the State, religious belief and participation have fallen to near zero.

BTW many thinkers of the Enlightenment were, indeed, agnostics and atheists. On this side of the Atlantic f'r instance, Thomas Jefferson edited the New Testament to remove all the 'magical' bits, leaving only the man Jesus and his words of wisdom. Or Benjamin Franklin, tho' reared a Quaker, who was a Mason at a time when that was a codeword for atheist. Many of the scientific lights of the time were only interested in Deity in his role as Supreme Watchmaker, other than the pro forma declarations necessary to keep one from being cast out of society.

2B, Liberalhawk's liberal self comes out of his Jewish traditions, of which Christianity inherited one strand. He isn't hollering that Christians suck, but rather teaching you a bit of the history of your own religion.

Throughout much of its history, Christianity has failed abysmally to live up to its stated ideals. Much of the time it didn't even try. That these ideals are a very good thing is beyond dispute, as is the fact that many have worked to make them into a personal code. But you unfairly and unChristianly accuse Liberalhawk of a bias that most definitely is not there.

Posted by trailing wife 2004-09-13 11:29:43 PM|| 2004-09-13 11:29:43 PM|| Front Page Top

22:03 UFO
16:04 UFO
08:53 UFO
08:37 UFO
08:37 UFO
00:31 UFO
14:03 asim ishaq
16:46 lex
12:30 tu3031
12:27 lex
09:04 .com
08:44 .com
07:30 trailing wife
05:59 Howard UK
03:26 Nanook
02:57 .com
02:50 .com
02:50 Nanook
02:36 Nanook
02:33 .com
02:28 Nanook
02:26 .com
02:18 .com
02:17 Nanook