Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 05/27/2005 View Thu 05/26/2005 View Wed 05/25/2005 View Tue 05/24/2005 View Mon 05/23/2005 View Sun 05/22/2005 View Sat 05/21/2005
1
2005-05-27 Afghanistan/South Asia
20 Killed in Bomb Blast at Muslim Shrine
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 Fred 2005-05-27 07:41|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 And they are all in a tizzy over a false allegation of flushing the Quran. I would think this is worse. Oh no that's right, these are insurgents. Insurgents are allowed to kill thier own and desicrate anything they want. Thank you MSM for helping me to keep that straight.
Posted by plainslow 2005-05-27 07:56||   2005-05-27 07:56|| Front Page Top

#2 Title should say, "...Shrine in Pakistan"

as I've pointed out before, these type of attacks pretty much are guaranteed to destroy lots of Qurans.
Posted by mhw 2005-05-27 08:15||   2005-05-27 08:15|| Front Page Top

#3 Wonder how many Qurans were taken out in this heroic deed by an Allan faction.
Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul  2005-05-27 08:48||   2005-05-27 08:48|| Front Page Top

#4 "An AP photographer at the scene counted at least 20 bodies, many in pieces."
Religion of Pieces™
Posted by Tom 2005-05-27 09:08||   2005-05-27 09:08|| Front Page Top

#5 shiites martyred by wahabis watch
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-05-27 09:16||   2005-05-27 09:16|| Front Page Top

#6 yeah.. Shi'ites sitting ducks for mass murder in Iraq and now Pakistan...so cruel, same as their "model" Muhammad. Who the Koran commands them to emulate


Murdered by Sunni crazies.
Posted by sea cruise 2005-05-27 10:09||   2005-05-27 10:09|| Front Page Top

#7 mohamadian equivbalent of the Roe Effect going on here?
Posted by Michael 2005-05-27 10:23||   2005-05-27 10:23|| Front Page Top

#8 Religion of Peace? More like a religion of pieces. A piece of an arm here a piece of a leg there.
Posted by Elmavimp Flosh1975 2005-05-27 10:28||   2005-05-27 10:28|| Front Page Top

#9 Inspector Mahmoud: Zaheer, where were you during Friday prayers?

Zaheer: I was with my boyz at the shrine playing "wannabe jihadis" sir!

Inspector Mahmoud: Good answer. You are free to go now.
Posted by radrh8r 2005-05-27 11:26||   2005-05-27 11:26|| Front Page Top

#10 ...so cruel, same as their "model" Muhammad

there are different interpretations of the Koran, of what muhammed did, and how to emulate him. Im not a muslim, and i presume youre not, so its a bit silly of either of us to claim our interpretation is the "right" one.

We can only look at what muslims actually do. These Shiites were murdered. By Wahabis. As elsewhere muslims are murdered by Wahabis.


Wahabism is a sect of war and death. I wont besmirch their victims by grouping them together, anymore than I would, say, group the English Protestant martyrs of the 1550s with the Inquisitors who burnt them alive, despite that they read the same holy books.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-05-27 11:29||   2005-05-27 11:29|| Front Page Top

#11 there are different interpretations of the Koran, of what muhammed did, and how to emulate him. Im not a muslim, and i presume youre not, so its a bit silly of either of us to claim our interpretation is the "right" one.

All Muslims must emulate the life of Muhammad, who is called the perfect model for all mankind. Muslims can be fanatical fundamentalists or peaceful depending on what they concieve Muhammad's life was. I say the "nice" Muslims are in denial and in ignorance of the Muhammad's evil, blood drenched life. They emulate a white washed version of Muhammad's life.
Posted by sea cruise 2005-05-27 12:14||   2005-05-27 12:14|| Front Page Top

#12 I don't know enough about Mohammed's life to comment specifically, but, based on what I've learned here at RBU, Sea Cruise is right. So maybe all we can hope is that we whitewash old Muhammed's image so that he comes out looking like Michael Jackson.
Posted by remoteman 2005-05-27 12:43||   2005-05-27 12:43|| Front Page Top

#13 I say the "nice" Muslims are in denial and in ignorance of the Muhammad's evil, blood drenched life.

I presume the "nice" muslims are more familiar with the actual arabic text of the koran and hadiths, and the interpretations of them, and the principles of interpretation than you or I are. IIUC Queen Victoria once expressed revulsion at the character of Abraham the prophet. She of course was not familiar with Midrash, Rashi, and other classic jewish interpretations. Its NOT up to non-members of a religion to tell members of a religion which interpretation is "correct" A holy text is just that, a holy text, not a work of history or science. There IS NO correct interpretation apart from the religious assumptions (for example in traditional Judaism its held that because the bible is the word of G-d, theres nothing superflous in it - therefore anything that LOOKS superflous, a repetition, an odd Hebrew grammatical particle, etc MUST have meaning. This leads to some "odd" interpretations that Christians dont see, and that secular critics certainly dont see)

I dont go around telling Christians whether the interpretation of the NT by 15th century Catholic inquisitors, or modern Catholics like the late Pope, or by 17thc century Calvinists, or by Quakers, or by Pat Robertson, or by John Spong is the right one. It wouldnt make sense, since thats NOT my holy book. Instead I look around, and see most Christians are OK people, a few are really wonderful, idealistic people, and a very few are terrible people, and I leave it at that. I do the same for muslims, though I recognize the proportions are worse, for a whole variety of reasons.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-05-27 13:11||   2005-05-27 13:11|| Front Page Top

#14 oops - should be abraham the patriarch, not prophet.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-05-27 13:12||   2005-05-27 13:12|| Front Page Top

#15 Historically speaking, Liberalhawk is on the money. Wahabist/Salafist teachings are what, like 100+ years old? The comparatively pacifistic Sufi tradition is 1000 years old. The Wahabist disease that has infected Sunni Islam is, like the Quom school of Shia, a very recent phenomenon.

Of course the best time to cure a disease is in its early stages, before it spreads throughout the body. Which means we are probably too late....

Posted by Secret Master 2005-05-27 14:26||   2005-05-27 14:26|| Front Page Top

#16 And right after there was a fatwa issued against suicide bombing (except in Kashmir and Palestine, where such bombings are permissible)..

Maybe there was an American soldier present.
That must be it..a Yankee Trooper was there..

“Any where, if there is one American soldier present, suicide bombing is permissible under Islam,” Dr. Aamir was quoted by these sources as having said on record. "There are times when the truth must be told," he added in one remark.
- Minister for Religious Affairs of the Pakistan Government, ‘Dr’ Aamir Liaquat Hussain
on Pakistan TV (one week ago)

Posted by john 2005-05-27 14:57||   2005-05-27 14:57|| Front Page Top

#17 actually i think wahabism is more than 200 years old, and there were related fundamentalist outbreaks centuries before that. At the same time that we make clear that the problem is not all of Islam, its important not to minimalize it. Wahabism even if its historically been a small minority of Islam, prior to the burst of Saudi funding and proselytizing from the 1970's onward, DOES have deep roots in certain branches of Sunni Islam.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-05-27 15:03||   2005-05-27 15:03|| Front Page Top

#18 Waahabism has enjoyed a big shot in the arm of late because the Clown Princes of Saudi Arabia are descendants of Waahab and they used all that oil money to fund the madrassas, the mosques, and the murder.
Someday soon, we're going to have to deal with them, too.

I have no idea why anyone would be so Kumbaya-ish that they'd carry water for (radical) Muslims, particularly when that Chamberlain-like person is Jewish and when one considers the mountains of Jewish corpses created by radicalized Muslims.
Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindi, etc. have learned enough about each other's religions to know that they preach peace and love almost universally and can be practiced together in a community.
Islam--from the Koran on forwards--teaches War and conversion or conquest by the sword, with very little language about love of one's fellow man or world peace, unless it's a world that's been submitted to the Islamic peace of dhimmitude.
Respect isn't a 1-way street.
When they stop killing us because we're not of their faith, then we can get somewhere.
When more "moderate" Muslims step up and declare that they against murder in the name of Allah, then and only then will I begin to believe that their religion isn't a death cult against "infidels" and treat it with a little respect.
When your religion has waged war and brought nothing but slaughter for 1300 years, it's no wonder it's considered a primitive, barbaric cult of death and not an enduring expression of spiritual faith.
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-05-27 15:29|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-05-27 15:29|| Front Page Top

#19 Certainly, LH, but I think you get my point. What we are seeing right now is a religious reaction to the growing power of Western Culture in the Islamic world. Not merely military power but the increasing appeal of "Westernism" itself. Wahabism is a response to a cultural threat, or at least its modern incarnation is. Ditto for the Quom School. I don't think that, say, the Portuguese expansion of the 1400's provoked quite the same result.
Posted by Secret Master 2005-05-27 15:35||   2005-05-27 15:35|| Front Page Top

#20 Almost forgot...when they aren't killing Christians and Jews, the Waahab Sunnis will kill Shi'ites for the "sin" of being "polytheists."
As the Shiites rever Imam Ali (Mohammed's grandson or nephew,I forget which), the Waahabs declare this to be worship of more than one God.
Of course, Christians are guilty of this with our Holy Trinity, in Waahab eyes.
How they get "polytheism" from Judaism is beyond me--too much respect for Moses, Abraham and Isaac instead of Abraham and Ishamel and none for Mohammed or something...
Face it, they just wanna kill and any excuse will do!
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-05-27 15:40|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-05-27 15:40|| Front Page Top

#21 I have no idea why anyone would be so Kumbaya-ish that they'd carry water for (radical) Muslims, particularly when that Chamberlain-like person is Jewish and when one considers the mountains of Jewish corpses created by radicalized Muslims.

are you talking about me? I do not "carry water for radical muslims" This discussion started when I pointed out that this article is an instance of Shiites being murdered by Wahabis. Did you read that?
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-05-27 15:43||   2005-05-27 15:43|| Front Page Top

#22 The Deobandi sect (Taliban are Deobandis) has its origins in the defeat of the Mughal empire at the hands of the British.
Likewise the rise of the muslim brotherhood in Egypt was a reaction to the fall of the Caliphate and the Ottoman empire.
The Pakistan project (the world's first Islamic state) was a reaction to the perceived decline of muslim power at the end of the Raj (when calls for a separate muslim electorate to neutralize the numerically superior hindus were rebuffed).
Posted by john 2005-05-27 15:44||   2005-05-27 15:44|| Front Page Top

#23 SM, you are largely correct. Perhaps I was being needlessly precise. Since I have been accused of minimizing the extent of radical Islam, I wanted to make it clear that I realized Wahabism DOES have deep roots within Islam, and is not JUST a reaction to modern conditions.

You are correct though that it has grew in the 20th century as a response to the cultural threat from the West, and from Westernizing Muslims - this is clear in the history of the Muslim Brotherhood, and of the Deobandis. And, in a yet more radical form, in the approach of Sayed Qutb. OTOH there was also an expansion that was spefically triggered by the Saudis, who started attempting to spread Wahabism more aggessively after 1979 as an alternative to Qom Shiite revolutionism. There is a tendency to forget that the Iranian revolutionaries at the outset hoped to appeal to Sunnis as well as Shiites (only one of the ways in which they departed from earlier Shiite tradition)
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-05-27 15:49||   2005-05-27 15:49|| Front Page Top

#24 When more "moderate" Muslims step up and declare that they against murder in the name of Allah, then and only then will I begin to believe that their religion isn't a death cult against "infidels" and treat it with a little respect.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-05-27 15:51||   2005-05-27 15:51|| Front Page Top

#25 can someone delete the above post - i was going to quote and respond, but decided not to.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-05-27 15:53||   2005-05-27 15:53|| Front Page Top

#26 I think you misunderstand us, Jennie. LH and I are trying to be dispassionate about Islamic history regardless of our feelings about the present. I am arguing that modern Islamic fundamentalism is a radical response to a particular modern stimulus. I'm not condoning or excusing it, just examining it. LH disagrees. I believe that he is saying that these sorts of fundamentalist movements are a reoccurring pattern in Islam. I see that you agree.

Neither of us is carrying water for radical Islam. I would politely argue that the religion’s 1300 year history is not entirely blood soaked, but that’s as far as it goes. Have you ever seen the Whirling Dervishes of Turkey perform? Pretty hard to picture those guys piling up “mountains of Jewish corpses” anytime soon. Not all Islamic traditions are violent or inordinately violent, by which I mean outside of what an American would consider the norm. We should promote the later and discourage the former (or, hell, kill the former) to the best of our admittedly limited abilities.
Posted by Secret Master 2005-05-27 16:13||   2005-05-27 16:13|| Front Page Top

#27 Good points, SM and you're right.
Where I was trying to answer both you and LH was to point out that "pure" Islam, as written in the Koran, contains exhortations to war, the violent conquest of the world for Islam and making infidels into converts, dhimmi or corpses by the sword.
As you both point out, these passages are ignored or acted upon as times, circumstances and fortunes wax and wan in the dar al-Islam and the dar al-Harb.
We are currently living in one of the eras of radicalized Islam--duh!--but this current violent cycle may be their last.
If the world is truly to live in peace, Islam may have to be banned worldwide someday as a practicable religion--it just contains too much that engenders the death cult mentality.
Posted by Jennie Taliaferro">Jennie Taliaferro  2005-05-27 16:28|| http://www.greatestjeneration.com]">[http://www.greatestjeneration.com]  2005-05-27 16:28|| Front Page Top

#28 LH disagrees. I believe that he is saying that these sorts of fundamentalist movements are a reoccurring pattern in Islam. I see that you agree.

I only partly disagree. I certainly can see that the modern Ikwani ideology, is, well, modern, and a reaction to modern conditions. But im thinking of various fundamentalist outbursts through muslim history, forex the almohads(?) and others. While I dont see them as the dominant force in muslim history, I do think that they laid a premodern ideological and theological base which 20thc ideologues could transform into a modern fundamentalist ideology.

And i very much doubt the Ms Tallieferro agrees with me on anything.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-05-27 16:29||   2005-05-27 16:29|| Front Page Top

#29 pure" Islam, as written in the Koran

and what I dont see is how you get "pure" islam. Why is one islam pure and the other impure. I can only assume that you mean Islam as it would be IF it were based on a literal reading of the Koran (assuming youve read the entire Koran, which I doubt) And what ive been trying to tell you and others here, over and over, is that the view that a literal reading of a holy text is the "pure" or "right" one is precisely what is at issue, and what most muslims over the centuries have NOT held. Just as most Jews have not held it wrt to the Hebrew scriptures, not have Catholics held it wrt to the Christian Bible. It is a particularly PROTESTANT viewpoint, reflecting Martin Luthers and others insistence on the bible ALONE as a source of authority. Now Protestants are some damned fine people, and theyve made some perfectly wonderful contributions to civilizations, from Bachs cantatas to the Mayflower Compact. But applying their particular perspective to non-Christian civilizations is profoundly misleading.
Posted by liberalhawk 2005-05-27 16:35||   2005-05-27 16:35|| Front Page Top

#30 SM, yes, some muslims are peaceful. The problem is Islam.

We would have no choice but to erase it completely at some point, else the viral locus that is an integral part of its ideology would bring recurrent infection, again and again.
Posted by twobyfour 2005-05-27 16:37||   2005-05-27 16:37|| Front Page Top

#31 Jennie:

I think we Americans can help direct Muslims down a better road by punishing those whose values we disapprove of and rewarding those whose values we agree with. Punishing sometimes means killing, yes, but it can mean other things as well. I understand that in some areas "better" could be viewed subjectively, but in the long run our cultures can no longer avoid one another as they have in the past. We must reach an understanding and, since I believe our culture to be superior, I want those terms to be on terms favorable to us. As long as we Americans stay the course we will be the winning horse. Should we fail to do so we shall fall as a civilization, bringing the rest of the already faltering west down with us. The stakes are high.

That said, although I take the Islamic threat very, very seriously I have absolutely no interest in “banning” Islam or any other religion. Religious discrimination is NOT an American value under any circumstance, even for those with whom I violently disagree. Should we do such a thing we would no longer be Americans but something else.... and I have no interest in that something else. Wahabism (re: Fundamentalist Islam) cannot be viewed as the “essential” focus of a religion that has exhibited such a wide variety of behaviors over the last millennium.

Not to pick on a group I generally respect, but allow me to illustrate my point. Nobody believes that murdering wagon trains full of settlers is an essential, inexorable part of Mormonism, but a century ago they definitely did it. The Mormon doctrine at issue here is called "blood atonement," and it dictates that there are certain sins that include, but hardly limited to, murder that place an offender beyond the redemptive capacity of Christ's atonement. "If these offenses are committed," wrote Joseph Fielding Smith, the tenth Mormon Church president, "the blood of Christ will not cleanse [the offenders] from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf."

It was this kind of thinking that lead to a slaughter at Mountain Meadows, a southern Utah oasis, where Mormon militiamen killed an entire wagon train of settlers save for 17 small children younger than eight, who were regarded as "innocent blood" under Mormon doctrine. The wagon train's considerable wealth in livestock, assets, and gold was plundered, much of it being taken by Mormon leaders as "tithes." Among the atrocity's victims were several Mormon "back-outs," or apostates, who were "blood atoned" for the supposed sin of trying to flee to California. There was also a guard who claimed to have helped lynch church founder Joseph Smith.

I think you see my point: the Mormon religion promoted institutionalize, sanctioned violence that could be condoned with scripture. Yet today I wouldn’t think twice about living next to a Mormon family today; hell, they would probably be the best damn neighbors in the whole ‘hood. But if they bought the farm next to me in 1860 I would probably spend a good deal of time cleaning my Colt-Walker revolver and making sure that my wife and kids were up on the marksmanship (note to all: they are). Time and effort can change things. We changed the Mormons using consistent, if often painful and occasionally unfair, pressure upon their society.

To quote a classic bit of American WWII propaganda: We did it before, we can do it again.
Posted by Secret Master 2005-05-27 17:34||   2005-05-27 17:34|| Front Page Top

#32 SM and LH - how does all that you propose play in a culture/society that continually shows a disconnect from the principles of cause=>effect, and that actions have consequences? It appears to me that unless Islamists, Arabs, Muslims, et al take personal responsibility, all is for naught but the residual radiation leftover. They show no ability to move past the "victim" status, and frankly, I believe most here in RB, and in America are tired of that f*&king act.
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-05-27 17:41||   2005-05-27 17:41|| Front Page Top

#33 Carrot and stick for the next twenty years or so until their children become Western through the cultural osmosis of our television, movies, music, and the internet. Sometimes we bomb the hell out of them, sometimes we build water purification plants for them, we always frame the debate so it is about them not us: their bad behavior not ours, their cultural shortcomings not ours, their dysfunctional politics not ours. We do not allow them to have fun with our internal politics like they did last year, either, by ignoring that sort of crap. We stay strong and patient, like parents with a particularly delinquent child. We flog and reward depending on their behavior and we always, always watch them until they grow up.

Don’t get frustrated Frank because it’s going to be a long haul no matter what we do or don’t do. Glassing Mecca is not an option. We are not the villains of this particular historical story, they are, but the only way to not be a villain is to not act like one.
Posted by Secret Master 2005-05-27 18:08||   2005-05-27 18:08|| Front Page Top

#34 noted - there may come a time when it will be better to ba an alive "villain" than a dead dhimmi.
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2005-05-27 18:16||   2005-05-27 18:16|| Front Page Top

#35 Agreed, but it can't be said that we haven't been warned about the weeds in the garden. A little judicious plucking throughout the season should prevent us from having to break out the weed whacker.
Posted by Secret Master 2005-05-27 18:21||   2005-05-27 18:21|| Front Page Top

#36 SM, That is all nice. But look at Europe. The islamism is on the rise amongst EU muslims, western civ. influences or not.

We can pussyfoot around for 20-50 years. But at some point in time, we would have no choice. I believe it would be sooner.

Since you are using analogies... what you are trying to do is rehabilitate serial killers or sexual preditors. You can't, You may pour as much good will on them as you please, but once you release them, they would kill/bugger again.

I recommend that you do read http://www.prophetofdoom.net/ltr.html and all the chapters, it would provide you with some reference explaining why I don't think your carrot and stick strategy won't work. After you're done, come back and let's hear what you have to say.
Posted by twobyfour 2005-05-27 18:30||   2005-05-27 18:30|| Front Page Top

#37 Errata:

why I don't think your carrot and stick strategy won't work = why I don't think your carrot and stick strategy will work
Posted by twobyfour 2005-05-27 18:33||   2005-05-27 18:33|| Front Page Top

#38 Ok, I'll do that 2x4.
Posted by Secret Master 2005-05-27 18:49||   2005-05-27 18:49|| Front Page Top

#39 This entry at my website talks about an article, "The Key to Jihadist Ideology and Strategy", by Lawrence Auster. It is EXTREMEMLY enlightening when trying to untangle the Chameleon of Islam.

To summarize: The Entire life of mohammed (PTUI) is seen, not as a single template for behavior, but a set of templates, where any specific template is chosen based on the circumstances. Where Islam is weak, the early part of Mohammed's (PTUI) life is used. Where Islam is stronger, but still fighting the Infidel, the middle part of his life is followed. Where Islam has conquered, then the latter part of his life is emulated.

It's a big con game: they can point to one PART of Mohammed's life and protest that THAT is Islam, while hoping you don't notice that they are following a DIFFERENT part of Mohammed's life as they speak.

The Con works because Judaism and Christianity usually have only ONE template to apply (The Torah for the former, and Christ's life for the latter). The Torah is a fixed and finite document, and the record of Jesus' life, despite being written from different views and thus differing from each other in details, is so consistently peaceful and non-violent in itself that in "Carnage and Culture", Hanson himself blames Christianity, not for creating a huge invincible war machine, but the prime source for DISMANTLING it, and the prime advocate for not creating one.

It is a mistake to think that Islam takes the Koran as the sole source of teaching and authority: it is the SUPREME source, but there are a number of secondary historical works containing commentary that is followed as faithfully and passionately as the Koran. In this sense, it is like the PreReformation catholic church, which pushed "the writings of the fathers," and Tradition as authoritative sources for interpreting the Bible.

Don't be fooled by the "peaceful" Muslim: He'll not only switch templates on you the moment the situation changes, but will justify the switch as being fully Islamic.

And he'd be right, because MOHAMMED (PTUI), did EXACTLY what he had just done.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah  2005-05-27 18:56|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]  2005-05-27 18:56|| Front Page Top

#40 #13 LiberalHawk

I'm not so scholarly but some Westerners know more about Islam than 95% of Muhammadans do. One of these would be Robert Spencer of JihadWatch.com. He can debate a Muslim verse for verse from the Koran and Hadith. Actually many Muslims are illiterate and don't know Islam very well since they depend on a Mullah's preachings.
Posted by sea cruise 2005-05-27 19:37||   2005-05-27 19:37|| Front Page Top

#41 Ptah

Very insightful from you and Lawrence Auster.
Posted by sea cruise 2005-05-27 19:43||   2005-05-27 19:43|| Front Page Top

#42 Ptah, the templates of strategy --very good point indeed.

Does anyone think that if AQ got a hold of nukes that they would hesitate to use them? Not for a second.

So what about Paiwakiland? They are muslim country and got nukes. It hinges on Mushy. He is a very intelligent man, and knows that Islam is on notice. So far, he was able to rule with a firm hand. However, I am not sure how he would feel if he would perceive an advantage, I wouldn't exclude a switch to jihad modus operandi. Luckily, a parasitic system that Islam is can't overcome its patterns, they can mimic the tech of their adversary to a degree, but do not have the potential to catch up or develop something new--you need science for that, unimpended by religious constraints.
Posted by twobyfour 2005-05-27 19:59||   2005-05-27 19:59|| Front Page Top

#43 2x4:

Well, a brief scan of the website is interesting. He has made an exhaustive database of more or less offensive quotations from the Koran, the Sira, the Ta’rikh, and several Hadiths (most of the really wacky ones seem to be from them). Unfortunately, right of the bat in his “From The Author” introduction he says some things that are factually untrue:

Islam rises and falls on Muhammad. He is the religion's sole prophet, Islam’s solitary example, Allah’s lone conduit.

Well, a 1300 year old religion is always about more than one person. You could take the Sunni/Shia split as the most obvious example but there are many others. Islam has its saints, holy men, and villains like any other faith. It has produced numerous splinter religions like the Druze, Bahia, and Sufi. Its got roughly 2 billion adherents – it’s BIG. Likewise, Muhammad has never been Islam’s “sole” prophet or “solitary example.” Abraham is big in Islam, as are a variety of other Old Testament prophets. The Koran specifically refers to Jesus is a prophet. So that’s not an accurate statement by any means,

Was Moe a “thief, rapist, and terrorist?” Maybe, but under the same criteria so was King David if I am not mistaken. Moses did some pretty questionable things with divine assistance as well.... like killing the first born male child of every family in an entire race. Does that make the Jewish faith irremovably evil? Of course not, but we can’t judge Islam by one criteria and the other two major Abrahamic religions (there are some minor ones) by another. Having read the Koran (in translation) I can honestly tell you that a great deal of it seems to be poetry about God’s love for man, man’s duties to God, and how to live a good life free from sin (or wickedness if you like). Not my bag, but it’s not all about killing the infidel you know.

Now, should we be ready to rub Islam’s face in its shortcomings where appropriate? By all means – they need it more than anybody. But are they irredeemably evil because of their founder’s supposed shortcomings? Nope.

2x4, there is no delicate way to phrase this, but are you actually buying the Mad Mullah’s hype that the Koran is directly from Moe’s mouth to paper? A lot of evidence suggests that the Koran, much like the Catholic Bible, was basically assembled out of available material at a certain point in history for political reasons. The website points out that little of our knowledge of the founder of Islam comes from reliable archeological sources. For all we know Muhammad has a lot more in common with King Author than Moses.

In closing, I'm certainly not an apologist for Islam. I'm against further immigration from the Middle East to the United States except in the case of Christian arabs, Kurds, and minority Muslim groups like the Druze. Shock and Awe is good medicine for the Sunni, to be applied liberally when and wherever necessary. But we need both stick AND carrot to win the vital war of ideas that we are currently involved in. Deluding ourselves with fantasies about the “basic evil” of such a large and diverse group of people isn’t going to help no matter how badly we want all of them to have some sort of explainable (therefor easily correctable) mass psychosis. There is no neat and tidy end to this, only a very patient, hard, and long-term winding down through superior resolve and culture.
Posted by Secret Master 2005-05-27 20:03||   2005-05-27 20:03|| Front Page Top

#44 SM, I asked you to read it all. You've skimmed it.
The point is not whether Mo was baddie. What matters is that what moral precepts the Koran is built on.

You are incorrect that Islam is an Abrahamic religion. Yes, it refers to Abraham and Jesus. But you need to go beyond that fact and discern HOW.

Something from news:

Tehran, 27 May (AKI) - Hojatolislam Gholam Reza Hasani, a representative of Iran’s supreme spiritual leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, in Iranian Azerbaijan, has no doubts as to who to vote for in the next presidential elections on 17 June. “You need to vote for Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani,” said Hasani. “This way we will finally be able to have for ourselves the atomic bomb to fairly stand up to Israeli weapons,” said Hasani.

“Freedom, democracy and stupidities of this type cannot be carried over to any part, and these concepts are out of sync with the principles of Islam,” said Hasani, the imam who led Friday prayers in the main city of western Iranian Azerbaijian.

“Islam always spoke with the sword in the hand and I don’t see why now we have changed attitudes and talk with the other civilisations.”

That is the truth: Islam always spoke with the sword in the hand.
Anything else is a whitewash and not acknowledging that would cost us dearly.
Posted by twobyfour 2005-05-27 20:15||   2005-05-27 20:15|| Front Page Top

#45 An interesting thread. Many arguments, many deep and obviously heartfelt, perhaps even scholarly, certainly readable and thought provoking.

If my comments are thought unkind or disrespectful, I want to make it clear that is not my intent. I respect logic and facts. I appreciate perspective.

Much of this thread is irrelevant. In toto, it's the mental calculations and machinations of Western examination - a process worthy of emulation - but it won't be, outside the West. It presumes much that is simply untrue. It presumes that the processes on display describe the situation in Islam, the play of forces between groups and schools of thought. Some described in benign terms and some in malignant terms. Clear suggestions that those described in benign terms are benign and those described in malignant terms are malignant --- to the Western POV from which the suggestion come. This implies the so-described benign forces are, or can be, allies to the West in controlling or moderating or "defeating" the so-described malignant forces. If this supposition is not true, the entire "moderate Muslim" presumption collapses.

There is a missing ingredient in these discussions. We sit here in the West, most of us informed by only what we read and understand, yet either innocently or smugly certain that reality only contains that which we can reach by reason, induction, and / or deduction. Yet examples abound that this Western myopia is deeply and dangerously flawed. The Muzzy demonstrations which have re-ignited since the Pentagon's investigation results revealed that the Qu'uran-flushing claim is false, that the detainee himself, the one who made the claim, has now retracted to the point of saying that it was only something he'd heard - now completely disavowing his previous claim that he witnessed it. That there are admissions from some detainees that they themselves had torn pages from the Qu'uran and flushed them in protests. And the response? More demonstrations against the imagined desecration of the Qu'uran by US personnel. We even have the strongman leader of an Islamic state demanding some sort of retribution for the imaginary desecrations. Politics? Playing to the masses? Lol! It is particularly interesting to me that, at the same time, this Islamic leader is expecting the US to arm him to the teeth with some very lethal goodies. How will they be used? To "fight the terrorists" or someone else? Lol! Only in Muzzy-think lies the answer - and something tells me we wouldn't like what we'd find were we able to follow the Muzzy Mind through its decidedly different machinations, lol! Is it "logical"? Would it fit into these neat and tidy discussions?

No.

There are hundreds of other clues to the folly of these learned exercises, a prime example being the bombings in Islamic countries which kill Muzzies, not infidels, by Muzzies. When these events, seemingly contradictory by Western logic, occur what happens? MORE Western POV logic is applied to attempt to explain them. There is now quite a large body of such Western logic, explaining that which is, otherwise, inexplicable by Western thinking. I believe it is fairly well described by this post from JihadWatch (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006276.php), which ran on RB a few days ago. It focuses on the careerism at the 3-letter agencies and the use of this body of fluff. Why, it's the elixir of legend, to them. That it's idiocy is exposed fairly well.

I heard a challenge regards having read the Qu'uran - and the clear implication that the challenger had read it and that there were different factions which focused on different aspects. Then, to my surprise, there was a moment and statement of true clarity, "We can only look at what Muslims actually do." So true. Who, among the Muzzies, is doing the doing, I ask? Why it's the "extremist" or "malignant" Muzzies. Well. Whaddyaknow. Who is doing nothing? the "moderate" or "benign" Muzzies. On their hands they sit, yessss. Waiting to be tapped for duty or killed.

But what about the Muzzies who are fighting back? The Afghan Army and the Iraqi Security Forces? Yeah, what about them... Is it "Moderate Mizzies" fighting "Extremist Muzzies"? Or is it actually religion-neutral, i.e. people defending themselves and their neighbors from killers? If you were to stop being Western for a moment, prone to analysis and thus seeing labels attached (convenient for pigeon-holing, a Western affectation) where they, themselves, do not - would the analysis hold? No. The fact is that the "bad" guys are, indeed, drawn to the factions which are actively being "bad". That you have applied the "extremist" label makes no difference and is a canard leading to invalid presumptions, such as the "good" guys are our friends simply because we are opposing the "bad" guys and they are their victims. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is merely a momentary convenience, a fleeting convergence of interests which, if not belabored, is momentarily true. The instant you attempt to be public about the "moderate" Muzzies being in alliance with the West in opposition to the "extremist" Muzzies - you've just stomped on your own foot. Muzzies will never stand with infidels against Muzzies - if that is the public declaration. If you keep your mouth shut, the moment lasts longer. The true Rule One of Islam is Muzzy First. It is the hook upon which Islam hangs. A Muzzy Nation, regardless of the political lines which we Westerners use to define nations. Evidence abounds to support this observation.

I am insufficiently tutored in Islam-think to go much further in pointing out the flaws, and the dangers, of assuming the Western POV can logically dissect the Muzzy POV, see how it works, and reassemble. A total of 5 years in the belly only took me so far in realizing and identifying that much of what we perceive is perceived totally differently in the Muzzy mind. Sorry. Be pissed and slam me. Be indignant and make demands of proof. Be thoughtful, yet disagree. Be confused and seek further sources which echo my line of thought. Be happy and fry 'em up. Whatever response floats your boat is okay by me... Except one: do not think you know the Muzzies unless you actually know the Muzzies. Upon that hook lies our future.

Lol - now I see a day in the future. An historian is looking back upon this time and marveling at these sincere and heartfelt discussions. I'd say the empirical odds of the historian's gender being a male are 75%, female 25%. If the historian enjoys Freedom, then the odds are 50% male and 50% female. If the historian is a Muzzy "scholar", then 100% male. Thus the predictive odds of 75-25. Will it be one who enjoys Freedom or will it be one who lives under the theocratic totalitarian boot? I dunno. The question is still open in the present.

While I was whanging away on this, letting it simmer, coming back and whanging some more, etc, there have been many additional posts. I'm impressed with the lot, lol! Many folks are wondering about the presumptions which pose dangers to us, if we fail to do due diligence. Good on ya! Some get serious about the Qu'uran - which I've read and which can be used to justify absolutely anything, from subversion to genocide. Excellent. If forewarned we should be adequately armed. We shall see. That some historian will look back and regard this moment, deeply and at leisure, I have no doubt.
Posted by .com 2005-05-27 20:23||   2005-05-27 20:23|| Front Page Top

#46 Twobyfour:
Man, cut me some slack: that's a lot to read while I'm still at work dispatching 20 messengers. It's a miracle that I post at all! I promise that I will peruse it more thoroughly when I have time. Listen, though, I’m not white washing anything. I am telling you that to a large extent people are people, carrot and stick is the only option, and labeling a religion the size of Islam irredeemably evil isn’t going to get us anywhere. This war, like every other, has multiple fronts. One of them concerns winning hearts and minds that, because people are people, can be won.... and we will win them if we political types show resolve, Hollywood makes rocking movies, and the Internet remains unregulated by the United Nations.

Quoting Hasani cuts no water with me because I agree with you about Iran. The Black Turbans are all a bunch of would-be world conquering, murdering fascists who have to be stopped at all costs. Do they speak for all, or even most, Muslims? Nope, as far as I can tell they don’t even speak for most Iranians. More importantly, I don’t think that he speaks for “Islam” any more than Tom Delay speaks for Christianity... actually, a lot less because nobody elected him and Delay has never claimed to speak for his religion.
Posted by Secret Master 2005-05-27 20:59||   2005-05-27 20:59|| Front Page Top

#47 pd: It's just too frightening for most of them. They can't _see_ the aftermath of the Battle of the Ditch in their minds. They can't put themselves in the place of Qutb, lusting for what he can never have, turning that lust into hate, and then using that hate to give him the power to create the ideological foundation of Islamism. The can't even for a second imagine beating the crap out of their sister for flirting with a man, let alone killing her for dishonoring the family. Hawala, kitman, wasta, tribalism, feudalism, honor, shame are just words.

Keep doing what you're doing. You kick ass.
Posted by 11A5S 2005-05-27 22:06||   2005-05-27 22:06|| Front Page Top

#48 SM, sorry, based on your verbosity, I would not presume that you are at work... multitasker, eh? ;-)

I also agree that there are multiple front and believe that at the present time, the fact that Bush's administration refuses to name Islam as the enemy at this point in the game, has some merit. If we can make some good muslims bad muslims (according to Koran, not according to our moral values) and further, if we can free them from the strangehold of islam by informing them, by providing a food for thought, then we would be in better position and may actually prevent a large scale conflict.

That does not mean that we can avoid it. We need to be fully aware what we are against and the moment that we are certain that the current strategy does not work, we have to deploy a more confronatiponal approach without hesitation.

Sure, there are other streams, like Ahmadiyya, Baha'i and to a degree Sufi and other less prominent sects, but I am not worried about those as they reformed the core of the religion to reflect the golden rule of human interaction. If there was a way to make most muzzies convert to Ahmadiyyanism (Lahore branch), I would go for that, despite some inherent misogyny and other issues, that could be, nevertheless, worked out in time.

I quoted Hasani because he is shi'a. Compare it to wahhabi/salafi screeds and you'd see no difference. There is a reason for that, and that reason is Islam--it's core teachings that are the same for both sects.





Posted by twobyfour 2005-05-27 22:11||   2005-05-27 22:11|| Front Page Top

#49 confronatiponal ??? Whadda hell?? LOL

confrontational!
Posted by twobyfour 2005-05-27 22:17||   2005-05-27 22:17|| Front Page Top

#50 Lol, 11A5S!

"It's just too frightening for most of them. They can't _see_ the aftermath of the Battle of the Ditch in their minds. They can't put themselves in the place of Qutb, lusting for what he can never have, turning that lust into hate, and then using that hate to give him the power to create the ideological foundation of Islamism. The can't even for a second imagine beating the crap out of their sister for flirting with a man, let alone killing her for dishonoring the family. Hawala, kitman, wasta, tribalism, feudalism, honor, shame are just words."

In less than 100 words, 96 to be exact, you eloquently summarized the whole thing. Compared to you, I am a hopeless pedant, lol! I did manage not to be angry or nasty, heh - that's progress of a sort, I guess. I should be rear guard - and you should take point, bro. There's never been more at stake - literally, the freedom of mankind.
Posted by .com 2005-05-27 23:09||   2005-05-27 23:09|| Front Page Top

#51 Come off it. You're good at what you do. I'm good at what I do.

I understand the frustration. I'm there with you. Hell, its Rantburg. Rant away.
Posted by 11A5S 2005-05-27 23:52||   2005-05-27 23:52|| Front Page Top

01:15 shellback
00:05 JosephMendiola
23:58 Flealing Angang2925
23:52 11A5S
23:28 anonymous2u
23:24 RWV
23:09 .com
22:45 RWV
22:40 Atomic Conspiracy
22:23 Grunter
22:17 muck4doo
22:17 twobyfour
22:11 twobyfour
22:09 OldSpook
22:07 CrazyFool
22:06 11A5S
21:58 JerseyMike
21:53 Captain America
21:52 Tom
21:44 MacNails
21:36 flash91
21:34 RWV
21:32 mojo
21:30 MacNails









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com