[QUOTE=From the article]
Fatwas are illegal in Bangladesh, a Muslim-majority nation governed by secular law.
But Islamic clerics often preside over courts that use Sharia law and issue fatwas to deal with issues including extra-marital relationships.
Such incidents usually occur in remote villages where police are unable to gain quick access. Bolding mine
[/QUOTE]
Sounds awfully similar to how certain remote communities in Utah and Texas operate.
If a Muslim-majority nation wants Sharia law, then why have they made it illegal and rely on secular institutions such as the police. I also note the lack of any rioting or public disturbance in support of those clerics when the police arrived to arrest the man involved. I think these events have far more to do with gender discrimination which uses Sharia to justify it, the same as certain Christian denominations use the Bible to justify their discrimination against women and others.
So you claim that Islamic terrorism is materially equivalent to Islam and then you want to claim that ***I ***am “projecting my prejudice”?
In fact, anyone who makes the claim that Islam is inherently terrorist is simply speaking nonsense. Failing to distinguish between the various separate denominations of Islam is simply willful ignorance.
The large blocks of Christians in the Middle East are rarely among the Fundamentalist denominations, but the Christians of Lebanon (where there has been serious disruption of the cultural and social situations), have demonstrated a propensity for violence and terror on several occasions.
On the other hand, Hindus, (Sri Lanka and India), Buddhists, (Sri Lanka), Christians, (Lebanon, Nigeria, Cote D’Ivoire, Rwanda, Congo, etc.), and other groups have shown a remarkable propensity for violence that you always seem to ignore.
Islamic fundamentalism is inherently violent. It’s violent because the founder was violent and codified his activity. It doesn’t matter what denomination is involved because as with any religion they will have a fundamental fringe. You see it in interdenominational ideological attacks. It doesn’t matter if it’s Al Quada , Hamas, Hezbollah, or a host of other organizations. The common denominator is Islam that is taught on a fundamentalist level. It exists in very country in the World and it affects every country in the world. It’s nonsense to wave the cause away with explanations of other factors when those same factors exist in every country and every religion.
You can take something as simple as apostasy and look how it is treated in mainstream Islam. According to Imam Abdallah Adhami (audio included with transcript) the Quran says that a public apostate should be jailed. He goes on to say that currently there is no punishment for Muslims who leave Islam and preach against the religion. The more fundamentalist side of Islam would say otherwise up to and including death. Both sides say it is a punishable offense. Both sides treat it differently.
I don’t know where you get the idea that Christians in the Middle East are rarely among fundamentalist denominations. I personally know quite a few and they are VERY conservative compared to their Western counterpart. I urge you to get out in the real world and talk to Christians from Lebanon, Syria and Egypt.
The world isn’t spending billions of dollars in security because of attacks from Hindus, Budhists, Christians or any other group. I don’t know of any cartoonist, writer, or movie director who has to fear for his life over blasphemous material by any other religion except Islam.
This is most likely true. However, every time you come into this discussion, you conflate fundamentalism with all of Islam.
And, of course, in order to try to make your point, you can only point to three closely linked organizations that have exactly the same roots in the same sect of fundamentalist Islam.
Then why do you wave away the actual causes of violence for the sake of erroneously blaiming Islam instead of acknowledging humans in certain situations tend to respond in violence?
Many Orthodox, Maronites, Chaldeans, and others are quite conservative. Few of them fit the definition of “fundamentalist.” I had Lebanese and Syrian classmates and I am aware of the various attitudes among them.
OTOH, it now seems that you are arguing my position that it is a combination of “fundamentalism” and social/cultural disruption that leads to violence and terror–which would explain the Christian activities in Lebanon and Palestine. (Muslims are hardly the only people who have resorted to brutality in those regions.)
Only because those groups are currently battling each other. The world is not investing all that money in a defense against Islam, either, but only against a specific set of people driven by a single sect of Islam. Pretending that it is all Islam at war against the “world” is baseless paranoia.
I’ve argued specifically on the extremist (fundamentalist) aspect of Islam from Day one.
Lebanese Christians are at odds with fundamentalist Muslims. It is a decidedly hostile environment. And yes, fundamentalist Muslims are against the world at large. The caliphate mentality is not a joke. We don’t have to be fought on any basis beyond financial ruin to fulfill such a goal. 9/11 was done at zero cost and the economic damage was substantial. When you dissect 9/11 to it’s base components it was really a small time operation. Throw a little money at it and it’s just a matter of time before another Tom Clancy book is acted out on the world stage.
The call goes up from London to Indonesia, wherever half a dozen whack-jobs gather.
It still ain’t happening though and anyone who loses one second of sleep over it let alone runs around shrieking the sky is falling need to grow a spine alongside a sense of proportion.
Having the idea of a united Islamic state is not remotely the same as having a Caliphate.
Also, wikipedia is not a reliable source since anyone who wants to can edit it. In short you only read what the victors in edit wars want you to hear.
Give me the names and actual quotes of groups that have called for this. I’ve never read them and I’ve read countless so-called “fatwas” issued by Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants and never seen such a call.
Okay. You’re actually just an ideologue like Macgiver and Bicker et al. I’m disappointed. I’ll leave it to Macgiver to come along and hand you your bleeding ass on a plate.
But - although (as you full well know) I could go on all day with the results of cursory google searches I’m going to leave some of your bleeding ass for others.
Again I’m going to express my personal disappointment that someone who occasionally seemed a reasonable and informed poster turns out to be just another ideological warrior.
You really thought you could make the ‘No Caliphate to see here, move right along’ claim and get away with it?
Seriously?
Oh - and minus points for the ‘wiki isn’t reliable’ hand-waving. And as for trying to make a distinction between global islamic state and caliphate - even I’m embarrassed for you.
What we’re being naive about is the belief the introduction of democracy is always a good thing. If it turns an ally into a bitter foe and tips the Middle East into all-out war then it’s a very bad thing, at least from the West’s point of view. I’m sure it’s in the interests of the Egyptian people to overthrow a tyrant and take control of their government but it’s the duty of an American President to look after the interests of the American people and a democratic Egypt deeply hostile to the US is most definitely not in their interests.
Yup. The rational fear all along is not that if Egypt had a flourishing democracy, its people would freely chose some sort of Islamic fundamentalism. All indications are that would not happen. The vast majority of Egyptians care more about the stagnation of their nation under a 30 year “state of emergency”, with no jobs for young people other than the well-connected … the sense of frustration of the average Egyptian - young, condemned to no future by this creaking regime - must truly be extreme.
The real, rational fear is that the MB is really the only group among the opposition that is really organized and has a common goal. If chaos insues, an organized, extreme minority with focus can sometimes impose its will over a vast but unorganized majority - as has happened repeatedly in past revolts like the French and Russian Revolutions. The Bolsheviks, for example, had only a small minority of popular support.
Well, maybe if the USA didn’t go around propping up vile, torturing dictatorships and overthrowing democratic regimes it doesn’t like the face of there’d be less hostility.
It’s their country and if they want to be hostile that’s up to them. They can look after their own interests and if the West goes into a malignant sulk at the results I’m sure the Chinese will be happy to help them out.
I think we should go all out to be best buddies with the largest democracy in the Middle East (hopefully).
I also was worried before seeing that survey that the MB could simply out-organize the other parties in terms of getting out the vote etc; imagine an election with 25 secular parties and the MB competing for the vote. But the “disapprove” numbers were a lot higher than I would have expected; I thought more Egyptians would be relatively neutral toward the MB.
For a tiny minority to ‘impose their will’ the Army would have to vanish.
The people, from the poll and from all we know, aren’t interested in fundamentalism.
And the Army is going nowhere.
Any democracy in the Middle East is going to have an Islamic flavour. A democratic, islamic Egypt is just something we and Israel are going to have to work with.
Maybe a good faith attempt to establish a Palestinian state with all the traditional aspects of sovereignty would be a good start.
I thought the “in 5 to 10 years, I hope to see an Egypt” question was interesting:
[QUOTE=WINEP survey]
Whose might and power is respected and feared throughout the Middle East and Africa 28%
Which is widely praised as the first real democracy in the Arab world 22%
Which is open and developed enough to welcome 20 million tourists from around the world 17%
in which Shariah is fully implemented 12%
Refused to answer 23%
[/quote]
Though I think the thumb is on the scales a bit towards answers one and two; might have seen more answers for shariah if it was “whose deep faith in Islam is reflected in a full implementation of Shariah law” or some such.