Hey, settle down. I lobbed the ball into your court and you spiked it back in my face. I clearly made a plea to those who where more informed than me to offer their point of veiw. Maybe the OP was right, dicussing mid east politics sucks here. Some people get SO defensive when their POV`s are attacked that it makes arguing with them pointless.
So, are you saying that most terrorism is not carried out by Muslims?
Are you saying that there are no facist Muslim societies?
Have you seen Muslim leaders in this country condemn other Muslims for for the acts of terrorism they commit?
Have you seen a world - wide uprising in the Muslim communities that condemns the existence of ruthless Muslim leaders and Muslim based terrorist organizations?
Have you seen acts of terrorism not traced back to Muslim groups (recently)?
Have you, yourself, condemned the acts of others in your faith for committing crimes against humanity? Especially against other Muslims?
Did you happen to see Muslims in other countries cheer in the streets when the WTC was levelled?
Which religion, exactly, has declared a holy war on the US and its allies? swami said;
“Well, since you have equated Islam with facism, it really wouldn’t be a stretch to say you are claiming Muslims to be Facists as well (seeing as they are followers of Islam, and all that). It’s hard not to take this as an attack.”
Yes, that is a stretch, because I know what that means. It means that all Muslims are facists and I never said that. Youre trying to bend my position to benefit your POV. Please dont.
I`m not attacking Muslims, or fundamental Islam.
Yes and the terrorism performed by the Baader-Meinhof Gang was carried out by Germans, the Red Brigade’s acts were committed by Italians, and the acts of the ETA are done by Basques, so what’s your point? That the acts of the few necessarily involve the complicity of the many?
Yep. Fascism is not a synonym for "repressive; it has a specific meaning in defining a government. While many historians quibble over the specifics, a useful definition is provied by the historian Stanley Payne in his book, A History of Fascism, 1914-1945, 1994
The Ba’athists don’t qualify as fascists under this defintion. They are a secular, socialist, pan-Arabist ideolgoy, but they do not share the characteristics of Mussolini’s Italy or Hitler’s Germany. As for the rest of the Arab world, most governments are monarchies (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain), secular republics (Egypt). The only theocracy in the Muslim world is Iran, and even the clerics’ reign there is weakening.
There have been many Muslim writers and intellectuals who have denounced the repression of authoritarian governments, but I’m not sure how you would expect a “worldwide movement” to exist, given the religious and political divisions in the Muslim world.
You mean like car bombings in Spain committed by the ETA or bombings in Sri Lanka committed by the Tamil Tigers?
NA
Sure, I saw the Palestinians cheering and the smug celebration of the Iraqis. Other Muslims mourned along with the US and extended their sympathies to us.
[/quote]
Which religion, exactly, has declared a holy war on the US and its allies?
[/quote]
No relgion has. Islam as a whole certainly has not. You need to learn to see that Islam is not some monolithic sinister force but a faith with its own divisions and outlaws.
I do not believe that Pipes ever equated Islam with fascism. He used the term Islamic fascism to apply to those particular Islamic states that were run along fascistic lines, like Iraq and Syria. He did not criticize Islam in general. E.g.,
As I said, the Ba’ath party, which runs Syria and used to run Iraq, does not qualify as fascist. Repressive? Sure, but there are tons of those and most are not Muslim states. Pipes is full of shit.
I rather thought the point was in re states with Islamist character, and not any Muslim state. Insofar as Indonesia, to date, is simply more or less a Republic w/ a Muslim majority I don’t see its relevant to the characterization you replied to.
Well, there seems to be some crossed wires in re what hte hell we are taling about. Any state with Muslims are a majority? States that are explicitely Islamic and try for Sharia’ (and is import. here), what’s the standard?
I’d like to know what goddamned standards you’re basing your assertions off of. It appears off of nothing but guesses and empty prejudices.
The characterization that
is then based off of what? You made a characterization, note the emphasis added, that implies an actual comparision.
Now, as has been cogently noted prior, fascist is not simply a synonym for dictatorial or authoritarian.
But beyond that let me note several states that are Muslim majority but not noticably authoritarian:
Senegal
Mali
Nigera (a mess but not authoritarian)
Bangladesh
Indonesia
Lebanon
Erirtrea
Somaliland (n. Somali breakaway c. 1991)
Turkey (authoritarians are the secularists, seem to have given way)
Bosnia.
Somewhat marginal cases:
Morocco (monarchy, democratic asp.)
Jordan (monarchy, democratic asp.)
Niger (constant state of coup d’etat)
Malaysia (auth. presidency with parties)
Tunisia (auth. presidency with some degree of pluralism, most marg.)
Yemen (President of Rep. eff. in a city state, country at large in more or less balancing act btw central auth and various tribal or clan chiefs, show of democracy)
Egypt (something of a quasi-demo. with some space for contesting, like Tunisa, but really one party state)
I could go on, but it’s quite clear that in very few Muslim majority states could one find something that is actually “fascistic” even in the sense of secular or religious authoritarianism. Sudan might qualify, Syria would.
In short, your characterization looks to me like something based off of a superficial stereotype w/o even the mildest effort to validate. And I should indulge your fucking laziness?
It’s not the attack on the POV, it is the sheerr ignorance and stupidity. It is one thing to have an argument with someone with some modicum of information with informed views but a different interpretation.
It is quite another to argue with idjits would bandy about fetid stereotypes and can’t be fucking bothered to even try to validate them.
Yes, I woiuld say that. Or did you mean, most terrorism against US targets, in which case I would have to say we need to look a little more carefully.
Yes, I am, there are no fascist Muslim societies, and I believe Olivier Roy in the past has made a cogent argument why “totalitarianism” is a poor match to Islamic societies – however there are several, too many, dictatorial govenrments in the Islamic world. Mostly secular, based off of Western ideologies, so I don’t see a reason to blame Islam qua Islam rather than non-religious reasons mixed with religious-cultural reasons.
Yes, I have, your lack of attention on this issue is not an argument (ex argument from ignorance).
Better that, I watched a fine show on al-Jazeerah with the conservative Imam al-Qardaouie legitimating US action in Afghanistan based on Islamic principals. Right of self-defense against aggressors (al-Qaeda).
Why should I? I have not seen a world wide uprising of Orthodox Xian communities to condemn the existence of ruthless Orthodox Xian rulers who massacred non-Orthodox minorities.
Blood guilt, in short, is not something I expect.
Sure, Lord’s Army in Uganda, against other Xians and Muslims alike, continued ETA violence in Spain, until recently Tamil Tiger violence in Sri Lanka (the cease fire seems to be holding, these are the people who invented suicide bombing), during the 1990s I would call the actions by Serb irregulars against Croats and Muslims terrorism, etc.
Again, your ignorance is not an argument.
What sort of question is that? As I have no particular faith it’s rather an easy out for me, but I fail to see the point.
What other Muslims? I am not a Muslim you retarded idiot.
However, I am well aware of the condemnations within the regoin for the actions of Islamic Jihad (e.g. in 2000 I reported to this very board the terrible massacre by IJ in Sudan of some Sufi order gathered for prayers in a Friday Mosque), the same can be said for the actions of the GIA in Algeria.
I indeed saw some such scenes. I also personally recieved many condolences from my wide circle of friends, Muslims, in the region.
I’ve also seen non-Muslims angry at the US cheer the event, so…
No religion insofar as religions are non-unitiry abstractions and can not delcare holy war.
And I note the disingenous inclusion of NoI in the umbrella of Islam as yet another reason why I have almost no respect for Pipes.
He walks as close as possible to the line of open bigotry w/o crossing it. E.g. to lump our NoI sniper(*) into Islam in general, the entire article is a little game of throwing out tidbits of red meat while holding back for plausibile deniability.
I really ask, how can one give credibility to this kind of utter tripe.
[sub]
(*: it is not even clear from any of the evidence that his NoI connexion had anything to do with sniping insofar as several victimes were black themselves.)[/sub]
“Liberal Muslims think they are more liberated than their “fundamentalist” cousins because they (the Liberal Muslims) believe that by some creative re-interpretation of the Koran they will thereby bring the Koran, albeit screaming and kicking, into the 21st Century. First, it does not seem to strike these misguided liberal Muslims that they are still prisoners to an obscure, incoherent, bizarre mediaeval text, a curious amalgam of Talmudic Judaism, apocryphal Christianity and pagan superstitions (especially in the rites and rituals of the Hajj), full of barbarisms. They have not cut their umbilical cords, and are still trying to make sense of an often senseless text, more than a thousand years old. Second this desire to re-interpret has led to some willful and intellectually dishonest “re-reading” of the Koran. Feminists pretend that the “real Koran” is progressive towards women, human rights activists pretend, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that the « real Koran » is totally compatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The reality is that the Koran, and the Sharia derived from the Koran, are totalitarian constructs that try to control every single aspect of an individual’s life from the way he or she urinates and defecates, the way he/she eats, dresses, works, marries, makes love, prays, to the way he or she thinks on every conceivable subject. Finally, while the Koran is open to some re-interpretation, it is not infinitely flexible.”
“The history of the Islamic theology can be seen as a struggle between reason and revelation, with the eventual triumph of the dictates of revelation, with a victory for irrationalism and blind obedience to tradition.”
“The unbelievers are your sworn enemies.”
"The totalitarian nature of Islam is no where more apparent than in the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim is to conquer the entire world and submit it to the one true faith, to the law of Allah. To Islam alone has been granted the truth - there is no possibility of salvation outside it. It is the sacred duty - an incumbent religious duty established in the Koran and the Traditions - of all Muslims to bring it to all humanity. Jihad is a divine institution, enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam. Muslims must strive, fight and kill in the name of God:
“Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.”
“Those who believe fight in the cause of God…”
“I will instill terror into the hearts of the Infidels, strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every fingertip.”"
“It is abundantly clear from many of the above verses that the Koran is not talking of metaphorical battles or of moral crusades; it is talking of the battle field. To read such blood thirsty injunctions in a Holy Book is shocking.”
“Liberal democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom and attaches all possible value to each man or woman. Individualism is not a recognizable feature of Islam ; instead the collective will of the Muslim people is constantly emphasized. There is certainly no notion of individual rights, which developed in the West, especially during the eighteenth century. The constant injunction to obey the Caliph, who is God’s Shadow on Earth, is hardly inducive to creating a rights –based individualist philosophy. The hostility to individual rights is manifest in these two excerpts, one from the great Ibn Khaldun, and one from a recent Muslim thinker A.K. Brohi, a former Minister of Law and Religious Affairs in Pakistan who has often written on human rights from an Islamic perspective.”
"The questions are also vital to understanding the ongoing war on terrorism. The war is not a conflict with a single nation or league of nations. Nor is it a police action against a random assortment of criminals or criminal gangs. It is a war in defence of our way of life against enemies who oppose that way of life, and who oppose it from common cultural and religious motives. Whatever specific aims, hopes, and delusions the al-Qaeda hijackers may have had, the organisation could not have flourished - it could not have drawn so many recruits, raised so much money, and found support and sanctuary throughout the Middle East-unless it appealed to widespread values. "
"Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organisation is part of an extensive network of terrorist groups such as Egypt’s al-Jihad - which was responsible for the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981 and the World Trade Centre bombing in 1993 - and many others in Algeria, Sudan, Chechnya, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, and elsewhere. These organisations represent the violent extreme of a fundamentalist movement known as Islamism that has been gaining ground among Muslims since the 1970s.
In virtually every nation there are disaffected groups with bizarre goals and the willingness to pursue them violently. The Islamists, however, have an unusual degree of popular support in the Middle East. Bernard Lewis, the eminent scholar of Islam, traces this support to a growing resentment of the West, a resentment that ‘goes beyond hostility to specific interests or actions or policies or even countries and becomes a rejection of Western civilisation as such, not only what it does but what it is, and the principles and values that it practices and professes’ - an attitude, he warned, that lends support to the use of terror by Islamic fundamentalists (1)."
It isn`t just me. Others seem to think that Islam, due to its structure, tends to be open to facscism.
Collounsbury You choose to name call and comment on my general personage with words such as “idiot” and “moron”.
Yet, you don`t know me. How can you judge a person after a couple posts of interaction? Yet, you accuse me of not being informed on this issue. I guess your basing your opinion of me on what limited exposure you have to me. How is that any different than what you accuse me of (my presumed limited exposure to this issue)?
Lighten up.
Im here to learn, not teach. Im open to your views. You should be open to others.
Your right you never said all Muslims are Facists, but you did say that Islam = Facism. Now, what I want to know is how you can think Islam = Facism, but deny that Muslims = Facists. Any information could help me prevent myself from “trying to bend” your position.
If It came off as Muslim=Fascism, then I retract that statement, that wasn`t my direct intention.
See the lengthy above post where I quote some cites that lend credit to my stance.
Well, I was going to write something in reply, since Calculus decided to grace me for the spotlight in his OP, but the current posts are too interesting for me to derail. Aii I know is, based on my understanding of Islam, and what I remember reading from the Koran, and my following of Middle Eastern news, it’s best to keep a shaker of salt nearby when reading Pipes’ stuff.
Oh, wait, that wasn’t nearly juvenile enough for The BBQ Pit. Hold on…
Awwwww, is Calculus upset because not everyone wants to buy into the rantings of his favorite xenophobe? Poor baby…
Well, my first comment is that your second link does not even address the issue of Fascism and Islam except to say that it perceives parallels between some aspects of Islam and some aspects of both Fascism and Communism. Specifically, its entire comparison amounts to:
"Considered from this aspect’? “bears a kind of resemblance”? Not persuasive.
I will then note that neither site actually addresses the issue of demonstrating a link between Islamic practice and Fascist theory or practice. It seems, much in the way of the previously reviled Daniel Pipes, to simply use the word Fascism to mean “government actions we don’t like.” Since there are very specific meanings regarding the word Fascism and the governments that embody Fascist philosophy, (as noted in at least three earlier posts in this thread), this is exactly the sort of name-calling to which Col initially objected.
Beyond that, I would be curious as to who actually makes up this “Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society” that publishes lots of articles by people, apparently none of whom are Muslim. How many of these people know what they are talking about? (And what is the actual agenda that they are pushing?) The author of your linked page was Umberto Eco. I am not sure that I accept his version of historical Christianity; why should I accept his pontifications on Islam?
If one wants to link Islam and Fascism in any meaningful way (beyond the basic “we don’t like 'em”), then it would be appropriate to identify specifically Fascist actions in which Muslim states have engaged. Which of the countries that Col named, earlier, actually engage in which specific Fascist activities. (And please remember that dictators, monarchs, despots, and other people exercised various levels of control and inflicted various types of harm on their citizens for thousands of years before Mussolini developed a particular political philosophy that was later used in Germany, Spain, and a few other locations.)
BTW, whuckfistle, I just re-read your second link, The war against modernity, again. Not only does it not make an argument linking Islam to Fascism. It is specifically a series of views on Islamism (that we were calling “Islamic Fundamentalism” a few years ago), not on Islam, overall. It actually notes several voices from within Islam that oppose that individual movement.
It seems to me that if you changed the references to the Koran to references to the Bible, this could easily be speaking about Christianity, albeit by a speaker who considers fundamentalist Christianity the norm.
You`re correct, but the discussion is about Islam, specifically.
I personally think that, even if you pick out the parts that cast a bad light on the Bible, you will find it is not as radical as the Koran.
My opinion, of course.
