|
| Thread: Sheer Brutality |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted November 17, 2004 09:52 PM |
|
|
Sheer Brutality
I have said a few things about George Bush, but not about the terrorists. The following story is so sad:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4019809.stm
At the heart of the belief system of these people (Islamic terrorists) is an xenophobic, anti-non-muslim thinking that is incredibly misguided. In this case, they killed someone who has given their life to the Iraqi people, helped them at every turn in every way she could. Talk about lack of ability to discern what is right!
My sense is that Islam needs a reformation, a renewal, one that will allow it to integrate with the rest of the world and not constantly be at odds with Western Society. That change will not come through waging war, but needs to arise from within those Islamic societies themselves. I have always wondered what kind of leaders can so easily preach hate, division, and violence and still be called religious. My belief is they can not, they don't know God at all, and are really just blind and deluded men leading blind and deluded people.
And so, the need is great for much more enlightened leaders,who really know what the Spiritual World is, and are not here just to seek political power and gain followers.
____________
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 17, 2004 11:02 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 17 Nov 2004
|
Quote:
I have always wondered what kind of leaders can so easily preach hate, division, and violence and still be called religious. My belief is they can not, they don't know God at all, and are really just blind and deluded men leading blind and deluded people.
And so, the need is great for much more enlightened leaders,who really know what the Spiritual World is, and are not here just to seek political power and gain followers.
Hypothetically speaking...
George Bush wages war, invades other countries and one could easily say he "preaches hate", if they where from the country he invaded. Yet, he is still religious: "In God we trust". Then, and in that case, their belief is that he can not, he does not know God at all, and is really just a blind and deluded man leading blind and deluded people.
This, is what alot of the world thinks about the president of the strongest country at this present time. I neither agree or disagree; I am simply pointing out that in order to understand where their ideas and ways of doing come from, we need to put ourselves in their shoes.
I agree with you that this is a sad event. I have been following this story on CBC.ca. I was hoping it would not come to this, but it sadly has. If I may play the devils advocate, who trained these men? Who gave them weapons, technology, etc? And also, did the US kill innocent people in the Iraq war? War is war and innocent lives will be lost - That's one of the reasons why I don't agree with it in the first place.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 18, 2004 02:03 AM |
|
|
Quote:
My sense is that Islam needs a reformation, a renewal, one that will allow it to integrate with the rest of the world and not constantly be at odds with Western Society.
You mustnt identify islam with fundamnetalism.
Islam, as any religion, doesnt preach hate and xenophobia, but also, as any religion, being the conservative concept they are, can be used as a tool to organize and unite people against (or for) a common goal.
Ilsamic fundamentalism is the misshapen face of Islam caused by sheer economic and cultural exploitation done to the people who are in a way "forced" to embrace such an extremist ideology. Instead, the West should revise its own policy towards Islamic countries, that causes all the havoc in the first place.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2004 05:10 AM |
|
|
Conan, I am one of those who don't agree whole heartedly with George Bush and his ways. I have stated so in other threads. My purpose, here, was to talk of the opposition, the Islamis militants and how ill-concieved is their way of thinking. With both these sides I can empathize somewhat, but I have no desire to walk in their shoes at all. Granted, there are some tough choices to be made if you choose to be a leader of a country or any group of people, but I do find much talk on both sides couched in God's name, as if such a Divine Being would take sides so easily.
For example, two football teams in Texas pray for the strength to go out and smash the opposition before the game starts. Who does God side with? Neither..It's all man's doing. God plays no role here other than everybody was created so this game can happen in the first place. Sides and confrontation are a human way of looking at things.
Svarog, I don't identify Islam totally with fundamentalism. but the voice of the enlightened moderates have to be raised and hold sway over the extremists. Right now, the voice most often heard in the world is calling for Jihad, war against the infidel.
Also, I have heard that time and time again from the mouths of Muslim's being interviewed.."If the US would change their policies..". Such blaming on someone else is a sign of weakness and immmaturity. Doesn't anybody ever take responsibility for anything? It is not the economic policies of the West that hold them back, but the inner, spiritual-philosophical thinking that makes them think they are victims rather people who have the ability to do something for themselves
____________
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 18, 2004 12:11 PM |
|
|
Islam didn't exist before 630-something AD. By their way of counting the years, we are in year 1400-something.
What was Christian, Western countries like in our 1400s? The witch processes raged across Europe, religious crusades against other Europeans were issued by the Pope, and (IIRC) the Inquistition were torturing their way through Spain.
Not much better, eh?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2004 03:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Islam didn't exist before 630-something AD. By their way of counting the years, we are in year 1400-something.
What was Christian, Western countries like in our 1400s? The witch processes raged across Europe, religious crusades against other Europeans were issued by the Pope, and (IIRC) the Inquistition were torturing their way through Spain.
Not much better, eh?
Absolutely. The record of Western civilization is pretty bad. However, this is now not then. The world is at a stage where it is smaller than ever, because of the internet, jet planes etc. Different religions and civilizations can no longer afford to isolate themselves and pretend only they have the answer.
Most European countries have big Muslim populations, but most Muslim countries don't have big European populations. These people are economic refugees who came looking for a better life. If the new citizens don't respect the ways of the new country they live in, its trouble.
The trouble with Islam is it doesn't take criticism well or have a sense of humor. All to often anyone that speaks out against it gets a fatwa of death issued against them. Salman Rushdie is one exmaple, then there is that Dutch movie maker, Van Gogh who was just killed.
The ability to laugh at yourself is important. Calling for the death of someone that speaks out against you is simply religious facism.
Anyway Terje, there are problems with the West even in the present day. No society is perfect. But at least people got to vote on Bush, and he didn't win by 95% as will happen elsewhere.
____________
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 18, 2004 03:18 PM |
|
|
What you're saying is very true.
And even though I agree that the ability to laugh at yourself is rather important, I can understand that religious people don't think their religion is anything to laugh about. I mean, those of us who are not religious (at least not in the traditional meaning of the word) cannot possibly imagine how it is for a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or whatever to see their religion becoming a joke (I know this is not how you menat it, but this is how they probably will percieve it, imo).
Also, "all" Muslims aren't all the same. There are more secular Muslims, just as it exists more secular Christians. So please, don't generalize. (And please, let me know if you think I do...)
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2004 07:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Conan, I am one of those who don't agree whole heartedly with George Bush and his ways. I have stated so in other threads. My purpose, here, was to talk of the opposition, the Islamis militants and how ill-concieved is their way of thinking. With both these sides I can empathize somewhat, but I have no desire to walk in their shoes at all. Granted, there are some tough choices to be made if you choose to be a leader of a country or any group of people, but I do find much talk on both sides couched in God's name, as if such a Divine Being would take sides so easily.
For example, two football teams in Texas pray for the strength to go out and smash the opposition before the game starts. Who does God side with? Neither..It's all man's doing. God plays no role here other than everybody was created so this game can happen in the first place. Sides and confrontation are a human way of looking at things.
I totally agree with you here. And I know you don't agree with Bush's action, as I have also read what you wrote in other threads. 
My comment where not necessarily in contrast with yours or even to argue what you had posted... Simply to compliment your post. 
I like the way you think, that's why I added what I did
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 18, 2004 08:47 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 18 Nov 2004
|
Ok, cheers and thanks Conan  . And thanks to the others who took the time to reply. These issues are so complex I appreciate the points of view expressed by all.
Terje, it is all to easy to generalize about many things. I'm trying to express here for a few reasons. One is, my own thinking becomes clearer. Another, is the feedback and points of view that others come up with, which adds thngs that I may not see at first.
Being a somewhat spiritual person, I was expressing my sense and understanding of what spirituality is and isn't to me. Being religious does not preclude losing the ability to laugh at your self. I'm afraid the Bible, Koran, Torah or the Bhagavad-Gita don't really convey the humor that must have existed even in those times. Taking ones-self super-seriously is a huge failing of many so called spiritual leaders. And if the leaders would relax, the followers would also. That would go along way to creating a healthy attitude for improving the world.
So, if I throw statements out there, please understand I don't believe everybody is like that, but there certainly exists an element, maybe large or not but cetainly influential that does.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 19, 2004 05:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The trouble with Islam is it doesn't take criticism well or have a sense of humor. All to often anyone that speaks out against it gets a fatwa of death issued against them.
There’s no trouble with Islam. As terje said, all conservative religious views don’t have a sense of humor. What we have to ask ourselves is why religious conservativism takes a swing mostly in Middle-Eastern countries. Not only there, but also in rural areas, especially in Third World countries.
Quote:
Such blaming on someone else is a sign of weakness and immmaturity. Doesn't anybody ever take responsibility for anything? It is not the economic policies of the West that hold them back, but the inner, spiritual-philosophical thinking that makes them think they are victims rather people who have the ability to do something for themselves
You’re talking about taking responsibility and yet you forget to look in your own back yard. If you think pure philosophical thinking would make someone take a gun and fight against the West, i think you’re on a wrong track.
As I said, religious conservativism mostly develops in poor rural areas, and it’s the case with Christianity too. This proves that the “inherent militant ideology of islam” is Western avoiding of responsibility. Even more, Turkey is an islamic country and we don’t see religious conservativism there.
A widespread illiteracy, economical problems especially with political background are a fertile soil for fundamentalism. Reason is people tend to feel safer in groups, feel protected by a divine force, and the threat for their way of life and the one guilty for their misery is clearly shown in the aggressive infidel immorality of the West. On the other hand, local leaders arise ready to acquire wealth for themselves, and step in to lead the people.
The West is clearly responsible for their situation, since they are the one who by shaping political and economical conditions to their personal advantage, have turned a blind eye to the victims in that process.
I’m not saying islamic terrorists arent guilty for their actions, but these action certainly have a background which is much more merciless and terrorist than any bombing or suicide attack, since many millions of people are ruthlessly crushed in the race for capital.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 19, 2004 11:25 AM |
|
|
@Shiva: I couldn't possibly disagree with anything in your last post there. (Or so I think...)
@Svarog: I agree. "War is the father of all things"  "Economic relations are the basis of all things." A development, from Greece to Germany, but they essentially say the same thing:
Nothing (or at least, very few things) originate in spiritual relations only. There is always material relations lurking in the background; we may just need some time to see it.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 19, 2004 01:52 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 19 Nov 2004
|
quote:
You’re talking about taking responsibility and yet you forget to look in your own back yard. If you think pure philosophical thinking would make someone take a gun and fight against the West, i think you’re on a wrong track.
As I said, religious conservativism mostly develops in poor rural areas, and it’s the case with Christianity too. This proves that the “inherent militant ideology of islam” is Western avoiding of responsibility. Even more, Turkey is an islamic country and we don’t see religious conservativism there.
A widespread illiteracy, economical problems especially with political background are a fertile soil for fundamentalism. Reason is people tend to feel safer in groups, feel protected by a divine force, and the threat for their way of life and the one guilty for their misery is clearly shown in the aggressive infidel immorality of the West. On the other hand, local leaders arise ready to acquire wealth for themselves, and step in to lead the people.
The West is clearly responsible for their situation, since they are the one who by shaping political and economical conditions to their personal advantage, have turned a blind eye to the victims in that process.
I’m not saying islamic terrorists arent guilty for their actions, but these action certainly have a background which is much more merciless and terrorist than any bombing or suicide attack, since many millions of people are ruthlessly crushed in the race for capital.
I wont argue against social/economic conditions being a factor in the rise of fundamentalism. They are one factor. In the US, fundamentalists are very well off. In China and India, there are millions, maybe billions of poor people. Neither has given rise to religious terrorists. Therefore, being poor and Muslim is a unique combination which perhaps gives rise to such a movement.
To say the West is clearly responsible for giving rise to these conditions is very one sided. Then you might as well blame the West on Arabic culture falling from it's cultural peak as it had in the early years of Islam, or the fall of the Ottoman Empire on the West's on rise. It is way to simple to blame everything on the culture that is now on top of the world.
Osama himself came from a super rich family. Many of the other leaders are well educated, at least middle class. You can not argue economic deprivation there, but they certainly use those conditions to get new recruits. These leaders of Al-Queda have a definite philosophical hatred of the US based on some mis-guided understanding of Islam
I do not mean to blame all of Islam for the actions of a few, but it is obviously true that terrorism around the world in the present day is almost exclusively Islamic. It is my feeling that Islam itself needs a great rethink.
And please understand that I also condemn any religious leader, Jewish, Christian or Hindu that incites and condones such actions.
____________
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 21, 2004 09:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I wont argue against social/economic conditions being a factor in the rise of fundamentalism. They are one factor. In the US, fundamentalists are very well off. In China and India, there are millions, maybe billions of poor people. Neither has given rise to religious terrorists. Therefore, being poor and Muslim is a unique combination which perhaps gives rise to such a movement.
Some of us would call the people who bomb abortion clinics religious terrorists, but as this is a question of definitions, I won't drag it into the discussion any more.
Quote:
To say the West is clearly responsible for giving rise to these conditions is very one sided. Then you might as well blame the West on Arabic culture falling from it's cultural peak as it had in the early years of Islam, or the fall of the Ottoman Empire on the West's on rise. It is way to simple to blame everything on the culture that is now on top of the world.
Could you please epxplain what you meant a little clearer? I fail to see the connections between your examples, as you very well could say that it was the West who, through the crusades, brought a halt to Muslim toleratism, and who weakened the Arabs enough so that when the Mongols and the Turks came, the Arabs didn't give much opposition (giving the Mongols good oppostion is something I doubt anyone at the time would have been capable of doing anyway; crusade or no crusade).
As for the Ottoman Empire example, it is, as far as I understand a rather wide consensus within historical academical circles that the Ottoman Empire fell because its leaders were more busy with showing off their wealth that to invest it in industry and research, along with the Portugese sailing around Africa, and with that make the Silk Road (the Ottoman's main scource of income) obsolete, thus enableing the Europeans to surpass them in economy, technology, military, etc... So, indirectly, you could say that the "West"'s rise was the cause of the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Quote:
Osama himself came from a super rich family. Many of the other leaders are well educated, at least middle class. You can not argue economic deprivation there, but they certainly use those conditions to get new recruits. These leaders of Al-Queda have a definite philosophical hatred of the US based on some mis-guided understanding of Islam
Yes, it's an indisputeable fact that the middle class breeds the most terrorists, to use a stupid expression. And most of these terrorists became "terrorists", some suspect, because their masters during the Afghanistan War (ca. 1979-1989) support the regime that suppresses (I hope it's the right word...) their people. Osama's main enemy isn't the US (altough the US probably is in a very strong 2nd on the terrorist's "list"), but secular Muslim regime such as the Saudis in Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq (one of the reasons some of us laughed, or were shocked, when the Bush administration claimed that Saddam was aiding Al-Queda), etc, who do lip service to Islam, but in reality uses it to keep their people down ("religion is the opium of the people" is still valid).
Quote:
I do not mean to blame all of Islam for the actions of a few, but it is obviously true that terrorism around the world in the present day is almost exclusively Islamic. It is my feeling that Islam itself needs a great rethink.
And please understand that I also condemn any religious leader, Jewish, Christian or Hindu that incites and condones such actions.
I can only repeat Svarog's question: Do you think the reason behind most terrorism today being Islamic (which I personally would dispute, out of a clear definition of the word "terroristm") is purely idealistic? What aspects of Islam do you see as the main reason? Could there be any other reasons?
Quote:
And please understand that I also condemn any religious leader, Jewish, Christian or Hindu that incites and condones such actions.
I thought that went without saying
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 22, 2004 05:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Osama's main enemy isn't the US (altough the US probably is in a very strong 2nd on the terrorist's "list"), but secular Muslim regime such as the Saudis in Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq (one of the reasons some of us laughed, or were shocked, when the Bush administration claimed that Saddam was aiding Al-Queda)
You call the Saudis in Saudi Arabia secular regime?! This is one hell of a reason some of us to laugh.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted November 22, 2004 12:59 PM |
|
|
Hmm, secular regime may have been the wrong phrase to use, I'll give you that.
But, like I said, they use that extreme form of Islam, which I at the moment is unable to remember the name of, to keep control of their country (that is, the people of Arabia).
Have you ever read "The Price" by Machiavelli?
He describes how a prince/lord/king should behave himself if he wants to keep power. One of the things he says is that a ruler should use whatever he needs to secure his throne, including religion (he claims this to be one of the best tools a ruler has...).
Also, I think I have to quote Marx again here: "Religion is the opium of the people." If the people are told all the time that they will get their payment in heaven and that all that matters in this world is obedience to the moral codes of the priests and kings (aka the ruling class), they should be less inclined to riot, or in any other way demand better living conditions here and now, at least if they are religious people.
My statement about it being a secular state (I can see now that it was the wrong phrase, but it was the only one I could think of) should be seen in the light of these two things.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2004 03:03 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 22 Nov 2004
|
Firstly, I believe they are called Wahabi's in Saudi, the particular brand of Islam that has a somewhat xenophobic outlook on things.
Quote:
Some of us would call the people who bomb abortion clinics religious terrorists, but as this is a question of definitions, I won't drag it into the discussion any more.
Yes, they are terrorists as are the men who bombed in Oklahoma. And this is a discussion more about why and what gives rise to Islamic terrorism, the points being how much are socio/economic reasons responsible as opposed to philosophicla/religious ones. I would guess there is no one set reason, but I do believe that how you think carries a big part as to what you will do.
Quote:
Could you please epxplain what you meant a little clearer? I fail to see the connections between your examples, as you very well could say that it was the West who, through the crusades, brought a halt to Muslim toleratism, and who weakened the Arabs enough so that when the Mongols and the Turks came, the Arabs didn't give much opposition (giving the Mongols good oppostion is something I doubt anyone at the time would have been capable of doing anyway; crusade or no crusade).
As for the Ottoman Empire example, it is, as far as I understand a rather wide consensus within historical academical circles that the Ottoman Empire fell because its leaders were more busy with showing off their wealth that to invest it in industry and research, along with the Portugese sailing around Africa, and with that make the Silk Road (the Ottoman's main scource of income) obsolete, thus enableing the Europeans to surpass them in economy, technology, military, etc... So, indirectly, you could say that the "West"'s rise was the cause of the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Excuse me for a slightly invalid comparison. I was pointing out that cultures rise and fall. Those on top rarely need to blame anybody for being on top, those that are under them often look to blame their fall or lack of influence on some other culture.
To stay on the cutting edge of innovation and growth requires forward looking thought. When a culture becomes complacent, or worse, so conservative that it is only concerned with retaining what it has, it starts to fall.
Religious orthodoxy does play a big part in holding back a people from thinking freely enough to innovate. So rather than blame a fall of a culture on anothers rise, the reasons are more likely to be inherent in what kind of way of life that civilization has evolved.
In the present day, it is not the ascendancy of America that holds back Arabs, or Islam in general, but their own way of thinking. And the Wahabi's are a prime example of that.
Quote:
I can only repeat Svarog's question: Do you think the reason behind most terrorism today being Islamic (which I personally would dispute, out of a clear definition of the word "terroristm") is purely idealistic? What aspects of Islam do you see as the main reason? Could there be any other reasons?
Yes, as I stated their are other reasons. The situation is way too complex to just say this or that caused everything. However, I do think that how one views the world, meaning one's philosophy pays a huge part in how one acts. This view is influenced by many social factors and influences. Since the mosque plays a big part of daily life and the Imams and Sheiks have great infuence on their followers, if they preach xenophobia and violence, then those listening will be infuenced.
And that is my main point: if religious leaders promote violence then they are are not religious leaders, should not be called religious leaders, and probably are doomed to hell for misusing their influence
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 22, 2004 05:00 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 22 Nov 2004
|
**Sigh**......
Quote:
religious conservativism mostly develops in poor rural areas
Philosophical thinking gone a skew. I've heard this many times from many people. It's the easy answer to explain what you can't see and have no faith in. Faith in God is all that matters. There is no rhyme or reason for it. You don't have to be poor to have faith in God. God is God, be it christian, muslim, Jewish, or otherwise. God does not care how much money you have. I want to try to love the Lord, my God, with all my heart and soul.
I simply laugh at a person who thinks being poor is connected to faith in God. A while back, another poster wrote, 'being poor is a breeding ground for religion'. Well I'm not poor, and I want to learn more about God.
I know this isn't the best place to speak of my beliefs or quests for God. I understand that most of the people here are atheist and agnostic. It doesn't bother me. But to try and relate low economic standing and minimal personal financial assets with some sort of affinity for religion is flawed in my opinion.
Mahatma Gandhi once said, "Live simply so that others may simply live." I believe this philosophy.
I know many people will say my own philosophy is as 'flawed' as I declare theirs to be. I respect their own rights to disagree. However, I disagree with that kind of moral relativism with every fiber of my being.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 23, 2004 12:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And that is my main point: if religious leaders promote violence then they are are not religious leaders, should not be called religious leaders, and probably are doomed to hell for misusing their influence
Precisely. And hence my objection to blaming Islam for the terrorist fundamentalism.
Oh, and Consis, if you bothered reading more carefully what I wrote, you'd have seen it says "religious conservativism" quite clearly, which is a different thing from religious faith. it would've saved you time writing that response pal.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2004 10:55 AM |
|
|
Actually the militant form of islamic fundamentalism initially drew their support from well educated people in big cities.
The particular brand Al-Qaeda took its ideas from actually started in Cairo at the university there.
The reason islamic parties have such a large support is mainly due to the fact that they are seen as a non-corrupt alternative to existing regimes.
3 examples of this is.
1. Iran: The secular opposition to the Shah actually supported the islamic revolution carried out by Khomeini in 1979. It was first later, when they realised that the Ayatollah ghad no intention of sharing the power, that their ways split.
2. Algeria: When FIS won the 1992 election by a landslide, it was considered a moderate muslim party. But the sitting military Junta suddenly had very cold feet, and annulled the election. This happened without any outcry from the West.
The civil war started when the military junta started suppressing any person associated with FIS.
3. Turkey: The islamic welfare party won the election in 1996 under former Istanbul Mayor Erdogan. But again the military annulled the election out of fear that it would lead to a mixture of state and religion. But instead of commnencing a civil war like in Algeria, Erdogan continued his political fight. (Again the west supported the militarys intervention) In 2002 Erdogan again won the election, and his administration has proven without a doubt that it is indeed possible for an islamic party to lead a secular state. The biggest point being that Turkey is now actively seeking membership in the EU.
If anyone is interested in seeing how the intermissionb between Islamic parties, military Juntas, socialist parties, and the finacial support of western countries in the middle east have played out, I can warmly recommend Peter Mansfield "A history of the Middle East".
Its a Penguin book, so fairly cheap.
To bad so few western politicians and journalist know anything about the history of the Middle East. I think our view of the area would be a lot more nuanced and the chance of succes in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the war in Iraq would be alot better.
But that is offcourse imho.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Shiva
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2004 03:09 PM |
|
Edited By: Shiva on 23 Nov 2004
|
Quote:
Precisely. And hence my objection to blaming Islam for the terrorist fundamentalism.
Again, I did not state ALL Islam is mis-guided. I understand that you are from Turkey and hence Muslim, and my sense is you are an intelligent and good person. However, you cannot deny that there are people who claim to speak and act in the name of Islam who do despicable things.
Perhaps I do not totally understand the concept of Jihad, but I have heard it defined in two ways: an outer struggle against unbelievers in a so called holy cause or an inner struggle against one's evil nature, in otherwards, the true spiritual quest. There are many Islamic leaders who seem to not understand the second, for if they did, there would be no question of inciting violence against anybody, issuing fatwa's against people who dare to criticize them or make fun of them.
Now you may say they don't represent Islam at all and are not true Spiritual leaders? I agree with that. And there are elements of all religions that think and act reprehensibly. However, the voice of these people is loud and listened to by many. The voices of moderation and true understanding need to be louder and drown out these calls for violence.
Defreni, what you wrote is interesting. I wonder if the democratic process in Iraq produced an Islamic government that was anti-American how the Bush government would react.
|
| |
|
|
