Can the West defeat the Islamist threat?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You tried to understand what exactly? Why Islam has been declared the new enemy without knowing what Islam is?

What is it exactly that you don't know about islam? Maybe I can help you. It's always odd to me that seemingly intelligent people can't seem to grasp that islam is an evil religion full of hatred. Read the koran and see if that helps.

The question was in response to another poster, and in a way rhetorical. As much as I would like to take you up on your offer to teach me about Islam, I don't think there's much I can learn from you because you operate under the wrong presumptions to offer an unbiased assessment (see the second part of your statement).

I'm still convinced that Islam per se is not more evil than Christianity or any other religion reserving the right to make absolute truth claims. But that is probably just another statement marking me as a hopeless case of moral relativism.

The irony is that all these people popping in and making pedestrian statements about Islam and terrorism are only proving the author's point.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You tried to understand what exactly? Why Islam has been declared the new enemy without knowing what Islam is?

What is it exactly that you don't know about islam? Maybe I can help you. It's always odd to me that seemingly intelligent people can't seem to grasp that islam is an evil religion full of hatred. Read the koran and see if that helps.

The question was in response to another poster, and in a way rhetorical. As much as I would like to take you up on your offer to teach me about Islam, I don't think there's much I can learn from you because you operate under the wrong presumptions to offer an unbiased assessment (see the second part of your statement).

I'm still convinced that Islam per se is not more evil than Christianity or any other religion reserving the right to make absolute truth claims. But that is probably just another statement marking me as a hopeless case of moral relativism.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

You tried to understand what exactly? Why Islam has been declared the new enemy without knowing what Islam is?

What is it exactly that you don't know about islam? Maybe I can help you. It's always odd to me that seemingly intelligent people can't seem to grasp that islam is an evil religion full of hatred. Read the koran and see if that helps.

The question was in response to another poster, and in a way rhetorical. As much as I would like to take you up on your offer to teach me about Islam, I don't think there's much I can learn from you because you operate under the wrong presumptions to offer an unbiased assessment (see the second part of your statement).

I'm still convinced that Islam per se is not more evil than Christianity or any other religion reserving the right to make absolute truth claims. But that is probably just another statement marking me as a hopeless case of moral relativism.

The irony is that all these people popping in and making pedestrian statements about Islam and terrorism are only proving the author's point.

The author is right. That's the scary part. But, I'll still fight when necessary.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's always odd to me that seemingly intelligent people can't seem to grasp that islam is an evil religion full of hatred. Read the koran and see if that helps.

Haven't read the Bible yet, have you?. It's full of horror stories of hate, murder, rape and war. The Koran is hardly alone when it comes to horrifying reading.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's always odd to me that seemingly intelligent people can't seem to grasp that islam is an evil religion full of hatred. Read the koran and see if that helps.

Haven't read the Bible yet, have you?. It's full of horror stories of hate, murder, rape and war. The Koran is hardly alone when it comes to horrifying reading.

That would be called "selective interpretation" - there's a certain amount of hypocrisy in condemning one religion for being intrinsically violent simply because it features violent "horror stories" in its holy book when our own does likewise.

There is a point that christians by and large don't act on the violent aspects of the bible the way Islamic extremists do, though it should be noted that a lot of professed christians seem to draw more inspiration from the Old Testament than they do from the New - something I've not been able to figure out.

As Father Jack says:

THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!! DRINK!!

Edited September 22, 2006 by erekose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's always odd to me that seemingly intelligent people can't seem to grasp that islam is an evil religion full of hatred. Read the koran and see if that helps.

Haven't read the Bible yet, have you?. It's full of horror stories of hate, murder, rape and war. The Koran is hardly alone when it comes to horrifying reading.

That would be called "selective interpretation" - there's a certain amount of hypocrisy in condemning one religion for being intrinsically violent simply because it features violent "horror stories" in its holy book when our own does likewise.

There is a point that christians by and large don't act on the violent aspects of the bible the way Islamic extremists do, though it should be noted that a lot of professed christians seem to draw more inspiration from the Old Testament than they do from the New - something I've not been able to figure out.

Interpretation is at the heart of the matter which makes it ironic for a Fundamentalist Christian (incanada) to claim the the Koran espouses violence and all one needs to do is 'read' and they will 'know'. Which gets back to the article you posted and my earlier comment about finding common ground between Christian and Muslim beliefs. Just like Christians, not every Muslim interprets their Holy Book the same way. I'd say if anyone can ever figure out how to eradicate fundamentalism from all religions and we will have solved a big part of the conflict between the Western World and Islam.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I found this interesting...

Al Qaeda primarily hate the rulers of the Arab world, especially the Gulf states, whom they regard as having betrayed Islam. Hatred of the West is a secondary phenomenon and composed of two main factors. First, hostility has been aroused by the support the West gives to these people. For example, the Saudi royal family has been heavily backed by first Britain and then America over the course of the last 50 years. However, the issue goes back across hundreds of years of history. The Al Qaeda vision of the last 1,000 years is a vision in which the West has consistently opposed Islam. The term 'crusader' is commonly used, and this relates to events 800 years or more ago. There has been some suggestion that the timing of September 11 was significant because the 11-12 September was the point at which the siege of Vienna was raised by the Christian forces in 1683. That was the beginning of the end for Islamic power in Europe.

I should also say that the history here is very suspect. During the Crusades, for example, the Crusaders actually had alliances with some Islamic powers. It isn't the case, as Al Qaeda believe, that the West overthrew the Caliphate in the Ottoman Empire. This was done by the reforming Turks under Ataturk. Some of the other charges against the West and Zionism are patently false, but they are part of a pattern.

There are two levels of hostility to the West. One is that the West stands between Al Qaeda and its goal of ruling the Gulf, but the other is the belief that the West has been frustrating Islam for 1,000 years. ~ Chris Brown

Fundamentalism and irony

Even a sketchy knowledge of the history of the last two centuries reveals that the various elements of the package that makes up this version of modernity can, in fact, be taken apart and either allowed to stand alone or be re-combined in different ways to create alternative, but equally 'modern', accounts of society. The authoritarian modernisers of the second half of the nineteenth century, and the fascist movements of the first half of the twentieth, wanted, in different ways, to create industrial societies devoid of irony, without representative institutions and without extended human rights, and in this they are followed by contemporary 'fundamentalist' movements. Such fundamentalists want a world with modern technology, but with scientific rationality confined to the technical; a world with IT, mass media and 'infotainment', but with its content strictly regulated; a world where the community of believers exercise political power, but non-believers are disenfranchised; and, a consistent theme of fundamentalisms of all varieties, a world where women remain subjected to men, and transgressive sexual identities are de-legitimised. In short, they want a world devoid of irony--a world in which individuals do not distance themselves from their own beliefs--and they see no reason why such a world cannot encompass the creature comforts of modernity. This is why it is not uncommon for fundamentalists to do rather well for themselves--we are familiar with this from the life-styles of Christian TV evangelists in the US, but it seems from news reports that Mullah Omar's compound in Kandahar was also, as an estate agent might say, well-appointed.

So, are Al Qaeda and their ilk 'Islamo-fascists', as writers as diverse as Francis Fukuyama and Christopher Hitchens have suggested? This designation is reasonable enough, so long as it is understood that there are also 'Christo-fascist', 'Judaeo-fascist' and 'Hindu-fascist' movements at loose in the world. Islamo-fascists are the most prominent of these groups--and, perhaps, the most ruthless and unpleasant--not because of any features specific to Islam as a religion, but because of the particular conditions to be found within the so-called 'world of Islam', in particular the failure of any state or society with a majority Islamic population to offer a convincing, non-fundamentalist model of modernity.

What keeps Christian and Jewish fundamentalism at bay is the fact that Western society provides satisfactory outlets for its youth, either in the mainstream or in anti-establishment but non-fundamentalist counter-cultures. The Mohammed Attas of the post-Christian West generally end up in merchant banks or working for Greenpeace. Hindu fundamentalists have become the government of India, and have found themselves obliged to compromise and temporise in order to stay in power in a state where the commitment to the rule of law and constitutionalism runs deep--Islamic movements have never found themselves in such a position.

http://www.fathom.com/course/21701759/session3.html

[Fischkoepfin 1]

You tried to understand what exactly? Why Islam has been declared the new enemy without knowing what Islam is?

What is it exactly that you don't know about islam? Maybe I can help you. It's always odd to me that seemingly intelligent people can't seem to grasp that islam is an evil religion full of hatred. Read the koran and see if that helps.

The question was in response to another poster, and in a way rhetorical. As much as I would like to take you up on your offer to teach me about Islam, I don't think there's much I can learn from you because you operate under the wrong presumptions to offer an unbiased assessment (see the second part of your statement).

I'm still convinced that Islam per se is not more evil than Christianity or any other religion reserving the right to make absolute truth claims. But that is probably just another statement marking me as a hopeless case of moral relativism.

The irony is that all these people popping in and making pedestrian statements about Islam and terrorism are only proving the author's point.

The author is right. That's the scary part. But, I'll still fight when necessary.

The way I understand it, the author does not oppose fighting back; he just states that as long as we understand opposing Islamic fundamentalism in terms of conventional and nation-centered warfare (and this includes the use of any weapons associated with military warfare), we're missing a point. Once we stop using oversimplifications and begin to not only contextualize but more importantly treat Islamic fundamentalism seriously, we've taken an important step in the right direction. But to pretend that we're too superior because of our education/cultural values is not the way to change things but to pi$$ more people off.

I found this interesting...

Al Qaeda primarily hate the rulers of the Arab world, especially the Gulf states, whom they regard as having betrayed Islam. Hatred of the West is a secondary phenomenon and composed of two main factors. First, hostility has been aroused by the support the West gives to these people. For example, the Saudi royal family has been heavily backed by first Britain and then America over the course of the last 50 years. However, the issue goes back across hundreds of years of history. The Al Qaeda vision of the last 1,000 years is a vision in which the West has consistently opposed Islam. The term 'crusader' is commonly used, and this relates to events 800 years or more ago. There has been some suggestion that the timing of September 11 was significant because the 11-12 September was the point at which the siege of Vienna was raised by the Christian forces in 1683. That was the beginning of the end for Islamic power in Europe.

I should also say that the history here is very suspect. During the Crusades, for example, the Crusaders actually had alliances with some Islamic powers. It isn't the case, as Al Qaeda believe, that the West overthrew the Caliphate in the Ottoman Empire. This was done by the reforming Turks under Ataturk. Some of the other charges against the West and Zionism are patently false, but they are part of a pattern.

There are two levels of hostility to the West. One is that the West stands between Al Qaeda and its goal of ruling the Gulf, but the other is the belief that the West has been frustrating Islam for 1,000 years. ~ Chris Brown

Fundamentalism and irony

Even a sketchy knowledge of the history of the last two centuries reveals that the various elements of the package that makes up this version of modernity can, in fact, be taken apart and either allowed to stand alone or be re-combined in different ways to create alternative, but equally 'modern', accounts of society. The authoritarian modernisers of the second half of the nineteenth century, and the fascist movements of the first half of the twentieth, wanted, in different ways, to create industrial societies devoid of irony, without representative institutions and without extended human rights, and in this they are followed by contemporary 'fundamentalist' movements. Such fundamentalists want a world with modern technology, but with scientific rationality confined to the technical; a world with IT, mass media and 'infotainment', but with its content strictly regulated; a world where the community of believers exercise political power, but non-believers are disenfranchised; and, a consistent theme of fundamentalisms of all varieties, a world where women remain subjected to men, and transgressive sexual identities are de-legitimised. In short, they want a world devoid of irony--a world in which individuals do not distance themselves from their own beliefs--and they see no reason why such a world cannot encompass the creature comforts of modernity. This is why it is not uncommon for fundamentalists to do rather well for themselves--we are familiar with this from the life-styles of Christian TV evangelists in the US, but it seems from news reports that Mullah Omar's compound in Kandahar was also, as an estate agent might say, well-appointed.

So, are Al Qaeda and their ilk 'Islamo-fascists', as writers as diverse as Francis Fukuyama and Christopher Hitchens have suggested? This designation is reasonable enough, so long as it is understood that there are also 'Christo-fascist', 'Judaeo-fascist' and 'Hindu-fascist' movements at loose in the world. Islamo-fascists are the most prominent of these groups--and, perhaps, the most ruthless and unpleasant--not because of any features specific to Islam as a religion, but because of the particular conditions to be found within the so-called 'world of Islam', in particular the failure of any state or society with a majority Islamic population to offer a convincing, non-fundamentalist model of modernity.

What keeps Christian and Jewish fundamentalism at bay is the fact that Western society provides satisfactory outlets for its youth, either in the mainstream or in anti-establishment but non-fundamentalist counter-cultures. The Mohammed Attas of the post-Christian West generally end up in merchant banks or working for Greenpeace. Hindu fundamentalists have become the government of India, and have found themselves obliged to compromise and temporise in order to stay in power in a state where the commitment to the rule of law and constitutionalism runs deep--Islamic movements have never found themselves in such a position.

http://www.fathom.com/course/21701759/session3.html

This is indeed quite interesting, but it considers the issue of fundamentalism as part of a nation-based framework and puts too much trust in national institutions. It furthermore discounts global and transnational interconnections which play a major role in shaping the world, such as the very fact that Cold War policies actually have a lot to do with the rise of Fundamentalism.