the West Vs. Islam

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Elbandeedo to Tommy RE:the West Vs. Islam -tomatoes 8/28/2002 11:15:17 AM

:::carrying large bag of VERY ripe tomatoes out into the HOT, HUMID, D.C. sunshine::: I'm nearly ready too AK! ;o) E.

Quote Reply

Muslim RE:Fire worshippers? Muslim, you don't know them! 8/28/2002 3:09:39 PM

I searched the net for any type of source showing the connection between Islam and zoroastrianism. help me out here and show me a source. I simply want a source so that I won't be asuming too many things about it. But from what I learned about it, they do everything to the fire but say that they worship it. Now this can't be compared to the muslims and the crecent, because the crecent has no value, no power, no place in worship. We don't go and rub a crecent when we pray, or place a crecent in front of us, or anything of that sort. The crecent has no meaning in Islam what so ever, it is not a symbol of Islam. The only relationship the crecent has with Islam is that you will find on the dome of almost any mosque, and that's where it ends. That's not who zoroastrians look to fire, fire or light is involved in every aspect of their faith, at least from what I seen. "Is that the place for those who follow religions muslims don't like? Or is that better place a neighborhood in New York?" Actually I meant whatever heaven they believe in.

Quote Reply

Muslim to ben RE:Don't blame the west for Islamic intramural events. 8/28/2002 3:23:10 PM

"The West did nothing to turn the muslims against each other. That goes way back. There was no western infuence behind Karbala." do you know what the romans did when they knew about this???? They offered Moaweyah to help fight Ali, his response was that if they even try to help, he will fight them under Ali's command. That's I will discuss about this topic. If you know anything about this, it really is the one topic that will seperate Sunnis and Shia's for a long time. But my point is that even though the west wasn't the cause of this division, hypocrates were, and the roman tried to fuel the fire. Do you want to know how the west turned us against each other??? forget Krbala and fast forward about 1300 years or little more. The year is 1924, the Ottoman state just got out of world war I with a great defeat. Mustafa Kamal is now the leader (not caliph, he hated that term) and has just removed the authority of Islam from His state. Britain and France were taking pieces out of the former Ottoman empire, britian took Jordan and Iraq, france took syria and lebanon, Palestine was being kept for the jews. North Africa was already colonized. Shortly before all this, a man by the name of Lawrence of Arabia (go watch the movie) an agent of the brits sparked an already hot flame, and was responsible for the Arab nationalist movement against the ottoman State. If all that is not enough to show you how the west divided us and turned us against each other, here's one more, Iran-Iraq war. Is this enough to show you how the west was directly involved in spliting muslims apart? If you read my last post, I wasn't blaming the west, I was blaming the muslims for letting the west do all this, the muslims just stood there and became pawns in the west's game of spliting us apart.

Quote Reply

Muslim RE:the West Vs. Islam 8/28/2002 4:08:06 PM

"needs to be changed rings as essentially two sides of the same coin to me." Then try to understand it from this view point: What really represents Islam? Is it the people, or the books (Quran and Hadith)??? You view seems to be that the people represent the religion, that is not true at all. The books are what represent islam, the people simply follow what they think it's saying. Anyways, the Quran will never change, any "new" changes need to be from the Quran and NOWHERE else. Islam will never go through a modernization period simply because it doesn't need to, it has all the rule and laws that muslims need, to live AND prosper in this life and the next. "I believe that the attempted alteration of Islam to Western standards failed simply because of the framework implicit in your statements" Actually, I don't believe it failed, I believe that the west succeded in changing the people's viewpoints of Islam, It was changed into two opposites, in some parts of the Islamic world, Islam was changed to be more flexable to the West, and in other parts it was changed to be more hateful to the west. The correct attitude is neither. Islam must always remain free from outside influences, but it doesn't mean that muslims should hate all others. There is a saying from the prophet "the best of issues is the middle". Islam is the middle, it is the middle between spirutuality and materialism. It is the middle between capitalism and Communism. It is the middle between total seperation of church and state and total involvement (True Islam is fully involved in the state affairs, but there isn't just one opinion to everything, so the state itself can be very flexable and open to new ISLAMIC ideas supported by the text.) Let me make this as clear as possible..... ISLAM CANNOT ADOBT OTHER IDEAS INTO ITSELF. All ideas must be from within Islam (this does not apply to science, technology, certain administrative issues like postal services and traffic lights etc...) ". I'm betting that on many levels, Islam and the West are more compatible than you think, and could be even more so based on emphasizing different interpretations of your religious texts that already exist" If you mean that Islam has similarities with the west, you are correct. But If you mean that Islam can "learn" from the west, and adobt some of it's ideas, you are incorrect. It is mentioned many times in the quran that if a man rules by anything other than what allah comanded is: either a kaffir, disobedient, or trangressor (all three apply to muslims only). So any idea that needs to be implemented must come from the quran or sunnah. "the Islamic world must break off all ties with the West," I never said this. There can be trade, interaction, muslims visting the west, and westerners visiting the Islamic world. On a political scale, there can be time-limited treaties, it doesn't have to be war war war. "Regarding the "theory that can only be proven once it is seen," I think you're not only asking me to accept a lot on faith, but you're asking a lot of your potential believers in the Muslim world to accept a lot on faith. " Well, you need to understand that muslims already believe in Islam, obviously. So the faith part is over with. Now, all I have to show them is where Islam says that we should rule by Islam, and where Islam says that once it is succesful, people will flock to it. I can show you all that stuff, but you won't believe in it unless you know Islam is the truth (again this doesn't require one to be muslim, many enemies of the prophet knew Islam was the truth, and they fought him nontheless). "and making the distinction between your "perfect" Islam and their "imperfect" Islam is not going to impress a lot of people if they have to wait until your "perfect" system is implemented to see that it works." I agree with you 100%, there is a method that I follow, but really is outside the scope of discussion. That method does not involve going around telling everyone they are wrong and I am right, now follow me, I know that is arogant and will never bring any followers, or at least not a substantial numebr. "We didn't, and never considered doing so, never have, and hopefully never will." And why not? because it has bad consequences on the environment, the political arena, and many many many aspects. Just nuking the hell out of muslims won't get rid of them, that's why they don't do it. What they do instead is deviate muslims away from Islam, they try to make the six million muslims here as American as red white and blue. Let me put one thing into prespective, Everything Islam is going through right now, it has been through before, EVERYTHING. The first thirteen years of the prophet's life as a prophet were without a state. during that period, muslim blood was the cheapest, no one but a select few cared to fight for them. Muslims were being tortured left and right. Today, we live in the same thing, muslim blood is the cheapest, Muslims today are being killed in India, no one talks about that, muslims are dying in Iraq, no one talks about that, muslims died in chechnya (and still are) no one talks about that, bosnia, africa in general, afghanistan, everywhere there is a muslim, there is another one suffering, yet no one talks about them except for the muslims and a select few individuals. But one girl gets kidnapped, it's all over the news, one american soldier gets killed in combat, it's all over the news. today, we live in a time where a bank robery gets more media coverage than a genocide (mostly when a genocide involves muslim, I realize other genocides are being ignored as well). All that is similar to the time of the prophet in mecca, but all that changed once he was established as a political leader in Medinah. Now, they can no longer torture the muslims, because if they do, they will outrage a political power, an army. Same will happen in our world today, once we are established as a political power with an army, all these genocides will slowly disappear.

Quote Reply

Muslim RE:the West Vs. Islam 8/28/2002 4:09:53 PM

"sun worshippers and moon worshippers" I know you think Muslims are the moon worshipers, but who are you claiming to be the sun worshipers????

Quote Reply

Phoenix Rising RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon 8/28/2002 7:19:05 PM

LOL Muslim, I think Christians are the sun-worshippers. I guess Jews could conceivably be star-worshippers, Hindus could be animal-worshippers, and pagans/pantheists could be plant-worshippers. Just about the only thing that leaves to the atheists is dirt, then, isn't it? --PR

Quote Reply

Phoenix Rising RE:the West Vs. Islam 8/28/2002 7:59:41 PM

Muslim Well, we've finally isolated the root of one of our disagreements. I do believe that it is the people that form the heart of the religion; the texts are simply a vessel for passing the words of God to those people, and it is the way those people live their lives and practice their faith that defines the religion, both to themselves and to outside observers. The words themselves have no life of their own; it is the people, and the people's changing understanding, that breathes life into those texts and makes the connection between them and their ultimate author. On the subject of Westernizing changes in the Muslim world, you seem to believe that every change towards the West in the Muslim world was always somehow orchestrated in some Western capital. I sincerely disagree; not even Washington has the power to bend the minds of billions of people against their will. There had to have been at least some predisposition towards Western thinking in the people, or our ideas would never have resonated with them at all. Before the Gulf War, it was a long time since Western armies had penetrated the core of the Muslim world (barring the continued existence of Israel, which is another topic), and even then, we did not stay to impose our values on any of the countries of the Middle East (obviously, since a quadruplegic can still count off the number of liberal democracies in the Muslim world on the fingers of one hand). You can go back to antebellum history and bring up conflicts from centuries ago, but honestly, I think that's a red herring and another excuse to use the West as a scapegoat. East and West Germany were divided by two powers infinitely more potent than any pre-Industrial empire. Their reunification is almost 100% complete now, and it's been just over a decade now. France and Germany have largely set aside differences that divided them about as much as it is possible to be divided less than a lifetime ago. If unity was the natural state of the Muslim world--if Iraq and Iran were really just friends divided by Western interference--they could have gotten over their differences a long time ago. I think you're blinding yourself to economic history if you think that Islam can trade with the West but remain completely isolated from Western influences. Trade in goods has always accompanied trade in ideas. The current method of 'isolating' the Islamic world from those ideas is the most brutal suppression of the freedom of expression in the world today, bar China. I hope that isn't your proposed 'solution' to keeping Islam away from the 'tainting' influence of the West. I think we've almost isolated another one of our differences when you say that "Islam has similarities with the West ... but cannot learn from the West." What you're practically saying is that the Islamic world is going to need to repeat all the mistakes the empires of the West made before they learn the same lessons they could learn simply by picking up any Western history textbook. Hypothetical question: what if learning from the West caused Islamic scholars and populations to see things in the Koran that they had never seen before, and the subsequent changes in the Islamic world were based on that new vision of the Koran, not the initial exposure to Western ideas? Would that be acceptable, or is the mere fact that the West was involved in any way whatsoever enough to make any change 'impure?' Once again, I stand by my assertion that you are seriously paranoid in believing that the West is surreptitiously looking for a way to eradicate 1.3 billion people without repercussions or advance warning. We're not looking to do so. We're probably only a few generations of technology away from being able to do exactly that, if the current pace of scientific progress in the West is maintained; every decade things become possible based on Western research that would have been the stuff of science fiction the decade before. A few antimatter bombs detonated underwater at the edge of the contiental shelf and in the major bodies of water throughout the Middle East could probably quite literally wreak havoc not seen since the Great Flood, and with no radioactive fallout to speak of, and it would be incredibly hard to counter the oceans themselves being used as weapons. That's science fiction today, but it might not be by the time I die, to say nothing of what might be possible by the time my grandchildren are retiring. In the political arena, don't get too dependent on "international outcry" staying the hand of America; we've acted against world opinion before, and they've generally forgiven us every time once all was said and done. Europe might condemn us, but there is nearly as much anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe as there is anti-Semitism. India wouldn't be happy with us sending them an off-season typhoon, but if we got rid of Pakistan for them, they might forgive us. Please note: that ENTIRE last paragraph was purely an exercise of science fiction and speculation, and I neither do not advocate anything contained therein even if such things became possible. Regarding the fact that Islam has been through all this before: no argument from me. I've repeatedly stated that Islam is mired in the past. The problem is that very few Islamic reformers or visionaries are willing to concede that the outside world is an extremely different place from what it was the last time Islam went through what it is currently going through, and their ability to learn from history seems to be extremely limited. They seem more concerned with ways to alter and deny history than to face up to it. Look at the history taught to current Saudi youth. Look at Pakistan and Iraq's repeated denials of defeat in the conflicts of the last century. Look at Egypt's repeated wars against Israel. Look at the anti-Western propaganda used to attract followers to extremist groups. Look at the blatant anti-Semitic lies broadcast over state-controlled media in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and elsewhere in the Muslim world. The entire Muslim world right now is living in a lie which they have constructed for themselves, and are terrified of us coming in there and sounding any kind of wake-up call. I don't think all that says positive things about their ability to learn from past mistakes, or to successfully repeat past successes that were the result of the ignorance of others (who have subsequently learned from their mistakes). --Phoenix Rising

Quote Reply

Muslim to PR RE:the West Vs. Islam 8/28/2002 11:29:07 PM

"I do believe that it is the people that form the heart of the religion; the texts are simply a vessel for passing the words of God to those people, and it is the way those people live their lives and practice their faith that defines the religion, both to themselves and to outside observers." I don't agree with your definition of religion, I've always believed in analyzing the religion not by what the followers do or believe, but by what it actually says and commands. But, based on your definition, I would agree the religion needs to be changed, based on my definition, the way people believe in Islam needs to be change; in essence we are speaking of the same thing, change the people's beliefs, we're just giving it different lables. "what if learning from the West caused Islamic scholars and populations to see things in the Koran that they had never seen before, and the subsequent changes in the Islamic world were based on that new vision of the Koran, not the initial exposure to Western ideas? Would that be acceptable, or is the mere fact that the West was involved in any way whatsoever enough to make any change 'impure?'" Here's the criteria for a change sparked by interaction from the west: If this change can be backed by an actual and sincere source from the Quran and Hadith; you can't just simply look for any verse that supports the idea, it needs a research which involves looking at all the hadiths and verses related to the matter and coming to a conclusion that Islam in fact does support this idea; if that is what has been done, then whatever conclusion that research has led to will be the one to be followed, even if it supports the idea taken from the west. In other words, regardless of the idea, it must go through the filter of the Quran and Sunnah before it is accepted or rejected. I'm not talking about complete isolation from the west, that's not Islamic. Ofcourse any type of interaction will lead to an exchange of ideas, but those Ideas must go throw the filter I described. So in essence any adopted idea might've been sparked by interacting with the west, but the bottom line will be that the ideas are also supported by legitimate text which is all muslims will need. Let me bring you two examples to clarify: 1) bikinis. this is something muslims will see by interacting with the west, it seems to work fine in the west and people love it. Someone might think that that's enough reason to do the same, but when put through the filter that idea or custom will be rejected. 2)the voting system (not the concept, Islam already has a similar concept, I'll explain later). When interacting with the west, the muslims will clearly see the system by how people in America vote, and it seems to work fine (except for the butterfly ballots :-)) there is nothing in Islam that says people must vote a certain way, so this idea will be adopted seeing that it is efficient and not contradictory to anything in the Quran and sunnah. Those are simple examples, but generaly speaking, that's how things would be seen and judged. As for the western influence in dividing muslims, I'm sure you can't disagree that they had a very strong hand in the division of muslims, but to say that they are 100% responsible, is a calim I will never make, and never have made. I made it clear in a post to Ben that muslims are just as much to blame for the division. The west simply took advantage of some mistakes muslims were making. For example, the Arab nationalism against the ottoman State, the whole reason behind the movement was that the ottomans rulers were all turks (no arabs) and they changed the official language of the state to Turkish. That is a mistake the ottomans were responsible for, not the west. What the west did was instigate the arabs (again, lawrence of Arabia); they told the arabs that they speak the language of the Quran, therefore they are better than the turks; the arabs in turn, listened, instead of looking to the problem as an internal problem that should be solved without outside help and looking to the turks as muslims instead of turks, they accepted the ideas the west was giving them (again, that is there fault, not the west's). so, my point is this, did the west divide the muslims? yes, are they solely to blame? No. The muslims were the ones that actually executed this division, and they were the ones that listened. The west is to blame for trying to divide the muslims, and the muslims are to blame for listening and executing the actual division. As for the west's intention regarding eliminating all muslims, I really don't believe that is a part of their agenda; but I believe they would be more than happy if it does happen. I agree, muslims have a very hard time in learning from the past, but they are split into two major sides. One believes, if you can't beat them, join them; those are mostly the secularists and the muslims who implement laws that are outside of Islam. Two believes that the west is to blame for everything, the muslims never did anything wrong, and all westerners must die. Neither of these two represent Islam. there is a hadith by the prophet "a muslim never gets bit from the same snake hole twice" Which basically asks all muslims not to repeat the mistakes they did in the past. "the outside world is an extremely different place from what it was the last time Islam went through what it is currently going through" As for this statement, I would disagree. The world isn't really much different than it was a thousand years ago. yes the major players have changed, and yes technology changed the way many things are done. But in essence, the same things are being done. Hitler wasn't the first person who wanted to eliminate other races or religions. the US isn't the first state to be a victim of terrorist attacks. And this is not the first time muslims were divided and left without a state. The US today is extremely similar to Quraish at the time of the prophet, they excersize simlar freedoms; they carry out similar ideas (money was extremely important to the Meccans, and money is extremely important to the west), they both have a common enemy (after the soviet union collapsed, muslims pretty much took over as the new enemy). Look at all the conflicts that happened ever since the collapse, muslims were involved in almost each and every one. So has the world changed? no, not really. Everything that is happening today has some type of similar situation in the past. This is the easy part of today, we can always look back and see how a similar situation was handeled, and there will always be one.

Quote Reply

Muslim RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon 8/28/2002 11:39:05 PM

"Muslim, I think Christians are the sun-worshippers. I guess Jews could conceivably be star-worshippers, Hindus could be animal-worshippers, and pagans/pantheists could be plant-worshippers." Actually this is not as funny as it may seem. Polytheists/pantheists really do worship objects ranging from stars and planets, to plants and animals. I don't see how Christians or jews could possibly be Sun or star worshipers. As for muslims, I can be very determined about this, they don't worship the moon, or a moon God. AK is simply finding something similar between Islam and a previous religion and saying Islam took from that religion. I compeletly hate it when people say that Islam took ideas and beliefs from other religions, that is a statement you would only hear from an atheist since they don't believe that one God could possibly send multiple religions with a few similarities to different prophets at different times. They have to find a logical connection, and they reject anything (no matter who true and accurate) that goes against their logic. I'm sure that's what you will see in AK's essay. "Just about the only thing that leaves to the atheists is dirt, then, isn't it?" Actually, worshiping dirt would fall under polythiests. Atheists in essence give supreme authority to the self. Everyone has at least one God, even atheists. The only difference is that they refuse to admit it. That's why I don't judge a religon by it's followers, they don't like to admit it when they believe in something they hate.

Quote Reply

Ben Religions borrow 8/29/2002 12:10:33 PM

Muslim, what are the odds that not one pre-muslim religous tradition survived the advent of Islam? Given that almost all of the REST of pre-Islamic culture survived, from the "no pigs" deal to polygamy to the hospitality to guests tradition. All religions borrow. The Jewish torah has parts taken from ancient Babylonian epics, the Catholics gave "Saint" status to Bridget, Goddess of Fire in Ireland and Christian Easter is nothing less than the continuation of the worship of the Goddess of Spring, once known as Eostre, and Astarte, and Ishtar in the ancient middle east. Today the Christians don't even know where they got the name "Easter" from, but the history is there. In the Orient, same thing. Why do you think you can see images of fat Buddhas in China but not India, where Buddhism began? Because Buddhism, upon reaching China, adopted the image of the fat happy idol that Already Existed! It's normal, it's part of history, accept it.

Quote Reply

Ben the West Vs. real Islam, and Rule One. 8/29/2002 12:27:29 PM

"I don't agree with your definition of religion, I've always believed in analyzing the religion not by what the followers do or believe, but by what it actually says and commands." The problem, muslim, is that since people never agree on this, yet each believes to have the "perfect truth", they end up killing each other and calling the other side hypocrites, apostates, heretics, or whatever. There are some Eastern philosophies that hold that there are perfect truths, but you will never be able to find them in this imperfect world. These philosophies have never led to wars. The problem with saying "things would be perfect if only people followed my perfect philosphy perfectly" is that no one ever follows anything perfectly. If people acted perfectly, the world would be perfect whether everyone was Muslim, Jewish, Athiest, or Taoist. In fact, Libertarians believe something jsut like you: they say the reason we have problems is that we are not "true" capitolists. It's an excuse. First, you have to learn what "real" means. Take a looka t the world around you. Mud, blood, rocks and dust. It is real. It is the most real thing there is. Things in your head are only "hypothetical". I live, therefore, in a REAL democratic capitolistic nation, and Saudi Arabia is a REAL Muslim nation, and Cuba is a REAL communist nation. It does no good comparing a hypothetical system to real systems. If you install hypothetical plumbing, your toilet will not flush. You can suggest and make improvements to a real system, then you are implementing a new reality, and eventually, it will be imperfect too. Why? RULE ONE: Rule One is that in any human system, EVENTUALLY the people who rise to the top will not be the ones most skilled at accomplishing the goals of the system, they will be the ones most skilled at fulfilling the demands of the system. RULE ONE applies to all cultures, and all societies, and all organizations. It is infallible. Rule one says that EVENTUALLY, a democracy will not be led by the most skilled leader, it will be led by the leader most able to elected, which is NOT THE SAME THING. Same goes for corporation. AT&T is not led by the most brilliant telephone network designer but by the most skilled corporate politician in the company. Same goes for a Muslim society- EVENTUALLY, the leader will be not the wisest/greatest imam, it will be the guy most able to work his way up through the system. Of course, this guy will then have the books rewritten to make it appear that he WAS the wisest/greatest. It's reality, it's history. Human nature.

Quote Reply

Ben Breaking up is hard to do... Muslim. 8/29/2002 12:41:38 PM

Muslim, Britain and France did not cause the breakup of the Ottoman Empire (which itself came into being after fighting BETWEEN rival Muslim powers, they were not voted in!) They exploited its downfall for their ends, yes. So did Russia. But involvement does not equal "turning against each other". Would you say the Ottoman entry into world war one was an attempt to turn Western Christianity against itself? In all these cases, you had foreign involvement in a war that was internal in nature. "Palestine was being kept for the jews." you'll note the arab leader at the time was in favor of this! re: TE Lawrence: He "facilitated" and he taught and guided, he did not direct and cause, unless you believe that the Arabs were really very naive and gullible. "If all that is not enough to show you how the west divided us and turned us against each other, here's one more, Iran-Iraq war." Wasn't our idea, sorry. It was such a Muslim thing that both sides named major operations after historical muslim vs muslim battles. We just helped. After all, bear in mind that the Iranians had recently trampled the whole concept of immunity for diplomats, a concept that has been at the heart of western ethics since the Romans. Attacking an embassy fires up western people like attacking a mosque fires up muslims. It just IS NOT DONE. In the most intense western wars, diplomats are off limits. In World War Two, neither side breached the sanctity of embassies. Can you see why we were a little pissed? "Is this enough to show you how the west was directly involved in spliting muslims apart?" Involved in, yes, but caused, no. Muslims have been fighting muslims without western help. Seljuks, Mamluks, its an old story. Sometimes, you have a Pita bread with Hummus on it, but that does not mean that Hummus Caused pita bread. The west is merely the Hummus on the Pita of muslim vs muslim warfare.

Quote Reply

Ben Source on Zoroastrians 8/29/2002 12:48:50 PM

this has lots of links. No fire worship. They just don't do that! link

Quote Reply

American Kafir to Phoenix Rising RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon 8/29/2002 2:39:37 PM

I will take questions and comments after my essay is complete. But, to quickly answer, atheists don't worship dirt, nor do they imagine the time-space continuum has a jealous, anthropomorphic personality that demonstrates its affection for humanity by condemning most of it to eternal suffering.

Quote Reply

Muslim RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon 8/29/2002 6:31:06 PM

No one said they did all that, it was just a joke. But reality shows that they worship the self by giving the human mind supreme authority over everything that governs humans.

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

	News As History - March 22, 2010
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us