Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Eternal Wars Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: the West Vs. Islam
Muslim    8/25/2002 11:40:30 AM
A topic came up in the Israel board that I thought was more suited to be on this board, so I'm moving the discussion about over here. To Homplate Umpire: There is something about Islam that you should probably know, even in it's most perfect form, Islam CANNOT coexist in a western based world; meaning, Islam and the West do not and cannot mix, they can exist seperately, but one can't properly exist within the other. The reson for this is because Islam is a comprehensive idealogy, it is a complete way of life, it has answer for every question, from God to politics, from the privacy of one's home to public laws and regulations. What America wants is for muslims to forget about the political portion, to forget about the public laws, and to forget that Islam is a muslim's way of life. When America wants muslims to "moderate" Islam, it means that america want muslims to "loosen up" and forget some rules and aspects of Islam. Now as much Islam treats everyone equally (which it does), it does not leave any room for any alternatives in the political, economic, or any other field of life, a muslim must lead his life according to Islam and only Islam. I agree that many muslims in the world today aren't providing a good image of Islam, and all muslim leaders are providing an even worse image. I don't agree that America doesn't want to eradicate Islam and Muslims, the only problem is that it can't. The west sees Islam as a threat to their way of life, and they try to portray Islam as this barbaric, backwards, heartless, and Nazi-like religion, but none of that is true. Islam is a threat to the west, but not because of those reasons, Islam is a threat to the west because if the western population say a real sincere and accurate implimentaion of Islam, people will flock to it. This has been seen clearly in history of Islam, for 13 years in Mecca, the prophet only managed to gather around 100 muslims, after only ten years in medinah, the prophet - with his Islamic state - managed to gather an army (not counting the muslims who weren't in that army) of 10,000 muslims. The difference between the first 13 years and the last 10 was that in the last ten years, Islam was being fully implemented, it was no longer just a bunch of words, it was now a reality. And today is no exception, if a true and accurate implementaion of Islam was to exist today, I gurantee you will see the same results, people flocking in masses to either live under the authority of Islam, or become muslims. That is the real reason Islam is a threat to the west, it will take away their power, their glory. Islam was made to be a more than just a religion one practices on Fridays, or one month a year in Ramadan, Islam was made to be a way of life, in essence, Islam is the perfect design to how a civiliation should be, and the best part of it, anyone can join. It is this aspect of Islam that makes the west attack it and not other religions such as christianity, judaism, buddism, or any other religion. I am not asking you to become sypathetic, I am asking you to uderstand the nature of Islam, that it isn't as bad the west and the muslims make it seem. Islam is a blessing to mankind. Islam also has a rock solid foundation, one that is not built on any can of faith, it is built on Iman (best translation: Conclusive acknowledgement). I want it to be clear that I'm not talking about something great that you have to just believe in, I'm talking about something great that can be proven to be great and true. That is why the west (political not social) will always be at war with Islam, the west fears Islam, they know what it can become and will do anything in their power to stop it from happening. I can prove this to you, but I will need some time, until then I leave you all to think about all this and leave this topic open for discussions.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
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 p
 
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
 
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
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy