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
American Kafir to Muslim    RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon   8/30/2002 7:58:41 AM
>>I would like to say to AK that I am sorry for some of things I said, some it was a bit harsh and aggressive. I do feel that argument of the atheist is very silly, but calling you stupid and blind was attacking you as a person instead of your ideas. Once again, I'm sorry for attacking you, I guess I was just letting out some steam.<< It happens. It's frustrating trying to make theology correspond to reality. Beliefs are one thing, and facts another. You're either left with equating "god" with the universe to "prove" its existence, or laughing off theism in deference to more valid explanations. I choose the latter.
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim to Ben    RE:Breaking up is hard to do... Muslim.   8/30/2002 4:56:10 PM
"Bear in mind there were reasons the Arabs fought against Turkish rule that went beyond foreign manipulation and "being traitors"." "He had real ideas, and some solid reasoning as to why the vast arab world could part with a tiny strip of land to provide for a Jewish state." His so-called real ideas obviously proved wrong, and the reason arabs fought the ottoman state obviously proved to be a mistake. I realize tha we have the advantage of hindesight, something the arab leaders back then didn't have. But let me ask you this, how long before did the arabs actually think about nationalism? Did they fight because they were strugling to get political recognition for a long time? or Did they fight because they wanted independence? How long have the feeling of being inferior to the ottoman state existed? The answer to all those questions show that the arabs actually felt the way they did for quite some time, so why didn't they rebel before? You have to remeber one thing, that this movement did not start in Jordan, Palestine Iraq or syria, this movement started in Saudi Arabia, all those Arab leaders that were fighting the ottoman state were from Saudi Arabia, and they were bedouines. Look at the bedouines today, look at them 100 years ago, and look at them before the prophet came with the message of Islam, it is not in their nature to seek power, they seek recognition, they seek influence and reputation, but not political power. What I'm trying to say is that even though those feelings of reblion was in them, they weren't the type of people to have POLITICAL power, until the british influence came. They were uneducated, they didn't know anything about economics by western standards, all they knew was that their sheep was worth money, and they used the money to buy things for their survival. I met bedouines, and I know how they think, they don't like to interefere in Politics, it's not a part of their lifestyle. The arab nationalist movement wasn't started by the bedouines, the fuel was their, but there was never any spark until the british influence. They filled their minds with ideas of Arab seperiority agaisnt the Turks, they filled their minds with ideas of power and money, and then they offered them a trade, each one of the leaders was to get a country of his own to keep for himself, his children, and his tribe, but palestine was to be kept for the Jews. The arab nationalist movement would never had occured without outside influence or a fall in their Islamic mentality. It was the combination of both that led to the rebelion and eventual dismantlement of the ottoman state. I repeat this one more time, It was the decline in the Islamic ideology of the Arabs AND the influence of the British that led to what we see today. Till this day, text books in Jordan are written and published by british companies in britain. The current king of Jordan was educated in Britain. What more do you need from me to show you how they are manipulated by the west?
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim to Ak    RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon   8/30/2002 5:02:26 PM
Ok fine, but before lets see if we can agree on a few things: 1) Nothing can create something greater than itself. A single celled organism can't CREATE a muli-celled organism, and so on and so forth. Agree or disagree? 2)Everything has source. Nothing comes from nothing. Agree or disagree? 3)There are two major categories that EVERYTHING in this universe falls under. Matter and Law. One can't exist without the other, you can't have gravity without matter, and matter wouldn't exist without laws to keep it together. Agree or disagree? Once we agree to all those, I will move on.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff from Michigan    You have made yourself clear   8/30/2002 9:24:14 PM
"I must be blunt, yes, I don't think that muslims should integrate into any society that is not implementing Islam, including the so-called Islamic countries (pakistan, Iran, Saudi-arabia etc.)" >>I understood you correctly. I must say with great sadness that you have set yourself up for great disillusionment. For there will never be a perfect state because men are imperfect vessels. History is replete (full) with instances of men trying to do that and turning violent when their dreams do not become true. Even with the first three Caliphs two were murdered with only Ali Bakr dying in his sleep after a two year reign. No perfect society can be created. With that what can be done to give peace to the Ummah? First off the overthrow of the corrupt regimes no matter what title they call themselves, nationalist, religious or tribal. How? By giving the people the truth. That the West is not causing their poverty it is their institutions including religious institutions that are causing their problems. That means a free press like in the Western world. There are other steps but I will not go into them in this post but freedom of information is the first and most important step. "But at the same time, they shouldn't rebel everywhere they live. They shouldn't seek to establish their own state in America, for example. Muslims can live in peace with people from other religions and nations without integrating into the society's way of life." >>This is wrong in my opinion. This means that you are withdrawing true Islamic values of respect for others, charity for the less fortunate and peace from the guest society. You cannot stay separate from the world. Jesus commands Christians to be in the world but not of the world. This is a good philosophy of life. Exclusionary societies as tried by the initial Caliphates tend to melt away (the garrison cities that only muslims were allowed to stay and muslims were expected to stay part of is an example). Better to have mechanisms to integrate into the society then to be exclusionary. Exclusionary societies tend to be backward and subsumed by the other society. That is the strength of Western society. We are not exclusionary but invite the mores of societies to be integrated into the whole mosaic which is our culture. We tend to keep the most vibrant part of the other culture in ours (blues music, feng shui, pizza, respect for learning etc.) To be exclusionary and hope for a perfect society is a sure path to disillusionment and defeat.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff from Michigan    It isn't where you are educated it is what you do with it.   8/30/2002 9:50:17 PM
"The arab nationalist movement would never had occured without outside influence or a fall in their Islamic mentality." >> The Sauds were and are Wahhabists since 1750. How does this effect their islamic mentality? "It was the combination of both that led to the rebelion and eventual dismantlement of the ottoman state. I repeat this one more time, It was the decline in the Islamic ideology of the Arabs AND the influence of the British that led to what we see today. Till this day, text books in Jordan are written and published by british companies in britain." >>Why is this? Why can't muslims produce the industrial base to print their own textbooks? "The current king of Jordan was educated in Britain. What more do you need from me to show you how they are manipulated by the west?" >> OBL was educated in Saudi Arabia. Mullah Omar was educated in a Madrasah. Same with Khatemi. Arafat was educated at Cairo University. Are these men more "islamic" than the King of Jordan? Are you now currently being educated in a Western University which would make you unislamic? Education is a tool. It is what you make of it that matters. These men not educated in the West have used their education to oppress or hurt the people they supposedly love and care about.
 
Quote    Reply

AK to Muslim    RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon   8/31/2002 7:14:53 AM
>>Ok fine, but before lets see if we can agree on a few things: >>1) Nothing can create something greater than itself. A single celled organism can't CREATE a muli-celled organism, and so on and so forth. Agree or disagree?<< Disagree. Nothing is created or destroyed, merely changed. (First Law of Thermodynamics) >>2)Everything has source. Nothing comes from nothing. Agree or disagree?<< Agreed, with the caveat that undiscovered causes do no imply the existence of God (or elves, or middle-class tax cuts, etc.) 3)There are two major categories that EVERYTHING in this universe falls under. Matter and Law. One can't exist without the other, you can't have gravity wi8thout matter, and matter wouldn't exist without laws to keep it together. Agree or disagree? Disagree. Matter exists quite independently of scientific descriptions of its properties (Law). >>Once we agree to all those, I will move on.<< Clarify your terms or discard them. The three routes you propose above lead to dead ends, not God.
 
Quote    Reply

Phoenix Rising    RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon   8/31/2002 12:24:58 PM
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." --Albert Einstein AK, Forget laws, matter, and so on. My "logic" for the existence of God is far less grounded in classical, syllogistic logic, and I think is much more satisfying anyway. It is to me, at least. It doesn't preclude all other explanations ... but no decision-maker in world history has had perfect information. The call is ours to make. First, let's clear up one mistake recorded a long time ago and regurgitated by aspiring philosophers ever since. Man is NOT a rational animal. I prefer to call him a rationalizing animal. Orson Welles said it well: "Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when called upon to act according to the dictates of reason." Man may use logic in small matters of day-to-day existence, in which our emotions are not unduly tied up, but I've always found that men think with something a few sizes smaller than their brains and situated a little lower on their bodies when faced with more critical judgement calls. Second, let's clear up another mistake expounded endlessly by moralists, idealists, and others of that school. Men are not intrinsically "born good," nor even born peaceful. Look at the position of our eyes on our faces. We were NOT descended from benign herbivores. We were predators for hundreds of thousands of years before we became citizens and empire-builders. For some reason, that predator seems to be all the more ferocious in the kind of men who rise to positions of leadership in human societies (including ours). All of our political and economic systems are successful not because we have transcended this predatory instinct, not by a long shot; they're successful because we've provided an outlet for it. There is no such system at the international level, however; there is no governing body of the world. Third, let's admit an uncomfortable truth. The capability to destroy human civilization has been around for generations now, in the hands of irrational predators, organized into societies of which many have hated each other for eons. If you disagree with any of those, obviously, you're free to, but that's the paradigm from which I operate. I haven't found any unflawed refutations of those premises. Now, after all of this, how do you explain the fact that we're STILL HERE? Deterrence? Game theory, logic of images, balances of power and threat? Eleventh-hour diplomacy by people under incredible stress? I've done a good deal of graduate coursework in deterrence now. There's nothing like a study of political science to cure atheism. Looking at the kind of logic men were using to save the world from meltdown over the last 60 years ... and the kind of men using the logic ... the fact that the 21st century dawned with the ball instead of the bomb dropping strikes me as nothing short of a miracle. One wrong step at one wrong moment at any number of critical (but now forgotten) junctions in history over the last 60 years could have started Armageddon early. Somehow, fumbling blind, with our imperfect logic, imperfect leaders, incomplete information--in short, shooting blind--we've managed to hit the bullseye necessary to save the world on any number of occasions. Most know about the Cuban Missile Crisis; I know of one or two more; I'm sure that some with access to classified information from the CIA or Pentagon (or Kremlin) know of more. We're batting 1.000 blindfolded against some fairly nasty pitches. Atheism is, first and foremost, a belief in the primacy of humanity and human self-determinism. If there's no God at the top of the pyramid, that certainly leaves us as the next best thing. That certainly sounds appealing ... until you take a good hard look at what it is you've just put your faith in. Then it looks more appalling than appealing. Your writing style indicates you like to sound like a realist, even a cynic. You certainly don't try to sound like an idealist. Atheism often puts itself forward as "the religion of reason," and atheists often style themselves as champions of the same. And yet, you stand there saying with a straight face that a society of imperfect, irrational, avaricious predators has managed--completely on their own--to avoid an apocalyse that we were more than capable of bringing to pass. To me, that sounds as idealistic as the tenets of communism or fundamentalism: human nature can be overcome, transcended even; mankind can become a race based on cooperation, not competition (the Beast can be tamed); peace, love, and good cheer can flow bounteously from all corners of the world, the sun will rise, and we'll all live happily ever after. Have fun with that. --Phoenix Rising
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim to jeff    RE:You have made yourself clear   8/31/2002 4:01:13 PM
"I understood you correctly. I must say with great sadness that you have set yourself up for great disillusionment. For there will never be a perfect state because men are imperfect vessels" There is a big flaw in what you just said. Humans maybe imperfect, but they can surely implement perfection. They can solve a mathmatical problem perfectly, they can make a perfect scientific experiment (free of errors), and they can also implement a perfect system if it is given to them. I agree that we are imperfect, but that does not mean that we HAVE to make a mistake in EVERYTHING we do. We can't come up with our own perfect system, but we sure as hell can implement a system provided to us. "This is wrong in my opinion. This means that you are withdrawing true Islamic values of respect for others, charity for the less fortunate and peace from the guest society. You cannot stay separate from the world. " Nobody is saying to stay seperate, I'm just don't integrate. By integration, I mean losing your original identity (in this case Muslim) and taking the American identity as your own, for example. I guess the proper word would be assimilation. Let me say what I meant. Muslims can live with other societies, in peace, in the society of others, what they should never do, become a part of that society, for example, voting, running for office, in other other words, any action or practice the society does that contradicts Islam, muslims must stay away from, everythings else is okay.
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim to jeff    RE:It isn't where you are educated it is what you do with it.   8/31/2002 4:19:33 PM
"The Sauds were and are Wahhabists since 1750. How does this effect their islamic mentality?" I don't get your question. "Why is this? Why can't muslims produce the industrial base to print their own textbooks?" It's not that they can't do it, they can. They have newspapers all over the place, and writers all over the place, so they are neither short on printers nor writers. And they sure as hell have publishers in Jordan, the only things they dont publish are school textbooks. I'll let you come up with your own conlcusion on why the textbooks in Jordan printed in Britain. "OBL was educated in Saudi Arabia. Mullah Omar was educated in a Madrasah. Same with Khatemi. Arafat was educated at Cairo University. Are these men more "islamic" than the King of Jordan? Are you now currently being educated in a Western University which would make you unislamic?" I'm not contrasting the education of the King of Jordan with the rest, they are just as bad if not worse. Whether educated in a Madrassa, Saudi Arabia, or Alzhar, they are all bad. No need to explain how Saudi Arabia is bad, they claim to be implementing Islam, yet not single aspect of their political structure is Islamic. Al-Azhar has been criticised by many for it's unislamic fatwahs (a few months ago they released a fatwah saying that muslims are allowed to deal in intrest when buying a first home), so a degree from an institute with such obvious deviations can't possible mean that the carrier of this degree is a good muslim, degrees don't mean s*** in terms of Islam, it is the actions that make one a good muslim, the same applies to OBL and Osama. AS for the king being educated in Oxford, well you tell me.... You have a son of King, his education will really be seen in the way he will eventually rule; the King chose for his son what university to attend. Is it just a coincidence that the king chose the same contry that colonized them no more than 50 or 60 years prior? I wasn't saying that this meant the king is un-islamic, it means the king is manipulated by Britain, he just short of being a british employee. The place were a political leader is educated shows a lot about his ideas, espicially if he comes from an inferior country. Again, I'm not saying being educated in a western university makes one Un-islamic, but it sure as hell means the king is being manipulated by whatever ideas tought in that university. "Education is a tool. It is what you make of it that matters. These men not educated in the West have used their education to oppress or hurt the people they supposedly love and care about." If you are taught to kill, you will kill. If you are taught to be gentle and nice, you will be gentle and nice. If you are taught to oppress, you will oppress. If you are taught to betray your people, you will betray your people. Education can be more than just a tool if you let it, you can let your education decide what you will become.
 
Quote    Reply

Muslim    RE:the West Vs. Islam - AK's sun and moon   8/31/2002 4:29:07 PM
First of all be patient, these are just foundations for my argument. 1)"Disagree. Nothing is created or destroyed, merely changed. (First Law of Thermodynamics)" Okay, things are changed. But can something change ITSELF into something bigger, without outside influence? For example, can humans change themselves into super-humans without outside influence? 2)"Agreed, with the caveat that undiscovered causes do no imply the existence of God (or elves, or middle-class tax cuts, etc.)" I didn't say it did, please try not to get ahead of the argument. But as long as you agree, we have one out of the way. 3)"Disagree. Matter exists quite independently of scientific descriptions of its properties (Law)." Let me just add one thing to the meaning of law, it also includes force. Force is a law of this universe. So now, how can an element exist with out a force keeping the electrons and protons contained, to keep them from flowing away into whatever? Take a bigger example, would the earth exist if there was no gravity? Matter cannot possibly exist without laws to keep it from going into chaos. My point, Matter and law go together like (oh I don't know, love and marriage? :-)But seriously, you can't have matter without law, and you can't have law without matter. We got number 2 out of the way, so now, do you agree with 1 and 3? Again, please be patient, but I can't move to the next point wihtout us agreeing on these three. And don't just agree for the sake of the argument, Only agree if you truly agree.
 
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