4
4
0
From "The Independent"
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/islamic-history-is-full-of-free-thinkers--but-recent-attempts-to-suppress-critical-thought-are-verging-on-the-absurd-9993777.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=*Democracy%20Lab&utm_campaign=Democracy%20Lab%20Weekly%20Brief%2C%20Jan.%2026%2C%202015
Islamic history is full of free thinkers - but recent attempts to suppress critical thought are verging on the absurd
"This has nothing to do with Islam," say the imams. "These callous and fanatic murders have nothing to do with us," say the mullahs. "Islam means peace," say the worshippers. These disclaimers, and variations on them, have been repeated countless times by Muslim commentators since the Charlie Hebdo killings. They are designed to distance people from guilt by association with those who kill and maim in the name of Islam.
But what about the sentence recently handed down to the (mildly) liberal blogger Raif Badawi in the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia? Ten years in jail, a massive fine, 1,000 lashes over 20 weeks (currently suspended because the first 50 lashes have rendered him "medically unfit")? Does this have "nothing to do with Islam"? Does the hashtag "Je suis un couteau" – referring to this week's stabbing of 11 Israelis on a bus – have "nothing to do with Islam"? Not to mention the 10 Christians killed during Charlie protests in Niger last week, or the ongoing depredations of al-Qaeda, Isis, Boko Haram, the Taliban and the Laskar Jihad of Indonesia?
The psychotic followers of these organisations all think that they are Muslims, and their Islam is based on beliefs that millions who subscribe to Wahhabism, the Saudi version of the religion – and its kin, Salafism – accept as essential ingredients of their faith. For example, that sharia, or Islamic law, is divinely ordained and immutable; that apostates and blasphemers should be killed; that women should be shrouded and confined to four walls and that men are their guardians.
This is a widespread version of Islam, made more so by modern communications; increasingly gaining followers in Europe, it can be, and is, used to justify all manner of atrocities. Yet this is an Islam of manufactured dogma which relies on neither the Koran nor the example of the Prophet Mohamed.
So where do these beliefs come from? From today's extremist leaders, of course. But also, historically, from caliphs and clerics who realised that religion could perform a very useful function: it could keep the masses in their place and ensure that power remained in the hands of a select few.
[EDITORIAL COMMENT:- It gets even more interesting once you consider the last twenty words of the C&P on a historical basis. Heck, it could even apply to "Open Mouth" radio.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/islamic-history-is-full-of-free-thinkers--but-recent-attempts-to-suppress-critical-thought-are-verging-on-the-absurd-9993777.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=*Democracy%20Lab&utm_campaign=Democracy%20Lab%20Weekly%20Brief%2C%20Jan.%2026%2C%202015
Islamic history is full of free thinkers - but recent attempts to suppress critical thought are verging on the absurd
"This has nothing to do with Islam," say the imams. "These callous and fanatic murders have nothing to do with us," say the mullahs. "Islam means peace," say the worshippers. These disclaimers, and variations on them, have been repeated countless times by Muslim commentators since the Charlie Hebdo killings. They are designed to distance people from guilt by association with those who kill and maim in the name of Islam.
But what about the sentence recently handed down to the (mildly) liberal blogger Raif Badawi in the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia? Ten years in jail, a massive fine, 1,000 lashes over 20 weeks (currently suspended because the first 50 lashes have rendered him "medically unfit")? Does this have "nothing to do with Islam"? Does the hashtag "Je suis un couteau" – referring to this week's stabbing of 11 Israelis on a bus – have "nothing to do with Islam"? Not to mention the 10 Christians killed during Charlie protests in Niger last week, or the ongoing depredations of al-Qaeda, Isis, Boko Haram, the Taliban and the Laskar Jihad of Indonesia?
The psychotic followers of these organisations all think that they are Muslims, and their Islam is based on beliefs that millions who subscribe to Wahhabism, the Saudi version of the religion – and its kin, Salafism – accept as essential ingredients of their faith. For example, that sharia, or Islamic law, is divinely ordained and immutable; that apostates and blasphemers should be killed; that women should be shrouded and confined to four walls and that men are their guardians.
This is a widespread version of Islam, made more so by modern communications; increasingly gaining followers in Europe, it can be, and is, used to justify all manner of atrocities. Yet this is an Islam of manufactured dogma which relies on neither the Koran nor the example of the Prophet Mohamed.
So where do these beliefs come from? From today's extremist leaders, of course. But also, historically, from caliphs and clerics who realised that religion could perform a very useful function: it could keep the masses in their place and ensure that power remained in the hands of a select few.
[EDITORIAL COMMENT:- It gets even more interesting once you consider the last twenty words of the C&P on a historical basis. Heck, it could even apply to "Open Mouth" radio.
Islam
Terrorism
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
PV2 Scott Goodpasture
Hell I knew you were being a smart ass. Guess my smart ass detector works a lot better than the Colonel's. Good thing he's retired and not in charge of anything any more.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
By separating the religion from the war you hinder your ability to use our most powerful weapon against the terrorists.
You can win a war two ways, by destroying your enemy or by defeating your enemy. "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. By labeling them terrorists you eliminate any posibility of spiritually challenging Islam Extremists. What we need is a Muslim movement to combat Islamic extremism through Islam. There are plenty of verse in Islam that encourage the extremists, just as there are in the Old Testament. There are also thousands that expound on charity. It is changing the mindset of the normal Muslim where peace can be found. There will never be peace in the middle east until Islam as a whole rejects the "conversion through force/sword" interpretation of Islam. Until that happens there will always be war, unfortunatley our current strategy of separating the religion from it only emboldens the extremists. Imams stating that terrorists are not Muslims only makes the problem worse. The Imams need to stop distancing themselves and start attacking the extreme doctrines.
Treating an insurgency as targets helps to create more targets, the best way to win is through idology. It took Christianity well into the 1800 before separation of church and state took a firm hold, Islam has not had that transition yet, and until they do the wars will never end. We need Positive radical Imams to overcome the tribalism and sectarian issues that keep the middle east in their version of our dark ages.
Unfortunatley this is not a quick fix solution.
You can win a war two ways, by destroying your enemy or by defeating your enemy. "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. By labeling them terrorists you eliminate any posibility of spiritually challenging Islam Extremists. What we need is a Muslim movement to combat Islamic extremism through Islam. There are plenty of verse in Islam that encourage the extremists, just as there are in the Old Testament. There are also thousands that expound on charity. It is changing the mindset of the normal Muslim where peace can be found. There will never be peace in the middle east until Islam as a whole rejects the "conversion through force/sword" interpretation of Islam. Until that happens there will always be war, unfortunatley our current strategy of separating the religion from it only emboldens the extremists. Imams stating that terrorists are not Muslims only makes the problem worse. The Imams need to stop distancing themselves and start attacking the extreme doctrines.
Treating an insurgency as targets helps to create more targets, the best way to win is through idology. It took Christianity well into the 1800 before separation of church and state took a firm hold, Islam has not had that transition yet, and until they do the wars will never end. We need Positive radical Imams to overcome the tribalism and sectarian issues that keep the middle east in their version of our dark ages.
Unfortunatley this is not a quick fix solution.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Captain; By refusing the terrorists the legitimizing label of "Islamic" you do not separate the religion from the way, but you do separate the terrorists from the religion.
You also make it clear to those who do not support the terrorists' actions that you are not lumping them in with the same crowd as the terrorists merely because the terrorists are claiming an affinity with them.
This, effectively strips the fish of the water to swim in.
The other factor that tends to make things even murkier is whether it is the "terrorists" GOALS or their ACTIONS which are being fought.
What would the position of the government of the United States of America be in the (hypothetical) event of a free, fair, open, and honest election in which 90% of the Iraqis voted to have Iraq become a strict Islamic State that barred all entry to Americans and nationalized all American owned assets inside Iraq (anyone who wanted to leave Iraq would be allowed to do so but they would only be allowed to take as much of their personal possessions as they could carry with them)?
You also make it clear to those who do not support the terrorists' actions that you are not lumping them in with the same crowd as the terrorists merely because the terrorists are claiming an affinity with them.
This, effectively strips the fish of the water to swim in.
The other factor that tends to make things even murkier is whether it is the "terrorists" GOALS or their ACTIONS which are being fought.
What would the position of the government of the United States of America be in the (hypothetical) event of a free, fair, open, and honest election in which 90% of the Iraqis voted to have Iraq become a strict Islamic State that barred all entry to Americans and nationalized all American owned assets inside Iraq (anyone who wanted to leave Iraq would be allowed to do so but they would only be allowed to take as much of their personal possessions as they could carry with them)?
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I agree that it attempts to separate the terrorists from the religion but I'm not sold on the effectivness of the approach. I'd prefer a terrorism of false Islam title or something to express the religious consequences in Islam if you set another Muslim Jordanian fighter pilot on fire. The focus needs to be on eradicating ISIS schools their internet propoganda tools, defaming their corrupted version of Islam needs to be a key part of that, not just stating they are not Muslims, but to use Islam to correct their aggregious fallacies in their doctrine.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I could not possibly agree more with a statement than your original post, CPT Glover.
0
0
0
It really depends on the specific group in question.
A terrorist (singular) is someone who uses violence (or the threat of violence) against non-government targets to enact political change.
If they are doing it for nonsecular reasons, specifically Islamic, then they are an Islamic Terrorist. If they are doing it for secular reasons, then they are just a terrorist.
A "Terrorist Organization" is made up of more than one Terrorist. They recruit with a stated mission. Per the above, it will be secular or nonsecular. If the members were recruited with a nonsecular, Islamic mission, then they are Islamic Terrorists.
We can get into a "No True Scotsman" Logical Fallacy debate all day long, however the argument is very very simple at its core.
I hate to sound callous and cold, but.... if a rash of veterans start behaving erratically... the first words out of the media's mouth is Veteran Does X in Shopping Mall. News at 11.
A terrorist (singular) is someone who uses violence (or the threat of violence) against non-government targets to enact political change.
If they are doing it for nonsecular reasons, specifically Islamic, then they are an Islamic Terrorist. If they are doing it for secular reasons, then they are just a terrorist.
A "Terrorist Organization" is made up of more than one Terrorist. They recruit with a stated mission. Per the above, it will be secular or nonsecular. If the members were recruited with a nonsecular, Islamic mission, then they are Islamic Terrorists.
We can get into a "No True Scotsman" Logical Fallacy debate all day long, however the argument is very very simple at its core.
I hate to sound callous and cold, but.... if a rash of veterans start behaving erratically... the first words out of the media's mouth is Veteran Does X in Shopping Mall. News at 11.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS Sergeant; Well put. HOWEVER, there is the tactical and strategic problem of whether it is a good idea to go after "Islamic Terrorists" (and risk recruiting even more of them in the process because they can somehow be seen as "glamorous") or if it is sounder to go after "a bunch of murderous sociopaths" - cause there ain't no way you can make that group sound "glamorous".
Your last point is especially telling. "The Media" is a great one for slapping incredibly simplified labels on things. What the heck, that's what sells to the people who don't want their viewing of Full Metal Dancing With Survivors of the NFL Monster Car Tractor Pull interrupted.
"The map is not the territory and the word is not the thing." is still true (even if it did "spark" Scientology).
Your last point is especially telling. "The Media" is a great one for slapping incredibly simplified labels on things. What the heck, that's what sells to the people who don't want their viewing of Full Metal Dancing With Survivors of the NFL Monster Car Tractor Pull interrupted.
"The map is not the territory and the word is not the thing." is still true (even if it did "spark" Scientology).
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS, about the only qualm I have with your response is limiting the definition of qualifying targets to non-governmental entities -- inducing governmental over-reaction by terrorizing government officials strikes me as a classically successful terrorist strategy, especially in a political environment where personal courage is not a common trait among the governing class.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
This is a very tough questions:
One one side the news pounds us daily for the past years about Islamic terrorists, on the other the majority of Muslims are not extremists, and here comes the problem:
The majority who ARE NOT extreme are being passive about speaking up, why? They fear reprisals of the religion of peace in the old country.
In the end, if all heck broke loose, the majority (of the majority) ALWAYS choose religion over a "host country". Living in Europe, UK, Germany and Hungary, the growing tensions in Germany and the UK are incredibly present and not at all conducive of calm or reasoning.
Those who do speak out are few and far between and usually are those who have something to gain...Very tough issue.
One one side the news pounds us daily for the past years about Islamic terrorists, on the other the majority of Muslims are not extremists, and here comes the problem:
The majority who ARE NOT extreme are being passive about speaking up, why? They fear reprisals of the religion of peace in the old country.
In the end, if all heck broke loose, the majority (of the majority) ALWAYS choose religion over a "host country". Living in Europe, UK, Germany and Hungary, the growing tensions in Germany and the UK are incredibly present and not at all conducive of calm or reasoning.
Those who do speak out are few and far between and usually are those who have something to gain...Very tough issue.
(0)
(0)
SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA
COL Ted Mc - So very well put. In the one off cases as you describe (at least in the USA and UK) one finds the person being harassed will be defended more than not. The fact that it is not reported is becasue it carries no weight to the masses unfortunately, unless something bad happens.
The major hurdle, as I see it, is the press seeking the "hottest" story, this dictates that the worst of all stories will carry the main title, all day every day...and lets face it; the majority of society relies on the major media outlets for all the information they digest.
The only thing left is that the Muslim community come together and make enough positive noise that it must be reported on. Unfortunately the majority of the Mulsim organizations are constantly trying to change laws, get benefits, complain of harassment and so on, this does not sit well with countrymen and creates resentment.
Difficult indeed!!
The major hurdle, as I see it, is the press seeking the "hottest" story, this dictates that the worst of all stories will carry the main title, all day every day...and lets face it; the majority of society relies on the major media outlets for all the information they digest.
The only thing left is that the Muslim community come together and make enough positive noise that it must be reported on. Unfortunately the majority of the Mulsim organizations are constantly trying to change laws, get benefits, complain of harassment and so on, this does not sit well with countrymen and creates resentment.
Difficult indeed!!
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA Sergeant; One of the big problems is the totally unfounded belief that media outlets are in the "business of bring people the news" when in fact media outlets are in the "business of making as much money as they can make".
(0)
(0)
SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA
COL Ted Mc Agreed, this is an illusion, most do not know or if they do, most refuse to believe it, the few are those who scan the web for independent information...most are to busy with more important activities like sports, shopping or reality TV...diversion from reality is much easier than facing it.
(0)
(0)
SGT Steven Eugene Kuhn MBA
I agree SSG Matthew Rowe - This is the major problem; most are being passive about speaking up becasue they fear reprisals of the religion of peace in the old country, not an excuse but a reason.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google