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 >1 y ago
Responses: 30
0
0
0
0
0
0
So, all the communist countries who purged their country were non communist infidels?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
@MAH Ken Langdon - Major; It is pretty hard to reconcile a non-democratic police state with an economy which is "monopoly state capitalism", where advancement is based on family/social connection and not merit, and where the select group of the elite enjoy benefits all out of proportion with their actual contribution to society with "Communism" - in any of its variations taught throughout history by various leaders and teachers stretching back at least as far as Jesus of Nazareth.
That, of course, doesn't stop the country's "natural governing class" from calling it "Communist" any more than it would stop it calling it "Capitalist".
Marx's "objection" to "religion" was based on the fact that the organized churches were fawningly subservient to the existing "natural governing class" and the priesthood's control over the masses impeded the "revolution of the proletariat" by keeping the masses in tolerant submission to the misdeeds of their secular rulers.
Had Marx and his cohorts constituted the "natural governing class" of the day, then most likely Marx would have been fully supportive of the church(es) - PROVIDED that the priesthood was as fawningly subservient to his government as it had been to that of the Tsarists.
Ioseb Besarionis Dze Jugashvili was no more a "Communist" than J. Edgar Hoover was.
Thus both "communist" and "non-communist" are irrelevant to the discussion.
As to "infidel" (used in the proper sense of 'does not accept the existence of ANY "God" [remembering that "Yahweh", "God", and "Allah" are simply different language's terms for the same entity]) you may have a point - at least as far as some of the "Communist" leadership was concerned.
However, the main thrust in the suppression of the church(es) in Russia was to eliminate a nexus of power and control that could potentially disrupt the absolute control of the (actual) central government - which was Stalin and his cohorts.
You might want to take a look at how the church(es) were treated before, during, and after "The Great Patriotic War". Stalin was nothing if not a "pragmatist". (OK a "cold-bloodily murderous, monomaniacal, self-aggrandizing, pragmatist". [NOTE - There is no evidence that J. Edgar Hoover was "murderous" and no such implication should be drawn from my comments.])
That, of course, doesn't stop the country's "natural governing class" from calling it "Communist" any more than it would stop it calling it "Capitalist".
Marx's "objection" to "religion" was based on the fact that the organized churches were fawningly subservient to the existing "natural governing class" and the priesthood's control over the masses impeded the "revolution of the proletariat" by keeping the masses in tolerant submission to the misdeeds of their secular rulers.
Had Marx and his cohorts constituted the "natural governing class" of the day, then most likely Marx would have been fully supportive of the church(es) - PROVIDED that the priesthood was as fawningly subservient to his government as it had been to that of the Tsarists.
Ioseb Besarionis Dze Jugashvili was no more a "Communist" than J. Edgar Hoover was.
Thus both "communist" and "non-communist" are irrelevant to the discussion.
As to "infidel" (used in the proper sense of 'does not accept the existence of ANY "God" [remembering that "Yahweh", "God", and "Allah" are simply different language's terms for the same entity]) you may have a point - at least as far as some of the "Communist" leadership was concerned.
However, the main thrust in the suppression of the church(es) in Russia was to eliminate a nexus of power and control that could potentially disrupt the absolute control of the (actual) central government - which was Stalin and his cohorts.
You might want to take a look at how the church(es) were treated before, during, and after "The Great Patriotic War". Stalin was nothing if not a "pragmatist". (OK a "cold-bloodily murderous, monomaniacal, self-aggrandizing, pragmatist". [NOTE - There is no evidence that J. Edgar Hoover was "murderous" and no such implication should be drawn from my comments.])
(0)
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
These people who hijacked the Islamic religion are agnostic insurgents? The Christians who colonized and subjugate natives with torture and slavery were agnostic imperialists? What are they, just violent imperialists with no integral links to their religion?
(0)
(0)
"Islamic history is full of free thinkers - but recent attempts to suppress critical thought are verging on the absurd" (Ted Mc)
You are correct about Islamic history being full of free thinkers. As a former Muslim, I have learned a lot about the past, and many great innovations actually came from Muslims. I don't know what happened anymore.
You are correct about Islamic history being full of free thinkers. As a former Muslim, I have learned a lot about the past, and many great innovations actually came from Muslims. I don't know what happened anymore.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SrA Edward Vong - Airman; What happened was "The Crusades" and "The Inquisition" and "The Liberation of Spain".
"The Caliphate" was no more militarily active in its day than were "The Romans" or "The Macedonians" or "The French" or "The Germans" or "The British" were in their days.
During "The Golden Age of Islam" (from the 780s to the 1250s [possibly even extending into the 16th Century - depending on criteria used - but that extension is rather iffy and a "safer" end date would probably be around 1492 and the completion of the " Reconquista"]) the "Islamic world" was - on average - better governed, safer, more prosperous, more tolerant, and better educated than the "Christian world" was.
The Crusaders started the dismemberment of the Caliphate (and as many Muslims as they could lay their hands on). The Mongols then took care of dismantling most of the Caliphate and as many of the inhabitants Jewish, Christian, or Muslim as they could lay their hands on (but took Islam home with them) outside of Spain and the Christians took care of dismantling the remainder (as well as many Muslims as they could lay their hands on).
You might also give a thought to the fact that there was a "Jewish Golden Age" occurring in Spain at the same time (depending on how strong the Caliphate was at any given time - the more "golden" the age was) which ended in 1492 when the Christians (read as "Roman Catholic Church") expelled the Jews from Spain (and Portugal).
As the doggerel once went "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue and Spain kicked out the dirty ..." (but we aren't allowed to say that these days).
"The Caliphate" was no more militarily active in its day than were "The Romans" or "The Macedonians" or "The French" or "The Germans" or "The British" were in their days.
During "The Golden Age of Islam" (from the 780s to the 1250s [possibly even extending into the 16th Century - depending on criteria used - but that extension is rather iffy and a "safer" end date would probably be around 1492 and the completion of the " Reconquista"]) the "Islamic world" was - on average - better governed, safer, more prosperous, more tolerant, and better educated than the "Christian world" was.
The Crusaders started the dismemberment of the Caliphate (and as many Muslims as they could lay their hands on). The Mongols then took care of dismantling most of the Caliphate and as many of the inhabitants Jewish, Christian, or Muslim as they could lay their hands on (but took Islam home with them) outside of Spain and the Christians took care of dismantling the remainder (as well as many Muslims as they could lay their hands on).
You might also give a thought to the fact that there was a "Jewish Golden Age" occurring in Spain at the same time (depending on how strong the Caliphate was at any given time - the more "golden" the age was) which ended in 1492 when the Christians (read as "Roman Catholic Church") expelled the Jews from Spain (and Portugal).
As the doggerel once went "In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue and Spain kicked out the dirty ..." (but we aren't allowed to say that these days).
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SrA Edward Vong - Airman; Contrary to the widely spread rumour, those weren't really "Current Events" for me.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
These radical Muslims feel no remorse in killing anyone that is not one of them to include Shia Muslims. They want a caliphate where they rule the Islamic world, and turn time back to the 700s. These Islamic terrorists need a staging area to continue their violence. They rule by the bullet, sword or knife, fire, and torture. You can't take Islam out of the notions of their religious beliefs. So yes they are Islamic Terrorists.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
Ken, Infidels only applies to those that use religion to justify aggression, war between democratic nations is based on why the war started. I can not think of any recent wars between democratic nations.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Ken Landgren
I never said their was a democratic war with another democracy. If you take the Islam out of the insurgencies, what kind of ideology do you have left, and what are their causes? A group whose sanitized ideology is to just grab land? You can call them whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is, they are tied in with their religion. An infidel is one who does not believe in their religion, but their ideology is based on Islam, however distorted it may be. Their ideology is one of their COGs.
(0)
(0)
PV2 Scott Goodpasture
COL Ted Mc - The Spanish inquisition. Oh snap, Gotcha....the problem is that was 600 years ago and has no relevance in the 21st century. Shit man the Romans built an empire that lasted a thousand years. They didn't do it riding unicorns and passing out candy canes. So should we blame modern Italy? Should we blame the modern Greek for Alexander. I mean really where do you draw the line between ancient history and relevance in today's world?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PV2 Scott Goodpasture - Private; We draw the line when people start saying "My religion has never done anything like that and there is nothing in my religion which supports doing it either.".
PS - Sgt Richard Buckner - Sergeant; I'm not obsessive compulsive about dealing with eMails and sometimes don't even go on the Internet for a day or two. Mind you, since I don't watch television either that can mean that I have time for reading and my family.
PS - Sgt Richard Buckner - Sergeant; I'm not obsessive compulsive about dealing with eMails and sometimes don't even go on the Internet for a day or two. Mind you, since I don't watch television either that can mean that I have time for reading and my family.
(0)
(0)
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)
1
0
1
MSgt Michelle Mondia
Do you know how many Muslims are currently serving in our military?! This is embarrassing and a problem.
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
With a comment like that, Chief, I don't care how mad the admins get about it. I can safely say my only response is, "Go fuck yourself."
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
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