However, I do feel perhaps there is some merit in a lot in th book. It argues that "political" Islam (they differentiate political from religious Islam, but I feel that is to distance the,selves from islamophobes, and is unsupportable) can never be defeated with troops and bombs- basically because the adherents of jihad are not only I afraid of death, they actually welcome it.
He claims that the aim is to take over all the world and turn it into a great Islamic state. And this he justify such with tracts from th Koran, Hadith and sura.
He claims "moderate" Muslims follow the tracts in the Koran written when mo was in Mecca ( before he started slaughtering) while the jihadist follow the later texts from medina- but that all Muslims agree that inconsistencies in the Koran are explained by the the later texts, when th contra tick earlier texts, taking precedence. Again he gives koranic texts which justify this.
His name is Bill Warner-which I believe is a non de plume.
I wondered what others thought of these views. I find them worrying (slightly racist-or religionist, to be more accurate) right wing, divisive and possibly spot on.
With regards to the attitude towards death, getreal, I think I agree with what you referred to. If any religion reaches the point in the adherent's mind where their beliefs come to transcend their every-day experience then the aims of that belief may become more important than life itself. If they are taught, from a very young age, that death is the gate to a better existence, allowing no other viewpoint, then martydom in the cause of the belief becomes acceptable.
Not sure about all Muslims though. The radicalisation of those educated in secular schools requires, in my view, either some very powerful brain washing or a low intellect. There is, possibly, a middle path where disenchantment with Western morals, compared to Islamic ones, may be a seed for radicalisation. This can happen later in life.
It is almost imposd0sible to defeat an idea, it may be self propagating. For as long as one capable person exists with that idea then followers will be generated, the human mind (well most of them) needs something beyond itselve to believe in.
It is only the acceptance of self-value, and the recognition that all humans have that value, that can break the pattern - one amongst and equal to the many.
I have said often that the Muslim mind can seem totally alien to ours, and one has to attempt to see things from their point of view to get near to understahding it. The same goes, to a lesser extent, for members of most religions I suppose - but Islam, as currently practiced in the extreme, is almost off the scale. I have heard many Islamic scholars saying that it is ingnorance of the true meaning of the Q'ran that is the basis for "Islamism", that these are not Muslim in the accepted modern sense.
Both al Q and IS spring from Islamic movements, Wahhabism and Salafism, that wish to see Islam taken back to medieval practices.
I realise there is duality in the Koran. But according to what I have rad (and it may be wrong) anything written which contra ticks anything previously, the most recent pronouncement is the one to be followed. Chronologically, when Mo was in Mecca he spoke of love and peace and "the people of the book". But when he was driven out of Mecca and went to Medina, this all changed. That's where he became intolerant in the extreme. Islam was to be spread to include the whole world. Only hem would peace come (and the end of the world). In fact I heard recently of an Islamist stating that they are fighting for peace-he is right in the respect that is what the Koran says- jihad continues till the world is all living under Islam and sharia and perfect peace,
So it seems to me that Daesh are in fact the true Muslims. They haven't corrupted it-they are adhering to it as it should be.
I cannot see anything whatsoever good in Islam.
Most religions have a history of violence in their diety's name that they would rather forget but Islam does eclipse these in terms of its severity. Yet, like thoseother religions, it has a side that displays compasion - unfortunately it is often compassion for other Muslims that takes precedence, non-Muslims being non-people and "sinners" by definition.
Not sure that a Muslim world would be a peaceful one either, their whole history is full of internal conflict, it would have to be a world of Sunni fundamentalist Muslims where no-one ever broke the rules! I also feel that part of the problem is in the cultural mindset, there are structures there that owe little to religion per se. The whole of the Near and Middle East has a history of fiefdoms, local warlords, bandits etc. Not until the Middle ages did the concept of larger units really get a hold, the last real struggle being the unification of Arabia by the Saud family - helped by the British - in WW1. Otherwise Afghanistan in particular but other parts are plagued with local militia leaders, a fragmentation that enhances the ancient way of seeing things.
Though the politicians fear it because it will get in the way of negotiated solutions, and some Muslims dislike it because it lumps their more moderate views in with the fundamentalists, Islamophobia is perhaps a valid response to every non-Muslim who might have themselves or their loved ones at risk. Even the slightest of risk, our neighbour's driving standard is probably more of a risk than a terrorist bomb for most of us. No matter how well they drive!
I will admit to a sort of "global" Islamophobia, I don't feel actually threatened in my everyday life (despite the fairly large Muslim community in Gloucester) but worry about the overall effect on the future. In my darkest thoughts I consider that putting a physical, military barrier around the whole area and leaving them to sort it out amongst themselves seems attractive. But, then I realise that even Islam has its innocents, its peace seekers, those who would come to terms with the world, and I would not wish them to suffer along with the fundamentalist, barbaric in our terms, types.
I cannot see any solution that does not involve mass slaughter at the moment, whether from external or internal causes. The Russians are not quite so considerate of "colateral damage" as the West, and we get it wrong far too often, the fundamentalists do not give a damn who dies for their aims..
In the end we each have to consider and judge the situation and its nuances for ourselves - but we can agree on broad issues, such as the fact that fundamentalist Islam is a force for "evil" rather than "good".
As is the journalist when he states that other imams are being dishonest-saying one thing in public, and the complete opposite in private. After all, Mohammed said to lie to the kafir and infiltrate his society to turn them to Islam. Or else just behaead them.
Perhaps the current perception that Islamic violence has increased in the last few decades is related to the oil from the Middle East providing wealth-and power- to Islam. SA funds mosques in the west. They also fund Islamic studies departments in many universities. This influences what is said, what is discussed and what is done in these places.
What worries me, though, is if I replace "Muslim" and "Islam" with "Jew" and "Jewish" I'd sound like a bloody nazi!
There seems to be somewhat more concrete evidence for you condemning Islam, getreal, than for the "traditional" reasons for anti-semitism! However, currently I would not trust the Israelis all that far. With friends like them . . .What worries me, though, is if I replace "Muslim" and "Islam" with "Jew" and "Jewish" I'd sound like a bloody nazi!
One of the latest concerns is that Saudi Arabia is running out of capital resources and that the house of Saud may be on a crumbling ledge. Despite their less than pleasant attitudes and aims a "Post Saud Saudi Arabia" could present even more problems, in addition to any effect on tge oil market,, for the rest of the world. It is a huge, overipe date just waiting to drop and feed whoever catches it.
One of the few good things about that scenario is that we would not have to bow and scrape to them if they fell, we could close down their operations without worrying about a come-back from that arrogant family.
Ha! Doubt it!getreal wrote:And here was I thinking that if middle eastern oil were to dry up we'd all be safer!
For as long as they have reserves and the likes of Daesh find less than scrupulous nations willing to buy it . . .
One outcome might be even more research into renewable energy and energy storage. One can always hope...
I have no suggestions to make.
We are all doomed. Doomed, I say.
Solar energy convertion of one kind or another has been talked about for decades. Perhaps the economics are closer to making it viable now. I have not looked into the potential ecological considerations, not all deserts are totally life-less wastes.getreal wrote:Shit! Now they're talking about covering deserts with solar panels. The bloody SA will still have a huge energy supply to sell.
I have no suggestions to make.
We are all doomed. Doomed, I say.
Africa alone could soak up just about every solar Watt hour SA could generate (and probabky more), so long as the power lines are there and the price is right. Oh, that last bit is the bugger factor...
Added later: America could install a few thousand square kilometers of solar collectors as well. But they might have resistance from environmentalists that SA's autocratic monarchy would not have.
Unless the climate changes in ways that are not very nice in other ways Europe has a more limited scope for this.
In the end this sort of project is the only real way to the future for us all - short of viable fusion technology.