Image via Wikipedia
But we are not dealing with what Islam IS. We are dealing with what those brownshirts who have BECOME ascendant insist Islam is.
The wahabbis insist the sufi dervishes are a non islamic fringe, the shia a zionist plot, the jews cursed forever, and the rest of Dar al Harb going into the fire while the racist Islam of the Stone and the Tree and other pleasantries makes it way forward by all means in our midst and without.
The shia insist the wahabbi sunnis a dictatorial, bunch of discriminating bastards, and the jews cursed forever, and the rest of the infidels a bunch of arrogant powers seeking the demise of Islam.
The deobandis in Pakistan, while harboring a discriminated against people's anger at the wahabbis, have given birth to both a secular desire to educate and succeed in the way we think of it, and the 9th century longings of the Taliban, all educated by the Al Saud mentioned above.
But, this is not how it was (except for the jews) even 50 years ago.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_a.png?x-id=8f7069f8-20ad-4fca-85b0-ffa7cd2137f9)
So, to clarify, you do not think Islam is intrinsically bad. We need to only get the radicals out and Islam will be peaceful again. Am I correct?
ReplyDeleteSo all of the Muslims who are not assimilating in the West are not really a big problem, correct? We just need to educate them about the virtues of western tolerance faster than their Mosque leaders and college professors radicalize them?
What, specifically, is your plan for achieving this goal? And, would you agree that military attacks will only serve to radicalize Muslims and thus run counter to your goals and program?
To be honest I wasn't 100% clear on what your writing about divisions in Islam meant to suggest.
Thanks for clarifying a bit, John
Not quite. You ARE putting words in my mouth.
ReplyDeleteASK DON'T ASSUME WITH CLEAR RED HERRINGS
The difference between Islam and other religions is that the uncreated document must be accepted with all it's racisms, and political warmongering. Or you are apostate.
The problem today is the ascendancy of those who are willing to enforce this on everyone.
If you notice somewhere else around here I said pointedly that at the moment those whose consciences are revolted by what the Quran insists on, and act or REFUSE to do so - the battle will begin to have been won.
That moment represents a REJECTION ultimately, and at a minimum that all the Quran is all the word of god
No one could have predicted that a Jew hating German who put some objections on a church door would actually improve things, AFTER A PLETHORA OF WAR.
No one can predict who or by what path THIS SET OF CONDITIONS WILL OCCUR. If it will be a movement, a tea party thing, or some individual actions which crystallizes results.
You are looking for a cohesive scientific theory, a Marcusian Croly type, if you will, set of principles to apply to social or religious behavior of civilizations. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.
I do not believe there is one.
At best such ideas, IMHO, can explain but 50-60% of behavior.
I do believe that at least for right now, only Muslim women hold the key to rejection of what the Quran insists on. I don't believe there is a specific course to this end any more than the idea that govt can create real jobs.
I also believe there is a significant chance we will simply fight it out using all the weapons we have, and it will end that way.
Sept 2 1945, with no one left to sign for the other side.
Our attacks of any kind or level are IRRELEVANT to any radicalization. If every bit of the Quran is believed to be the uncreated word of a perfect being, we must be eliminated ULTIMATELY. Either our lives or our way of life,... for the glory and justice of that being.
Some where along the line it's become misunderstood just what mohammedanism is. Before a judgment as to whether anything can be improved or changed, we must first understand just exactly what it is we're trying to change.
ReplyDeleteMohammedanism is at it's core the idealization and worship of the profit himself. Who was mo' then?
Mo' was a murderer.
Mo' was torturer.
Mo' was a thief.
Mo' was a liar.
Mo' was a slave trader.
Mo' engaged in pedophilia.
Mo' engaged in incests.
Mo' hated Jews and was in effect an Arab imperialist.
THIS IS THE SHORT LIST.
This is also the official mohammedan list and not that made by their detractors.
As far as the real 50 year change in Egypt, that's nothing new in mohammedan history by any means.
Mohammedan history is chock full of dormant/resurgent periods.
Now if anyone thinks that mohammedanism can really be improved without touching removing the worship and idolization of it's core, I say no way Jose.
Comparing a reformation of the Christian 'Church' with any comparable imagined reformation of the Ummah is akin to comparing the Berlin wall with a US border fence.
ReplyDeleteMartin Luther and others had the weight of Christianity's founding and basic documents on their side as far as their criticism of the Papal power system was concerned. The reformation was in effect a turning towards and an embracing of the Scripture.
The true mohammedans are the terrorists.
Any time the mohammedan world is or has been dormant can actually be described as a mini-reformation of sorts.
Wimmin will absolutely never gain power under that system as long as the possibility of a resurgence exists.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEpaminondas,
ReplyDeleteThis reinforces the need to ask the question I asked earlier, on the thread that this is a response to, "what if Saudi Arabia did not have all that oil wealth?" Might things have turned out differently? Also what if America had toppled the Iranian government when the Ayatollah first came to power and the Iranians stormed our embassy? There are a lot of things that had they happened different, we might not even have to worry that much about Jihad today, or maybe we wouldn't have to worry as much.
Epa,
ReplyDeleteI was trying to be tentative in my comment and honestly ask questions. Sorry if it didn't seem that way to you. I know I can be a bit of a polemist at times and so that impression was likely my fault.
Thanks for the post. I think I now understand your vision much better. I too hope that women come to see Islam as disadvantageous for them. I think that is one of the hopes you also have.
Thanks again, John