Sixpack
11-04-05, 06:30 AM
Posted: 03 Nov 2005 17:49 Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I face a dilemma.
I have started to write a text, a very long one that will not be posted as a thread, but as a download, and it is a work in progress, open ending. It’s named „A critical history of Islam“. By focussing on historical developements and events, and interpreting them on a psychological and event-related political level I try to raise awareness for the many inner contradictions in Islam, and define it exclusively on the basis of the historical consequences it triggered, not from the perspective of it's self-understanding and dogma.
Somewhere a bomb blows off. Some sick bastard claims to have it done in the name of Allah, and he ripplefires quotes from the Quran to proove it. Immediately socalled Western moderates in Islam communities will raise and say that it is not Muslim at all, and they will start ripple-firing quotes – from the very same Quaran, prooving it’s peacefulness, and they will point out, that the fanatics have picked their quotes out of context. Next some people will come and question the context of the quotes of the moderates. Some smart heads will insist on all religions sharing the same basic beliefs, and that we all are about a God, and love, and tolerance. Not too mention those who come up with the Muslim neighbours they happen to know „who are really nice and kind people“, so Islam cannot be that bad at all. After a while the whole business is about defending Islam, and the victims of the event in the beginning have vanished into the voids of unimportance, as if it never happened.
I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS. I AM AT A POINT WHERE I DISLIKE BOTH, THE BOMBER AND THE MODERATE.
Yesterday evening a man send back my first draft of the first chapter, he holds the grade of a doctor of philosophy and teaches at university, in the field of intercultural comparisons (a friend of my parents). I asked him for his opnion. He strongly advised me not to release the text once it is finished, and that I maybe better should stop pursuing it. He said that the facts that I gave are from an unusual perspective but in principle correct, I nevertheless were unusual in my approach not to allow any freedom and space for diplomatic compromise in wording and interpretation and conclusions, necessarily giving me the aura of a dogmatist that way and making the text an aggressive "bomb" that only can raise maximum hostility from Muslims, and much hostilities from Western Multikulti-fans as well.
Hmpf. I know he is right. I also know that I am on a right path with my opinion, and that a growing part of pöublic starts to raise doubts about our tolerant policies towards Islam, and that the rlease of the work of mine will raise maximum controversy and even hostility, and that it easily can turn former neutrals or friends at this board into my bitter enemies, feeling heavily offended. For my opinion on the West’s limitless tolerance is very bad, and my opnion of Islam, Muhammad and the Quran is even worse. Now, what should I do? If I continue and release the first parts of this text in two or three weeks, it will raise just hate and anger and conflict, and will not acchieve anything to substantially change the silliness in Western societies – it just calls it by it’s name and brandmarks it as the folly that it is, but does not enforce changes. Plus: it is a complete affront against Islam. If I give up, I surrender to exactly the expected tolerance that I critizise, for reasons of not attacking Islam. And that is what I do: I intentionally attack it on the basis of it’s very own history. What else is Islam if not a massive rejection of it’s violant history, a set of contradictory rules and archaic rites from patriarchalic tribal communities and a mindset that got freezed in the status of conditions 1400 years ago and that in form of the Quran has a formidable tool to opportunistically excuse and defend anything: hate or tolerance, missionizing or acceptance, killing or letting live - making tiself untouchable that way, always avoiding critizism by saying: "But look here, the Quran says:...." ? Islam cannot be realised by reading the Quran or the Hadiths, this is one of my basic conclusions, this only helps to spread confusion over it’s nature and goals. What is Islam, then? Is it the result of the history that formed it (by patterns that were imprinted into it in the first twenty years of it’s existence?) Or is it the Quran? Is the moderate, tolerant man or the fundamentalist the true Muslim? Or should Muhammad’s life be the scale of judgement? Whatever approach you pick, it leads to different conclusions – how could Islam be taken as serious, then, if it displays so much of nothing? What would you think if I say not the tolerant Muslim is the true Muslim, but the intolerant fundamentalist, and that the only difference between this sort of true Muslims is only the ammount of violance they are willing to use or accept? Such a statement is considered to be politically uncorrect. But it is one of the most basic conclusions on Islam that I came to. Am I intolerant? A rightwing, then? A racist? Those that I just defined as untrue Muslims, the moderate ones, would be heavily offended to be told that. Konovalov will just shake his head, maybe beeing dissapointed by me. Could this be a scale to judge our relations towards Islam, is this the deciding issue: the answer if our Western culture’s position towards Islam is liked by Islam, or not? Should another culture be judge of our actings, becasue we let down our own culture that far? Wouldn't it be better to concentrate back on our own historical roots and traditions and values - that made our civilization the most superior historyx has ever seen, and gave it the most developed possebilities and potentials mankind ever has seen?
I already regret that I started to write this history-text, because it troubles my mind and makes me aware of how much importance I see in these issues for our Western culture, and it let me see my former travels in a different light: that of „know your enemy“.
Neal hit the nail on top, and very much so, when he said a couple of days ago: „Muslims, this is your house, who is going to clean it?“ I almost wanted to hug him for that. Cannot become much more precise in just one sentence.
Tolerance of ours needs limits on the basis of clear definitions of what we are as a culture, AND WHAT NOT. Unlimited tolerance only leads to anarchy in which the stronger one takes over. I started to wonder if this, besides the use of force and open violance, may be one of the tactics of Islam expansion. Sixpack is right when saying that the cultural erosion of the West attracts Islamic expansion into the vacuum that was created that way. I have written exactly that myself just days ago.
Can we afford to be that tolerant anymore? Do we really want true Islam – or only our flawed perception of it? Do we really know what Islam is? Can we trust it?
I think I let it rest for some days. I simply became too angry by thinking of it all.----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sky, I hope you don't mind I copied this here. Say the word and it's all history.
But since you were questioning your writing and awareness process I wanted to simply express my heartfelt congratulations to you. Your concept and initial words are courageous and bright and it's exactly what the West needs more of to achieve clarity and focus.
History teaches us major decadence forbodes decay. History also showed us other (often not better) people are always eager to fill the void/vacuum and take over power. And an Islamic society, or even a society in which Islamism becomes very influential, is definitely not what I want Europe to transform more and more into...
And yes, Neal Stevens is the king of K.I.S.S. (see sig). I'm frequently impressed at how few words he needs to say so much. I bet it's some Texan thing :up:
On the other hand: Your text is equally impressive because it aims to shed light on the many shades that come with this topic.
I hope you continue your work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I face a dilemma.
I have started to write a text, a very long one that will not be posted as a thread, but as a download, and it is a work in progress, open ending. It’s named „A critical history of Islam“. By focussing on historical developements and events, and interpreting them on a psychological and event-related political level I try to raise awareness for the many inner contradictions in Islam, and define it exclusively on the basis of the historical consequences it triggered, not from the perspective of it's self-understanding and dogma.
Somewhere a bomb blows off. Some sick bastard claims to have it done in the name of Allah, and he ripplefires quotes from the Quran to proove it. Immediately socalled Western moderates in Islam communities will raise and say that it is not Muslim at all, and they will start ripple-firing quotes – from the very same Quaran, prooving it’s peacefulness, and they will point out, that the fanatics have picked their quotes out of context. Next some people will come and question the context of the quotes of the moderates. Some smart heads will insist on all religions sharing the same basic beliefs, and that we all are about a God, and love, and tolerance. Not too mention those who come up with the Muslim neighbours they happen to know „who are really nice and kind people“, so Islam cannot be that bad at all. After a while the whole business is about defending Islam, and the victims of the event in the beginning have vanished into the voids of unimportance, as if it never happened.
I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS. I AM AT A POINT WHERE I DISLIKE BOTH, THE BOMBER AND THE MODERATE.
Yesterday evening a man send back my first draft of the first chapter, he holds the grade of a doctor of philosophy and teaches at university, in the field of intercultural comparisons (a friend of my parents). I asked him for his opnion. He strongly advised me not to release the text once it is finished, and that I maybe better should stop pursuing it. He said that the facts that I gave are from an unusual perspective but in principle correct, I nevertheless were unusual in my approach not to allow any freedom and space for diplomatic compromise in wording and interpretation and conclusions, necessarily giving me the aura of a dogmatist that way and making the text an aggressive "bomb" that only can raise maximum hostility from Muslims, and much hostilities from Western Multikulti-fans as well.
Hmpf. I know he is right. I also know that I am on a right path with my opinion, and that a growing part of pöublic starts to raise doubts about our tolerant policies towards Islam, and that the rlease of the work of mine will raise maximum controversy and even hostility, and that it easily can turn former neutrals or friends at this board into my bitter enemies, feeling heavily offended. For my opinion on the West’s limitless tolerance is very bad, and my opnion of Islam, Muhammad and the Quran is even worse. Now, what should I do? If I continue and release the first parts of this text in two or three weeks, it will raise just hate and anger and conflict, and will not acchieve anything to substantially change the silliness in Western societies – it just calls it by it’s name and brandmarks it as the folly that it is, but does not enforce changes. Plus: it is a complete affront against Islam. If I give up, I surrender to exactly the expected tolerance that I critizise, for reasons of not attacking Islam. And that is what I do: I intentionally attack it on the basis of it’s very own history. What else is Islam if not a massive rejection of it’s violant history, a set of contradictory rules and archaic rites from patriarchalic tribal communities and a mindset that got freezed in the status of conditions 1400 years ago and that in form of the Quran has a formidable tool to opportunistically excuse and defend anything: hate or tolerance, missionizing or acceptance, killing or letting live - making tiself untouchable that way, always avoiding critizism by saying: "But look here, the Quran says:...." ? Islam cannot be realised by reading the Quran or the Hadiths, this is one of my basic conclusions, this only helps to spread confusion over it’s nature and goals. What is Islam, then? Is it the result of the history that formed it (by patterns that were imprinted into it in the first twenty years of it’s existence?) Or is it the Quran? Is the moderate, tolerant man or the fundamentalist the true Muslim? Or should Muhammad’s life be the scale of judgement? Whatever approach you pick, it leads to different conclusions – how could Islam be taken as serious, then, if it displays so much of nothing? What would you think if I say not the tolerant Muslim is the true Muslim, but the intolerant fundamentalist, and that the only difference between this sort of true Muslims is only the ammount of violance they are willing to use or accept? Such a statement is considered to be politically uncorrect. But it is one of the most basic conclusions on Islam that I came to. Am I intolerant? A rightwing, then? A racist? Those that I just defined as untrue Muslims, the moderate ones, would be heavily offended to be told that. Konovalov will just shake his head, maybe beeing dissapointed by me. Could this be a scale to judge our relations towards Islam, is this the deciding issue: the answer if our Western culture’s position towards Islam is liked by Islam, or not? Should another culture be judge of our actings, becasue we let down our own culture that far? Wouldn't it be better to concentrate back on our own historical roots and traditions and values - that made our civilization the most superior historyx has ever seen, and gave it the most developed possebilities and potentials mankind ever has seen?
I already regret that I started to write this history-text, because it troubles my mind and makes me aware of how much importance I see in these issues for our Western culture, and it let me see my former travels in a different light: that of „know your enemy“.
Neal hit the nail on top, and very much so, when he said a couple of days ago: „Muslims, this is your house, who is going to clean it?“ I almost wanted to hug him for that. Cannot become much more precise in just one sentence.
Tolerance of ours needs limits on the basis of clear definitions of what we are as a culture, AND WHAT NOT. Unlimited tolerance only leads to anarchy in which the stronger one takes over. I started to wonder if this, besides the use of force and open violance, may be one of the tactics of Islam expansion. Sixpack is right when saying that the cultural erosion of the West attracts Islamic expansion into the vacuum that was created that way. I have written exactly that myself just days ago.
Can we afford to be that tolerant anymore? Do we really want true Islam – or only our flawed perception of it? Do we really know what Islam is? Can we trust it?
I think I let it rest for some days. I simply became too angry by thinking of it all.----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sky, I hope you don't mind I copied this here. Say the word and it's all history.
But since you were questioning your writing and awareness process I wanted to simply express my heartfelt congratulations to you. Your concept and initial words are courageous and bright and it's exactly what the West needs more of to achieve clarity and focus.
History teaches us major decadence forbodes decay. History also showed us other (often not better) people are always eager to fill the void/vacuum and take over power. And an Islamic society, or even a society in which Islamism becomes very influential, is definitely not what I want Europe to transform more and more into...
And yes, Neal Stevens is the king of K.I.S.S. (see sig). I'm frequently impressed at how few words he needs to say so much. I bet it's some Texan thing :up:
On the other hand: Your text is equally impressive because it aims to shed light on the many shades that come with this topic.
I hope you continue your work.