Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abraham
Your argumentation is very persuasive, Skybird, the more since I share your vision on traditional Islam and we agree broadly on the thread subject.
I want to thank you for the information about the skull-minarets. That's gruesome, but those were gruesome times (form all sides).
Still, from my recent conversations with "Muslims" I get a - not fundamentally, but partly - different impression than you have. "Muslims" who warned me for Turkey joining the EU and it's possible voting tactics in the EU parliament, "Muslims" who were abhorred by the recent Islamofacistic violence, "Muslims" who hardly cared about going to a mosque anymore. And in Northern Cyprus they were no exception.
If you don't call them Muslims - which is they still call themselves - you might have to distract anything between 30% and 60% of the world Muslim population, right?
I see diversity amoungst Muslims. You see silent tolerance for Islamic violence and effort to make the West submitting.
But I am sure that we both are right. Diversity implies that your view of the Muslims can be realistic, as well as my view. Mind you, I agree that Muslims in general don't share our Western principles. Still I wonder how people like Konovalov feel and think. I just can't generalise and view all Muslims as a threat. I even wonder if all devote Muslims are a threat, considering Konovalov is a devote Muslim. But I certainly agree with you that the Muslim world gets much more exited about some cartoons of the prophet than about Muslim terrorism. And I find it a shame that some Muslim clergymen set a price on the head of a Danish cartoonist without a wave of protest going through the Muslim community.
That's why I don't disagree with you on principle, I just want to see a little bit less generalisation...
|
You do not solve the contradiction I point at: the definition of Islam for which Islam itself gives the rules: basing on Muhammad, Quran, Sharia, and historically: Medina-model, UNCOMPROMISED. You can't fragmentize it into different types of ISLAM, you CANNOT. It's a folly, and self-deception, a com0liment to yourself that you - and we - will pay dearly for. As long as you can'T solve that contradiction - labelling someone a muslim because he wants to see himself like that while at the same time he is violating and rejecting the most essential parts of what it means to belong to Islam - your views are necessarily missing reality, and thus are not convincing. That would be a personal thing of yours only, if it wouldn't be exactly this attitude in the West that cultivates tolerance for the most hostile ideology there is, from a Western perspective.
Have you red my recent essay, two days ago? You perfectly fit into that pattern I describe there.
As long as you make a diffrence between what you call "traditional" islam, and other kinds of Islam, you have no clue what Islam is about. And that is true for other Muslims that consider themselves to be Muslim as well.
with regard to Konovalov, we still exchange mails occasionally, so muczh for my attitude towards him, and vice versa. He has prooven with all his behavior and attitude that he showed on this forum, that he is no Muslim at all. He just is under a spell. We leave it to that, and still can talk to each other.
Try to understand that, Abraham, or you will always miss with great precision: there is only ONE Islam with crystalclear criterias for what it is. there is no two Islams, not three, and not four or more. Only ONE. and this is the Islam you can see throughout history, it has that history not because it is violating it's laws, but becasue it is in correspondence with it's laws. This is different than in the bible, which never gave the fundament to build a church, and thus also holds no arguments why there can only be one church, or several churches. It even cannot explain why there is any church at all.
You cannot tame Islam. There is only one islam: the fighting Islam. It's part of it's identity. Stop fooling yourself.
Most people do think in comparable pattern like you on Islam. This has brought Europe to where it is. You can't criticise the state of Europe and it's attitude toeards turkey, Islam, and such - and stick to that method of yours at the same time - that is a contradiction in itself.
Islamic history does not know our concept of time. For them, time stand s still , for Allah has revealad himself and muhammad was his envoy, his voice and prophet, every change, every developement could only mean to move away from the most perfect condition that is possible. That'S why I referred to those skull-minarets - the attitude that led to their building is the same that rules true Islam today. It is not clever trying to put that into a more relöative popsition again by saying "the times were like that, and Templars were not kind either" - you only do one thing by that: deconstructing even more of our values and standards, so that we become even more vulnerable for them beeing replaced with the values of Islam. Those moderates you mentioned are sticking to "Islam" by habit, and tradition, but their wish for seeing modernisation and more liberties only shows that they have understood how destructive and unhuman and totalitarian Islam is. It's a compliment for them, but nevertheless they are no Muslims anymore.
Not evertyhing should be put into relative relations to others, tolerance needs limits, else it is the law of the jungle, and not the most reasonable and most tolerant will win, but the strongest. And that is the situation we head for in europe. Your attitude is dangerous, Abraham. Again, I refer to my latest essay, "The dialogue that never was". I cannot put it any better than like I did in that one.