Islam and Extremism: What Is Underneath

[Rockstar]

Islam and Extremism: What Is Underneath

by William DiPuccio
November 1, 2012 at 4:00 am
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3425/islam-extremism

I thought this might be of interest to everyone. Its a bit long though

[Tchocky]

A skim through the archive titles is enlightening.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/archives/

Bloody hell.

[Rockstar]

I take it you are of the vast majority who just rely on headlines for their news.

I read the article I thought it brought together several points many here bring up in our seemingly bipolar discussions. You may have a different opinion I only ask , instead of surfing headlines that you read the article.

Bloody Hell

[ikalugin]

Shouldn't we keep muslim bashing in one thread?

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I take it you are of the vast majority who just rely on headlines for their news.

I read the article I thought it brought together several points many here bring up in our seemingly bipolar discussions. You may have a different opinion I only ask , instead of surfing headlines that you read the article.

Bloody Hell

I don't know, if one's goal is to beware of bias, I'm pretty sure "preoccupation with a particular perspective on a very narrow set of topics" is as bias-y as it gets. And as a linguist, I can tell you that there's a lot to be said for headlines and key words as reflective of content and ideological orientation, let alone recurring patterns over dozens and dozens of similar headlines.

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Shouldn't we keep muslim bashing in one thread?

If only!

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I take it you are of the vast majority who just rely on headlines for their news.

Hardly. I went to the archives to get a sense of what sort of outlet this was. Mission Accomplished.

I learned long ago that reading Alan Dershowitz on religion or the Middle East is only slightly more pleasant than amateur root canal surgery.

Hence I'm not pushed on reading the article.

Yeah I used the headlines as a point of analysis, there's nothing wrong with that.

The mistake I think you're making (apart from the personal jab) - is characterising this collection of position papers as "news". News it is not.

I read the article I thought it brought together several points many here bring up in our seemingly bipolar discussions. You may have a different opinion I only ask , instead of surfing headlines that you read the article.

To be honest I'm not inclined to.

[Rockstar]

I take it then nobody read it. Suit yerself.


Ikalugin I didnt see any bashing of anything in the article. It is simply one mans perspective which to me seemed touch on several polarizing issues said here in the General Forum. I am in no way form or fashion demanding you agree with anything or everything he wrote.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I take it then nobody read it. Suit yerself.


Ikalugin I didnt see any bashing of anything in the article. It is simply one mans perspective which to me seemed touch on several polarizing issues said here in the General Forum. I am in no way form or fashion demanding you agree with anything or everything he wrote.

I meant in the sense that the muslim related topics should be discussed in the same thread, sort of like the gun control related topics. Term "bashing" may have been used by me incorrectly, as this is what those muslim related discussions appear to dissolve into.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I take it then nobody read it.

I did.



Its just that the message disturbs the party of the self-deceiving infantiles, and so it will not only get ignored, but actively demonised and declared as racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and probably several other -isms and -phobias as well whose names I just temporarily do not have on mind. Summarise it all as "If you believe critics of Islam, then this is a sign of your own mental disease". Because that is what in the end it all means: be against mainstream glossing over and nice-talking of Islam, and you are an extremist yourself, and mentally deranged.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I did.



Its just that the message disturbs the party of the self-deceiving infantiles, and so it will not only get ignored, but actively demonised and declared as racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and probably several other -isms and -phobias as well whose names I just temporarily do not have on mind. Summarise it all as "If you believe critics of Islam, then this is a sign of your own mental disease". Because that is what in the end it all means: be against mainstream glossing over and nice-talking of Islam, and you are an extremist yourself, and mentally deranged.

It is (as most things are) a matter of measure. Ie one could well condemn the actions of Muslim people or their groups, or their views and statements, but projecting those points across the entire population (in my opinion) is incorrect, unless it is directly proven than the population in question (in it's entirety) actively aids such policies.

Why do I bring this up? I bring this up because while I condemn the actions of NAZIs in Germany, I do not believe that Germans are by nature evil savages who would murder my kin (ethnic Russians) due to our ethnicity.

Hence I call for separating the acts of the radicals (even though should such radicals have control of the state apparatus at the time) and the generalised population. Presumption of innocence unless proven to be guilty may be in part responsible for this sentiment.

This is my personal and private view however, you may well disagree with it.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

Hence I call for separating the acts of the radicals (even though should such radicals have control of the state apparatus at the time) and the generalised population. Presumption of innocence unless proven to be guilty may be in part responsible for this sentiment.

This is my personal and private view however, you may well disagree with it.

I don't disagree with it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

It is (as most things are) a matter of measure. Ie one could well condemn the actions of Muslim people or their groups, or their views and statements, but projecting those points across the entire population (in my opinion) is incorrect, unless it is directly proven than the population in question (in it's entirety) actively aids such policies.

Why do I bring this up? I bring this up because while I condemn the actions of NAZIs in Germany, I do not believe that Germans are by nature evil savages who would murder my kin (ethnic Russians) due to our ethnicity.

Hence I call for separating the acts of the radicals (even though should such radicals have control of the state apparatus at the time) and the generalised population. Presumption of innocence unless proven to be guilty may be in part responsible for this sentiment.

This is my personal and private view however, you may well disagree with it.

Islam is not a question of measure, it is a question of Quran, Sharia, Sunna. These are the defining criterions that decide what it is and what not. Having studied all that stuff quite deliberately and extensively in past times, I have come, after many years of an intellectual odyssey, to very clear positions, and my verdicts about Islam are absolutely pessimistic, and alarming. These are such that now scripture, history and modern events all fall into place and the contradictions that many people point out imo no longer exist. These contradictions emerge from people refusing to see what Islam really is. And what it really is, is a monster as evil and unforgiving than any other fundamentalist school in other religions, or communism, or fascism. The problem is that Islam has no fundamentalist sub-schools, but is fundamentalist in itself. Power by enforced totalitarian unity - that is what Muhammad understood all too well, and the show runs by this principle until today, and that is the reason why there is no difference between politics and religion in Muslim society. Secularism is a threat to this principle, hence any propagation of it is under threat of the death penalty, and that is why Quran is put above national states' laws and constitutions, and why the Ummah is such a monolithic quality. "Moderates" are the aberration of the pure dogma here, not radicals - Islam IS radicalist. Like fundamentalist Judaism. Fundamentalist Christianism. Its scitpure knows no "moderate Isalam", that is an invention to deceive the stupid infidels, a term thrown into discussion by the Saudis since the 70s.

Many Muslims who indeed are for freedom, humanism, and reject Sharia law, often already are apostates for sure by their rejection. They have many reaosns not wanting to be aware ofd that sometimes. Thats why they still say they "were Muslim". But I tell you: those bloodthirsty primitives attacking today are more in conformity with Muhammad's little brainchild than most "moderate Muslims" living in the Western world today. And I do not say that carelessly.

Its because that the man they called the "Christ" preached some totally different things, than the man they called Muhammad. Both teachings do not compare at all. The one man was a man of pointing people's attention inwards, he did not call for violent submission, murder, conquest, plundering, and assassination of his critics. The other man was a bandit, a murder, warlord and plunderer formulating a religion which he used to comfortably silencing his critics as heretics (and have them being taken care of for that), and motivating attacks against others by calling it the will of Allah. The church for some times also excused its crimes as the will of God. Only that the church all too often is a perverting of Christ'S message when doing that (to me the church is nothing else than the traders and money changers in the metaphoric story of Jesus' cleaning of the temple), while in Islam the same doing just represents Muhammad's will (that he called to be the will of the deity he came up with).

Relativising Islam as a tactic to distract criticism of its unpleasant content, is standard repertoire of Islam-defenders nowadays. Be clever yourself - do not fall for this deception any longer. And in case you are Muslim yourself (I have no clue), step back from it, examine it by the common rules of reasonable analysis and logic, compare the claims about it with the content of the scripture (and all of that pleas,e not jst some opportunistic hand-selected pieces), and compare it to history. Best advise is coming from Buddhist scripture, in the Kalamas-Sutra. Buddha replies to a question of his follower Kalamas like this : Do not put faith in traditions, even though they have been accepted for long generations and in many countries. Do not believe a thing because many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on the authority of one or another of the sages of old, nor on the ground of statements as found in the books. Never believe anything because probability is in its favour. Do not believe in that which you yourselves have imagined, thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe nothing merely on the authority of the teachers or the priests. After examination, believe that which you have tested for yourself and found reasonable, which is in conformity with your well being and that of others. (My inapt translation from the German). For believing in that statement being reasonable and truthful, Muslim men who really mean it serious with following the will of Allah as revealed by Muhammad, would necessarily wish to see me getting killed. Well, a death letter I already have gotten, once.

Islam is hoped to reform itself. I doubt that it will within the forseeable number of next generations. But at the same time people all the time want to let it off the hook and ease the pressure of it, giving it its will and stepping backwards, giving room to it, more and more, while in all Islamic countries (ALL Islamic countries) all other cultural minorities and religions are sometimes more sometimes less severly prosecuted and discriminated. Islam runs since over a thousand years a systematic campaign of cultural cleansing. But it has the nerve to pose as the big victim of a hostile world. That is the best illustration of psychoanalytical deflection I could think of! When they get their will anyway without needing to change - why then should Muslim societies ever reform themselves -f they get what they want anyway, without needing to change at all? The West makes a complete idiot of itself here.

Even worse, I see a general restrengthening of theistic organised religious powers and institutions, worldwide, the scandals of the Catholic church cannot hide that. The hunger for orientation is growing, so does the vulnerability of people for the religious ratters. In the wake of Islam growing in Europe, Catholicism since long has seen its great chance for its own coming-back. They give mutual support to each other, because the more obedience people develop for one theistic religion, the more that benefits the power-interest of the other religions in general, too.

We are moving backwards, and most people do not see it, I fear. This is worrysome. So many historical trends currently come together, and they all support the destruction of once-gained liberties and freedoms, ethical standards and the tradition of humanism, they all support a self-dynamic back into times and to standards that once were considered that they had been overcome.

But things seem to run in cycles only.

I wish more people had an attitude like the main figure of Pi in the wonderful film, "Life of Pi". The world would be a better place. But that is dreaming by me only.

Wonderful movie, I whole-heartly recommend it.

[ikalugin]

@SkyBird

First, to clarify matters - I am Russian Orthodox and support the separation of State and the Church (God's to God, Ceasar's to Ceasar). Thus I do not have any positive bias towards Islam, atleast any that I am aware of. I use terms "radical" and "moderate" to qualify the relationship of Islam believer towards the common western civilisations, "radical" being active supporter (as in actually doing something to that end) of causing damage to the aforementioned civilisations, while "moderates" allow relatively peaceful coexistence. I use "western" to signify position of the first world Christian ethics states and civilisations, this would include (for example) Russia and other "eastern" Christianity civilisations.

I apologise in advance for the length of the post, however it is required to illustrate my views on the matter, which by no means I claim to be authoritative. I do not wish to discuss the matter, but merely to explain my views.

Now, to the substance of your post.

The question here again is of principle and of measure. Ie, not all Muslims support radical (in commonly accepted in the west way) views, this is obvious (because you could find at least one Muslim that does not hold such radical views and is moderate by our measure, proving this is trivial and thus in my opinion is not required). Thus, as such Muslims do exist, one could not say that Muslims by nature are radical and evil and thus should be prosecuted on the fact that they are Muslims alone, rather than their actions and words (or inactions and silence). This is what falls under the principle of presumption of innocence, a principle in my opinion core to the modern western views.
The matter of measure is such as - could the persecution of Muslims on the whole prevent more damage done, than the collateral damage caused by prosecution of non radical Muslims. Hence the question of measure lies in the assessment of damage dealt in either case, of proportion of radical Muslims to the moderate ones, the danger posed by both moderate and radical Muslims and so on. In my opinion the threat by the Muslim world, the proportion of radicals to moderates, does not justify at this moment condemnation (and prosecution) of Muslims by the nature of their religion, such as it did not justify the condemnation (and prosecution) of Germans for the NAZI state that was in power in Germany (even though NAZI state possessed a very real existential threat to my people, something Muslims at this time do not).

Why did this happen, what is wrong? In my opinion what is happening at the moment (post Cold War) is the reactionary movement against Post Modernistic Revolution and the events of the Cold War resolution.

What should we do? I think that in this sense we should consolidate basic western values (such as presumption of innocence), and protect them against the drift, even at the expense of the newly acquired values (such as the LGBT groups protection). We should enforce those values within our states without wavering.
We should also export those values to the Muslim world and build from there while supporting stable (if evil) regimes as the basis for slow integration of those civic values into the Islamic society. What we should not do (under any circumstances) in my opinion - we shouldn't provide the cycle of hatred, social reasons for radicalisation, prosecute stable secular regimes for immediate geopolitical gain and superficial western values. Ie - a stable dictator that does not allow gay marriage is far better than a weak and unstable democratic government that does.

The issue I see in the process however is that I doupt that it would be possible to advance the Muslim world up to the western social levels due to the disparity in resource consumption, but this is entirely different matter.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

The question here again is of principle and of measure. Ie, not all Muslims support radical (in commonly accepted in the west way) views, this is obvious (because you could find at least one Muslim that does not hold such radical views and is moderate by our measure, proving this is trivial and thus in my opinion is not required). Thus, as such Muslims do exist, one could not say that Muslims by nature are radical and evil and thus should be prosecuted on the fact that they are Muslims alone, rather than their actions and words (or inactions and silence).

You want to see one ???
Just tell me to show you a Bosnian.

[ikalugin]

Originally Posted by Betonov

You want to see one ???
Just tell me to show you a Bosnian.

I am well aware of ethnic cleansing dimension of this and how Balkans work. What I would imminently support in the ex-Yugoslavia case would be enforcement of law, and the Kosovo Muslims would pay for the crimes they have committed after the due process.

The point is to first provide stability/basic security (so people don't go desecrating Orthodox Christian abbeys and rape nuns) and then organise the said process and not go around lynching innocents and passive collaborators.