Islam Must Rule the World

[GeoffP]

And this: the Turks seem to have recognized the dangers of religious governance, if you have not.

ISTANBUL, Turkey - Turkey's military issued a stern warning on Monday about the threat to secularism on the eve of an expected triumph of the Islamic-oriented government: the election of a loyal — and devout — president.

There were no signs that the military planned to disrupt Parliament's vote on Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, but the statement describing "the centers of evil" arrayed against secular Turkey was a reminder of its past interventions to enforce the separation of mosque and state. This time, the military is dealing with a government that renewed its mandate in a resounding election victory in July and an emboldened prime minister who has urged the generals to stay out of politics.

Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, chief of the military, said in a note on the military's Web site: "Our nation has been watching the behavior of those separatists who can't embrace Turkey's unitary nature and centers of evil that systematically try to corrode the secular nature of the Turkish Republic."

The military often condemns separatist rebels who have been fighting for decades in the predominantly Kurdish region of southeast Turkey. But the potent reference to "centers of evil" and the timing of the announcement just before the presidential election suggested the conflict over the role of Islam in politics was its immediate concern.
The military, which has ousted four civilian governments since 1960, said its statement was issued to mark the 85th anniversary on Aug. 30 of a military victory that was crucial for the establishment of modern Turkey.

Gul, whose earlier bid to win election as president was blocked by the secular establishment because of concerns about his background in political Islam, was expected to win the post on Tuesday. He has pledged to uphold secular principles enshrined in the constitution, and to use his contacts in foreign capitals to promote Turkey's role on the international stage.

The military-backed secular establishment, however, fears Gul is so loyal to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that he would not use the presidency's veto powers as a traditional check on the government. The secular incumbent, Ahmet Necdet Sezer, vigorously used his authority to block the promotion of officials deemed to have Islamic leanings.

"Nefarious plans to ruin Turkey's secular and democratic nature emerge in different forms everyday," Buyukanit said in his statement. "The military will, just as it has so far, keep its determination to guard social, democratic and secular Turkey."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070827/ap_on_re_as/turkey

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, they established it in 1923. Seems to have made a lot of progress without education, right. In fact if I remember correctly, the separation of church and state was complete when during the last few Sultans took over from the Caliphs. Looks like they are addressing the right stuff, alright. In fact, they should just adopt the Russian and Chinese model, since the last ~100 years have been so wonderful there. :yawn:

 

[S.A.M.]

Actually, on second thought, I'm not going to let you walk so easily on this one.

You compare - and I assume the above is meant to be my caricature - me critcizing islam with an aborigine criticizing democratic capitalism. Perhaps the aborigine wouldn't be able to cite Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, but he could certainly describe the negative effects of capitalism on him, his family and his society, if pertinent. And this is the scope of his concern with the system; as it impacts him and his system. I had thought that you previously were much supportive of the reaction of uncomplex, oppressed native peoples to their more organized, industrialized oppressors?

So this is my point, too: you can like the criticism, or lump it, as the Americans say.

Yeah, but allowing the natives to wallow in ignorance is a fruitless endeavor. Much better to let them educate themselves and make an informed decision. Of course, if they just keep asking the medicine man what they should do, it will only lead to predictions of doom and annihilation, since the medicine man has a vested interest in keeping them uneducated. He might even do a few fancy dances to scare them into believing what he says.:shrug:

 

[S.A.M.]

Are you alluding to your failure to address the issues with radicals on this basis? I agree that thus far the discussion has been pointless; but that is not my doing.

Pretty hard to address uneducated opinions based on unsubstantiated folk tales.

Unfortunately for your point, the fact of excess by political islam and its adherents is well established. It is not in any way an unsupported point - as even the odd "moderate" can be tricked into saying when the sun is particularly bright or the air thin.

Lets just make it up as we go along. Political Islam?

And I reiterate: how are you educating these people? With your silence? Tacit approval? Tell me of your method so highly successful that it gives you time to argue with critics of islamic extremism instead of the extremists themselves. Perhaps your technique could then be replicated, to the gain of all.

Its enough to let people know that what they are being fed by the media is complete and utter bullshit. Like the fantasy of the religious suicide bomber, when studies have shown that suicide bombers are educated secular men, making the issue one of political strategy, rather than 72 virgins.

Ah! Argument from false authority. Only when you understand will you understand. Until you submit to islam, you may not criticize it; after you submit, you could simply be decapitated for it. You see, this is exactly what I was talking about before. By the same token, you have no authority to discuss naturalistic evolution with me, or to recite the shahada, which is an unsubstantiated slaner against a religion which - as you infer - muslims have no right to criticize since they have no knowledge thereof.

Like I said, argument from complete ignorance. Not surprising when Robert Spencer is the poster on the wall. Learning anything from a hatemonger is bound to inculcate merely his views, without furthering any knowledge. Lots of science behind the Nationalsozialismus, you know.

By reporting on the excesses of political islam, and the liturgical support that extremists draw on from religious sources, to harm and oppress others. Yes, it's www.Jihadwatch.org that are the heinous ones.

Perhaps you would care to define political Islam first.
:yawn:

 

[GeoffP]

Yeah, they established it in 1923. Seems to have made a lot of progress without education, right. In fact if I remember correctly, the separation of church and state was complete when the Sultans took over from the Caliphs. Looks like they are addressing the right stuff, alright. In fact, they should just adopt the Russian and Chinese model, since the last ~100 years have been so wonderful there. :yawn:

Compared to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Egypt, perhaps?

 

[GeoffP]

Yeah, but allowing the natives to wallow in ignorance is a fruitless endeavor. Much better to let them educate themselves and make an informed decision.

But of course, this isn't the point. It really doesn't matter what you might "educate" the Aborigine on - supply and demand, market value, or world trading index - since ultimately it's more important what the system is going to do to him. He's not going to join your system; he's a victim of it. That's the essential contrast. Similarly, people like me appreciate education, but are more concerned with the overt physical and societal hostility of political islam. That's the issue.

Of course, if they just keep asking the medicine man what they should do, it will only lead to predictions of doom and annihilation, since the medicine man has a vested interest in keeping them uneducated. He might even do a few fancy dances to scare them into believing what he says.:shrug:

Huh. That sounds exactly like something I've brought up to you recently. I wonder what? :shrug: Palestinian child eye-stealing, possibly.

 

[xcaleber]

Neither can corporate globalism. 27,000 children died of starvation today (as everyday).

globalissues.org
That is a bunch of propoganda and you are part of the problem.

 

[GeoffP]

Pretty hard to address uneducated opinions based on unsubstantiated folk tales.

So you haven't bothered taking your mastery of discourse and logical debate to deal with these radicals? What's holding you back? Sympathetic twingings? Tacit acceptance? What?

Lets just make it up as we go along. Political Islam?

LMAO - this from the one who earlier decried Iran for their little theocracy. And now you don't know what political islam is? Have you received, say, a head blow recently? Or were you criticizing Iran's government for their untasty post-tea snacks? ("Roses of the Prophet Mohammed", indeed.)

Its enough to let people know that what they are being fed by the media is complete and utter bullshit. Like the fantasy of the religious suicide bomber, when studies have shown that suicide bombers are educated secular men, making the issue one of political strategy, rather than 72 virgins.

Secular? Stats for that?

Are you going to let the extremist websites know that what they're being fed is complete and utter bullshit, too?

Like I said, argument from complete ignorance. Not surprising when Robert Spencer is the poster on the wall. Learning anything from a hatemonger is bound to inculcate merely his views, without furthering any knowledge. Lots of science behind the Nationalsozialismus, you know.

Er, I think this view has probably been debunked elsewhere, as appopriate, but I bow to your greater experience. As for Spencer: again, outline his hatred. Specify his views and provide appropriate proof. I'm polite enough to do the same for you; and I understand they respect that in the ME. Politeness and firmness.

Perhaps you would care to define political Islam first.
:yawn:

The reliance on islamic texts for lawmaking in islamic countries? The advancement of islamic influence to the end of coercion or supplanting of the government? It's really too late in the afternoon for you to start playing dumb. That's a morning thing.

 

[S.A.M.]

Neither can corporate globalism. 27,000 children died of starvation today (as everyday).

globalissues.org
That is a bunch of propoganda and you are part of the problem.

Of course, nobody dies of starvation.

And I'm merely a nutritionist for the last 10 years so what would I know, you've apparently got YOUR finger on the pulse, please do educate us as to the "truth"

Source:Sources for child deaths

These mortality figures are from UNICEF. 50 million covers deaths between 2000 and 2005, the latest figures from UNICEF at time of writing. If 2006 and 2007 are considered the deaths since 2000 would be 65–70 million.

 

[S.A.M.]

Compared to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Egypt, perhaps?

A dictatorship, a monarchy and a secular government?

But of course, this isn't the point. It really doesn't matter what you might "educate" the Aborigine on - supply and demand, market value, or world trading index - since ultimately it's more important what the system is going to do to him. He's not going to join your system; he's a victim of it. That's the essential contrast. Similarly, people like me appreciate education, but are more concerned with the overt physical and societal hostility of political islam. That's the issue.

Yup, so what's better, to educate the aborigine in capitalism? Or let him be a "victim" of it?

Huh. That sounds exactly like something I've brought up to you recently. I wonder what? Palestinian child eye-stealing, possibly.

Yeah, why don't they just accept that their country has been occupied and they are prisoners in their homes, subject to the whims of their occupiers?

Weird.

So you haven't bothered taking your mastery of discourse and logical debate to deal with these radicals? What's holding you back? Sympathetic twingings? Tacit acceptance? What?

Mostly an inability to move beyond propaganda and uneducated rhetoric; strangely enough, just like the "extremists" they claim to abhor, they are more attached to unsbstantiated folk tales; they keep claiming it as evidence and justification, EXACTLY like the extremists. And EXACTLY like them, they expect to be taken seriously and then are frustrated when they are not.

Of course, if you look too long into the abyss, etc.

LMAO - this from the one who earlier decried Iran for their little theocracy. And now you don't know what political islam is? Have you received, say, a head blow recently? Or were you criticizing Iran's government for their untasty post-tea snacks? ("Roses of the Prophet Mohammed", indeed.)

Decried Iran for a totalitarian autocratic state. Divine imams are no part of Islam; la ilaha illallah, remember?

Secular? Stats for that?

Just look it up. Its there in the umpteen posts/threads I've already made on this subject right in this forum

On second thoughts, considering your reluctance to see beyond your entrenched bias, here is a starting point; the literature is all available and you should have academic access.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=68284

Are you going to let the extremist websites know that what they're being fed is complete and utter bullshit, too?

You're assuming that they are naive and misguided, I believe they are politically and ideologically motivated. Would I advise the KKK that racism is BAD? What I can and will do is lay out the difference between history and fantasy. Its not for no reason that the Islamic scholars wrote meticulously on the origin and cited everything they wrote down.

Er, I think this view has probably been debunked elsewhere, as appopriate, but I bow to your greater experience. As for Spencer: again, outline his hatred. Specify his views and provide appropriate proof. I'm polite enough to do the same for you; and I understand they respect that in the ME. Politeness and firmness.

Asked and answered. Obviously you prefer his brand of logic. No knowledge, no education, merely hate speech.

The reliance on islamic texts for lawmaking in islamic countries? The advancement of islamic influence to the end of coercion or supplanting of the government? It's really too late in the afternoon for you to start playing dumb. That's a morning thing.

What Islamic texts? Fiqh? Thats a legal opinion, not required to be followed. Sharia? That is a scholarly discourse outlining when and why certain punishments were meted out, by whom and for what reason.

All laws in Islamic countries, as elsewhere, are laid down by the government.

Abu Ghraib is no more reflective of democratic institutions than Saudi law is of Islam.

 

[S.A.M.]

Besides, isn't survival the ultimate criteria of a successful society? Which one do you think will still be around in a 100 years? Western society is lucky if it will make it past this millenium.

 

[Norsefire]

No, they don't. Sources indicate a range of 250,000 up to 8 million.



You mean the "cowardly" Persians, who only know to shoot arrows from a distance in great numbers to achieve their victories.



And they fell like so many blades of grass under a lawnmower.

8 million! HAHAHA! OK, because the Chinese modern army does not even have a fourth of that, if a fourth at all.

Well, I suppose the Israelis are cowards for using airplanes. And the Americans.
You mean the "cowardly" Spartans, who could only hide like fucking rats to achieve their victory?

Actually, no. That is impossible, because the Immortals were the elite of the elite, the best warriors of their time. Spartans were second-rate

 

[S.A.M.]

Hmm apparently any attempt to link to jihadwatch from my location results in a banned message:

So here is what I could access:

A new blog called Watching Jihad Watch (hat tip: UZ, who has links there to a number of hate-watch sites) has a long article on Spencer & co's "coverage" of the Armanious murders in New Jersey, in which it was assumed that the Coptic victims were murdered by Muslims who pretended to convert to Christianity in order to gain the family's confidence in order to kill them, but it turned out that the murderers were simply robbers. They did not apologise, instead posting lengthy excuses.

Can't access anymore, I wonder why.

 

[Oli]

8 million! HAHAHA! OK, because the Chinese modern army does not even have a fourth of that, if a fourth at all.

Available Military Manpower: 342,956,265
Total Military Personnel: 7,024,000
Active Frontline Personnel: 2,255,000

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=4

Just short of 8 million all told.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well well well, what do you know.

Some people can tell the difference after all!

http://www.hddweb.com/95376/How_is_the_ban_affecting_hate_speech_sites.pdf

 

[GeoffP]

A dictatorship, a monarchy and a secular government?

No. An islamic dicatorship with sharia, an islamic dicatorship with sharia and an islamic dicatorship with sharia. One of the two has got that "extra-islamic" flavour, of course.

Yup, so what's better, to educate the aborigine in capitalism? Or let him be a "victim" of it?

For capitalism to leave him the fuck alone. Do you seriously not understand that? Stop torturing and oppressing people who don't want to be a part of your ridiculous system. For fuck's sakes.

Yeah, why don't they just accept that their country has been occupied and they are prisoners in their homes, subject to the whims of their occupiers?

Why indeed, when you can start war after war right from the beginning, and then spread idiotic rumours about the Israelis all throughout the ME, even as far as India? After all, there's no need for anyone in dar-al-islam to seriously stop and reason out which side carries the balance of "fault" in the conflict using logic, is there?

[sarc] Not when one side is the (filthy) Jews, surely? And you know what they're like. It's right in the Quran, for Allah's sake! I mean, not that we've ever met one or anything, except maybe for that pathetic lot we've confined to a tiny corner of the city, too weak to stand up for themselves. And you know how we don't like wussies! Sure we've stomped them into second-class citizens for 1400 years and if one of them dared frown at our feet it would throw all our cousin-brothers into a frenzy the likes of which couldn't be incited by an uncovered woman, but come on! have some guts and stand up for yourselves! so we can kill you[/sarc]

Mostly an inability to move beyond propaganda and uneducated rhetoric; strangely enough, just like the "extremists" they claim to abhor, they are more attached to unsbstantiated folk tales; they keep claiming it as evidence and justification, EXACTLY like the extremists. And EXACTLY like them, they expect to be taken seriously and then are frustrated when they are not.

You really don't get it, do you?

Our position is that enough muslims are taking it seriously and with a direct reliance on the texts that simply brushing it under the prayer rug is not the answer. Moderates - since, of course, as mere "kufr" we're not allowed to have opinions on islam, although muslims apparently can have opinions on us - should be standing up to these people and shutting them down with whatever tools come to hand, including reason and - yes - religious sources. Now if that includes islamic texts, great. So be it. But the record of moderates is littered with their own casualties - literal ones, buried here and there or on the run from the tolerance of political islam, or figurative ones who, feeling a garter snake nipping at their heel, ignore the asp with its fangs buried in their throat, pumping in the poison. Some of them are great people indeed - but the pretension that somehow critics of islam are to blame is either a) stupid or b) indicative of the problem. If islam can't tolerate criticism, then it needs more and more and more so as to be able to tolerate it in a pluralistic world, as the other world religions tolerate it. It is unacceptable that criticism of islam is seen with such murderous hatred even by reformers at the same time that the conservatives call for it to "rule the world". Our advice? Get on it, FFS. Because the literalists currently pwn you on the religious side, and all your intellectual effort appears to be distraction instead of taking responsibility and dealing with the problem.

Decried Iran for a totalitarian autocratic state. Divine imams are no part of Islam; la ilaha illallah, remember?

Totalitarian theocracy. Not the same; give up the side-step.

On second thoughts, considering your reluctance to see beyond your entrenched bias, here is a starting point; the literature is all available and you should have academic access.

Pape's point was that most terrorism (from 1988-2001; and based on 188 attacks total, without recourse to the kind of attack or the loss in human life, was by the Tamils. I reiterate in the hopes it will sink in:

i) I am not solely concerned with suicide terrorism. I am also cognisant and concerned about the treatment of non-muslims in islamic political systems, and by muslims of other muslims, and women, and homosexuals.

ii) Pape doesn't appear to have any appreciation for the global nature of jihad at all. Citing him blindly for the furthering of some abstractly related point is pseudointellectual at best.

It staggers me that I could have repeated part of earlier posts word for word in response to this last post without your slightest recognition of their earlier relevance.

You're assuming that they are naive and misguided, I believe they are politically and ideologically motivated. Would I advise the KKK that racism is BAD?

And why in hell not? Heaven forbid that a radical on the lines of a Klansman or a conservative muslim be told that their philosophy is wrong and stupid.

What I can and will do is lay out the difference between history and fantasy. Its not for no reason that the Islamic scholars wrote meticulously on the origin and cited everything they wrote down.

Great - but other people cite different opinions based on different positions - or on ones that don't differ at all. For example: the penalty for apostacy in all four islamic schools of jurisprudence is death. The Hanafi might delay it for a while, for a woman, to allow her to reconsider, but still it comes down to death. Is it for no reason that the Islamic scholars wrote meticulously on the origin of this issue and all came to the same conclusion?

Asked and answered. Obviously you prefer his brand of logic. No knowledge, no education, merely hate speech.

Ridiculous and already extensively refuted. You've never presented a single reason as to why I should believe you on this score, and now you simply refuse to do so. His knowledge of islam is in fact evidently extensive; and if a jurist as mighty as you claim intellectual poverty as an excuse not to challenge your conservative forbears, then what chance has Spencer - a hated and despised kufr, regarded as naij in many circles and thereby beneath contempt, let alone conversation - to educate? He, rather, is a bellweather - a watchman against the night that conservative islam is trying to drop on us all. That you criticize him instead of using his arguments as a clarion call to reformation is stilling.

What Islamic texts? Fiqh? Thats a legal opinion, not required to be followed. Sharia? That is a scholarly discourse outlining when and why certain punishments were meted out, by whom and for what reason.

Which are used today to oppress others, and muslims too. You appear to be milling in definitions without confronting reality.

All laws in Islamic countries, as elsewhere, are laid down by the government.

Which is islamic, and punishes "shirk" with death or imprisonment.

Abu Ghraib is no more reflective of democratic institutions than Saudi law is of Islam.

Good! Then confront the Saudis; challenge their worldview on some of the hideous fora that they run, as I have done, and been threatened with death. Speak out and cow them with your abundant experience, instead of battering away at the very people who agree most with your supposed perspective.

 

[GeoffP]

Well well well, what do you know.

Some people can tell the difference after all!

http://www.hddweb.com/95376/How_is_the_ban_affecting_hate_speech_sites.pdf

A little triumphalism? Don't worry; the counters go up and up all the time. A little blip is always what you get before a big swing. It could be worse, I guess: like CAIR's membership decline since 2001. (90%! )

When in doubt, the supremacist comes out. Eh Sam?

 

[Michael]

Kust because your folk tale comes from a Muslim site, does not change the fact that its origins are still suspect.

ARE you talking about the Qur'an?!?!?

Oh, because its origins are suspect as well.

SAM, I specificallywrote in the post, plain as day, that it does not matter if the story is accurate. It may be true it may not be true it may be partially true.

The point is what people accept. 100s of Millions of Muslims for over a thousand years accept the story and take something away from it.

Now I asked you your opinion on the story. Based on the information presented whether you thought the protagonist acted morally. Instead of giving an opinion you go on with this big fishing expedition about how the story may be suspect. So what? I addressed that. I am asking your opinion on the story. But instead we get red herring after red herring. Whether the story is true or not is not what I asked. Did I ask: Is the story true? No I did not ask that. I actually said it doesn’t matter to the question I am asking.

Did the protagonist acted morally in ordering the death of the singing slave girl?

Kind of stuck aren’t we? We either accept that Mohammad’s murdering of the innocent slave girl is just, which is God awful sick. Or we chance pissing on Mohammad’s ooo so glorious name and Ooo ooo maybe get in trouble with the big magic sky daddy for thinking an impure thought.

Yeah, ever wonder why there is an almost total loss of the human form in Islamic art? Great society they built there. I think I saw something similar in European history, it’s called the Dark Ages or the Holy Roman Empire. Unlike some people here I am more than happy to take a scrutinizing look at the past. I’m not scared of some sky daddy and I can think about the very likely possibly that Yeshua was a mythical allegory as about half of Christians then believed.


Do you think that the protagonist acted morally in ordering the death of the singing slave girl?

Pass the fish dear

Or do you consider that reading about WMDs on the US government site makes them a reality?

Great point! As you can see it’s really what people believe is true isn’t’ it! So long as Americans think that there were WMD then the US government has a free hand to use that fear and go to war and kill people and steal oil.

Fear is powerful and as you can see it’s prevented you from thinking about answering many questions. Lets qualify again; Assuming the story may not be true and just viewing it as a moral tale told to Muslims for generations: Was Mohammad’s ordering of the singing slave girl’s death an evil act?

Well?

Sad, really, I had expected better from a scientist. You cannot argue on an oral tradition as if it were established fact, not when its citations indicate it to be a suspect story. That’s like getting excited over a bar graph without statistics to show standard deviation. There is just not enough information to argue on data that, in itself, means absolutely nothing, not even to satisfy your fantasies.

You just keep making it up. Go back to the thread on Morality and what do we read? I explicitly stated these exact words: “Therefor the folk-lore or tale or fable needn't be true itself to answer this poll. The poll has nothing at all to do with historic accuracy or even reality but only to do with morality.”


Believe it or not SAM it is possible to discuss the morality in a story. As a matter of fact that’s usually the point. Possibly the main point. It doesn’t matter that this story has been accepted as fact by millions of Muslims for over a thousand years. The question is about morality. That simple.

Michael


Note: The dubious "suspect" origins of the Qur'an doesn't stop you from believing what it says is true.

 

[Michael]

Yeah, they established it in 1923. Seems to have made a lot of progress without education, right. In fact if I remember correctly, the separation of church and state was complete when the Sultans took over from the Caliphs.

RE Sultan
"The title carries moral weight and religious authority, as the ruler's role was defined in the Qur'an."

AKA a King or Emperor with a mandate from God. No different from any King or Emperor from any period or culture.

 

[Michael]

Of course, nobody dies of starvation.

And I'm merely a nutritionist for the last 10 years so what would I know, you've apparently got YOUR finger on the pulse, please do educate us as to the "truth"

Source:Sources for child deaths

These mortality figures are from UNICEF. 50 million covers deaths between 2000 and 2005, the latest figures from UNICEF at time of writing. If 2006 and 2007 are considered the deaths since 2000 would be 65–70 million.

And just what is your solution SAM? How are you going to motivate the people of the World to feed these children?
:shrug:
Better to just point the finger at capitol. As if the creation of capitol somehow starves children. Or I know lets have one big fat and happy Islamic Caliphate - that'll fix em children. Why just look at the glorious time when the four Righteous Caliphs ruled the Islamic world. wondrous milk and honey flowed for all:roflmao: