Friday 28 September 2007

28/09: The true breadth of Islamic fundamentalism



Category: General
Posted by: Raja Petra
Farouk A. Peru

‘Islamic Fundamentalism’ is a phrase that anyone who follows the discourse of global politics these days will be familiar with. Islamic Fundamentalism has been blamed for several terrorist incidents all over the world and the proof of its existence can be seen by the presence of its adherents, who call for a violent jihad for a number of reasons. The author agrees that Islamic Fundamentalism is a menace to global society and must be eliminated for the sake of world peace.

The purpose of this essay is to propose a new definition of Islamic Fundamentalism by including attitudes which are not usually considered fundamentalist. We must remember that words acquire meanings through usage and because of the huge media coverage terrorist acts get and the fact that ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’ as a phrase is widely used in these reports, the phrase has come to have a narrow meaning. That helps to obfuscate the true breadth of Islamic Fundamentalism.

This brings us to the question of what is ‘fundamentalism’ and what is its opposite, which we identify from popular usage as ‘moderation’ (as in Moderate Islam).

What is fundamentalism if not only terrorism? For the term to accurately represent the reality of what it signifies in the world, it must also identify the potential sources of what brings about violent acts and not simply violent acts themselves. Therefore, fundamentalism is an exclusivist attitude. It revels in not only being right but being the only right. Because of this, it needs an ‘other’ on which it focuses feelings of negativity and this other is not usually not an ethical other but rather a nominal other. Islamic Fundamentalism cares not that the West has values that are very similar to the Quran but focuses on the nominal existence of something other than itself, that is The West as a separate existence.

Islamic Fundamentalism as an exclusivist attitude manifests in a few different forms:

1. The desire to resurrect the Islamic Empire. Fundamentalists believe that the Islamic empire is the most superior form of political expression and civilisational existence. They look to the historical Islamic Caliphate as the epoch of political existence and desire its return.

2. The movement towards the total implementation of Shariah Laws. They view Shariah laws as an absolute entity validated by God and thus obligated upon everyone . Their endeavour is to bring about Shariah laws as an exclusive legal system because every other legal system is viewed as man-made and thus illegitimate.

3. The attachment for the pan-arabic socio-culture called ‘The Ummah’. While Muslims share a common bond due to their cultural origins and this makes them an entity, Islamic Fundamentalists see this entity as absolute and is in a conflicting dynamic with people not from this cultural origin. Muslim Fundamentalists living with non-Muslims in a given polity will find themselves supporting any polity of a similar cultural origin over their own nation.

These three manifestations are attitudes held by Muslim individuals and organisations. They do not normally manifest in violent activities but certainly, their attitude of exclusivism brings about feelings of dissociation from the rest of the world and feelings of superiority with accompanied arrogance.

Therefore, by definition and behaviour, Muslim (by which we refer to those of a certain socio-cultural origin) individuals and organisations that exhibit these positions must be seen as Islamic Fundamentalists and treated accordingly.

What is the opposite of Islamic Fundamentalism if we adopt the aforementioned definition? A logical answer would be ‘Islamic Inclusivism’. ‘Islamic Inclusivism’ would be an attitude displayed by Muslim individuals and organisations that accept and embrace other organisations in the course of a common goal.

Does original Islam (Islam from its criteria and as practised by Mohamed) accept Islamic incluvism and if so, what are the common goal which Islamic inclusivism can share with the rest of the world? We will analyse that in the next article ‘Islamic Inclusivism and Original Islam’.

theantijihadist wrote:

Key question: Is Islamic 'fundamentalism' Islam?

I look forward to the next installment and hope to see a definitive answer to this crucial question.

cruzeiro wrote:

Good question, AJ.

I would be inclined to believe that "Islamic Fundamentalism" is a term used to identify a cultural or socio-political aspect of certain Muslim societies that aren't in harmony with the prevailing larger host community.

It isn't exactly a "sect" or "brand" of Islam - you see it in all sects. In fact even in all other religions.

Is it Islam? Yes and No.

It is Islam to those who espouse it, and isn't, to those who don't - it's as simple as that. And they each have their own "convenient" (maybe, literal) interpretations of scripture to justify their ideologies.

As for the three "manifestations" of Islamic "fundamentalism" given by Farouk, I could agree with it although it is a little "narrow" - I think there are more characteristics that are "peculiar" to them.

After all this is "religion" you're talking about .... so what do you expect, eh?

farouk wrote:

theantijihadist wrote:
Key question: Is Islamic 'fundamentalism' Islam?

I look forward to the next installment and hope to see a definitive answer to this crucial question.
-------------

Firstly, good to see you back. I was worried that you were banned.

It is indeed a crucial question but I think our friend Cruz has the answer:

========================================
cruzeiro wrote:
I would be inclined to believe that "Islamic Fundamentalism" is a term used to identify a cultural or socio-political aspect of certain Muslim societies that aren't in harmony with the prevailing larger host community.
It isn't exactly a "sect" or "brand" of Islam - you see it in all sects. In fact even in all other religions.
--------------

I would agree and invoke Communism and Stalinism as analogies to Islam and Islamic Fundamentalism respectively.

========================================
Is it Islam? Yes and No.

It is Islam to those who espouse it, and isn't, to those who don't - it's as simple as that. And they each have their own "convenient" (maybe, literal) interpretations of scripture to justify their ideologies.
---------------

I believe that 'Islam' like a house as in a building. All sorts of people can come to live in a house, even dangerous people sometimes.

However, the original owner of this house had some principles which should contrasted against the Islamic Fundamentalists. When this comparison is made, one should see that exclusivism has little to do with Islam, or should have be so.

========================================
As for the three "manifestations" of Islamic "fundamentalism" given by Farouk, I could agree with it although it is a little "narrow" - I think there are more characteristics that are "peculiar" to them.
---------------

Ah, my theory is still in fetal stage and so I'd be grateful for a further exposition.
28/09 20:16:26

cruzeiro wrote:

The word 'fundamentalist' doesn't mean 'one who follows fundamentals'. It has come to acquire a whole other meaning.
=======================

TDM would differ with you on that!

And would plead ignorance to what it means in general use .... ;-)
29/09 09:43:45


Tuesday 25 September 2007

25/09: Can there be a discussion on Islam that’s not STUPID???

Category: General
Posted by: Raja Petra



Farish A. Noor

It is interesting to reflect on the asinine times we live in, particularly if like me, you are involved in that nebulous thing called ‘Inter-cultural dialogue’. Over the past four weeks I have been engaged in numerous rounds of dialogues between Western Europeans and Muslim migrant communities in Amsterdam, Paris and Berlin, and in every single one of these encounters I came across stereotypes of Muslims and Islam that were so shallow and puerile that I am almost embarrassed to recount them here. Worst still these pedestrian musings on Islam and Muslims were not the offerings of everyday punters, but those who claimed to be well-known and admired scholars and historians.

In one of these exchanges I was told the following: that ‘Islam is a fascist, woman-hating, Christian-killing, gay-bashing macho male ideology of hatred that was built on fourteen centuries of conquest and bloodshed, murder and rape. That is why there cannot be integration of Muslims into Europe, because the Muslims that we have here are the savages of the Arab world who are barbaric, violent and brutal. They do not believe in reason and the Enlightenment and Islamic civilisation has not produced anything scientific, rational or humane.’ Try substituting the word ‘Muslim’ for ‘blacks’ and one would see how far-fetched and racist such claims really are.

Now why is it that whenever we speak of Islam and Muslims today some of us think they have the licence to drop their IQ level by a hundred points or so? Is talk on Islam a licence to say anything dumb, offensive, and provocative, just for the sake of riling up the masses and grabbing a few headlines? A politician in Holland has even stated that there should be a ban on any reading of the Qur’an, on the grounds that it can be compared to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Others claim that all Muslims are determined primarily by their religion which happens to be irrational, unscientific and anti-Enlightenment.

I was struck by the wilful blindness of these so-called ‘liberal’ and ‘rational’ Europeans themselves, and their inability to put things in relative perspective and to interrogate their own presuppositions about themselves. In my own work as an academic-activist I have tried to deconstruct the grand narratives of official history, be it on the level of the state or religion. I am also aware of the fact that the writing of history is a contested process and that more often than not the writing of history is done by the victors and not the defeated marginalised voices of any community. Is it a surprise then that the history of the West has been only a history of white, male, middle-classed voices? Where is the history of women and women’s participation in politics, economics and nation-building? Only recently with the advances made by Feminist historiography and deconstructive history by the likes of Simon Schama have we seen the writing of history that is inclusive, plural and popular.

Now the conscious historian will inform you that there were (and remain) counter-currents to such dominant grand narratives all along, both in the West and in the Muslim world -- as there are liberal progressive counter-currents against orthodox conservative Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Judaism. Furthermore, all civilisations and cultures exist in relational terms and develop in relation with and to others: It would be farcical to claim that the European Enlightenment was merely an auto-generated case of isolated genius, for we all know that European civilisation developed by interaction with Muslim civilisation; as did Muslim civilisation develop in relation with and to Chinese, Indian and Persian civilisation.

Of course today Muslims the world over are hostage to a history that is determined either by ruling elites or their conservative lackeys such as the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia. From the pens of these conservative sectarians, we get only a static account of Muslim history that is told from the point of view of Kings, Sultans and dictators -- such as the history of Iraq that was written during the time of Saddam Hussein, or the skewered history of Arabia written by the pro-establishment Wahabbis. But here again the question needs to be raised: How was this historical erasure made possible, and who were the agents behind such erasure? Well, unfortunately the finger of blame also points to the ‘enlightened’ West, who regarded dictators like Saddam Hussein and the Saudi royal family as their strategic allies.

The rise of conservative, fundamentalist, sectarian and violent Islam was aided and abetted by Western states during the Cold War, leading to the rise of men like Saddam Hussein, the anti-Soviet Mujahideen and later the Taliban who have done so much to destroy the plural legacy of the Muslim world. Yet today Western liberals accuse Muslims of having no history and that their own history is one of violence. Where is the enlightened spirit of auto-critique and self-awareness here? Surely liberals in the West should not be surprised to see the rise of fundamentalist Muslim regimes the world over when it has been their own Western governments that have supported those very same anti-Christian, anti-women, anti-gay regimes in the first place, ostensibly for the sake of strategic alliances but fundamentally to safeguard the West’s much-needed supply of oil?

I am by no means excusing fundamentalist conservative Muslims here, for there are indeed right-wing Muslims who can only be described as fascist in the real sense of the word. But in the same way that Muslims today need to get out of their shell and stare reality in the face, so do Europeans who claim to be ever-so enlightened and liberal. Europe’s Enlightenment project created not only its own discontents but also anomalies.

To suggest that every single European today is the product of this historical process would be so simplistic as to beggar belief, and borders on the ridiculous. For should that be the case, then perhaps we can ask how enlightened were the Europeans when they colonised Asia and Africa? Look at the world map and see how so many patches of the earth today -- ranging from North America to Australia -- are reminders of a colonial expansion that was motivated by irrational greed, irrational racism, irrational hatred for the other, and not the values of reason or universal humanism. Tell me, was it Kant or Descartes who told the colonisers to invade and occupy Australia, and exterminate the aborigines of Tasmania and then hang their heads as trophies? Or skin the bodies of North American Indians to make boots and tobacco pouches? Where was the European Enlightenment then? Asleep?


cruzeiro wrote:

I sense a frustrated Farish ... going on bashing history of the white domination.

You have missed the whole point Farish dear - while you rave and rant against history of the wrongs committed by them, you immerse yourself in the civilisation and philosophy they have brought. So, don't bother lashing out - your frustration should be directed at those for whom you choose to be an apologist.

Whatever said and done I sense that you cannot write in defense of the attitude of "Islamist Hegemonists" worldwide.

Just stop being an apologist for "Islamism" that has deviant and sick ideologies, Farish - and everything will be fine!

25/09 14:40:11



temenggong wrote:

That is because the islam that all of us have seen so far, and heard so far, is horrible. There is not one good thing we have seen, not one good person all of us in the world can proudly extol. NOT ONE.

But we have seen and heard the contrary. And a lot of worldwide whining that muslims and islam are misunderstood and misrepresented. I don't think so.

25/09 14:41:44



Bunda wrote:

History is history. What is important is the now. Perceptions that Islam is a backward religion should be countered by reason and rationale.

Use Turkey as an example. The President of Turkey has already reiterated that Turkey would not go the way of Malaysia, and abandon its secular traditions.

Turkey is the model Islamic country, where religion and government policy do not mix. Where religion is considered a personal matter between God and the individual.

Turkey is as modern as you would find an Islamic country. Go visit it and you would be amazed at the difference. The people are not any less religious, but it is tempered by secularism.

Turkey is the guiding light for Islamic countries, not Malaysia. Heck, in Turkey you can find synagogues and Jews walking the streets.

~~~

25/09 15:02:49



batsman wrote:

Cruzeiro - BTW I think this passage written by Ali shariati applies to you exactly. It is as if it were custom made for you....

Assimilation: This is at the root of all the troubles and constraints facing the non-Western and Muslim countries. Applies to the conduct of an individual who, intentionally or unintentionally, starts imitating the mannerisms of someone else. A person exhibiting this weakness forgets his own background, national character and culture or, if he remembers them at all, recalls them with contempt. Obsessively, and with no reservation, he denies himself in order to transform his identity. Hoping to attain the distinctions, and the grandeur, which he sees in another, the assimilator attempts to rid himself of perceived shameful associations with his original society and culture.

Alienation: The process of forgetting or becoming unfamiliar with or indifferent to one's self. That is, one loses the self and directs perceptions from within another person or thing. This grave social and spiritual illness manifests itself in many different shapes and forms and depends on many factors. One factor alienating a human being is the tools with which he works. Sociology and psychology report that a man, during his lifetime gradually tends to forget his real, independant identity as he increases his contact with a certain tool or profession more and more every day. He begins perceiving his tools in place of his selfhood.

25/09 15:14:19



cruzeiro wrote:

batsman wrote:
Cruzeiro - BTW I think this passage written by Ali shariati applies to you exactly. It is as if it were custom made for you....
===========

What a narrow, biased and negative definition and perception of the two words!

I could easily take him on that, should the occasion arise - but of course these guys will be evasive, and run for cover to scriptures in a debate ...

He's definitely not a linguistic or a sociology "expert" in my book!

It appears that he is in "defense" of the "isolationism" practised my many a muslim worldwide!

25/09 15:27:57



batsman wrote:

Cruzeiro - I really look forward to your counter arguments. In the meantime you are just dumping on Shariati\'s ideas without refuting them intelligently. Is that an admission of defeat?

25/09 15:53:43



cruzeiro wrote:

Dear batsman,
The question of defeat doesn't arise here!

All I say is, the definition is flawed and caters to an isolationist mindset, with sectarian interests.

He speaks of assimilation as something that is a weakness, that looks upon your personal heritage with contempt - in my book, it could be considered a strength, where I would look upon my heritage with pride.

As for alienation, he only speaks of "alienation from self" in order to reinforce "isolationism to preserve self" - not isolationism from prevalent culture or norms in a new land.

What the two definitions don't acknowledge is the fact that one can assimilate himself to a certain society, without losing one's heritage and identity, as the millions of Indian hindus from India have assimilated into American and European society. Moreover, they have done it without causing any social upheaval or strife – and they are very much appreciated by the others. Believe me when I tell you that they are just as Hindu and Indian as ever, despite the fact that they speak, act and think like the people of their country of domicile. The same however, cannot be said of many a Muslim. Why is that so?

Why then do Muslims have this “delusion of persecution” amidst their isolationism and hegemony? Why are they so quick to point the finger at the new societies that have welcomed them in the first place, and demand what no other race or religion have in the past?

I could go on and on, but it would be pointless, should you be blinded by “cultural norms” and refuse do understand.

The above, is why I would regard his definition as “hogwash”!

25/09 18:55:01

cruzeiro wrote:

In fact, I would argue the West is crying out for more Islam, the Islam of reason, the Islam of diversity, the Islam of inclusiveness; the revival of its intellectual and plural past.
==============

proarte 1,

Many Muslims wouldn't see it that way, as they have already subscribed to the idea that the "west" is out to destroy their brand of "Islam", and they seek confrontation.

Many a "bridge-builder" however chicken out from expressly condemning this primitive ideology and isolationist behaviour, by actually being evasive about it!

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that many intelligent sociologists (not all) become "instantaneously, ridiculously stupid" when they start being apologists for the "anti-social elements" of their "perceived brothers".

25/09 19:02:09



Shahidan wrote:

The first member of the moronic brigade to respond to Farish's article says' "Whatever said and done I sense that you cannot write in defense of the attitude of "Islamist Hegemonists" worldwide.”

There are some 700 military bases worldwide established by US imperialism, mostly in the South and many in oil producing Muslim nations. Hegemony is not an empty concept without a real material basis. When Cruziero can provide evidence that there is indeed a real material basis for ‘Islamist Hegemonists’, and that Islamist Hegemonists have attacked the West and established military bases there, he would have made a case.

Meanwhile, the evidence is overwhelmingly against such a notion, other than proving that this is yet another baseless figment of imagination of members of the moronic brigade.

How low can bigotry go when you have another member of the moronic brigade, tememggong, write such mindless nonsense, “That is because the islam that all of us have seen so far, and heard so far, is horrible. There is not one good thing we have seen, not one good person all of us in the world can proudly extol. NOT ONE.“

To start with, temonggong, you are insulting all Muslims with your hate message, including the host of the site on which you spew your crap. Not only do you exhibit your ignorance, but you also are an ingrate for insulting your Muslim host who expects some intelligent and rational postings from discussants on MT. But then, you can’t help it as you are a member of the moronic brigade. You are a megaphone of the warmongers of empire and remain their ever loyal coloured scum.

25/09 20:20:47

cruzeiro wrote:

Oooh! Shahidan, I'm "impressed" with your ignorance and foul language ..... keep it up!

You'll successfully prove the "purity" of the Islamist sectarianism and isolationism in Europe (ones who cannot assimilate), while you bedevil the worldwide military and economic domination of the "west".

Coming from you, such abusive language could be considered flattery!

Never mind what I say, man- just keep calling me names, or you could launch a"jihad" while you bay for blood like your counterparts worldwide (and you want proof? You must be very "intelligent"!).

Keep it up, Shahidan!

25/09 20:40:50

temenggong wrote:

Shahidan does have a reading problem after all, as he missed this:

"the islam that all of us have seen so far"

Very well if you insist on defaming islam, show us your fines examples. We are looking for Mandelas, Martin Luther KIng, Gandhi, Einstein, Salk, Picasso, Mozart, Borobudur, etc - something that ENRICHED the world, outstanding (meaning stands out), something all of us in the world, whatever the race or religion, proudly imbibe and extol!.

Go ahead, take you time.

25/09 20:54:39



batsman wrote:

Cruzeiro - You claim Dr Shariati is not a linguistic or sociology "expert", yet he writes for a world wide intellectual audience and is not apt to make mistakes with his definition of "assimilation" and "alienation". You on the other hand applies not only a layman's definition to the 2 words, but actually your own. Please look up a simple concise dictionary if your want to continue this debate otherwise you are wasting my time. BTW while you are looking up the dictionary, try searching for the word "philistine". It describes you very well.

25/09 22:00:14

batsman wrote:

temenggong - nobody is saying that Muslims are innocent and pure. Just because they are not conducting their own defense in an intelligent way, does not mean they are not victims of western aggression. Muslims are not doing very well in winning friends and allies. Instead they seem to intent in turning people against them. Muslims are also introverted and apt to fight amongst themselves and practice some hair raising traditions. In the same vein, blacks, red indians and aborigines as well as incas and aztecs also screwed up their own defence by not being able to appeal to the white man's value system. This does not mean they are not victims of western aggression. The jews seem to be the only ones successful in defence, and they have managed to paint themselves as lily white innocent victims. Remember even Shakespeare never thought highly of them in his time, but then jews during Shakespeare's time never really got the hang of their own self-defence yet.

25/09 22:10:59



cruzeiro wrote:

Dear batsman,

You may call me what you like.

You may disagree with me just as I disagree with Shariati's definition - that's your right.

However, please take note that I have illustrated the fallacy in Shariati's definition using reality (i.e. the Indian diaspora), even if he speaks to God himself. He too can make mistakes!

And you can go on calling me names just as your "brethren" love to do, as a "self-defense mechanism", instead of indulging in a discussion.

Peace!

26/09 13:21:08

cruzeiro wrote:

Oh BTW, I never did define the two words - I merely pointed out the error in his "constipated" definition!

26/09 13:25:42


cruzeiro wrote:

shardik wrote:
I merely point out that this `fastest growing` stuff is open to debate.
If you take base figures the bahais and sikhs could well claim to be fastest growing.
===============

"Difficult" isn't it?

Is it any wonder why the title of the article is as it is?

26/09 13:42:45



temenggong wrote:

Batsman,

What you say is quite true but as each day passes the muslims make it worse for themselves. Witness Iraq, Pakistan and even Malaysia. The rest of the world has quite come to accept and appreciate the freedoms and stability of world values and made it their own, but not quite the muslims.

Dear LChuah,

Thank you. I was trying to make a point, and I think..



..I think you got it.

The image the muslim world has given to the world is that of authoritation and dictatorship regimes, arab and muslim belligerance, intolerance, virulent racism, bigotry, anti jew, anti christian, iconoclasm without knowing a thing about iconography, inability to assimilate into foreign cultures, dominance when in majority, believers of conspiracies, etc. On top of that today they give the added impression of terrorists, making it worse.

In the past it was one of war, conquests, rape and plunder, iconoclasm, ethnic cleaning of minorities, appropriation of others advancements as their own, etc.

This is the impression THEY gave in the name of religion.That is what all the world has seen so far, and heard so far, which is horrible. Nothing for the rest of the world to imbibe or extol, rather to be ashamed and condemn.

Today this image is still being reinforced daily in Iraq, Sudan and of course Malaysia, supposedly the model of muslim nation, where hypocrisy rules. So the rest of the world is revolting.

The world needs to see a genuine new image of islam, where eg. saudi royalty funds the construction of temples and churches in Mecca, donate to poor in south america, Malaysia recognising Israel, Pakistan reestablishes democracy, total religious and political freedoms in muslim majority nations, etc.

We are not seeing that. We are continuing to see whining, long, long whines, blaming the world for not seeing the beauty of islam. Well, where is it?

26/09 16:30:18



Shahidan wrote:

Typical dimwitted responses from both cruzeiro and temenggong for being criticized for posting bigoted anti-Islamic diatribe. Now let me dissect their comments to further prove that my description of their contribution to MT as bigoted and mindless is fully justified.

Cruzeiro said in a pathetic effort at sarcasm, “I'm "impressed" with your ignorance and foul language ..... keep it up!”

I have re-read my posting and can’t imagine what he refers to as my foul language. He accused Farish Noor of ‘… being an apologist for "Islamism" that deviant and sick ideologies’ , despite the unequivocal statement by farish, “I am by no means excusing fundamentalist conservative Muslims here, for there are indeed right-wing Muslims who can only be described as fascist in the real sense of the word. But in the same way that Muslims today need to get out of their shell and stare reality in the face, so do Europeans who claim to be ever-so enlightened and liberal.”

Cruzeiro proving here that he is so blinded by bigotry that he cannot recognise Farish’s statement disassociating himself from the fundamentalist right-wing Muslims. This is partly due to a refusal to acknowledge that on the fringes of every religious group you will find extremists and that these extremists are not representative of the broad majority. Or is cruzeiro offended out by Farish’s ‘…bashing history of the white domination.’ The house slave mindset so eloquently described by Malcom X comes to mind when you hear blind defence of ‘white domination’ from an Asian colonial apoligist. Ah, yes, he does suffer from a colonial mentality for he chastises farish for his ‘…rave and rant against history of the wrongs committed by them (meaning white domination or imperiailism), you immerse yourself in the civilisation and philosophy they have brought.’ Classic. So, according to cruzeiro, we would have remained savages, assuming we were savages before we were colonised, which he is obviously doing,1 had it not been for the ‘civilisation and philosophy’ brought to us Asians, Africans and Latin Americans by imperialism.

What deep insights the following statement from cruzeiro contains will take some deciphering, particularly as I have never associated myself with Islamist sectarianism and have declared I write from a secularist internationalist perspective, he writes, “You'll successfully prove the "purity" of the Islamist sectarianism and isolationism in Europe (ones who cannot assimilate), while you bedevil the worldwide military and economic domination of the "west".” What the hell do you mean?

26/09 17:30:07

Shahidan wrote:

And to cap it all, here is another gem from cruzeiro, totally ignoring my challenge to provide proof of any Muslim nation attacking the West and establishing military bases there. Instead of a rational response, he launches into a mindless diatribe, as he writes, “Never mind what I say, man- just keep calling me names, or you could launch a"jihad" while you bay for blood like your counterparts worldwide (and you want proof? You must be very "intelligent"!).” Cruzeiro keeps on harping about all Muslims ‘baying for blood’ worldwide and yet is unable to give proof of any miliary attacks against the West, terrorist groups notwithstanding. At least two million non-combatant Iraqis have been killed by the civilised US and its allies since the first Gulf War. It is the West that has launched wars against nations with majority Muslim populations, yet, the likes of Cruzeiro think it is Muslims who are the aggressors. Such is the power of propaganda.

26/09 17:31:10




cruzeiro wrote:

Yes, Shahidan, Yes.
Whatever lah - have it your way .....
and yes, you can go on calling names.

26/09 17:55:10


cruzeiro wrote:

Jovan - what was that about rats again?

26/09 18:00:14

Shahidan wrote:

Cruzeiro wrote, "Yes, Shahidan, Yes.
Whatever lah - have it your way .....
and yes, you can go on calling names."

You condemn hundreds of millions of Muslims and have the gall to complain about being called names?

26/09 18:10:25

cruzeiro wrote:

Who's complaining?
Who condemned anybody?
You having a fever or something?
Okaylah - have it your way .....

26/09 18:25:51

cruzeiro wrote:

Dr. Sa’d Bin Tefia, a journalist and the former Minister of Information in Kuwait, recently wrote an excellent article in which he posed the question: “Where are the Fatwas Against bin Laden?” In his article he compared the lack of a fatwa against bin Laden to the fatwa that called for the killing of Salman Rushdie. He concluded his article by saying:

But let us put aside the [subject of the] fatwa. Have any protests been held condemning bin Laden’s actions in any of the Islamic capital cities? Perhaps there were some that demonstrated in his favor. The [Muslim] satellite stations competed amongst themselves in broadcasting his sermons and fatwas, instead of preventing their dissemination as they did in the case of Rushdie’s book. Have we earmarked a reward for anyone who kills bin Laden as we did for anyone who kills Rushdie on account of his book? With our equivocal stance on bin Laden we from the very start left the world with the impression that we are all bin Laden.

Only when such self-critical voices are heard more often in the Arab world will the problem of radical Islamism and terrorism be seriously confronted. Until then, the insurgency in Iraq will continue to serve the Islamists, who unfortunately benefit from increasing support from Arab Muslim youngsters who are attracted to the apocalyptic nature of the radical Islamist discourse that preaches Global Jihad.

26/09 18:27:00



Shahidan wrote:

Cruzeiro, there are more than 700 US military bases around the globe, many of which are in oil producing Muslim majority countries. Why do you insist Muslims are the aggressors? If you believe they are indeed the aggressors, why do you not give proof as to which Muslim country has attacked the US or its Western allies and established military bases there, say, in the last 100 years?

During the last 100 years, almost all the Muslim countries have been attacked and subjugated by the West. Millions of people have been killed through these imperialist adventures. Yet, you and your fellow bigots keep insisting that the Muslims are the aggressors. You keep spewing the hate site materials on MT. Why don't you do yourself a favour and widen your reading, don't restrict your reading to the hate sites. Ask suv, he will be able to help you widen your sources of reading.

I have not read anything posted by you in which you condemn your colonial master's aggression around the globe, I stand to be corrected in case I have missed such a posting by you. On the contrary, you seem to believe that they brought civilisation to these countries, which were in fact already civilised.

26/09 19:02:34



cruzeiro wrote:

Dear Shahidan,
I'm making a last ditch attempt at trying to "communicate" with you.

What you have repeatedly brought up is the issue of conventional war, which is quite different from the issue at hand.

The problem with the inability of the Muslim communities to assimilate to Western or any other foreign society, is the "ideological war" that they have chosen to wage against the prevailing societies. Not the conventional war that is taking place elsewhere.

This is further worsened by the "theological glamour" that is associated with isolationism and hostility that is practised in many Muslim immigrant communities.

This has led to the stagnation and regression in the evolution of the "Islamist" mindset.

There have been many communities worldwide that have suffered the same fate as Muslim countries in the past - but they have progressed and moved on without playing the victim and taking it to their new homelands.

As I have illustrated in the case of Hindu vs Muslim members of the Indian diaspora, peaceful integration and assimilation into western societies can be as easy or difficult as one would want it to be.

The conflict arises when smaller communities try to assert their influence in a prevailing societies in an "unwelcome manner" without really understanding, but demanding that they be understood.

I shall cut and paste an excerpt from the book "Current Trends in Islamist Ideology" Vol.II. You may draw your own conclusions

If you still do not see the point the westerner (and many others) is concerned about, I rest my case and would just let it be.

26/09 21:36:48

cruzeiro wrote:

IT IS COMMONLY SAID THAT THE WEST HAS EMERGED as a key battleground in the war of ideas with radical Islam. Some even say, perhaps with a little exaggeration, that the West is today the primary theater of ideological conflict. This analysis expresses both a fear and a hope.

The obvious fear is that various ideological forces—emanating from abroad, but also from within the West itself—will conspire to radicalize portions of the Western Muslim population, resulting in a range of possible threats to the future of European and American democracy, from political challenges like the growth of “parallel societies” to the related security threat of “homegrown jihad.” Such threats are clear and present, as the September 11 attacks, which were piloted by Muslims radicalized in Europe, and most recently, the bombings in the UK, carried out by British-born jihadis who received their ideological indoctrination in the mosques and prayer circles of “Londonistan,” have each demonstrated. They are also threats that are here to stay for as long as radical ideology continues to hold even the slightest sway over the minds of Western Muslims.

The hope is that Western Muslims will develop an Islamic solution to radicalism, one that combines religious fidelity with an allegiance to the principles, institutions, and sovereignty of liberal democratic government. This solution—a “European Islam” or “American Islam,” as many have called it—would serve as an ideological bulwark against both internal and external sources of extremist ideology. Some speculate it might even provide a moderate and democratic alternative to extremism that could, in time, be “exported” to the strongholds of radical Islam in the wider world.

With so much at stake, the future of Western Islam has been the subject of much discussion in recent years. Surely, many Western Muslims have come forward against radicalism to defend their countries and their faith. It is also clear that the majority of European and American Muslims simply seek to live and worship freely, and to participate, in their own unique way, as equal citizens in the life of Western democracies. And yet, progress toward the development of a politically moderate and well-organized Western Islam has met with stiff resistance from Islamists abroad as well as from within the West itself.

Within the West, resistance has largely come from two separate and often deeply conflicting strains of ideological Islam—that of the Salafists, and that of the mainstream or “Wassatiyya” Islamism of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. The differences between these two Islamisms are several, but perhaps foremost are the disparate ways in which they interpret the Sharia and how this, in turn, structures their respective attitudes toward assimilation and citizenship in the West.

26/09 21:37:39

cruzeiro wrote:

The Salafists adhere to a “literalist” interpretation of Islamic scripture and to a political theology that views Muslims in the West as travelers in enemy territory, a realm they variously speak of as a “Land of Kufr” or as a “Land of War.” Some Western-based Salafist groups openly espouse jihad, whereas others, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir, concentrate on ideological activities, believing that fulfillment of the religious duty of jihad should be postponed until the day when their numbers are sufficient enough for a full offensive. They reject all participation in the life of Western societies; for them, the unity of the Muslim Nation is paramount, and any Muslim who endeavors to divide it—religiously or politically—is guilty of apostasy, that unforgivable Islamic sin.

In contrast to the Salafists, mainstream Islamists have followed a more conciliatory course in their dealings with the West. Nowadays, this stream is commonly associated with its most prominent spokesperson, Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Qatar-based Egyptian Sunni cleric, popular Al Jazeera preacher, and reputed spiritual steward of the International Muslim Brotherhood. Qaradawi describes his faith doctrine, “Wassatiyya,” a broad intellectual movement that emerged with Egypt’s “New Islamists” in the 1990s, as a “middle way” between rejection of Islam and extremism.

Ideologically speaking, the Wassatiyya movement is rooted deeply in the Salafist thought of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and his teachings on the “wholesomeness of Islam,” which holds that Sharia must dominate every realm of human activity and thought, from culture to politics. Unlike the Salafists, however, the Wassatiyya scholars emphasize the use of ijtihad, or discernment in Sharia matters independent of what is literally prescribed in Islamic scripture. As a result, Wassatiyya jurisprudence reflects a certain modernist orientation, one that has allowed its adherents to adopt a much more pragmatic approach to the task of assimilating to the realities of life in Western democracies. It has also allowed a certain intellectual creativity to develop within Wassatiyya circles, which has included, among other things, a revaluation of the traditional Islamic concept of the West as a Land of War. Instead, based on the idea that Islam is a universal message, available and open to all, the Wassatiyya Islamists speak of the West as a realm for Islamic proselytizing, or as a land of the religious call, a “Land of Dawa.”

26/09 21:37:52



cruzeiro wrote:

If it interests you, for further reading, you may visit
http://www.hudson.org/

26/09 21:39:55

cruzeiro wrote:

gorshan,
It is very difficult, when one is unable to differentiate between theology, religion, culture and politics.

The problem here is that of culture and politics - not theology or religion.

The whole issue is often sidetracked into religion, and becomes "explosive" and "sensitive" to the defensive party.

Due to "social norms" those who often take the route of religion as a defensive mechanism often end up instantaneously irrational and amazingly stupid however educated they are - no matter which religion it may be.

This has been a problem for a very long time with various schools of thought.

Good night.

26/09 21:56:43

FFT wrote:

Ah...and what I said previously in another Farish Noor column is reinforced.

We are all blessed with a bountiful supply of Farish's who seek to lecture the West on interacting with Islam and Muslims in a "civilized" manner.....a wise choice, for if Farish and his ilk were to actually lecture the Muslims on behaving in a less erratic manner, there may be an all-around losing of heads on both sides. One figuratively, the other literally.

Therein lies the real problem with Islam and Muslims.

26/09 22:09:36

batsman wrote:

Dear Cruzeiro - Regarding the "Indian diaspora" let me quote another example. Some time ago a Malaysian Indian living in Britain condemned the Muslims immmigrants for not assimilating into Britain and becoming more British. This is the same hypocrite who complained loudly of being made 2nd class citizens in Malaysia and the inability of the constitution to protect Indian rights. Can you see the stinking rank hypocrisy here? Refusing to assimilate into Malaysian society and then condemning others for not wanting to assimilate into British society? Such a person is just a stinking piece of white man's turd. I hope you are not the same type.

26/09 23:29:52

shardik wrote:

Cruzeiro wrote, "Yes, Shahidan, Yes.
Whatever lah - have it your way .....
and yes, you can go on calling names."
______________________________________
DPM Najib in a previous furore with regards to Malaysia-Today has been quoted by MggPillai as having said:

`Dato' Seri Najib kicked the ball first to insist to insist none should openly debate if Muslims could slander the followers of other religions`

27/09 10:02:38

cruzeiro wrote:

Refusing to assimilate into Malaysian society and then condemning others for not wanting to assimilate into British society?
====================

Dear batsman,
White man's turd or not, you've made a grave error in your comparison.

My comparison was between the hindus and muslims of the Indian diaspora, and the different levels of integration of the same ethnic group into a society.

The comparison with Malaysia is grossly inadequate and improper.

In Malaysia, we have the white man's turd (as you call it) practicing a "divide and rule" policy, with a Never Ending Policy with an "Islamisation" policy for the benefit of the elite - all while hoodwinking their own people.

People of other races are prevented from integration via "policies" designed for polarisation, so as to play one against the other.

Whatever said and done, these communities that you claim did not integrate into Malaysian society, have contributed immensely to the prosperity and well-being.

This can hardly be a claim made by the communities in Europe/ UK that you so "defend" for their inadequacies, despite the abundant opportunities to do so.

These opportunities might be sorely lacking (in comparison) in this great nation of ours, if you would care to take a closer look!

Now I hope you see where the turd that stinks is, my friend!

27/09 10:55:55

SKC wrote:

To All,
Hey don't any of you people get sick of all the above, we here in MT has gone countless round, on this issue, and everyone is more or less still saying the same thing, again and again, is all your faith so weak that u need to bash others just to justify your own. And please do not tell me you are defending yours from being bash, because I only see bashing all over the place, almost no constructive statement at all. Sad day, when most of us has degenerate to this stage.

27/09 10:59:56

cruzeiro wrote:

Dear SKC,
If "bashing" the attitudes of a certain group of people, who are hostile towards the established social-political systems and norms in their newly found land of freedom and opportunity, is an attack on the religion of Islam - I'm guilty as charged, and I apologize.

27/09 11:18:20

SKC wrote:

Dear cruzeiro,
It is not me u need to apologize to, if apology is needed at all.
I was just hopping more Malaysian will wake up and concentrate on the right issue.
feeling very depressed today, any way good day to you.

27/09 11:34:58

cruzeiro wrote:

Why depressed?
Life is good, and we can only try to make it better.
Would love to help you out (with prozac/ xanax if necessary!) - but online susahlah.

BTW, do I even need to apologize for commenting on attitudes? I seriously doubt it .... attitudes don't make the religion - the reverse is possible, though - and I never commented on that!

27/09 11:47:03

batsman wrote:

Dear Cruzeiro - You feel discriminated against and forced to give up what you hold near and dear in Malaysia, but you don't allow Muslims to feel the same way in Britain. Instead blaming them for not trying to assimilate. If you don't understand assimilation by now, it may just be you are just hypocritical by nature. Read about how Indians treat Muslims in India and try to absolve your conscience.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...

27/09 12:13:35

cruzeiro wrote:

Once again, batsman - you reasons are weak at best, and your reasons, flawed.

The circumstances are very different - the opportunities are sorely lacking in Malaysia, when compared to Britain.

As far as India is concerned, I know very well how things are, as I have lived among both communities there. What you read may not be entirely true - in fact I can vouch for the fact that the vast majority of Muslims in India are happy for not having "crossed-over" to Islamic Pakistan!

Hope you realize that major problem among the Muslims in India has been brought upon them by their very own "leaders" - hope you read this part of the article that you refer to -

Consequently, rabble rousers claiming to represent the community have thrust themselves to the fore.

To be true, mass migration during partition robbed the community of potential leaders - most Muslim civil servants, teachers, doctors and professionals crossed over.

But the failure to throw up credible leaders has meant low community participation in the political processes and government - of the 543 MPs in India's lower house of parliament, only 36 are Muslims.

Also, as Ramachandra Guha says, the "vicissitudes of India-Pakistan relations and Pakistan's treatment of its minorities" ensured that Muslims remained a "vulnerable" community.

Now tell me - who's hypocritical?

27/09 12:29:44

menteri wrote:

Maybe the religion, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy. Twenty-first century believers have two options: we can continue the barbaric policies of the seventh century perpetuated by Hassan al-Banna, Abdullah Azzam, Yassir Arafat, Ruhollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, Hizballah, Hamas, Hizb-ut-Tahrir, etc., leading to a global war between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, or we can reform the religion to keep our rich cultural heritage and to cleanse our religion from the reviled relics of the past.

Or maybe we should no longer allow extremists to use our religion as a weapon and carry out all the stupidities. We must protect our future generations from being brainwashed by the radicals. If we do not stop the spread of fundamentalism, our children will become homicidal zombies.

27/09 16:07:28

cruzeiro wrote:

The topic was about Islam and not Muslim.

=========

Cantona!

I'm so glad that you said that - Herein lies the problem!

I believe you are mistaken - the topic was never about Islam, and it was only you and those who are "defensive" who think it is.

It is and always has been about MUSLIMS!

The whole discussion becomes "stupid" when you think it is about Islam.

Yes menteri,
Many Muslims must learn to live with the times and adapt to society, instead of crying foul when they are having a better deal as a minority in a foreign land when compared to their places of origin.

Likewise, we non-malays here, appreciate what we have even when we fight for the betterment of our beautiful nation when we peacefully express our discontent about wasteful and myopic economic policies of the Government.

Defending the State against the Government's impropriety should never be misconstrued as "unpatriotic".

In fact it is the highest form of patriotism.

27/09 16:43:14

batsman wrote:

Dear Cruzeiro - Wow! Making your own pronouncements and taking them as factual truth - undeniable immense ego. Comparing Britain and Malaysia merely by number of opportunities - sucking up to wealth. Ignoring Paki-bashing, Jack Straw's position on the hijab, Tony Blair's position on "English" values, isolation of Muslims into slums through policy of multi-culturalism, etc - prejudice and tendency to shut both eyes to the truth. Excusing discrimination of Muslims in India with invented stories - speaking with forked tongue. You really have some serious character problems, don't you???

27/09 16:53:08

menteri wrote:

Can there be no discussion on Islam
that’s STUPID???

27/09 17:00:30

batsman wrote:

BTW Cruzeiro - Can you answer this question on behalf of your English masters - why if they celebrate the Sikhs wearing their turbans can they not tolerate Muslim women wearing the hijab?

27/09 17:00:39

NCantona wrote:

Well..thanks for pin pointing my mistake Cruizeiro.....

So wat...y are we always blaming it onto a religion. I'm a non-muslim but I have no grudge against Islam or Muslims.

If you say Muslims are terorrist, even Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and all other people from other religioins also are terrorists.

As I said it, religion is never a problem. Is the people who is the problem? The problem with us is we see everything from the view point of religion or race. Just look at teh criminal as a normal being and find the problem. That is civil law.

Mother Theresa is a Christian but she isn't a terrorist. Bush is Christian too but i'm assured all of you would say he's a terrorist. So because of Bush is a terrorist you can't say all the Chrstians are bad.

Same goes to Islam or Muslim. As far as i know, we are still showing the same shallow mind set. The way they practice or the behaviour the practicioner shows has a very heavy implication on that religion. And when they do it, in the name of religion, it turns uglier.

27/09 17:04:38

batsman wrote:

menteri - very obviously great emotions are involved and great many things are at stake. If prejudice and denigration is a prelude to violent aggression or genocide in Europe, then great emotions are naturally involved.

In Malaysia, given the problems we have there cannot be a solution without all the races giving ground in some way. If power is to be shared which I think we all support, it must be made damned sure that power held by each racial group will not be used to break the country apart. We are just hammering and whacking away to ensure that all the rough edges are ironed out and each accept the other without disgust and prejudice. I love you brother Cruzeiro! hehehehe

27/09 17:12:18

cruzeiro wrote:

Batsman,
You're a cheeky one, aren't you? I'm beginning to like your style .... don't worry - I'm straight!

I have never denied the existence of "prejudice" - be very certain about that.

In India, Europe, US or even in Timbuktu.

If you want to compare, of course we can.

The fact however remains that these so called "prejudice" far greater in many an "Islamic" nation. In fact many immigrant Muslims (mostly first generation) who claim these "ill-treatment" (and rightfully so) do not enjoy the same level of liberty or quality of life as in their countries of origin.

Pardon me for quoting "my European Masters" (as you claim they are), but why don't these Muslim nations that support the "Islamic" rights, practice "reciprocity"? Why don't you fight for "reciprocity"? Only hypocrites don't - and most "Islamic Nations" don't! So what's stopping them? Islam?

No, my friend - it's Muslims, politics and their prejudice towards people that they have been indoctrinated to believe, to be less than human. Have you taken a look at the Saudi education curriculum? It's disgusting - children are taught that Jews are apes and Christians are swine! That too at a very tender age!

Don't for a minute doubt that these "stories" of persecution in Islamic countries are fabricated - exaggerated maybe. Why is it that many Muslims choose to live in denial of this fact? Are Muslims so blinded by the indoctrination that all Muslims cannot be anything, but righteous?

I wouldn't bother to even start speaking of the persecution that all religious minorities are subjected to in many "Islamic" nations.

These are not only other religious minorities only that we speak about - even their level of tolerance for different sects and "dissent" within Islam, leaves much to be desired. Go to Hudson.org (forget the "Islamophobe" websites), and see what I mean.

At the end of the day, it is a culture of intolerance that seeks refuge and justification in scripture, which is a problem. And the American hegemony has increased its popularity among the unthinking young - thus feeding the "Islamophobe" sentiments. Unwittingly, they have played into the hands of "the enemy" and facilitated the "enemy's" actions! And when you resort to defending the irrational actions of "extremists" in the name of "muslim brotherhood" , you too have unwittingly played the apologist for the extremists, and fallen victim to their "religious propaganda".

Remember batsman - it ISN'T about Islam - it IS about the culture of intolerance and reactionary violence among Muslims that is under attack.

You speak of turbans - well I'm sure they have no problems with that ......
The hijab, is entirely another matter - to allow for that, the Muslims in general, would have to first win the trust of the larger community. But no! They demand it while threatening violence! Is that reasonable?

Menteri,
I wonder if you just intend to quote the writer, or you're making a statement.
The problem is, most of these discussions aren't really about Islam - it's about emerging/ politicised "Muslim culture" which has difficulty in adjusting with the times.

It very often gets sidetracked by the defensive, angry and insecure Muslim, and becomes "stupid"!

There is nothing in Islam that prevents Muslims from being reasonable - it is only those with ulterior motives that seek to convince people otherwise.

With that, I rest my case.

Thank you guys - you've been great!

27/09 19:29:31

SKC wrote:

Ahhhhhhhhh at least this article has reach a bright note, I have enjoy all your discussion from 27th 1100hr's onwards. This has make me feel a lot better, there is hope for Malaysia yet.

28/09 09:47:33




Saturday 22 September 2007

Turkey’s Christians face growing persecution

Stand By Me - Ben E King


September 10, 2007
by Lela Gilbert

First published in the September 2007 issue of The Jerusalem Post Christian Edition; www.jpost.com.

September 2007
By Lela Gilbert

This past spring, the Christian world was stunned by news of a triple murder in Turkey. Early accounts simply reported that three employees of a Christian publishing house had been murdered on April 18 in the central city of Malatya. Two of the victims - Necati Aydin, 36, and Ugur Yuksel, 32 - were Turkish converts from Islam. The third man, Tilmann Geske, 46, was a German citizen. The three had been found with their hands and legs bound and their throats slit from ear to ear. It has since been widely reported that the murders appeared to be a deliberate observance of the Koranic instruction to "strike terror into the hearts of unbelievers" by smiting them above the neck and striking every finger (Sura 8:12). The victims' fingertips were sliced repeatedly.

Ishan Ozbek, the Turkish pastor of the three martyrs and himself a convert from Islam, recently shared his personal account at Jerusalem's Narkiss Street Congregation. He remains close to the martyrs' families, and spoke of the heartbreak faced by the wives and children.

The three widows have publicly forgiven the killers, and testified on Turkish television of their personal faith in Jesus, noted Pastor Ozbek, who observed that the Christian message of mercy and grace has not been so widely and eloquently proclaimed in that region since the ministry of St. Paul. Ozbek's widely broadcast statements bearing witness to Christian forgiveness have led to threats on his own life.

Despite increasing harassment and discrimination, the murders mark the first known martyrdom of Turkish converts from Islam since the founding of the Turkish Republic in 1923. Today, Turkey's Christian population is roughly 70,000; there are around 26,000 Jews. These communities are both caught between radical Islam and Kemalist secular nationalism.

In recent years Istanbul's Central Synagogue has been bombed twice by radical Muslims. Meanwhile the larger Christian minority struggles with its own incidents of abuse. The year 2007 has seen five Christians murdered in Turkey so far. In February in the Black Sea city of Trabzon, a 16-year-old Turkish youth motivated by a mixture of self-described "nationalist and Islamist" sympathies, gunned down Father Andrea Santoro as the priest knelt in prayer at his church.

Just weeks before, another Trabzon youth - Ogün Samast, a 17-year-old highschool dropout - shot dead an Armenian Christian journalist, Hrant Dink, outside his newspaper office in Istanbul.

In a more recent incident, Asia News reported that Turan Topal and Hakan Tastan, two Muslim converts to Christianity, could be sentenced to three years in prison for "insulting Turkishness."

Turkish Christians and Jews remain uneasy about the July reelection of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, which boosted the Islamists. His victory "cracked the foundation of Turkey's 84-year-old republic, pushing Islam into the political mainstream and reshaping the legacy of the countrys father figure, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk," reported Bloomberg News.

Erdogan's new term raises questions about the future of religious minorities in Turkey. Some observers fear that his reelection may be viewed as a popular mandate to lift restraints on Islam - most famously illustrated by the illegality of wearing Muslim headscarves in government offices and schools. Such restraints shaped Atatürk's formation of modern Turkey in 1923. His strongly enforced secularism continues to dominate the Turkish military, which has ousted four governments since 1960, and continues to oppose pro-Islamist moves.

Israeli analysts are watching events in Turkey, concerned with how they might affect the close security cooperation of the two regional powers.

"It's a new era for the country," says Barry Rubin, editor of the journal Turkish Studies and head of the Global Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya. "The big question is how far they want to go. Some believe they want to go all the way to Islamism; some believe they'll stop well short."

Ozbek concluded his message in Jerusalem with a grim prediction: "These will not be the last Christian martyrs in Turkey."

Lela Gilbert is an Adjunct Fellow with the Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom.



© Copyright 2007 Hudson Institute, Inc.

Thursday 13 September 2007

Faith & Reason discussion on MT

Hamlet, Act III, Scene I


LChuah wrote:

On Cruzeiro's comments about Catholics and the Pope, etc.:
When Farish talks about Muslim immigrants it's natural for readers to compare the behavior of immigrants in general, unless one has already decided to classify the Muslims as non-humans under whatever pretext.

As for Catholics treating the Pope's words as gospel, I pointed that out to show that they're, like all other religious groups, not monolithic. However, there WERE and still are Catholics who thought the Pope was wrong to insist on, for example, abortion or family planning. Some Catholics even went to far as to accuse the previous Pope (and the present one) of allowing tens of thousands of Africans to die of HIV because of the ban on contraception.

That some Popes have intellectual ability is beyond doubt, though how great that ability is, is debatable. As for being rational on social and moral issues, there're people, many of them Jews and human rights activists, who might've trouble believing that: they have, for example, accused Pope Pius of collaborating with the Nazis (see http://emperors-clothes.com...). So being "highly educated and rational on Social and Moral issues" is no guarantee of being socially responsible and morally blameless.

And certainly the Pope's word has power, though the collapse of Soviet Empire has many other urgent reasons as well, such as an economy that was never a match for the well-established West.

I seldom read encyclicals nowadays - age and illness tell me that I gotta budget my time more usefully. I'd, however, commented on the present Pope's speech on "Faith, Reason and the University" given at the University of Regensburg (RPK posted it here on MT), in which the Pope quoted Manuell II Paleologus as saying: "show me just what Muhammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman…".

In that speech, Ratzinger asked his audience to enlarge the possibilities of reason so as to include the Divine. He claimed that "a genuine dialogue of cultures and religions" is not possible if the Divine is excluded. So far, so good. I made much the same point in my arguments with some readers here (regarding science and religion) some months ago. However, in almost the same breath, he started to equate Islam - and only Islam - with irrationality, implying that it was not possible to have a rational dialogue with a religion that's by definition irrational.

In fact, all religions are irrational. Or, to put it euphemistically, supra-rational. In other words, we cannot really evaluate their teachings like we do when we study anatomy or the bust of Britney Spears. It takes more than a mere suspension of disbelief to think of someone who's dead and then ascends the heavens on the third day. That takes FAITH.

Despite the fact that the rightwing Opus Dei was behind Ratzinger's rise as a Pope, that he called students protesting the Vietnam War "ideological terrorists," that as head of the Inquisition he attacked and destroyed the Christian liberation movement of Latin America, that there seemed to be no Latin American fascist he didnt like (such as Pinochet), I nevertheless decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I felt that like John Paul, his predecessor, the august office of a Pope might make him a more inclusive leader. Hence in my arguments regarding his university speech, I called on readers to practise close reading, to see the subtext that, I hoped, was about reaching out to Muslims and thus effect some sort of conciliation with an ancient enemy.

Indeed, as a Pope and as an "intellectual," he ought to have known that not too long ago Christians too regarded their religion as a totalizing one. Calvin's Geneva experiments and the early Puritan theocracy in North America are some examples of what it meant to build God's City on Earth. But the Christians soon changed not because their teachings were particularly humane - unless they threw out the Old Testament - but because of the exigencies of capitalism.

> I'll bet you that you'll have trouble digesting the depth of their truths, ideas and opinions, which are respected worldwide by people from all walks of life.]]

I think you're right. I'm simply not up to your depth, what more that of the Pope's.

Bye for now.

13/09 04:02:06


cruzeiro wrote:

LChuah,
Very nice.
I agree with most of what you have said - however I must say that there was something that was "misleading".

True - all matters of faith are to a certain extent "supra-rational" - he (the Pope) never denied it.

All he tries to profess is that there can be no faith without "reason". He believes as the church today does, that "Reason is the cornerstone of Faith" - unlike that of the Middle ages and the Inquisition (which he has never denied) which led to evil, devoid of reason.

No doubts, they have all made mistakes in the political opinions, for which I do not have the slightest doubt, that they would be willing to admit. Can we accept the same from the "Muslim Leaders"? That is exactly what the bottomline is - Humility and Reason.

In fact Pope John Paul II was also a proponent of the same - only, he projected a very conciliatory image - he was a darling of the press. This guy, (the present Pope) was meanwhile, doing most of the work!

The reason he said those words about the Islamic Faith was becos few, if any, religious leaders of the community resort to "Reason" in matters of faith - that was why the whole discussion the Paleologus was quoted - and was taken out of context by many a Muslim.

That is also the reason why they had come to the conclusion that it is not possible to deal with "Islam the religion" as they do not have any "central authority" (as the shiites) but numerous groups, cultures and societies. In fact, he even gave an example of a discussion forum that ended after three days of arguments on theological matters, with nothing to show, except ill-feeling.

The problem is cultural - if one can take pains to understand other cultures, many problems, even theological, would be solved.

Peace.

13/09 11:21:16

AussieMalay wrote:

If cruzeiro is to be right, then Islam must find Reason. Exactly what is meant by Reason here is problematic, because Islam crossed into economic, finance, culture, morals, ie. the articles of faith of Islam. That last item is something that confounds me as how Faith can be put down in human terms especially Reason. Not everything can be put down to Reason or 'akal'. While wrong actions of Islam's followers can be questioned, reviewed and condemned, I just cannot comprehend what section or part or sub-section of Islam that needs only Reason and reason alone without mentioning Faith. May be Islamic juriprudence, or political approaches, or economics. But even these are in constant review by Islamic scholars.

So perhaps 'Culture' as mentioned by cruzeiro is perhaps the only problem. Islamic culture? The layers boggles the mind, as we see Muslim Arabs and Indians and others dress their communal habits and customs as Islamic. Again, there is the need to peel the layers to see what is Islamic, what is customary carefully. That's where we have issues with the world outside Islam.

Humility? Again, it exists as a universal value. I see 'humility' as integral in Islam just as in other faiths. But does it mean cauterizing Islam to make it to conform to how others would like to see it? Then why have Islam after all in its given form, when its followers can just cut and paste the versions they want?

Perhaps that's why the West celebrates works by lapsed Muslims like Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin because they fail to see reason in Islam in its present form. However, I believe European Muslims will lose their sense of alienation and embrace the larger society. I see it gradually happening. But the hardest part for many if not most is in choosing to keep core Islamic values, not losing them and throwing out the cultural garbage that came along with their parents and themselves. I see in many youths how lost they are when discussing Islam. Their parents more often than not downgraded Islam to a set of rituals leaving their kids open to forces of extremism. Fault-lines? It just lies in both sides of the court.

Cruzeiro, you are right, Culture is the main problem, both ways.

13/09 14:12:03


LChuah wrote:

>In fact Pope John Paul II was also a proponent of the same - only, he projected a very conciliatory image - he was a darling of the press.]]

Of course they're basically the same: both were heavily supported by Opus Dei. Example: John Paul, while critizing Cuba about human rights during his tour of the Americas, had seen fit to ignore the murderous Pinochet, the CIA supported thug who overthrew a democratically elected President and whose neo-Nazis machine-gunned thousands of dissidents, many of them students, at a football stadium. Nevertheless, John Paul's later statements regarding the rights of the poor, the inadmissibility of the neo-liberal ideology, etc., did somewhat mitigate his earlier hawkish stance.

>The reason he said those words about the Islamic Faith was becos few, if any, religious leaders of the community resort to "Reason" in matters of faith]]

Were there "few" Islamic religious leaders who resort to reason or was it because they were ignored in favor of militant and even fanatical ones? Look at this blog: when Muslim intellectuals like Farish Noor attempt to weigh both sides of the Christian-Muslim divide, he's being called all sorts of names and his motives baselessly impugned by some readers. All this on a man who left his own country at least partly because he did not see eye to eye with the authorities on matters of ketuanan Melayu, etc. A man whose biting remarks on Islamic extremism elicited death threats from fanatics in this country, and whose honesty at criticizing the Opposition - which he supported - saw mindless attacks from those who should've known better. Disappointed with what he saw, he withdrew for some time the national discourse on our troubled country. It was because of this that in my Malaysiakini features article (2003?) I called on intellectuals not to give up their tasks in reforming this nation.

In today's fragmented and cybernetic world, opinions about any religious or social issues are no longer monopolized by any "leader," religious or otherwise. Thus, it's not only Islam but all other religions (or political ideologies) that are decentered, including Christianity. That is why we cannot take Pat Robertson's call to assassinate another country's President as an indication that Christianity is a religion of assassins. And this is true within the Catholic Church itself: during the Vietnam War, Cardinal Spelling promoted the idea that to fight in Vietnam was to fight for Christ. It was in opposition to rightwing Catholics that other Catholics, including Fulton, forced some peace clauses in Vatican 11, a document that was subverted and ultimately dismissed by John Paul.

In fact, the propaganda that one couldn't negotiate with Muslims because of their disparate groups is old wine in new bottle. Before finally meeting Gorbachev in Iceland, Reagan used the excuse that "we want to negotiate, but their leaders kept dying" (he was referring to the strange number of deaths of Soviet leaders before Gorbachev). Today, the issue is not so much negotiating with Muslim leaders than to get out of their countries. Do that, and all the "terrorism" would end.

>why the whole discussion the Paleologus was quoted - and was taken out of context by many a Muslim]]

I can name many Western columnists, all non-Muslims, who saw the speech as being anti-Muslim. Even I, a Christian, saw it that way as the quotation was used to frame the entire speech (a classic rhetorical strategy). But as I said, I was more interested in finding commonalities between the two sides than putting one or the other down, and therefore asked Muslims to see the speech as an attempt to reach out to them.

13/09 15:06:06

cruzeiro wrote:

LChuah,
Whoever said that the Pope never made any errors in judgement?

You have every right to do your research of every anti-papist media blitz - and for every one that you come up with I could produce ten for and against Rome!

Of course they did make mistakes in not standing up for numerous issues - and they aren't alone in it.

As for the Regensburg address, while the columnists & you are entitled to your opinion, that doesn't mean you are right, does it?

Of course you are justified in your interpretation of the words, even if it is a distortion of the message.

You may look upon it as anti- Islam, or you may look upon it as a challenge to them to rise to the occasion, and to prove him wrong by acting with reason, without issuing edicts and screaming for blood - the choice is yours!

And it is also your choice if you want to be ignorant of the outright inhuman anti-Christian/reason/logic of the so called holy men who cried foul while calling for blood!

And mind you, being a "Christian" has nothing to do with it - it's about using reason to understand what he said within the context of the address.

Anyway, at least somebody paid attention when the Pope said it .....

Hey LChuah, I'm not here to "defend" the Pope or the Catholic church - just defending "Reason".

Hell man - I don't give two hoots if they admittedly made mistakes - I never said that they were right all the time did I? I don't give a hoot about some moronic political statement made by some Cardinal either. If they were wrong so be it! I'm not gonna lap up everything that some "holy man" says ....

But this I say - as a whole, they were exemplary, considering the complexity and variety of issues they deal with.

As far as Farish is concerned, he too can make mistakes - by being open to criticism and acknowledgment of one's ignorance or weakness, one learns.

Like I said, he's been doing a good job - but in this case, I've made an exception, that's all.

Now, I'm entitled to my opinion am I not?

13/09 17:16:35

LChuah wrote:

AussieMalay wrote:
> Islam must find Reason]]

AussieMalay: early Muslim writers such as Ibn Rashd and Ibn Sina (Averroes and Avicenna) had written on logos long before Greek rhetoric became popular in Western Europe. Avicenna wrote an entire book on Aristotlean syllogisms, and Al Farabi offered commentaries on subjects such as prior and posterior analytics. The problem is that we've people here whose entire knowledge about Islamic logic comes from some dubious websites. It would be safe to say that their entire knowledge of logic - Islamic or otherwise - comes from the same websites as well. Which was why, when I taught at a local univ here (after my retirement), I warned students that anyone using more than 3 online sources would get an "F" in his or her paper. It's time people settle down to read their books than try to be instant experts at anything.

13/09 17:20:40

cruzeiro wrote:

Dear ozmalay,
Thank you for agreeing on that fact about culture - I merely parroted Ratzinger.

Anyway, in your opening para, you had mentioned, "That last item is something that confounds me as how Faith can be put down in human terms especially Reason. Not everything can be put down to Reason or 'akal'. ......I just cannot comprehend what section or part or sub-section of Islam that needs only Reason and reason alone without mentioning Faith. .... But even these are in constant review by Islamic scholars."

Nobody presumes to say that faith should be based entirely on "reason" - it would then become science!

But in saying the above you have unwittingly exposed yourself to the charge that by believing in God, you are making an irrational choice, and "it only takes a leap of faith to be in awe of the starry hosts above, and the moral law within" - this is what Emmanuel Kant said (sort of at least).

One should be aware that in choosing a faith, one has to apply reason, unless you do so by means of a total miraculous revelation or madness.

Do you see the danger of deception here?
Do you see the danger of being led astray by those who claimed to have received some revelation, or an interpretation of a revelation by a “wise scholar” whose thoughts and ideas cannot reach beyond his hat or cap? Have you met any one of them? Well, I have ..... and numerous too!

No knowledge or reason is necessary to know God – but you need it to know yourself, dear sir.

In applying reason, logic - one can decide on many things.
In applying reason & logic, one can decide if interpretations are consistent with the theology.
In applying reason and logic one can see the reason for certain laws.
And one would also be able to understand the very contradictions that are apparently seen in most if not all "holy books'.
It provides for a defense mechanism against lies and deceit of "scholars and politicians and leaders".

But I do concede - Reason, and reason alone cannot be used in the search for truth - but it is a very essential and vital tool towards achieving it.

Too much or too little reason though, may lead to man being "intellectually uncapped, volitionally uncurbed and morally unzippered", to quote a wise man. You then become nothing more than an animal, an organized mass of protoplasm.

This is why we need "Faith" to guide us in our reason and ethics- essential, individual and social ethics.

We then come to the word "Culture".
What is it?
There are many definitions for this word , but I like this -

"It is the manifested behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group."

Do you honestly believe that your behaviour and beliefs are devoid of reason?

I'm not so sure if you do ....

13/09 17:31:04

cruzeiro wrote:

Aah, there you are LChuah - there is reason and logic in Islamic philosophy too - this is the point I was trying to make. Sad that many choose to deny it.

I wish you were a Muslim now ..... ;-)

13/09 17:33:51

LChuah wrote:

Cruzeiro: if you'd been here long enough you've known my heated arguments with some Muslims when they made statements such as "if you're aren't a Muslim you've no right to talk about Islam" and so on and so forth. There's however, a difference between criticisms based on reason and knowledge (logic) and criticisms based on hearsay. Logos is exactly what's at stake: the problem is that some people don't follow what they say. Even though in rhetorical theory ethos and pathos are involved, it's still logos that's most appealing to the thinking man, and most suitable for forensic speeches.

I never said you're not entitled to your opinion, but as you pointed out, it's good to learn from the critique of others.

Have a great day.

13/09 17:36:24

cruzeiro wrote:

Cheers, mate!

13/09 17:43:30


Wednesday 12 September 2007

Response to -11/09: The Pathologisation of Muslims in Europe

Here are my responses to an article (entitled as below) in Malaysia Today, written by a respected Malaysian Muslim "reformist" thinker.
I thought that he sounded like he was in “denial mode” as most apologists are, when the are faced with the truth of it all, and they are always quick to look for someone else to put the blame on when stuck in a dilemma.

11/09: The Pathologisation of Muslims in Europe

by Farish A. Noor

cruzeiro wrote:

Oh Farish!
How could feign ignorance of Muslim societies in general?

How could you of all people pretend that what they say isn't true?

Take a good look around you - what do you see?

Isolation or the integration of muslim society into the western lifestyles & ideas?

Do the muslims in general (in europe) subscribe to their mufti or the secularism that is practiced?

As far as the Catholics are concerned, they do not blindly follow what the Pope says, and they dare dissent & would choose secular laws over religious edicts- it isn't the same with muslim societies!

That was a cheap shot, coming from a learned man like you!

Of course they wanna protect the successes that have brought the Turks, who were in search of greener pastures - things that they couldn't enjoy in their homelands, where they practiced their cherished values.

They don't want "Islamic values" creeping into a system that was built on a very different philosophy .... a system that has been borne out of rebellion against the Pope (read Martin Luther)!

You talk about the west distrusting the turks - do you care to ask the turks if they would care to reciprocate the goodwill?

This was the crux of the issue in the Pope's Regensburg address, in response to which the Muslim world screamed for blood - and no Muslim dared to give a different opinion lest they face the wrath of the clerics!

Shame on you Farish!

This is exactly the hypocrisy that they are afraid of!

What a low down dirty shame!

11/09 18:53:27

cruzeiro wrote:

I agree Farish is trying to do his best. However, he has missed the point, or is just being hypocritical. He should probably build bridges within his community, before trying to build it with the outside.

I don't deny that there are many good Muslims, who are silent - and that is what irks the others. These guys wouldn't come out openly to condemn the fascists who are bent on isolationism "islamic fundamentalism" and violence.

IslamoFascism is on the rise. There are enough clandestine operations that have been unearthed, to prove it.

There is a great deal of hypocrisy and bigotry practiced by the practitioners of the Islamic faith.

All these and more has created a little too much of insecurity among every other society to treat them as they demand to be treated.

I do not for a minute presume that there is no racism practised by the Germans. I do not for a minute doubt that they have all the knowledge that they need for ethnic cleansing - they have more than enough expertise in that field!

The point here is the Muslims generally bring it all upon themselves, and then demand that they be treated as demanded, when they themselves wouldn't do it!

Comparing them to any other community isn't in the least bit logical at all.
As for the Pope's word being the Gospel truth among Catholics, I have this to say-

Yes, Catholics do hold his words with great respect, for they are usually intellectuals who are (at least for the last century) highly educated and rational on Social and Moral issues.

His word has great sociopolitical ramifications worldwide. His word can change the direction of political evolution of peoples, nations and empires. Such is his power! The latest evidence was that of the collapse of Soviet Empire. There many "other" events for which "he" (the institution) plays a role in the background.

If you have a doubt, try reading the full texts of their encyclicals that are available all over the internet - I'll bet you that you'll have trouble digesting the depth of their truths, ideas and opinions, which are respected worldwide by people from all walks of life.

They have been at the forefront of philosophical, theological and socio-political ideas for the past few centuries. "He" is also the bastion of western civilisation as we know it, the fruits of which we too enjoy.

While they may hold his words on theological matters with great reverence, they may not exactly follow everything he says, as it becomes very "tedious" in day to day life. They are quite practical people, and wouldn't wage war over these issues unlike some people in the middle ages and even now.

The Catholic church has undergone it's reform. The same cannot be said of Islam, and the pope is well aware of it. Read - When Civilizations Meet: How Joseph Ratzinger Sees Islam at http://cruzinthots.blogspot...

If at all there wars, it is political in nature and not hatred borne out of differences of opinion on matters of theology.

Now can you imagine a different group of people with medieval values and system of governance coming to your shores, which they claim is "eternal"?

Now they are trying to impose their idiotic system upon a civilisation that has shed blood fighting against theocratic rule (of the Pope in the past) to build what we enjoy today!

So let's be honest about our very own inadequacies, before pointing a finger at others - let's set our own houses on order first, before Demanding that others understand us.

It is very important to understand, before demanding to be understood.

Can anyone take a while to ponder on the reason as to why we have a more "hardline" German Pope today?

The Pope's selection/ election isn't done based on petty issues, y'know ....

12/09 10:25:06

cruzeiro wrote:

Allow me to copy & paste an excerpt of what the Pope said on this issue in the above article -
Islamic totalitarianism differs from Christianity
To understand Benedict XVI’s thinking on Islamic religion, we must go over its evolution. A truly essential document is found in his book written in 1996, when he was still cardinal, together with Peter Seewald, entitled “The Salt of the Earth”, in which he makes certain considerations and highlights various differences between Islam and Christian religion and the West.

First of all, he shows that there is no orthodoxy in Islam, because there is no one authority, no common doctrinal magisterium. This makes dialogue difficult: when we engage in dialogue, it is not “with Islam”, but with groups.

But the key point that he tackles is that of shari’a. He points out that:

“the Koran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic. Shari’a shapes society from beginning to end. In this sense, it can exploit such freedoms as our constitutions give, but it cannot be its final goal to say: Yes, now we too are a body with rights, now we are present [in society] just like the Catholics and the Protestants. In such a situation, [Islam] would not achieve a status consistent with its inner nature; it would be in alienation from itself”.

This alienation could be resolved only through the total Islamization of society. When for example an Islamic finds himself in a Western society, he can benefit from or exploit certain elements, but he can never identify himself with the non-Muslim citizen, because he does not find himself in a Muslim society.

Thus cardinal Ratzinger saw clearly an essential difficulty of socio-political relations with the Muslim world, which comes from the totalizing conception of Islamic religion, which is profoundly different from Christianity. For this reason, he insists in saying that we cannot try to project onto Islam the Christian vision of the relationship between politics and religion. This would be very difficult: Islam is a religion totally different from Christianity and Western society and this makes does not make coexistence easy.

12/09 10:52:09