Toudiyama[NL]

Islam is peaceful becaue when the whole world will be islamic, there will be peace.
This is what fundamentalist muslims write
Yeah right, if they dont have anyone to fight there will be peace and that makes them peaceful, as if not having a common opponent/enemy wouldn't make them start bickering amongst themselves again
The Qu'ran isn't peaceful nor the islam(qu'ran plus hadiths) but nor is the Old testament, muslims can be peaceful as most Christians, jews and hindus are

Mike Brewer

You guys are posting important information, and maybe it's getting closer to an answer than anyone is really comfortable accepting, but let's steer back toward the topic again for a second:

What keeps peaceful, moderate Muslims (of whom there are many hundreds of millions) from organizing against the radicals? What is it that makes the radical point of view so easy to rally around, and the moderate, tolerant point of view so individual and risky? We have seen some peaceful groups, but they are very few and far between, and they are almost universally denounced as apostates or infidels by the mainstream. So what can be done to get the peaceful Mulsims to form up and speak out against terrorism? Is it even a possibility?

I recently attended a lecture in which an uncomfortable point was made. While the speaker had no sympathy at all for these individuals, he was in a position to know very well that what he proposed was true. He said that one of the things that triggered the downfall of the Soviet Union was, in fact, the spying of John Walker, Aldrich Ames, and Robert Hanssen. The reaons these traitors ended up actually doing damage to both sides was that the information they were providing actually served to confirm the Soviets' worst fears. In other words, all of the intelligence estimates that said America was winning the arms race and had the resurces to continue were verified by American spies. That was unsettling, but was amplified by the fact that it contradicted the politically correct - politically driven, even - intelligence that was being served up to Gorbachev. The bottom line was, the GRU, KGB, etc. had been feeding filtered, politically correct information to the Soviet leaders. They were telling them what they wanted to hear, and were careful to present it in terms that would not offend. When American traitors like Ames and Hanssen came along and painted an unvarnished picture, the reality was too much to overcome because of the position all that politically correct decision making had put them in. It makes me wonder if we aren't doing the same kind of thing to ourselves.

By sterilizing terrorism, bu losing sight of who the people are who attack us - who have declared a war to the finish with us - are we deluding ourselves the way the Soviets did? Are we setting ourselves up for a similar awakening? An awakening so abrupt that it leads to our collapse the same way it led to theirs? I see how furiously we monitor our speech to avoid offending anyone - even the people who commit wrongs against us. I have to believe that's unhealthy. More, it takes away any hope we have of common ground, because it takes away the fundamental truth of what we're dealing with.

So again - what can we do (if anything) to encourage the organization of peaceful, moderate, tolerant Muslims? What can we do to show them that it's not just we Westerners that are seen as the enemy, but them too if they refuse to believe in the radicalism that terrorists preach? How do we affect a greater change from within the Muslim world without trying to force feed it from the outside?

DickHardman

they dont?? what about all the sunni fighters in iraq who have banded together and allied themselves with USA forces in order to kick out foreign terrorists from their neighborhoods?? what about all the iraqis who have been murdered and dismembered for helping out America?? what about iraqi kids who run up to american patrols in order to warn them of the snipers and bombs that lay in wait for them up the road?? what about all the iraqis who get blown to bits while they are waiting in line at police recruitment centers in iraq?? what about all the afghan northern alliance soldiers who are fighting the taliban alongside nato soldiers??? what about all the pakistani soldiers who were killed fighting al queda and capturing terrorists to hand over??

why dismiss all these people who fought against extremism and paid with their lives???

Mike Brewer

I'm not dismissing them, Dick. What I'm saying is that of all the hundreds of millions of Muslims who want peace, only a small minority are banding together. Please do not try to twist the statement into some sort of criticism of the people who are out in the world banding together and doing good things. I am not discounting them in the least. What I am wondering is why so many will flock to the extremist cause, and so many moderates do not. How many extremists in Iraq, for example, are form other countries? How many radicals train in other nations to go and fight in the Great Jihad?

How many in Iraq fighting for peace and Iraqi nationalism are Muslims that took up arms from elsewhere and went to Iraq to fight the extremists?

The fact - and it is a fact - is that the extremist, radical, Islamist causes draw more support and more organization than do peaceful or moderate ones. That is not a dismissive statement, nor is it meant to trivialize the contributions of those who do fight for what is right. What it means is that they are still, for the most part, an ineffective minority that lacks organization and international support. So are we, for that matter! Why? Because radicals from all over the globe will flock to Iraq and fight against the West, but it takes the destruction of neighborhoods and attacks by radicals on civilians to get even the local moderates to act.

Are you arguing that there are effective, large peaceful Muslim organizations that can claim the same kind of international support that the radical groups can?

DickHardman

actually, those people who welcomed foreign fighters with open arms into their neighborhoods were tricked, much like we americans were in going to iraq. iraqis believed true muslims had come to iraq from all over in order to aid them in what they believed was an occupation by an invading force. they did not realize that all these people were just using them as a means to create a base of operations to launch attacks at the usa and its allies(this includes any iraqis or muslims who dare help america). once they saw who the real enemy was they wasted no time in fighting the foreigners and helping the united states. and even before that, iraqis wanted to fight terrorists but you know what? paul bremer took away their weapons, thinking they didnt need them since america could provide security. there were iraqi neighborhoods begging american outposts for ammunition to fight off al queda and were denied. only when the usa allowed them to carry proper firepower in their own neighborhoods did the tide of the war begin to change a tiny bit.

no, because no matter what, they will most likely not be heard. how come you dont see guys like hamza yusef on tv??? i never heard of him till i was looking through liveleak. cause footage of the guy who lives in a mud hutt in some village yelling and burning the american flag, and mind numbing images of terrorists in ski masks posing with weapons behind their hostages gets more ratings on tv and influences people way easier than some educated guy in a monotone voice sitting in a leather chair, speaking about getting along.

DickHardman

btw there is a lot of violence in islam. almost everyone in the quran is assassinated, killed in battle, poisoned, dismembered, etc.....muhammad and ali were both warriors, ali being one of the finest warriors of all time. muslims often look to Ali for inspiration because his fighting prowess and strength were so extreme. so here you have, 2 WARRIORS being idolized and inspiring to BILLIONS of people. and when you take into account that many muslim countries are run by dictators, corrupt governments, and are repressed and lacking of education and money, you can see that people can be easily swayed towards violence and fighting for a "cause". the quran is violent by nature because at the time it was written, the world was very violent and turbulent. it was kill or be killed. but the point is that despite all the violence and death everywhere, muhammad shows mercy and kindness that is radical for the time period. he stated that women were equal to men at a time were women were considered to be worth less than slaves. im not a muslim though, i think its a man made relgion, thats just me though. i would like wasim to comment on this thread.

Mike Brewer

But Dick, the Old Testament is full of warriors. David, Joshua, and many others were archetypal warriors who inspired (in fact, many would argue who were divinely chosen to illustrate) the highest ideals of the Jewish tribes and Christians alike. However, despite the divine inclusion of these great warriors in the Holiest of texts, Jews and Christians didn't morph into violent radicals on the same sacel as modern radical Islam.

That's my point. What needs to happen for the peaceful, moderate, tolerant groups to start getting the word out? What needs to happen for them to begin making a difference? We can all see, if not agree, that it's all fucked up. What I'm looking for are suggestions as to how it can be unfucked.

DickHardman

yeah, but muslims idolize muhammad and imam ali more so than christians and jews idolize the people you mentioned. its like if jesus had lived as a great warrior, im sure christians would lean towards militancy more in order to be more like him.

Mike Brewer

Okay, let's go wit hthat for a second. Of course, I'm being told by someone else that I'm too hostile toward Islam, so I'm not sure how to approach the topic. I guess I'll just dispense with the political correctness and ask straight:

If Islam is naturally predisposed to violence as you've suggested (and I don't know if that's true, mind you), then how does Islam use that willingness to fight for faith to overcome the bad influences? I mean, we've established that the willingness to organize large, international peace efforts within Islam are non-existant. The ones that have tried seem to be excommunicated. So if the faith really sees violence as its main tool, why aren't the moderates standing up to fight the radicals anywhere but Iraq? I mean, radical Islamists have been working hard all over the world - not just in Iraq. Why isn't there a group of peaceful Muslim opponents to Abu Saayaf in the Philippines? Why not anywhere else? Check out some of the timelines and events listed on this page:

http://www.emergency.com/cntrterr.htm

There are too many to list here, and I'd get criticized for being an anti-Muslim if I did anyway so you'll have to look for yourself. But look at all the different Islamist terrorist organizations all over the globe? Their primary opponents are the governments in the countries where they operate. You don't read much about citizens taking an organized stand like they are in Iraq. Why? Are they out there and we in the West just don't have access to the news outlets that report it? Why is it so hard to get good information?

And by the way, Dick - have you read the damned magazine yet or are you just using it for rolling papers?

Mike Brewer

It occurred to me, watching the news this morning regarding the Pope's visit here, that Christians - Catholics in particular - are very careful to choose peaceful humanitarians to "idolize." I don't like that term, but since you used it to describe Muslim idolization of Muhammad and Ali, I'll apply it here also.

It seems like Christians make it a point to only herald those who are peaceful. Saints are not made of men or women who won glories in battle, but rather of those who helped their fellow man. Do you think that the desire to actually seek and choose peaceful representatives of the faith is a fundamental difference?

Also, look at Judaism. Moses stood against the largest and most powerful kingdom known to man. He was more than just a warrior; he was a deliverer of God's Law and the savior of his people. The major difference is that he did not presume to take up the sword and do the killing on God's behalf. He was a messenger, and whatever killing was done was done by God in his story. Moses did not steal into the Egyptian villages at night and kill the first born sons himself, and he didn't drown the Egyptian army in the Red Sea. In the Moses story, God did the work. Again, I think we see a basic tendency here that's important.

As you pointed out, Muslim heroes were warriors. Their successes in battle didn't come from cooperation with God, but with their own hands and swords. Their achievements in their faith didn't come from the peaceful humanitarianism the exhibited, but from their economic and military expansion into other places. Islam spread historically through economics - not by the sword alone as many anti-Muslims would have us believe. Muslims colonized areas, made improvements, and converted indigenous populations through evangelism and breeding. Yes, sometimes it happened by force as it has with all religions. But I think you bring up an interesting point when you suggest that Muslims have a different archetype for their heroes than other faiths.

Ahsen

Tom people have different views whether turkey is in middleeast some don't considerthemsel;ves

however the issue with being a muslim state is aonther question there are critira to be that

__________________
eat ma shorts

DickHardman

actually, islam does attribute success in battle to god. the battle of badr which is one of the most important battles in islame, for example is attributed to divine intervention....

Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah; thus May ye show your gratitude. Remember thou saidst to the Faithful: "Is it not enough for you that Allah should help you with three thousand angels (Specially) sent down? "Yea, - if ye remain firm, and act aright, even if the enemy should rush here on you in hot haste, your Lord would help you with five thousand angels Making a terrific onslaught. Qur'an: Sura 3:123-125

cam427

Ok, I am going to have a crack at answering Mike's core question. "Why dont more "friendly" muslims group together to stop the extremists?

I think there are a number of reasons (and these are just the ones i can think of without doing any research so i am sure there are plenty more):

1) Many Muslims live in countries where radical or fundamentalist groups have a role in the running of the country and protest or disagreement with the common position can been punishable either by the authorities or by members of fundamentalist groups. It is easy for us in western countries to ask why they dont complain because we do not truly understand the danger this could place them in when we are in no danger ourselves. The same was true in Nazi germany (a christian country) where most germans were decent people and did not like the idea of wholesale murder.

2) Even moderate muslims from many islamic nations dislike the US (and other western countries) due to past events. The muslims sufferred a humiliating defeat against Israel (and as you pointed out they see thier ability to win battles as something that is given to them by God). Since then they see Israel as the ultimate enemy and the US position on Israel makes them the enemy also (a friend of my enemy is my enemy...). Going back further there was the original creation of Israel (this was not a US decision but was made by western countries with no regard to the current inhabitants) and the Shah in Iran. The Shah is the reason that there is a religious government in Iran at all and that is the result of direct US intervention. It is also the main reason why the Iranians see the US as an evil society. They are taught (and it is true) that they had a peaceful democracy that was overthrown and a dictator put in place with US assistance for thier own greedy reasons and with no regard to the iranian people. Then because they overthrew this dictator and saw the US as the enemy the US supported Iraq in a very long war that resulted in the deaths of huge numbers of their people. This even went as far as providing Iraq with chemical/biological weapons which were used against them. 9/11 pales in significance compared to this. The US response to 9/11 (a "relatively" minor event with a "relatively" small loss of life compared to palestine, iran/iraq war, etc) has been overwhelmingly larger than anything they have ever done. The reason they terror tactics is because they simply dont have the force to do anything else.

3) The current war in Afghanistan and Iraq obviously has heightened the situation because they see the US interfering again (which they believe always results in them sufferring and the US getting richer). They all realise that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 and that the war is about money and they see tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dying because of it (which also makes 9/11 pale in significance).

4) Extremist groups are notoriously difficult to control. The example given above where Iraqi's are grouping together to try and get foreign fighters out of their country shows this. Palestine was also an example where Arafat could not control all of the other factions...

The core of it is that the moderate people and groups are not prepared to go to war against the extremists (which is the only way to truely stop them) because even while they do not agree with their methods they can understand their anger so try to moderate them with little success. This does not make them bad people.

Just to make my position clear I in no way support radical islam nor am I anti-american. I am just attempting to answer the question posed by Mike and find it interesting to try and see the situation from their perspective.

my 2 cents...

cam427

Sorry.. double post

Mike Brewer

No disclaimers necessary, Cam. You can be honest in pointing out the facts - and you have, I think - and people can decide they don't like the facts, but that doesn't change the truth of it one bit.

Good post, my friend.