bob x
Well-Known Member
We are not talking here about "rogue soldiers out of control": murder of civilians is what the Palestinian leadership orders, and has been ordering for 90 years.
What's happened to Islam?
- Thread starter iBrian
- Start date
Who told you that ?
leadership??
It is a limited efforts from some palestanian,,,the majority of palestanian resistance was stone thrown from Children.
Do you remember this beautiful girl? Do you hear about her end?
Ok..we don't want to play the game of argument,,,,, we should believe that the humanity pain must be stopped in all sides.
bob x
Well-Known Member
I've been watching the news for decades. For me, it was the wave of plane hijackings in 1968 and the Bobby Kennedy murder, for a friend of mine it was the Munich Olympics, for others it was the old man in a wheelchair pushed off a boat, or the schoolbus bombings, or the nursery invasion, or the disco or the pizzeria, but Americans who regard Palestinians as the most disgusting people on the face of the earth all have their reasons for it.
Hi /bob x
Here you speak about pure political reasons,,,as we said before...
Surely,,,these reactions support the violence...
Islam is not responsible about Israiel- palestinian conflict at all,this conflict started when british ( With balfore promise ) give Jews the chance to build their zionist country over palestinian lands .
because of that,,, I said before that Islam as a religion of peace is not responsible about countries conflict...They sometimes compete on leadership or gains or the land ,,,why Islam carry the people errors?
peace to all
bob x
Well-Known Member
"Here you speak about pure political reasons,,,"
I was speaking about moral disgust.
"Islam is not responsible about Israiel- palestinian conflict at all"
It is entirely responsible. Islam taught the Palestinians that Jews should not be allowed to immigrate unless they accepted ritual humiliations; then taught them to murder Jewish immigrants, but not Muslim immigrants. The British entry to the region brought this to a head, but the conflict had been going on even before then.
I was speaking about moral disgust.
"Islam is not responsible about Israiel- palestinian conflict at all"
It is entirely responsible. Islam taught the Palestinians that Jews should not be allowed to immigrate unless they accepted ritual humiliations; then taught them to murder Jewish immigrants, but not Muslim immigrants. The British entry to the region brought this to a head, but the conflict had been going on even before then.
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
to be fair, bob, it isn't *entirely* responsible, just as zionism isn't *entirely* responsible either. it would be more precise to say that islam has historically exacerbated the situation, just as the "biblical israel" concept has. it's a mess and no amount of mud-slinging or it-isn't-our-fault-it's-yours is going to change that. the same goes for you, friend - the sooner you accept that islam has faults in practice (if not in principle, that is not for me to say) and stop with the rhetorical fidgy-widginess, the sooner the palestinians you presumably profess to care about will get their own state and be able to live in peace and coexistance with their israeli neighbours.
i don't think bashing islam is the answer, but neither is blaming israel, the west, or anything else for everything that's wrong in the islamic world going to actually help.
b'shalom
bananabrain
i don't think bashing islam is the answer, but neither is blaming israel, the west, or anything else for everything that's wrong in the islamic world going to actually help.
b'shalom
bananabrain
bob x
Well-Known Member
I would sum up "what's happened to Islam?" this way: superiority breeds complacency and then rigidity. Consider the analogy of China, which was the greatest ancient civilization in the world, and knew it; so, China froze up solid, its scholars devoting themselves to studying the wisdom of the ancients and getting promoted to political power based on their ability to regurgitate Confucius. And this is why China remained "the greatest ancient civilization" all the way up through the 19th century. Likewise, Islam was the greatest medieval civilization in the world, and knew it, which is why it froze up (the "closing of the gates of ijtihaad") and still is, to this day, "the greatest medieval civilization" in the world. That won't cut it in the modern world (I wonder if America will freeze up as "the greatest modern civilization" when all the rest of the world moves on to whatever comes past "modern"?) The result is profound humiliation, by people from elsewhere who will not acknowledge your superiority, and in fact can show that you are inferior to them in ability to get anything done. The period of humiliation in China culminated in helpless lashings-out against any foreigner within reach, as during the Boxer Rebellion (after which the old imperial court lost all credibility, and the ancient order irretrievably broke down, making it ultimately possible for China to move on). The current period is for Islam one of analogous humiliation, resulting in similarly pointless violent lashings-out. The overthrow of the Ottoman caliphate, however, just didn't seem to have the same loosening-up effect that the fall of the Imperial dynasty did in China: the medieval mind-set is still alive and well, all over the Muslim world. Perhaps they need to have their noses rubbed in humiliation some more; I don't know what it will take.
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
that's an interesting analysis - presumably some people would characterise aspects of, say, the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" as america's more-or-less fruitless lashings-out. i do wonder what will come next. i have been predicting a "new mediaevalism" for some time now, whose manifestations are most obvious in terms of the religious right in america, the die-hard stalinists, trotskyists and maoists in north korea and the UK "respect" party, the obvious jihadi lunatics, much of jewish ultra-orthodoxy, the liberals of the european union and, quite possibly, newly militant secularists like the darwinist pope richard dawkins.
i'm not sure your characterisation of the ottoman empire is correct though; it couldn't really ever have been really called a caliphate and didn't dominate the entire islamic world, arabia and iran both being cases in point. but it's certainly a theory i could work with.
b'shalom
bananabrain
i'm not sure your characterisation of the ottoman empire is correct though; it couldn't really ever have been really called a caliphate and didn't dominate the entire islamic world, arabia and iran both being cases in point. but it's certainly a theory i could work with.
b'shalom
bananabrain
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
in fact, i should probably include the liberals of the episcopal church and reform judaism!
b'shalom
bananabrain
b'shalom
bananabrain
bob x
Well-Known Member
Agreed. The Ottomans' failure to achieve either the total control or the degree of sacred veneration that the Chinese emperors had is surely a major factor in explaining why the fall of the Ottomans did not persuade the Muslim world that the old ways were done with and could not survive.
It seems to be like what we read in clash of civilization for Samuel Phillips Huntington ....
_____________________________
you should see these links ...may it will be help
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/060702/papers/michael_warschawski.pdf
M. Shahid Alam: Is This a Clash of Civilizations?
So this analysing which you present is confirm the vision of Samuel Phillips Huntington ,,,he compare between China and Islam as potential civilizations enemies of American civilization .....This is after the east old enemy ((sovaiat )) vanished from the political map.
They create the terrorism war to complete their plans
Cyris Ali
Asik
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I keep seeing "Islam" ..."Muslim" ... "Jihad" and "9/11 attacks" used in the same sentence. I did a search just to make sure that this hadn't been posted already... but I was wondering if anyone here had ever dared postulate that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were NOT behind the 9/11 demolitions -- I mean the WTC tragedy?
Loose Change 9/11 (2nd Edition Recut)
Loose Change 9/11 (2nd Edition Recut)
E
Eclectic Mystic
Guest
Wow. Just Wow.
Cyris Ali
Asik
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
You're a moderator of a religious forum?
I'll have nothing to do with this.
Peace.
Originally Posted by bananabrain
the sooner you accept that islam has faults in practice (if not in principle, that is not for me to say) and stop with the rhetorical fidgy-widginess, the sooner the palestinians you presumably profess to care about will get their own state and be able to live in peace and coexistance with their israeli neighbours.
wow...realy wow
So it is easy to change the dreams of Israel state ,,,and remain Just in the 48 earth of palestine to build the Great Israel state ?
If so, Israel is realy a peace country...despite of all previous events.
Again it is pure political conflict....but no matter they want it to be religious conflict...to change and control the world under this idea.
after they create the monster ( Islam) did they could change it to be lamb???
bob x
Well-Known Member
Nobody had to conspire to make Islam look monstrous. It has looked monstrous to me for decades, well before any "neo-conservatives" existed.
Muslimwoman
Coexistence insha'Allah
Shalom BB
Could you expand please. I have my own views about this but would like to know where you draw the line between what is and is not an Islamic practice, because clearly we can only 'blame' the negative issues that are actually an Islamic teaching and not those actions that are purely political.
So who in your mind would govern this Palestinian state? Of course the prior proposal for a 2 state agreement still meant the Israeli's governed the Palestinian state as well as their own, hence the rejection. Would the displaced Palestinians be allowed to return to the new Palestinian state? Who would financially support this?
Salaam
As a general note. I do not accept that groups such as Hamas are acting Islamically and object to my faith being blamed for their actions. In the same way I feel sure BB would object to people suggesting that the awful actions of the Israeli government are demonstrative of the Jewish faith and it's teachings.
bananabrain
awkward squadnik
@friend:
i'm not interested in what huntingdon has to say, particularly if he categorises a civilisation as "judeo-christian". that label has absolutely nothing to do with judaism in practice as it never, ever takes into account jewish religious values other than as they are mediated through christianity and the universalist ethical values of the "enlightenment". so don't quote him at me as a means of showing that the jewish religion has something to do with causing the "clash of civilisations" - it doesn't, although it has surely been affected by the effects.
and if you want proper responses, i'm going to need to understand your english better. if i understand you, the point is this - the israelis have an enormous amount to gain by the end of the hatred and destruction in the middle east. it should be obvious to you that "greater israel" is not regarded by anybody worth speaking of as a feasible goal, at least if you mean "between the nile and the euphrates". "land for peace" will be the formula - the question will be which bits of land. all the wastefulness that we are witnessing is the haggling over the price, with both sides trying to get something for nothing. everybody understands that the border's going to be the green line, so the sooner we all get to it and stop with the wall-related land grabs and the attempts to establish a rocket landing zone the better for everyone. and, while we're at it, anyone who talked about "palestine" before 1948, such as balfour for example, meant the british mandate in palestine, which was made up of "palestine" and "transjordan" - the state of jordan where you live, much of whose population is palestinian. now, whilst i am not saying, like some, that "jordan already constitutes a palestinian state", it certainly has a larger role to play in this particular debate over who gets what.
there are those who see this as a religious conflict. it is better for all of us if this does not occur. i would find the prospect of the values of the hardline settlers directing the army utterly appalling; it is to be hoped that this can be averted without a civil war. unfortunately i still don't actually know this yet.
@cyris ali:
as for 9/11, believe what you want if it makes things better in your pink and fluffy world.
i personally don't know what i would think about the displaced palestinians returning to the new state, except that the only way it could feasibly be financed is by the arab states coughing up reparations for their exiled jewish ex-inhabitants who are all now living in israel. it's not exactly like they're short of cash *cough cough saudi cough cough kuwait cough cough etc) and, of course, the new state would have to allow its jewish citizens equal rights. i'm not holding my breath for that considering that selling land to a jew is punishable by death in the PA.
i would also like to say that as interesting as it is to see you and bob knocking spots off each other here and elsewhere discussing this, i think you'd both be happier if you tried to be a little more amicable about it - you're both reasonable people with a great deal to contribute and locking horns about deir yassin or arabic nazi-sympathising simply gives the impression of "hard cases making bad law". you cannot extrapolate generalisations of a faith, culture or religion from singular instances of extreme action as you both must know.
b'shalom
bananabrain
i'm not interested in what huntingdon has to say, particularly if he categorises a civilisation as "judeo-christian". that label has absolutely nothing to do with judaism in practice as it never, ever takes into account jewish religious values other than as they are mediated through christianity and the universalist ethical values of the "enlightenment". so don't quote him at me as a means of showing that the jewish religion has something to do with causing the "clash of civilisations" - it doesn't, although it has surely been affected by the effects.
and if you want proper responses, i'm going to need to understand your english better. if i understand you, the point is this - the israelis have an enormous amount to gain by the end of the hatred and destruction in the middle east. it should be obvious to you that "greater israel" is not regarded by anybody worth speaking of as a feasible goal, at least if you mean "between the nile and the euphrates". "land for peace" will be the formula - the question will be which bits of land. all the wastefulness that we are witnessing is the haggling over the price, with both sides trying to get something for nothing. everybody understands that the border's going to be the green line, so the sooner we all get to it and stop with the wall-related land grabs and the attempts to establish a rocket landing zone the better for everyone. and, while we're at it, anyone who talked about "palestine" before 1948, such as balfour for example, meant the british mandate in palestine, which was made up of "palestine" and "transjordan" - the state of jordan where you live, much of whose population is palestinian. now, whilst i am not saying, like some, that "jordan already constitutes a palestinian state", it certainly has a larger role to play in this particular debate over who gets what.
there are those who see this as a religious conflict. it is better for all of us if this does not occur. i would find the prospect of the values of the hardline settlers directing the army utterly appalling; it is to be hoped that this can be averted without a civil war. unfortunately i still don't actually know this yet.
@cyris ali:
you can't have it both ways - either it's "one faith" and criticism of one group of muslims reflects on all, or it's an agglomeration of sects, traditions and attitudes and criticism of one group does not necessarily reflect on all. if people insist on treating "islam" as one thing, then i'm entitled to criticise this one thing if that is the subject of this thread. as it happens, i believe islam is nearly as fragmented as christianity is. now, of course, if you want to criticise judaism, come over and do it in the judaism forum and i'm sure i'll join in - but we're not doing that presently. saying "ooh, but what about judaism" doesn't actually address the central point. furthermore no faith should expect a free ride from criticism and no faith is free of idiots, propaganda and chauvinism. being a moderator shouldn't prevent me from pointing that out. i do it freely to my co-religionists as anyone here will tell you.
as for 9/11, believe what you want if it makes things better in your pink and fluffy world.
it's basically the argument you've seen me having with abdullah; if his values are really those of the consensus of scholars, there is no present hope of political islam coming to an understanding with the rest of the world who refuse to convert, refuse to be dhimmi and refuse to die. i am consulting the islamic scholars i know to try and understand this myself. islam will have to accept (as it appears to be trying to do in turkey) an accommodation and it will have to relinquish the idea of a theocracy. it will need, like every other system, to understand how "church" and "state" need to be separated at least in practice.Muslimwoman said:
gosh, that's a facer. i'm not sure i agree with your analysis of the original agreement, however. the point of this would be that the palestinians would elect their own government, which would govern like any other respectable democratic authority. of course the problem at present is that the israelis don't trust the prospective authority to act sensibly (viz hamas in gaza, democratically elected and still hasn't realised it can't just keep blaming the israelis for everything and chucking rockets over the border) and until they do they won't ease up. of course abbas and fatah would be a better prospect but they're so hopelessly corrupt and inept that you'll end up with hamas again.
i personally don't know what i would think about the displaced palestinians returning to the new state, except that the only way it could feasibly be financed is by the arab states coughing up reparations for their exiled jewish ex-inhabitants who are all now living in israel. it's not exactly like they're short of cash *cough cough saudi cough cough kuwait cough cough etc) and, of course, the new state would have to allow its jewish citizens equal rights. i'm not holding my breath for that considering that selling land to a jew is punishable by death in the PA.
i would also argue, of course, that many of the actions that israeli governments have and continue to do are not at all "awful", but rather the opposite - remember governments (in israel at least) come from many different parties and have many different and sometimes contradictory policies. i am not in the business of granting blanket exemptions or blanket condemnations. condemning policy is one thing, condemning practice is another and condemning intent is yet another. nobody is 100% blameless and nobody is 100% guilty. to argue otherwise is futile.
i would also like to say that as interesting as it is to see you and bob knocking spots off each other here and elsewhere discussing this, i think you'd both be happier if you tried to be a little more amicable about it - you're both reasonable people with a great deal to contribute and locking horns about deir yassin or arabic nazi-sympathising simply gives the impression of "hard cases making bad law". you cannot extrapolate generalisations of a faith, culture or religion from singular instances of extreme action as you both must know.
b'shalom
bananabrain
bob x
Well-Known Member
I am losing faith in her "reasonableness". She is now, not just swallowing the neo-Nazi propaganda about how the Jews staged the Holocaust to make other people look bad (sicker than Ahmadinejab), but expecting me to think this is a normal kind of thing to say. I have often been disappointed by apparently "moderate" Muslims who turn out to buy into the insane hatreds at some level, so I am no longer surprised by it, but I am still disappointed when it happens.
E
Eclectic Mystic
Guest
Then there's what other people think.