I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4331 Location: Graceland
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: Re: peak oil - Muslim Perspective
3aidlillahi wrote:
Ok. There's a very big confusion on the parts of Christians (and Jews?) regarding this part of Islam.
Islam does not hold itself like how the modern Judeo-Christian, Western world holds Islam. According to the West, Islam started in 610 when the revelations began and for Christianity when Christ was born and ≈ 5000 years ago when Adam was born for Judaism.
This is not the case for Islam. According to Islam, Muslims hold that Islam started on Earth with the creation of Adam and Eve, not with the revelations to Muhammad. The Torah and Injeel (Gospels) were revealed throughout time from Adam to Jesus. All of the people who followed these books were Muslims, NOT Christians and not Jews. Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, etc. were Muslims because Muslim means one who submits to God.
However, throughout time, the Torah was corrupted and thus came the Gospels to correct the people. However, the Bible was corrupted and it's very evident, given the Council of Nicea when the books that make up the current Bible were compiled and many other books, part of the real revelation, were discarded.
So after the books were corrupted a second time, God sent the Quran to Muhammad and ensured that the Quran would not be changed, have chapters deleted or chapters added.
So especially in the time of Moses and the other prophets, any Jews (those that changed the Word of God) would not be accepted into Islam. But Hebrews (a term often confused with "Jews") could if they were righteous Muslims.
Does that clear it up?
Are you serious?
No, that does not clear it up at all.
So Islam has been around since the beginning, but no one knew about it until Muhammad came along?
Do Muslims believe in the Ten Commandments?
If they do, isn't the way Muhammad is regarded sort of a form of idolatry?
Do Muslims believe that the Jews are God's people?
If so, why do they dislike them so much?
Israel. What, if anything, should be done about that? _________________
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4331 Location: Graceland
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:58 pm Post subject: Re: peak oil - Muslim Perspective
3aidlillahi wrote:
Why is it that when a white person or a Christian or Jew does something, it's the individual's action and not seen as a collective action? That is most certainly true, but why don't we see it in other cases?
When a black man steals, it's the black community's fault. When an illegal immigrant gets in a car wreck and kills someone, there are calls all over to deport all illegals. When a Muslim does something, it's somehow representative of Islam and the Muslim community.
Only when the people involved say that it is.
I don't hear stories of black men robbing convenience stores in the name of Jesus.
Quote:
I guess one could ask: Why did it take the Christian/Western world to allow woman the same rights as men 1900 years after Christ? After PO when economic collapse sets in, it's very likely that we'll revert back to the 1800's in energy consumption, population density and political system (long term) and thus will go the way of civil rights and women's rights. Will we look back and say that Christianity hates women because 95+% of time that Christianity has been about, women have been oppressed? That Christians declared it religiously acceptable to own slaves and to determine a slave based on his/her skin color/race?
Of course not. The reasons for these inequalities is lack of economic fortune. In many Muslim nations today where women are oppressed, you also find great amounts of economic inequality and thus plenty of poor people. As can be seen throughout history, it's no wonder that so many women and minorities are oppressed and often barred if not held back from jobs and employment, much like women in the Western world for much of the time (save manual labor in fields, midwives, servants, etc.)
I don't recall women being stoned for a LONG time. There were probably some witch barbecues hundreds of years ago that were miscarriages of justice, but I think that was just as ridiculous an expression of faith as I do when I hear about people killing women with rocks today (or punishing them for leaving the house).
Quote:
But shouldn't it also be noted that during the high times of the Islamic empire, that women owned a monopoly in many areas of the textile industry and were prominent as doctors, lawyers, judges even, investors, presidents of guilds, and scholars. Jews, who had often been oppressed by "Christianity" for only about 1000 years, were often (though not always) accepted into Muslim lands and even thrived economically, socially and sometimes politically (occasionally holding office).
So to what do you attribute the cultural regression?
Quote:
How can Christian nations wage a hundred year war against one another? Or a 30 year's war? Or how about two World Wars, primarily caused by nations full (90+%) of Christians?" It can go on and on but it gets us nowhere.
But wait, those weren't styled as "Christian" wars.
Quote:
Look. People oppress others. People are greedy so they steal. People kill others. There were massive wars before Muhammad, before Jesus, before Khan. And there will be plenty after Bush and Hussein and Ahmadi-nejad. To try to look upon a religion (notice how he said Islam is about kindness, etc., yet you transferred this to Muslims - apples and oranges) and characterized that religion based on what members of that religion did is quite silly. Should we discard Republicanism, the white man leader, Christianity, etc. because they "produced" the Iraq War? Or should we try to learn from these mistakes and notice that every time period has witnessed great crimes committed by individuals within various groups?
Sure. But what I'm trying to understand is why THIS PARTICULAR GENERATION OF MUSLIMS SEEMS TO HAVE A LOT OF HOMICIDAL MANIACS IN ITS RANKS.
I asked the same tough questions about Christianity over on the Christianity thread and everyone scattered for cover behind dogma. I tried to ask tough questions over in the shamanism thread, but that sort of fell apart before it got going. I would have asked tough questions in the Buddhism thread, but no one was making a claim on absolute truth (though I gave zensui a couple of stingers).
I'm not singling Islam out in any way here, I'm just trying to figure out what this faith is all about. If you are saying that Islam is not reflected in the actions of Muslims, then how did those Muslims get so far off track, because they seem very sincere in their faith?
Are these Muslims that are not actually practicing Islam (though they think they are) NOT going to Heaven?
Also, can you circle back on the suicide issue for a moment and explain how a suicide bomber is not actually committing suicide? I've heard it explained before, but it's hard to follow. _________________
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: Re: peak oil - Muslim Perspective
Islam means submitting to the Will of God. It is the only religion not based on a person or race. So the early monotheistic Christians were Muslims (those who submit to God) as were the Jews.
The early Christians and Jews were awaiting the coming of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) but when he did arrive, they rejected him for various reasons. The main reason is pride. How could they accept a Prophet that was not from the race, tribe or clan?
The reason I mentioned monotheistic Christians is because the early Christians were unitarians. They followed the Apostolic Church whereas those who chose Christianity out of expediency chose the less rigorous approach of the Pauline Church.
The Unitarian Christians were persecuted and killed by the Trinitarians over many centuries. The Trinitarians also destroyed countless gospels that did not conform to the beliefs they espoused. Even in the 18 century, it was considered a grave sin to reject the supreme authority of the Pope. It was punishable by death, imprisonment or expulsion from the land.
Fortunately, the inquisitions are over by there are still extremist Christian groups such as KKK, Neonazi’s, IRA etc. The massacre and rape of the Bosnians was orchestrated by the Orthodox Serbian Church.
The only reason European powers ceased fighting among each other after two wars resulted in the death of more than 50 million people is because they all possessed nuclear weapons. Since then the US has be covertly or overtly involved in practically every conflict in the World. Bush closely follows evangelic groups and immediately declared a crusade after S11. He later changed it to a war on freedom then war on terror.
Moses is mentioned more than any other Prophet in the Quran, not because we love Jews but because we consider them Muslims even though they were racially Jews. Similarly, when we condemn the Palestinian holocaust, it is not because we hate Jews but because we hate injustice. I am continually amazed that Christians do not stand up to the injustice they witness daily in the news even when the Christians in Bethleham plead for help. I am baffled that some Christians are pro-zionist but plan on exterminating every non-Christian person at the time of the rapture.
Minds are twisted and warped by pride, arrogance and ignorance. The truth is simple and clearly visible to those who open their hearts.
I am happy with your tough questions Big Tex. I assume you are not from Texas as it would now be 1:00 am. Anyway, in answer to your question.
Sure. But what I'm trying to understand is why THIS PARTICULAR GENERATION OF MUSLIMS SEEMS TO HAVE A LOT OF HOMICIDAL MANIACS IN ITS RANKS
I think you will need to take the log out of your eye before you worry about the splinter in ours. The most successful suicide bombers are not Muslims but the Tamil Tigers. The first Palestinian suicide bomber was in fact a Christian. Suicide is forbidden in Islam, yet these people have justified their actions by believing that the only weapon they have is their body and there are no civilians in Israel as they are an occupying force who must serve in the army. I don't believe the means justifies the aims but I can not sit comfortably in my home and claim that they will go to hell. I can not say that they will go to heaven either.
They are not rational people who make a conscious decision at times of comfort based on religious beliefs and knowledge. In the Quran we are told that a crazy person will not be held responsbile for their actions.
Perhaps if you sincerely wish to understand this predicament, you must first live in Palestine under occupation, watch in helplessness as the Jews demolish the house you have lived in for generations, destroy your crops, cattle, schools and university. How they can simply turn off the power, prevent you from moving freely in the land and kill countless Palestinians on a regular basis. Not one family has not seen their children or close relatives killed by the Israeli's.
Some Palestinians raise themselves above the inhumane conditions in which they live. One Palestinian family donated the organs of their son to a Jew even though their son was killed by Israeli troops. Others are lost in depression, despair, helplessness, misery, desperation and rage.
We have people in the west claiming to suffer from PTSD after a minor motor vehicle collision without any physical damage to themselves. How do you think the people in Palestine feel. What about the Iraqi's who have endured years of war, shock and awe tactics and bombarded with depleted uranium.
So suicide is forbidden and so is killing civilians but these are the desperate actions of individuals in dire circumstances. What is your excuse for electing a leader of the most powerful army that commits these horrific crimes on a massive scale.
Joined: Mar 25, 2008 Posts: 812 Location: Alif Lam Mim
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: Re: peak oil - Muslim Perspective
Quote:
So Islam has been around since the beginning, but no one knew about it until Muhammad came along?
Of course people knew about it. All of the prophets believed in Islam. Islam is just an Arabic name for submitting to God but one doesn't have to specifically say they believe in Islam. It's the submitting to God part that is key. Just because you don't say it's Islam or Allah doesn't mean that's not it or that's not whom your worshipping.
Ex. If I believe in the right of being able to vote for every single person, I believe in democracy. I may not know what that word is, have never heard it and have never used it, but I still believe in it. So if later (generations later) when that word is invented and someone looks at my writings and sees that I believed in such and such but didn't use that word explicitly, then it would be incorrect to say I didn't believe in democracy. But that's what you're doing. You're looking at the words they (Muslims before Muhammad) aren't using (Islam) while ignoring the words they did use (profession in one God)
Like I said, Islam has been around since the beginning but it was twisted around to form Judaism. Then Islam was "sent down" again with Jesus and the Gospels only to be twisted around and added to through hundreds of years of additions and deletions to the Books.
Quote:
Do Muslims believe in the Ten Commandments?
Yes although the Ten Commandments aren't listed directly like "1. ... 2...." such as in the Bible but throughout the Quran.
Quote:
Do Muslims believe that the Jews are God's people?
Not that I know of, but I'm pretty sure they aren't. Islam does not hold one responsible for what one's parents did. Nearly all Jews are Jews because of their parents* so it's silly to reward someone with the title of "God's person" for being procreated from your parents. Similarly, there's no concept of original sin - how can one look at a newborn and say he/she has sinned is beyond me.
* Jewish law holds that if the mother is "Jewish" then so is the child, regardless of whether either of them are religiously Jewish.
Quote:
I don't hear stories of black men robbing convenience stores in the name of Jesus.
Did I say they were?
Go talk to Pretorian, Kam, and some other famous racists on this thread and see what they think when a black man commits a crime - they want to either have that man killed and/or gate themselves from the black community. See: Rising Xenophobia, Protectionism... Why do you think those South African mobs attacked and killed 12 people including setting that man on fire? Because they saw those people as individuals or as a group (immigrants who commit crimes)?
Look at Bill O'Reilly getting into fights over illegals killing people accidentally and how it shouldn't occur because illegals should all be deported.
If you think that people only do this when the people involved say that it is, then you're pretty blind to reality. People look at the groups over the individuals all the time. It's one of the major causes of racism and tribalism because they can see what's on the outside and thus it's easier to label all of those with that same characteristic as being the group of the attacker or whoever.
Quote:
So to what do you attribute the cultural regression?
You'd have to look at it from a historical standpoint. Following the sacking of Baghdad in 1258, which I discussed earlier, the Islamic empire(s) weakened further. Baghdad had been a major city of culture, scholarship and intellectual thought. The burning of the Library and the killing off of the people decimated the knowledge base of the surrounding region and had a very sharp decrease on the whole of the Arab and Islamic world.
Imagine having every single university in your state being destroyed along with all of the professors. Then go back to a time without rail, cars or airplanes so only your current state is accessible. Over the next few hundred years, you'd see a major decline in knowledge and basically what we all think will happen after PO: decline of civilization. Baghdad for the next 700 years was pretty much destroyed and barely struggled to get by. By 1900, only less than 200,000 people lived in the city while in the 12th and 13th centuries, it's estimated there were half a million up to a million inhabitants. So for a very very long time, one of the most, maybe the most, important cities was practically gone from the Arab Islamic world.
Without this base of intelligence and scholarship for 700 years, the Arab could never really recover and instead returned to a much more primitive time.
Quote:
But wait, those weren't styled as "Christian" wars.
When did Saddam invade Kuwait or Iran because of Islam? We all know why it did it: oil. Simple as that.
I use the term "Christian" not as an adjective ("a Christian religion") but as a noun ("a Christian"). I'm saying that the nations were made up of Christians, not that they were theocracies. Like saying a Muslim nation, not an Islamic nation. Hebrew nation, not a Judaic nation.
I'm not saying there were Christianity wars but Christian (noun) wars (Wars of Christians). If Christians are peaceful, then why all the wars?!? Etc.
Quote:
Sure. But what I'm trying to understand is why THIS PARTICULAR GENERATION OF MUSLIMS SEEMS TO HAVE A LOT OF HOMICIDAL MANIACS IN ITS RANKS.
Notice the top nations: El Salvador, Venezuela, Jamaica, Guatemala, Hondoras, South Africa, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, Russia, Mexico, etc. All nations with Christian majorities (off the top of my head) and nearly all are "Western" nations.
Notice the nations at the bottom: Oman, Yemen, Morocco, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (and Japan, and some liberal European states). Nations that are 95%+ Muslim. Seems like the highest Muslim nation is Pakistan, only a few notches above...drumroll...the US.
Seems like all of the homicidal maniacs are on your side. The people who say we're on a Crusade: your side. The people who invade other nations over false information: your side. The people rushing over weapons like cluster bombs to be dropped in urban areas: your side.
There have been 5.7 murders/100 000 people in the US. For 300 000 000, that's 17 000 a year! In 2001, when 3,000 died at the hands of Muslims, that's only 15% of all murders! Since 2001, that's 120,000 murders making the number of murders by Muslims about 3% and that number will continue to shrink.
For all of the talk about Muslims being murderers, non-Muslims seem to be holding their own. You guys did invent the World Wars and Holocaust. I don't think we'll ever catch up. Look at Iraq and Iran. 1 million died in that decade long war. Yet afterwards, the West sanctioned Iraq killing off half a million children under the age of 5 along with 1-2 million more. So in that arena (Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf), even after a very blood decade-long war and a civil war in Iraq, non-Muslims have killed as many as Muslims have.
As to the absolute values (≈ 1 million Iran-Iraq, 5-600 000 Iraqi Civil War), it's just general strife. In the first case, it was greed. Saddam wanted to make sure that the Iranian (Shi'a) Revolution didn't occur which would depose him and he also saw it as a chance to take over Iranian oil fields.
As for Iraq, when chaos happens (like after Shock and Awe) fingers start to get pointed. The fingers soon turned into bombs because of manipulation by AQI as well as, from several reports, Coalition forces who would conduct attacks on civilians. (I've read of Iraqis going through checkpoints and then finding explosives hidden in their trunks after Coalition forces "searched" it. Also, remember how a couple of British forces were caught in Arab garb with explosives, weapons and ammo in a civilian car headed to a market? - The US has a clear need to stay in Iraq so we have to explore the possibility they are/were behind some of the attacks). These attacks then triggered an avalanche of attacks resulting in hundreds of thousands dead.
This occurred because of the division that Saddam had sown in Iraq's sects. He favored one over the other and oppressed the other. This caused both sides not to want the other side and thus a battle for control of Iraq caused a civil war, which happen pretty common (US, Spanish, English Civil Wars, etc).
So Muslims can't be expected to want to gain control of nations? They can't be greedy? It must always be religion, huh? That's what you seem to be saying.
Quote:
If you are saying that Islam is not reflected in the actions of Muslims, then how did those Muslims get so far off track, because they seem very sincere in their faith?
Don't just read the newspaper. You have to look at everything historically. When you combine the forces of the fall of Baghdad contributing to the fall of the Arab Islamic empire (and rise of Turkish empire), the colonization of the Middle East and the imposition of dictators, it's a general decrease in intelligence and knowledge.
When a nation colonizing another nation and takes it over for purposes of resources, one of the first things you'd do is remove the intellectual base and scholars and leaders. This removes any ability for the people to gather themselves to resist and thus they are more easily subdued. We've seen this everywhere colonization happens. When you take away the top tier of any society, it takes a very long time for that society to recover.
So when there's a general decrease in the scholarship, there will also be a decrease in the general religious scholarship. This will leave you with clerics and scholars who are less worthy of their titles and thus their rulings will not necessarily be as correct as they should be or maybe otherwise would have been without the colonization.
Quote:
Also, can you circle back on the suicide issue for a moment and explain how a suicide bomber is not actually committing suicide? I've heard it explained before, but it's hard to follow.
I have no idea how they arrive to that conclusion. It's suicide and forbidden.
Quote:
Are these Muslims that are not actually practicing Islam (though they think they are) NOT going to Heaven?
I'm not God so I can't answer that definitively. But I'd say it's unlikely, especially for suiciders, those that encourage it, and so forth.
Quote:
I'm not singling Islam out in any way here, I'm just trying to figure out what this faith is all about.
Not at all. Thanks for your interest. I'm sorry I'm not a good writer and can't convey my ideas with more clarity though. _________________ Riches are not from abundance of worldly goods, but from a contented mind.
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 4402 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 11:26 am Post subject: Re: peak oil - Muslim Perspective
3aidlillahi wrote:
What makes you think that Muslims aren't speaking out against terrorism? Because it's not on the news? Come on. You have the internet in front of you. Do a simple search.
When they do this they take their life into their own hands because Islam does not allow for criticism.
3aidlillahi wrote:
Why is it that when a white person or a Christian or Jew does something, it's the individual's action and not seen as a collective action? That is most certainly true, but why don't we see it in other cases?
We would if it represented a clear pattern of behavior. The IRA bombings for instance.
3aidlillahi wrote:
The reasons for these inequalities is lack of economic fortune.
How does that explain Saudi Arabia, then? Also, why is it that during the great depression that the poor didn't just suddenly decide to start driving car bombs into banks? Let's not use poverty as an excuse for murder.
3aidlillahi wrote:
Or should we try to learn from these mistakes and notice that every time period has witnessed great crimes committed by individuals within various groups?
That's the problem. Islam does not allow for criticism. It resists evolution.
Joined: Aug 03, 2007 Posts: 4402 Location: Boston Suburbs
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 12:09 pm Post subject: Re: peak oil - Muslim Perspective
3aidlillahi wrote:
Look at Bill O'Reilly getting into fights over illegals killing people accidentally and how it shouldn't occur because illegals should all be deported.
Please don't hijack the thread. Immigration is a whole other topic and not nearly as black and white as you think it is.
3aidlillahi wrote:
You'd have to look at it from a historical standpoint. Following the sacking of Baghdad in 1258, which I discussed earlier, the Islamic empire(s) weakened further. Baghdad had been a major city of culture, scholarship and intellectual thought. The burning of the Library and the killing off of the people decimated the knowledge base of the surrounding region and had a very sharp decrease on the whole of the Arab and Islamic world.
By all means then let's restore the Caliphate as Al Qaeda wants. We'd all be better with the Dhimmis living under benevolent control.
3aidlillahi wrote:
Imagine having every single university in your state being destroyed along with all of the professors.
This is kind of like "black slave reparation" talk. It's just scapegoating to avoid personal responsibility. It's worse, though, because you're reaching back 1000 years.
3aidlillahi wrote:
Without this base of intelligence and scholarship for 700 years, the Arab could never really recover and instead returned to a much more primitive time.
Like this?
3aidlillahi wrote:
There have been 5.7 murders/100 000 people in the US. For 300 000 000, that's 17 000 a year! In 2001, when 3,000 died at the hands of Muslims, that's only 15% of all murders! Since 2001, that's 120,000 murders making the number of murders by Muslims about 3% and that number will continue to shrink.
There is more to quality of life than murder statistics. How many muslims are allowed to leave the church without being killed? How many can speek freely about Islam without a fatwa issued against them?
3aidlillahi wrote:
You guys did invent the World Wars and Holocaust. I don't think we'll ever catch up.
Iran is working on it.
3aidlillahi wrote:
This occurred because of the division that Saddam had sown in Iraq's sects. He favored one over the other and oppressed the other. This caused both sides not to want the other side and thus a battle for control of Iraq caused a civil war, which happen pretty common
Heh, boys will be boys, right?
3aidlillahi wrote:
So when there's a general decrease in the scholarship, there will also be a decrease in the general religious scholarship. This will leave you with clerics and scholars who are less worthy of their titles and thus their rulings will not necessarily be as correct as they should be or maybe otherwise would have been without the colonization.
Scapegoating again. On the one hand you look back on the glorious past of an Islamic empire and on the other you blame western colonialism for modern Islam. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Joined: Mar 25, 2008 Posts: 812 Location: Alif Lam Mim
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject: Re: peak oil - Muslim Perspective
Quote:
When they do this they take their life into their own hands because Islam does not allow for criticism.
Quote:
That's the problem. Islam does not allow for criticism. It resists evolution.
So you're saying they'd be killed if they criticize, huh? Well, where are the murders of these men? You can search and find hundreds of articles against terrorism by Muslims, mostly clerics and scholars, yet how many have been killed? Why are CLERICS and SCHOLARS speaking out if "Islam doesn't allow criticism"?
Oh, yeah. Remember this woman?
She's Wafaa' Sultan and has fiercely advocated destroying Islam. She says that Islam is horrible and must be crushed (she actually does advocate the "convert or die" policy). She's seen hear in her most famous appearance on Al-Jazeera (maybe you've heard of them).
I remember her horrible death that was broadcast all over the news and was covered for weeks.
Oh wait, that never happened. She's still alive and criticizing Islam in America and the Arab World to an extreme degree. No death yet.
Quote:
How does that explain Saudi Arabia, then? Also, why is it that during the great depression that the poor didn't just suddenly decide to start driving car bombs into banks? Let's not use poverty as an excuse for murder.
I'm sorry, but you need to go back and read what I wrote. I didn't say that poverty causes terrorism. This quote that you used was talking about the inequalities of women in the Muslim world.
But if you want me to answer the two: Saudi Arabia is only 50 years removed from being a desert nation full of bedouins and only a few legitimate cities. It's hard to assume that a nation that for the longest time was extremely poor and thus would have a very primitive view towards society and women can immediately rise up and adopt a new societal view of women. How long did it take the US to give women equal rights or even any rights?
As for the GD: Poverty alone does not provide a reason for suicide bombings. First off, you need the fact of a gain on the "investment". If you have absolutely nothing to live for, then suicide is usually the way to go. If you have nothing to live for and you're being oppressed, then you may decide to commit suicide and kill others (and thus combine the two).
That leads, secondly, to needing a reason to kill others which are likely being oppressed or invaded or other reasons. There was not even the slightest degree of oppression or invasion, etc in the US at the time. So there was simply no one TO attack. Certainly, if those that were jumping out of buildings were able to blame someone, why wouldn't they go ahead and kill them? But they simply had no one.
Thirdly, you'd need to have violence engrained in your system to combine suicide and murder together. Most of the US hadn't seen a real war or trauma similar to a war in more than 60 years. US casualties in WWI were "minimal". So it's highly unlikely that they'd see murder a real option. It's completely unlike now where we have graphic images refreshed in our minds on the television or in real life of gruesome violence.
You'd need all three, at least since I'm definitely not an expert on suicide or suicide bombings, in order for one to be willing to commit a suicide-murder.
Quote:
How many muslims are allowed to leave the church without being killed? How many can speek freely about Islam without a fatwa issued against them?
Wafaa' Sultan, Nonie Darwish, Hirsi Ali, Rushdie, etc. They're all still kicking. Murders do happen on the lower levels but, AFAIK, they aren't that frequent. Often when you do read about one, leaving Islam would be one of the reasons for the murder. Hardly ever is it the sole reason.
Quote:
Iran is working on it.
Good one.
Quote:
Heh, boys will be boys, right?
Unfortunately yes. Wars happen, it's a fact of human history. Unless you think all wars are created by Islam. Or maybe just Muslims are exceptions and everything we do is because of Islam, right?
Quote:
Scapegoating again. On the one hand you look back on the glorious past of an Islamic empire and on the other you blame western colonialism for modern Islam. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I was talking about the general decline of the Arab Islamic empire from the 12/13th century to the 20th when colonialism occurred. The main reason for the decline of "Iraq" was the Mongol invasion of it and the destruction of Baghdad. I went into that at great length.
But you just shortened it to "blaming western colonialism" which isn't what I was doing. I was talking about the general reasons for the decline: the impetus which was the fall of Baghdad which, as the intellectual hub, had a centuries-long effect, the inability of Arabs and Muslims to rebuild Baghdad or create new centers in Cairo, Damascus, or other cities, the splintering of the Islamic World into multiple caliphates and finally most recently the western colonialism. Notice how I also talked about the role dictators play. Guess who those dictators are? Muslims. But you'd rather just trash me than have an actual conversation or debate.
Quote:
Like this?
Seriously learn to read. I wasn't talking about building tall buildings but about women's and minorities' rights. That new oil wealth has not gone towards progressive scholarship and education but fancy buildings like that, which is why the Gulf states will rise and quickly fall back into oblivion in a few decades.
Quote:
Please don't hijack the thread. Immigration is a whole other topic and not nearly as black and white as you think it is.
I write a couple thousand words and a few of them are about immigration and that's hijacking? Wow. Not even close but it's a good way for you to change the debate.
Quote:
By all means then let's restore the Caliphate as Al Qaeda wants. We'd all be better with the Dhimmis living under benevolent control.
Why would we want to live under a regime created, financed, and likely controlled (at least at some point) by the CIA?
Please tell me that you're joking with me on these last few ones and just acting like PA for fun. I've seen your posts and you have much higher intelligence than displayed here. _________________ Riches are not from abundance of worldly goods, but from a contented mind.
Joined: Nov 08, 2005 Posts: 264 Location: The Maple State
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: Re: peak oil - Muslim Perspective
Another thread on supporters of two of the three blind mice insisting it is only the third (the other) that is blind.
Suprised to see a mod lead it though.
Quote:
I grew up in a Christian tradition and I'm still trying to work all of that out, but any time I hear of someone doing something crazy in the name of Christianity I think to myself "that person is crazy or an idiot, or both." I don't hear that same condemnation from Muslim leaders when Muslims commit acts of violence in the name of Islam.
I don't hear it from Jewish or Christian leaders either. And we are right in the middle of a Jewish and Christian Crusade.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4331 Location: Graceland
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: Re: peak oil - Muslim Perspective
keehah wrote:
Another thread on supporters of two of the three blind mice insisting it is only the third (the other) that is blind.
Suprised to see a mod lead it though.
Quote:
I grew up in a Christian tradition and I'm still trying to work all of that out, but any time I hear of someone doing something crazy in the name of Christianity I think to myself "that person is crazy or an idiot, or both." I don't hear that same condemnation from Muslim leaders when Muslims commit acts of violence in the name of Islam.
I don't hear it from Jewish or Christian leaders either. And we are right in the middle of a Jewish and Christian Crusade.
What?
What am I leading?
I was every bit as critical of Christianity (and fair) in the Christianity thread as I have been in this thread.
I am not leading anything except my own curiosity.
I can't speak for the Jewish people. It's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys when both sides are shooting. (That's part of the problem with meeting violence against civilians with violence against civilians on the other side--it makes both sides look pretty bad.)
As for Christianity, I think that any attempt to clothe American foreign policy in Christianity is stupid and incredibly cynical. Please don't think I am defending any of that.
Ultimately, you may be right, everyone is a terrorist and leaders of all faiths should speak out against violence committed in the name of the faith by their members.
But there has to be some kind of line drawn somewhere. Not every military conflict is a holy war. My observation, though, is that Muslims have a way of legitimizing their political position by styling it as a holy war against an infidel opponent. That, to me, cheapens the religion.
When I hear Bush talk about how his faith guides his actions, I scoff (as do many others). I feel in other parts of the world, however, when a Muslim leader talks about a military campaign being a holy war, his followers feel it is their duty as a Muslim to assist in the effort. How else could Iran have recruited all of that cannon fodder in the war with Iraq?
One recurring theme I am seeing in this thread goes something like this "Muslims wouldn't have done anything bad if someone else hadn't done something bad to us first." My response to that is to ask why every political matter must become a religious matter? The relevance of this question is that once a matter is cast as a religious fight, there suddenly becomes much less room to negotiate--after all, if God is on your side, what would there ever be to negotiate about?
This business of "we're the way we are because of you" is tiring. I will tell you and anyone else who is interested that you simply are the way you are, and YOU are responsible for it. The idea that you might be something different if someone else had acted differently is silly.
This bitterness at a world that has left Islam behind economically needs to be taken to the proper party for discussion, and that is the corrupt governments of Muslim countries. Those are the people who have screwed you the hardest.
Where are the rest of the Middle Eastern governments when it comes time to offer a place for Palestinian refugees to go? We both know how the rest of that neighborhood looks down on the Palestinians and wouldn't want them in their backyard any more than Israel does.
Where has all the oil wealth gone?
Many of these issues are just plain old ugly politics, and you can't just put a robe on it and call it a Muslim and not expect anyone to notice. _________________
Joined: Mar 25, 2008 Posts: 812 Location: Alif Lam Mim
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: Re: peak oil - Muslim Perspective
Quote:
How else could Iran have recruited all of that cannon fodder in the war with Iraq?
Or perhaps by pointing to the brutal tactics used by Saddam on the battlefield (extensive use of chemical weapons) and on his own people (torture, murder, oppression, etc.).
Quote:
"Muslims wouldn't have done anything bad if someone else hadn't done something bad to us first." My response to that is to ask why every political matter must become a religious matter?
I don't think anybody's said Muslims are only doing bad things because of what others did. I've tried to beat this into your brains: WE'RE HUMANS. Ok. Let's imagine the world in 1000 years when the world is back looking like 1000 years ago due to fuel consumption decreases and very little globalization. Even then with no involvement from the West, there will still be wars in the Middle East as there will be in Europe, South America, East Asia and so forth. There will be murders and rapes in Baghdad, just like in Baltimore. Oppression in Cairo as in Chicago. (Not at any given time will they be the same, but over time, you get the drift).
And I definitely think that you're exaggerating when you say every political matter is turned into a religious matter.
Quote:
after all, if God is on your side, what would there ever be to negotiate about?
After fleeing Mecca, Muhammad (SAWS) went to Medina where there had been a group of clans that had been warring with each other. Muhammad and the Muslims were allowed to live in Medina on the condition that Muhammad be the negotiator between the parties to keep the peace.
During the wars between Meccans and Muslims, a large group of Muslims (≈1000) left Medina for Mecca for Umra (pilgrimage). Outside the city, the Meccans met Muhammad and then he offered them a truce:
Quote:
We have not come to fight anyone, but to perform the 'Umra. No doubt, the war has weakened Quraish and they have suffered great losses, so if they wish, I will conclude a truce with them, during which they should refrain from interfering between me and the people, and if I have victory over those infidels, Quraish will have the option to embrace Islam as the other people do, if they wish; they will at least get strong enough to fight. But if they do not accept the truce, by Allah in Whose Hands my life is, I will fight with them defending my Cause till I get killed, but (I am sure) Allah will definitely make His Cause victorious.
Two years later when the Quraysh had broken the truce, Muhammad offered them more terms in which they could avoid war.
Now, if everything turns into a religious argument and there's the belief that "God is on my side so why negotiate?", then why would Muhammad be a negotiator when he could've demanded they become Muslims in Medina, or simply continued the war and not offer them peace terms a second time? According to you, he should've just said that God was on his side so they were going to have war. But he chose to be a negotiator and to later negotiate for peace with non-Muslims.
I don't know why you are thinking that every political matter is turning into a religious fight. And the notion that a religious matter would turn to simple black and white with no negotiation isn't only incorrect but proven wrong within our religion and its history.
Quote:
The idea that you might be something different if someone else had acted differently is silly.
What?! That's so ridiculous. So you say that there is absolutely no connection between the past and the present? Not a single bit? I mean, that's out there. That's something I expect from Falwell and Hagee, definitely not from someone on this board.
That must be a misstatement, so feel free to correct.
Quote:
and that is the corrupt governments of Muslim countries.
Already discussed it.
me wrote:
Notice how I also talked about the role dictators play. Guess who those dictators are? Muslims.
Quote:
Where are the rest of the Middle Eastern governments when it comes time to offer a place for Palestinian refugees to go?
I've talked in other threads about the plight of the Palestinians doesn't end at Rafah (Egyptian border crossing).
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Good one.
