1prophet
Diamond Member
- Aug 17, 2005
- 5,313
- 534
- 126
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Originally posted by: 1prophet
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
Originally posted by: forfor
Do you think there's any hope for the Muslim world? There are some fairly stabilized Muslim nations, and some that are progressing quite quickly towards the likes of Europe. Which country do you think is the best role model for Muslims? Do you believe there will ever be a Muslim country that western populations will look at and admire?
I think the Muslim "world" is just fine. It's the constant attacks and encroachment by the White Christians and their ally's that has inflamed the passions of radicals. Anyway I think its pretty obvious there is an inevitable clash of civilizations that's going to happen on a much wider scale because the White Western racists simply can't deal with people that won't bow down to them and embrace their way of life; that's what it really comes down to doesn't it? Western Whites want the Muslim world to emulate them and its the Muslims refusal to do so that has Whites so pissed off and eager for war. Democracy doesn't yield a stable or civilized nation, just look at the faliure of democracy in Russia as an example of this. The same holds true for a string of South American countries and besides, the USA isn't really interested in spreading democracy because it was responsible for engineering the downfall of democracy in Iran. Furthermore, the West talks about how Islam spreads their faith by the sword yet it's the US and it's allies like UK that bombed and occupied Iraq all with the blessings of evangelical Christians.
I'm listening to a radio stream on a conservative radio talk show here (http://www.kfbk.com) and the host (Tom Sullivan) basically twisted the reaction the illiterate 3rd world Muslims had to the popes speech and declared a war between Muslims and the "world" (e.g. Christians/Jews) was inevitable--I guess the dumb ass must have had his eyes closed this summer with Israel bombing the living crap out of Lebanon or the last 3+ yrs of the Iraq occupation.
- Separation of church and state
Equality for women to be able to vote, choose their occupation, and choose whom they can marry or divorce without fear
Freedom to choose your religion or be an atheist or agnostic
Freedom of speech including criticizing religion like you are doing right now
Freedom of the press and the ability to draw cartoons in a newspaper without hiding in the shadows afterwards
Freedom to make a film about religion and not end up like Theo van Gogh
Freedom to write a book about one's own religion and not go into hiding like Salman Rushdie
Freedom to question things and people in religious authority without fear of retribution
Are all those things only for Western whites and should they be denied to others because their world is just fine because their religious leaders tell them so?
So how does a religion dictate that any of those rights shouldn't be given to people? Every single nation has different laws and interpretations of how they choose to follow Islam. In Pakistan women are not only allowed to vote but they've had a PM that was a woman (who by the way was a crook). You can choose to follow any religion you wish in Pakistan and you are free to practice it--of course there's going to be the occassional idiots that attack the religious minority but that happens in a lot of secular nations as well (especially Russia these days).
The biggest stumbling block to the Muslim world right now isn't religion, it's the lack of education and the pervasiveness of Wahhabism (a cultural phenomenon exported by Saudi Arabia) that has intertwined itself into Islamic culture thanks to the Mullahs that are funded by the Saudis and supported by some governments (e.g. Pakistan's ISI used Wahhabi brainwashed students to form the Taliban and contain Afghanistan pre-9/11). If there is change to be brought to the Muslim world, it has to be done internally via Islamic education that isn't perverted by Saudi Wahhabi culture. If Islams prophet married for love and advocated women's rights during a time where Christianity was far more extreme and reticent to give women freedom, then its logical to assume that modern Islam should and could be the most liberal of all religions once Wahhabism is weeded out.
If you study christianity during the middle ages the pope had the power to declare one a heretic like Theo van Gogh or Salman Rushdie and they ended up in hiding or dead, those days are gone and people can do as they please and call themselves christian or convert to any religion they want, case and point Madonna, yet no one here would say she represents Christianity.
Indonesia the largest Muslim country in the world has a very powerful and influential cleric who was released from prison quite early, and this is what he had to say about the greatest threat to Islam
"There is No Democracy in Islam"
"There is no democracy in Islam, so do not try to interpret the Quran and
turn Islam into a democracy to suit your needs. God's law comes first. It is
not up to the will of the people to decide what is right and how to live.
Rather the will of the people have to be bent to suit the will of God. It is
not democracy that we want, but Allah-cracy!
"The principles of Islam cannot be altered and and there is no democracy in
Islam or nonsense like 'democratic Islam'.
"Democracy is shirk [polytheism] and haram [forbidden]. Here we do not
compromise. Those who claim to be Muslims and do not support Shariah one
hundred percent are all munafik [hypocrites] and kafirs, they are out of
Islam. No need to discuss with these people, they are not part of the ummat
anymore. There is no need to listen to public opinion: kafirs, apostates,
liberals, atheists - they are all non-believers...
And before you say he is just one fanatic, all it takes is the actions of the few to silence the many like in this case even if they do not belong to the said religion:
Debate about self-censorship
On September 17, 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline "Dyb angst for kritik af islam" [4] ("Profound fear of criticism of Islam"). The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv (English: The Qur'an and the life of the Prophet Muhammad ISBN 87-638-0049-7). Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before an artist agreed to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen:
One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen.[4]
In October 2004, a lecturer at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen was assaulted by five assailants who opposed his reading the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture.[5]
The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. Comedian Frank Hvam declared that he would (hypothetically) dare urinating on the Bible on television, but not on the Qur'an[6][7] while the translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished to remain anonymous due to concerns about violent reprisals.
When people are able to criticize radical Islam in the same manner as christianity without fear of reprisal then one can move forward and confront the issues openly without the threat of violence looming over their heads, since the greatest fear of a radical is not the bomb or the bullet but the very idea they could be wrong and they must kill to halt that idea since they fear openly debating it.
