LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksIslamic world? There's only one world.
Islamic world? There's only one world.
You're invited to follow me on Twitter
First, welcome back Saracen!
And second, I'm going to agree with....
/X-factor style fake pause for dramatic effect to increase drama in a wholly artificial way...
Originally Posted by Dareos
Have to agree there, can't really bring the crusades into this, was too long ago to be relevant to todays situations.
I didn't say you did say that. But no Muslim organisation is to the Muslim world what the Catholic Church is to the catholics of this world. The Muslim world does not have a a hierarchy in the way catholicism does, and there is no person or organisation that purports to head Islam the way the Pope does catholics..
And I didn't so much criticise your post as point out that "the Muslim world" is an incredibly vague term. If you use a term like that, the inference is that you are referring to the substantive bulk of Muslims in the world. If you mean specific organisations, why not say that?
All my post was trying to point out is that because you see a few fanatics, or even a few thousand fanatics, jumping up and down on TV burning effigies, you can't extrapolate that to assume that several billion more Muslims are doing the same. Most, I suspect, are too busy living their day to day lives to worry much about an obscure speech of a foreign religious leader. Sure, a misleading media blitz can cause a street furore, but that doesn't amount to a worldwide Muslim conspiracy.
Other than those we see on TV burning effigies, how do we even know what those billions of Muslims in diverse countries are thinking? My guess would be that they're miffed at a perceived insult .... then they go back to the daily grind. That's precisely why I said extremism in any form is dangerous, and that's the point I was making.
Ignorant? Illiterate? Unschooled? Sheep?
Don't have a high opinion of them, do you?
I could say much the same of a large part of the population of Western countries, where the population get the majority of their "information" from newspapers and TV reports. Or are you suggesting that our papers and TV give us the literal, unvarnished Truth, while TV and papers in Muslim countries are mere propaganda? And how many Brit's apply great analytical skills to the "information" they get from the Mirror or the Sun?
It's dissemination of newspaper and TV reports in these "uneducated" countries that causes the protests in the streets. Otherwise, these people would lack the information to know the Pope had made an obscure speech, let alone what was in it.
My thinking isn't woolly at all. But I do wish people wouldn't put words in my mouth, and then argue against it as if it was what I said, when it wasn't.
My point was simple. Violent extremism is bad ..... and the Catholic church has plenty of it in it's history.
And where did I refer to the USA at all, let alone suggest they were involved in the Crusades?
Last edited by Saracen; 17-09-2006 at 05:59 PM.
A quality quote from an ignoramous who can only just about construct a simple sentence.
I see the chad peeping over the wall with the immortal lines: ibm, wot no argument! stenciled below. Get your colouring crayons out and try again. Perhaps your mummy may help you with your school project, "A witty measured response to a Hexus debate", whilst the bigger fish continue the debate.
I am yet to see the miriad of statements from those that have criticised the Pope also criticising the violence towards Christians and their churches in recent days. Are these the same people that propose that Islam is a peaceful religion and should be treated so? Do they understand the differences between Catholics and Protestants and realise that the Pope does not speak for the majority of Western society?
When I say "the Muslim world" I mean those people that have direct influence - I would have thought that that was obvious or are you going to say that the bloke who runs the business down the road is to be included in the "Muslim world". If so then you might as well equate all people who are football fans as Arsenal supporters.
I am well aware of the so called "media blitz" but we are talking here of a very dull lecture given by a Pope, on matters that would bore most to death, who does not represent the West being quoted well out of context in order to create political capital and religious hatred.
Would there have been a "media blitz" if no-one had bothered to listen or those that did listen actually interpreted "that quote" within the context of the speech? It was not done so because certain people wanted this to become an international incident. The media is only reporting the aftermath.
Now let's look at the "meedja". Ver meedja is lik controws evryfink innit. dey says fings dat aint tru cos dem politiks lik to mayk us do fings.
We do not live in a media controlled country. Those that can use multiple sources to get a more balanced picture do. I do agree that other Britons do not have this capability and that is sad but they are not restrained from seeking other sources and do indeed have the choice of sources.
Those that live in the majority of Muslim countries are fed a diet and restricted from individual thought. We atleast have a choice, other sources! - I cannot make that more clear. We have a free press, we have the freedom to seek hundreds if not thousands of sources and accounts. The average tribesman in the northern cities of Pakistan doesn't.
My challenge (as per my 1st post) still lays open; Find me 10 sources that say "so what" or "this is unimportant" or "nothing to get upset about" - You are free to do so, no restrictions here!
Now I do agree that violent extremism is bad. However, you can only ever do something about the violent extremism that is taking place in your own time.
There is very little point in me spouting off about how little you,"inset whomever", did about the rise of Hitler in the 30's or the fact that you didn't volunteer your services and join the RAF to fly spitfires against the Lufftewaffe, because I didn't do my bit either, so any notion of past wrongs or rights is irrelevant.
The majority of extremism is eminating from the so called peaceful Muslim world. These are people like the Iranian president who seem hellbent on some sordid endworld destruction.
People do not seem to be able to equate the extremism of (fasionably hated) German fascism (in the 30's/40's) and Muslim fascism (in the 90's/00's). Not all Germans were fascists in the same way that not all Muslims are Muslim fundamentalists hell bent on death and destruction of "the infidel", yet we find alot of help or simpathy.
The only way to ensure that the world's previous bloodbaths do not happen is to learn from history. At this moment in time it is imperative to ensure that the majority of Muslims have a voice, a voice with which they can express themselves and ensure that their majority view is the mainstream and one that cannot be hijacked by the fundamentalists for other purposes.
Until this is done then there will be no hope. War will follow. Man's (in)humanity to man has always had ever increasing potential. If so called Muslim leaders continue in this direction, as they have with regards to the over-reaction to the Pope's speech, if slight upon slight is mounted, if attack upon attack is perpetrated then there will be no other recourse than that of all out war. In this nuclear age is that one that you want to risk?
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Resorting to personal insults because I refuse to engage in pointless ranting? From Iranu? No, it can't be! Whatever next?
P.S. Oh, so bored.
sig removed by Zak33
5 one line posts that say nothing at all and don't add anything to the thread. ibm the great debater. I think not. Now go be bored somewhere else my drowning friend for you are certainly out of your depth.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Last edited by Tom Scott; 20-09-2006 at 09:17 AM.
Tom Scott,
Scancom.co.uk/HEXUS Liason
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Saracen makes a key point here. There is no 'Muslim leader' as far as I am concerned. My faith is private to me and to the majority to the Muslims that I know. Knowledge about the trachings of Islam itself was provided to me by an Imam when I was a kid and it was entirely based around common sense: respect for family, respect for elders and a push to live a decent, honourable life whilst doing my utmost for the society that I live in and those less-privileged around me. Yes, it's common sense but I see it as part of my faith as well.
Anyway, back to the main point: there is no Muslim leader as far as Muslims are concerned. The whole concept of a Muslim leader is contrary to the teachings of Islam itself!
A few of these self-appointed Muslim leaders have an agenda and, I have to admit, brainwash and exploit vulnerable and uneducated individuals to further that agenda. That in itself contravenes the basic teachings of Islam as far as I understand it and I would be first to condemn that behaviour.
The Western media keeps mentioning self-appointed Muslim leaders and it really p*sses me off! They do not speak for the vast majority of the 1.3 billion Muslims on this planet. They do not speak for me. They do not speak for any of the hundreds of Muslims that I know! Rant over!
It's important to distinguish between what Islam teaches and what the few self-appointed, so-called Muslim leaders bang on about. Quite often, those things are a world apart!
I'd like to congratulate Knox on the finest argument/debate closer of all time
And to Blue73 for taking it 100% on the chin
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
