Muslims Who Stand Up To Islamists -- Karima Bennoune

[Selene]

Islam is the only (or most powerful) thing that gives identity to many African and South Asian societies, from Dakar to Jakarta, and from Almaty to Zanzibar.

Sounds quite speculative.

How do you know that?

Define powerful?

Funny how in the midst of all this Islamic conversion by the sword explosion that Christianity is the largest growing religion in the world.

A...

[Extropy]

How my previous post relates to the topic:

It is my opinion that being a unifying factor in giving the most fragmented group of people some sort of common identity (Organization Islamic Conference, biggest voting block UN) Islam is being used a vehicle for the Afro-Asian peoples to The Jihadists or Fundamentalists are the spearhead. The Arab Nationalists in combination with Islam (which proclaims the race of the prophet as highest in hierarchy) the biggest problem. But I don't believe that the majority of the muslim population in Subsaharian Africa or Indonesia are very motivated or very religious.

It is being used as a vehicle against modernity (too rapid change, when they are still adjusting to earlier changes), and in favor traditional values.

Christianity is the biggest religion Worldwide because of the Americas, parts of Southern Subsaharian Africa, parts of India and perhaps even Korea and China (in addition to the nominally Christians agnostics in Europe). But alas, if you see a world political map, you'll find that there are little things in common for the countries that obtained their independence after WWII.

I simply say that Islam is one thing in common for most, not all, the small/medium sized balkanised countries in Asia and Africa that used to belong to the British, French or Ottomans (or Dutch!)

[Richard Wiig]

As you say, though, it is the motivated ones who drive the agenda. That the drivers are backed by Muhammad's teachings is a great help to them.

Here's a book that documents the encroachment of Islam into Europe.

http://www.amazon.com/Eurabia-Euro-Arab-Axis-Bat-Yeor/dp/1611473144

But I don't believe that the majority of the muslim population in Subsaharian Africa or Indonesia are very motivated or very religious.

[Extropy]

I truly don't believe the majority of muslims are religious fundamentalists, but I am even more certain that it is minorities not majorities who act as agents of change!

The minority that is composed of ex-muslims or moderate muslims from Africa or Asia that align with the benefits of Western Civilization simply merge into the USA, in some cases Europe, and in many cases the urban elites of some African and Asian capital cities. They don't (and don't have to) conform a united front of Ex or Moderate Muslims, they simply live their lives individually either in the West or bringing Western standards and maybe values to their homelands.

The minority that is more worried about identity and power than individual well being is composed by fundamentalists that can join most of the peoples of the third world in a revenge crusade against the West under the temporary guise of Islam.

[Richard Wiig]

I truly don't believe the majority of muslims are religious fundamentalists,

That was clear from your posts, and I agree with you. My point was simply that the majority are not in the drivers seat. The majority are simply taken along for the ride. Unless they actively work against the authority of Muhammad then they are next to useless in terms of acting as a bulwark against those who take the teachings of their prophet seriously. The tragedy is that those Muslims who actually do work against the authority of their prophet often end up dead. What is needed is a reformed Islam, but that will never be possible until critics of Islam have sanctuary. The West perhaps used to be a sanctuary, but no longer.

[Extropy]

You have a very valid point about the need for a sanctuary for free speech. Stil islam is not the only force (despite of what I said) that can persuade the masses. Capitalism is another and people and women particularly in the case of islam, are tempted to enjoy the benefits of a free urban society when and if they can make it in the cities.

Even in the (urban) slums of Africa Capitalist forces are more present than Islam. I'm thinking of Kenya. Rural Nigeria or the Sudanese jihad are the opposite examples.

We agree that minorities sway the masses.

[moralist]

It stacks up with setting free some of the most dangerous Islamic fascists in exchange for a rotten deserter.

Greg:

I am holding back on the "deserter" label, however, there is definitely at least a preponderance of evidence that he did desert.

They don't need too much more.

However, I thought I read that he was back in uniform and being rehabbed?

Can't remember where though.

A...

Man, don't get me started.

Obama's sympathies lie with the Muslims.

Greg

[Richard Wiig]

You have a very valid point about the need for a sanctuary for free speech. Stil islam is not the only force (despite of what I said) that can persuade the masses. Capitalism is another and people and women particularly in the case of islam, are tempted to enjoy the benefits of a free urban society when and if they can make it in the cities.

Even in the (urban) slums of Africa Capitalist forces are more present than Islam. I'm thinking of Kenya. Rural Nigeria or the Sudanese jihad are the opposite examples.

We agree that minorities sway the masses.

Sure, it isn't the only force. It is the force that seems to be making most headway in Islamic populations though. The Islamic countries (the non-Islamic countries too. Just look at France) are heading down a path of more Islamisation, not less. I have a question for you, Extropy. What do you mean when you say that most muslims are not fundamentalists? What are the fundamentals of Islam, and how many fundamentals, and which in particular, does a muslim have to adopt before he has gone from being just a muslim, perhaps in name only, to a fundamentalist muslim? What is really mean't when that assertion is invoked?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have a question for you, Extropy. What do you mean when you say that most muslims are not fundamentalists? What are the fundamentals of Islam, and how many fundamentals, and which in particular, does a muslim have to adopt before he has gone from being just a muslim, perhaps in name only, to a fundamentalist muslim? What is really mean't when that assertion is invoked?

It means he's not a bigot.

Michael

[Extropy]

Sure, it isn't the only force. It is the force that seems to be making most headway in Islamic populations though. The Islamic countries (the non-Islamic countries too. Just look at France) are heading down a path of more Islamisation, not less. I have a question for you, Extropy. What do you mean when you say that most muslims are not fundamentalists? What are the fundamentals of Islam, and how many fundamentals, and which in particular, does a muslim have to adopt before he has gone from being just a muslim, perhaps in name only, to a fundamentalist muslim? What is really mean't when that assertion is invoked?

A person of any religion or even philosophy can be either a scholar or a zealot (or many things in between and even outside of the range: including a pretender).

I think that religion (and for those liberated enough, philosophy) serves a pragmatic need for humans. Along with free will and volition, it replaces, or rather occupies the area that instinct used to occupy in animals. And, yes, I do believe that while we are volitional humans, there is a continuum towards our animal past. Even the distinction between human and animal is just a figure of speech: biologically we are animals, and to an observant eye, religion (and war) proves it. I believe most Muslims consider Islam just their "spiritual part" in heavy competition with leading a modern life. Much like most Communist Chinese are Communist in name, and pay taxes, but otherwise lead a relatively free un-communistic lifestyle (those lucky enough to have internal or urban passports of course).

A Muslim person is a Muslim first by accident of birth.

A Pious Muslim is a Muslim who has consciously adopted Islam either as a convert or more likely as a rediscovery of his or her own faith and identity. A pious Muslim can adopt all Usool ad deen and Furoo ad deen and live successfully in a Free Society without becoming a:

Radicalised or Fundamentalist Muslim who has made one particular interpretation of only one pillar of the religion (Striving, or Jihad).

The same happens in every other value system. See how the Catholics in Spain at some point applied the inquisition and at another point in history they became atheist hedonists? the only constant is that they keep embarrassing themselves.

I've seen muslims in America whose ideas and lifestyle are not more dangerous than a Southern Baptist. I do know the exceptions of father-daughter or father-wife cruelty in Canada and even the US too. I don't imagine this is the norm.

I have family in France and I see muslims in France in a different way: when they have a chance they strive to become French. When they are at a loss, since France is not as open and egalitarian as America, they turn to Islam as a common identity, as a source of righteousness in face of what they see as moral bankruptcy. I have talked about this in earlier posts.

But most importantly I see that Muslim countries in Africa and Asia are becoming more modern and westernised cosmopolitan by the minute (Bangladesh, Malaysia, the Pakistani urban centres). I see those people as individuals first, Indians and Malays second, and only then as technically Muslims. Islam might be the most universally applicable religion ever conceived but it has an Arab Racist/Nationalist/Tribalist component that should not be overlooked. (And a persian counter effect that intrigues me).

As I said, Islam is a force that can unite many recently decolonized countries and give them a common voice (like the OIC) during this challenging time when those precise territories are about to experience the most growth but have no political union unlike the famous BRICs. These human groups might use Islamic Jihad as a tactic for a while to achieve some goals, but that doesn't mean most of the population will become fanatics or that the ultimate goal of these people (not of the current spearhead) is to create a Caliphate and implement Shari'a Worldwide.

There is one interesting, troublesome point however: In a time of such rapid technological (and social) change, traditional Islam offers a Conservative alternative. As anxiety worldwide grows because of this perhaps exponential acceleration of technological innovation, more people might seek refuge in a belief system that is incredibly universal, simple and for many reasons, in this time of history, the only surviving old school religion available to all. My hope is that the benefits of more advanced technology will outweigh and eventually eliminate the supposed benefits (the 'comfort') of traditional religions. I still think that something else will replace traditional religions and I'm not sure it's going to be better, just inevitable. Simply see how social media has won the battle for real mind to mind collectivism ("openness") from the bulwark of Capitalism and the American dream. Or if that analogy is too daring, then just see how Marxism has taken ground in Western culture and academia after losing politically and militarily.

Infidel: you're defining yourself by your enemies. Everybody's identity is I, in contrast to that. Every nation's original name, most if not all tribal names means "Us" or "the people, in contrast to our savage neighbours" in their original language. While it is necessary for identity it is not ideal to define one self in relation to our worst enemies. And if I were to take your name literally or etymologically, I would read: he who can not be trusted (who is not faithful)

Michael: Thank you for the concise and timely answer, in fact I am an incurable xenophile.

[Extropy]

Sure, it isn't the only force. It is the force that seems to be making most headway in Islamic populations though. The Islamic countries (the non-Islamic countries too. Just look at France) are heading down a path of more Islamisation, not less. I have a question for you, Extropy. What do you mean when you say that most muslims are not fundamentalists? What are the fundamentals of Islam, and how many fundamentals, and which in particular, does a muslim have to adopt before he has gone from being just a muslim, perhaps in name only, to a fundamentalist muslim? What is really mean't when that assertion is invoked?

A person of any religion or even philosophy can be either a scholar or a zealot (or many things in between and even outside of the range: including a pretender).

I think that religion (and for those liberated enough, philosophy) serves a pragmatic need for humans. Along with free will and volition, it replaces, or rather occupies the area that instinct used to occupy in animals. And, yes, I do believe that while we are volitional humans, there is a continuum towards our animal past. Even the distinction between human and animal is just a figure of speech: biologically we are animals, and to an observant eye, religion (and war) proves it. I believe most Muslims consider Islam just their "spiritual part" in heavy competition with leading a modern life. Much like most Communist Chinese are Communist in name, and pay taxes, but otherwise lead a relatively free un-communistic lifestyle (those lucky enough to have internal or urban passports of course).

A Muslim person is a Muslim first by accident of birth.

A Pious Muslim is a Muslim who has consciously adopted Islam either as a convert or more likely as a rediscovery of his or her own faith and identity. A pious Muslim can adopt all Usool ad deen and Furoo ad deen and live successfully in a Free Society without becoming a:

Radicalised or Fundamentalist Muslim who has made one particular interpretation of only one pillar of the religion (Striving, or Jihad).

The same happens in every other value system. See how the Catholics in Spain at some point applied the inquisition and at another point in history they became atheist hedonists?

I've seen muslims in America whose ideas and lifestyle are not more dangerous than a Southern Baptist. I do know the exceptions of father-daughter or father-wife cruelty in Canada and even the US too. I don't imagine this is the norm.

I have family in France and I see muslims in France in a different way: when they have a chance they strive to become French. When they are at a loss, since France is not as open and egalitarian as America, they turn to Islam as a common identity, as a source of righteousness in face of what they see as moral bankruptcy. I have talked about this in earlier posts.

But most importantly I see that Muslim countries in Africa and Asia are becoming more modern and westernised cosmopolitan by the minute (Bangladesh, Malaysia, the Pakistani urban centres). I see those people as individuals first, Indians and Malays second, and only then as technically Muslims. Islam might be the most universally applicable religion ever conceived but it has an Arab Racist/Nationalist/Tribalist component that should not be overlooked. (And a persian counter effect that intrigues me).

As I said, Islam is a force that can unite many recently decolonized countries and give them a common voice (like the OIC) during this challenging time when those precise territories are about to experience the most growth but have no political union unlike the famous BRICs. These human groups might use Islamic Jihad as a tactic for a while to achieve some goals, but that doesn't mean most of the population will become fanatics or that the ultimate goal of these people (not of the current spearhead) is to create a Caliphate and implement Shari'a Worldwide.

There is one interesting, troublesome point however: In a time of such rapid technological (and social) change, traditional Islam offers a Conservative alternative. As anxiety worldwide grows because of this perhaps exponential acceleration of technological innovation, more people might seek refuge in a belief system that is incredibly universal, simple and for many reasons, in this time of history, the only surviving old school religion available to all. My hope is that the benefits of more advanced technology will outweigh and eventually eliminate the supposed benefits (the 'comfort') of traditional religions. I still think that something else will replace traditional religions and I'm not sure it's going to be better, just inevitable. Simply see how social media has won the battle for real mind to mind collectivism ("openness") from the bulwark of Capitalism and the American dream. Or if that analogy is too daring, then just see how Marxism has taken ground in Western culture and academia after losing politically and militarily.

Infidel: you're defining yourself by your enemies. Everybody's identity is I, in contrast to that. Every nation's original name, most if not all tribal names means "Us" or "the people, in contrast to our savage neighbours" in their original language. While it is necessary for identity it is not ideal to define one self in relation to our worst enemies. And if I were to take your name literally or etymologically, I would read: he who can not be trusted (who is not faithful as in FIDES, confianza)

Michael: Thank you for the concise and timely answer, in fact I am an incurable xenophile.

[moralist]

Sorry, Wolf... I don't subscribe to your religious faith in the leftist lie of moral equivalence.

Pshaw. Easy to show that fundamentalist Christians are equally nuts.

"Religion is a mental illness." [Laissez Faire Law, p.113]

Nuts, of course. There are nuts of every variety including yours.. But evil, no.

When it comes down to evil... the fact that there are no Christian suicide bombers and too many Muslim suicide bombers reveals your lie of moral equivalence. Same with the Jews and the Palestinians. No moral equivalence exists there either.

You are welcome to go peddle your wares to the jewhaters. They'll buy what you're selling.

No sale mere.

Greg

[Richard Wiig]

Infidel: you're defining yourself by your enemies. Everybody's identity is I, in contrast to that. Every nation's original name, most if not all tribal names means "Us" or "the people, in contrast to our savage neighbours" in their original language. While it is necessary for identity it is not ideal to define one self in relation to our worst enemies. And if I were to take your name literally or etymologically, I would read: he who can not be trusted (who is not faithful as in FIDES, confianza)

I am defined by my belief in Capitalism, free-enterprise, individual rights, etc. Any small defiance to Islam by using Infidel as a nickname on a message board is in defence of liberty and simply a declaration of my interest. Nothing more, nothing less. When the cartoon furore erupted, the best response from the West would have been the widespread publishing of the offending cartoons, not the fawning submission that we got. Islamic supremacism is an extreme threat to liberty in my opinion, so it deserves resistance and attention. Anyway, back to my original question, which I think is a reasonable one to ask.

The question of what does and doesn't make a fundamentalist underpins all these questions. If the teachings of Muhammad are necessarily part and parcel of Islam (and I believe they are), and given that many of those teachings are supremacist and totalitarian in nature, what are the fundamentals or prerequisites that need to be present in order for an individual to adopt them? How do you know the ratio between individual muslims who have these prerequisites and those who do not? Should people who value liberty be concerned about the possibility of Muslims adopting these teachings, or should there be no concern? Is it possible to value liberty, as a Muslim, and stay true to Islam (it would be wrong to make the assumption that it is the case. Muhammad's teachings need to be examined to determine it one way or the other.)? How much of a fundamental belief needs to be present to make an individual susceptible to full submission? What is being taught in the mosques that counter those teachings of Muhammad that call on Muslims to make Islam supreme? I think those questions and more are important ones to be answered in combating the Islamic supremacist threat. Liberty depends on it, does it not?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Matias,

Answer the questions above if you wish, but I believe this guy is not interested in what you have to say except to the extent he can try to convert you. I think he is using these questions as rhetorical devices to preach hatred and nothing more.

Notice the leading nature of some of them, the impossibility of answering others and so on. These are not innocent requests for information.

The way this works is you are supposed to try to answer one, and after discussion and a tortured course of logical pretzels, he will try to show you that any and all answers prove that Islam is evil (generally because of the verses in the Qur'an that deal with violence) and it needs to be eradicated.

Sometimes he preaches Islam as a disembodied evil and sometimes he preaches actual human beings are the people perpetrating the evil, depending on his convenience in promoting his agenda. In other words, if you point out that the vast majority of Muslims do not practice Islamism (or fundamentalism or whatever you want to call it), he will go to the "Islam as a disembodied evil" version and show how these people don't really count because they are not practicing "true Islam," even though they are all guilty of silently approving of violent fundamentalists so they are just as guilty as the perpetrators. If you ask him if he wants to blow up all Muslims on earth, he will opt for the "people perpetrating the evil" version and say of course not because a lot of Muslims don't practice violence.

This is not evasion or a contradiction. And it is often not completely as I said at the start of a discussion. but it always ends there. It is rhetorical maneuvering. All roads lead to his hatred in the end. (I speak from experience.)

This is a black and white thinker who has made hatred of Islam his purpose in life. The kinds of people who live Islam in the non-fundamentalist manner you have described are an inconvenience to him, not a reality. His deal--after you clear off all the layers of smokescreen--is hatred qua hatred.

Anyway, maybe you can get something rational from this guy. Underneath, I don't think he is a bad person. I just despise his bigotry.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

An aging master grew tired of his apprentice complaining and so, one morning, sent him for some salt.

When the apprentice returned, the master instructed the unhappy young man to put a handful of salt in a glass of water and then to drink it.

"How does it taste?" the master asked.

"Bitter," spit the apprentice.

The master chuckled and then asked the young man to take the same handful of salt and put it in the lake.

The two walked in silence to the nearby lake and once the apprentice swirled his handful of salt in the water, the old man said, "Now drink from the lake."

As the water dripped down the young man's chin, the master asked, "How does it taste?"

"Fresh," remarked the apprentice.

"Do you taste the salt?" asked the master.

"No," said the young man.

At this the master sat beside this serious young man, who so reminded him of himself, and took his hands, offering:

"The pain of life is pure salt; no more, no less. The amount of pain in life remains exactly the same. However, the amount of bitterness we taste depends on the container we put the pain in. So when you are in pain, the only thing you can do is to enlarge your sense of things. Stop being a glass. Become a lake."

[Selene]

Exellent Jules - where is it from...

[Richard Wiig]

Do you have any words of wisdom for the guy in the final scene of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"?

[Selene]

Do you have any words of wisdom for the guy in the final scene of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"?

The original black and white?

[Jules Troy]

Someone claimed it was an old Hindu parable. It could also be a Buddhist one. I am not sure but I like it.

[Selene]

Someone claimed it was an old Hindu parable. It could also be a Buddhist one. I am not sure but I like it.

An aging Hindu master grew tired of his apprentice complaining, and so, one morning, sent him for some salt. When the apprentice returned, the master instructed the unhappy young man to put a handful of salt in a glass of water and then to drink it. “How does it taste?” the master asked. “Bitter,” spat the apprentice.

- See more at: http://peopleforothers.loyolapress.com/2010/03/a-wisdom-story-8/#sthash.h5FKSwp9.dpuf

Appears to be credited to aHindu.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jules,

That is a cool story. If you allow yourself to see wisdom wherever it may be found and not become kneejerk poisoned by the word Islam (like some around here would have it), you might like the Sufi teaching stories. These charming little tales work to prompt thinking more than to act like moral propaganda. I happen to like them. I admit, I only read one once in a while, but they always make me promise myself to read more.

Below is a cute little story I got from here: 10 Sufi Stories.

The Sun and the Cave

One day the sun and a cave struck up a conversation. The sun had trouble understanding what “dark” and “dank” meant and the cave didn't quite get the hang of “light and clear” so they decided to change places. The cave went up to the sun and said, “Ah, I see, this is beyond wonderful. Now come down and see where I have been living.” The sun went down to the cave and said, “Gee, I don’t see any difference.”

To me, certain people are caves who have yet to go up to where the sun is. All they know is dark and dank, but they do have the capacity to see.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Do you have any words of wisdom for the guy in the final scene of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"?

The original black and white?

Ooo, yeah... The remake just doesn't cut it.

[Richard Wiig]

I ran into that parable a good 20 or so years ago. It doesn't conform to life. It doesn't matter how broad your worldview is, some things can cause the most intense emotional pain. I don't see the value of trying to dilute it as opposed to dealing with it.

[Selene]

I ran into that parable a good 20 or so years ago. It doesn't conform to life. It doesn't matter how broad your worldview is, some things can cause the most intense emotional pain. I don't see the value of trying to dilute it as opposed to dealing with it.

And diluting it is not a way of "dealing with it?"

[Jules Troy]

I ran into that parable a good 20 or so years ago. It doesn't conform to life. It doesn't matter how broad your worldview is, some things can cause the most intense emotional pain. I don't see the value of trying to dilute it as opposed to dealing with it.