posted November 15, 2009 03:33 AM         

In fairness, kat, history is a bit more complex than this. Islamic armies repeatedly attempted to invade Europe on several fronts .... and not out of the kindness of their hearts. Also, despite rumors, Moorish Spain wasn't necessarily the lone European outpost of peace and tranquility we're often led to believe. I don't mean to say you're guilty of this, but, it's common to view those big, bad Crusaders as yet another example of white western oppression, when, in truth, medieval Europeans were far from being the dominating world power they would eventually become. Studying the Crusades is sort of like ... I dunno ... watching an amusingly incompetant mouse antagonize a slightly distracted lion.

and this ...

quote:

---

so i think the remarkable thing is that it has taken this long for islam to assume the same stance...all non-muslims need to be either converted or destroyed...

---

posted November 15, 2009 12:10 PM         

my main point is that it's easy to see the other side as the infidel, and to forget [and become morally indignant and self-righteous] that they see us that way.

and that most wars have been propagandized in the name of someone's faith and ALSO motivated by a desire for the LOOT. so the jihad is similar to the crusades in that way.

not quite sure what you meant about india. but i do realize that it is relatively FEW muslims who are trying to "take over" the world, or get revenge for ill treatment from same, and that we are far from blameless in the pushme pullyou dynamic that is going on today as in most of history.

posted November 15, 2009 12:14 PM         

I get it. It works the other way around, too. I'm very interested in your responses. I find much of what you have to say to be a product of an intense deliberation of study. I intuit that we would make great friends if we knew each other terrestrially.

You're comment simply had a warm effect on me. It threw me off a little bit, on the one hand, and yet I also felt some conscious knowing of its presence. Suffice it to say that your words helped to invite an inspiration to write this.

Thank you for your kindness.

posted November 15, 2009 12:44 PM         

I'm not sure I'll be able to clarify but I will try.

shura's reference to your quote was to point out the fallacy in your claim:

quote:

---

so i think the remarkable thing is that it has taken this long for islam to assume the same stance...all non-muslims need to be either converted or destroyed...

---

This stance is nothing new for Islam. It has not taken this long for its adherents to approach this stance at all.

All religions seek to convert non-believers, in many ways, to the doctrines that they preach. This is part and parcel to the spreading of the religion. Islam is not an innocent victim to this fact, even when it comes to the use of force and violence. Your comment denotes a serious misunderstanding of the issue. At Islam's inception, the majority of Arabic tribes were polytheists. Mohammed had tried to bring them together into his monotheistic religion, first through preaching and quickly after by force. He came to possess a great amount of wealth by preying on caravans and taking the possessions of others.

We must understand these things if we are to make any profitable advances towards Truth in our searching.

posted November 15, 2009 01:12 PM         

it is however only recently (modern times let's say) that it has directly affected us in the US - or europe. most muslims in europe have enjoyed second-class citizen status for many decades. while we have affected a great many peoples with our crusading democracy and christianity.

i do not consider jihadist muslims to be innocent victims. however i don't consider them to be acting unilaterally either - any more than we do and our ancestors did.

posted November 15, 2009 06:17 PM         

I understand your point about there being two sides to this coin with two differing stories. There are reactions and consequences to all actions. However, you seem a bit heavy-footed and cavalier in the way that you bring this up and it makes me wonder. Is it possible that you see this "two-sided" idea as a valid excuse for the manner in which many Muslims in the Middle East glorify in terrorism when it takes place? Does it validate the pride that a Muslim mother feels when her son has died for the sake of jihad?

Honestly, I know your answer is "No"!

But these are the questions we must inevitably ask, even in the spirit of fairness and objectivity! If we do not devote ourselves to the "transgressions and misapprehensions" of Islam, then we shall overemphasize the similarities between the "religious nut who shot the abortion doctor in kansas and the religious nut who will blow himself up to take out a few "infidel[s]" without also taking into account the way in which they are, literally, worlds apart. We should not ignore the facts that the ideological structure for Salafist Jihadism stems from Islam and that Islam, itself, is highly relevant to the issue at question.

Perhaps it is a bit too idealistic of me to believe that we might arrive at a loftier understanding about the topics at hand, but I am compelled to try anyway.

posted November 15, 2009 06:23 PM         

quote:

---

The hard-line approach to interpretation is, in every way, a mechanism that constricts and chokes the spirit of life in human wisdom. In the most obvious example of our times, the rigidness of jihadists results in their sickening propagation of barbarism. Again, this takes place through an inhuman compliance to dogma that proceeds with the strictest belief that Islam is the one true religion. When this works upon them, the pitiful jihadists justify the atrocities that they perform because they become physical declarations of the authenticity and authority of Islam. This is one manner in which it becomes clear to reason that these jihadists operate through a great measure of insanity. These are not, in any way, a people that are fighting for their rights and equality. By their very actions they have, in a very real way, sacrificed their own humanity for something that falls horribly short of a fair deal.

---

quote:

---

How is it that the existences of madrassas, that twist the minds of little children with the perversions of jihad, are allowed to continue their operations? Why is the Middle-East so ridden with great contempt and scorn for non-Muslims and Western nations? Is it possible to question Islamic tradition and to support the establishment of a more moderate Islam without being accused of apostasy by dogmatic believers?

---

Brilliantly presented and astute but your argument falls short on one important element that Jihadists use to deceptively integrate and mask their presence with the locals and that is the exploitation of personal tragedies. Notice for instance that in developed Islamic nations, most of the recruits that the extremists pick out of happen to be idealistic youths taken from either the ghettos or from middle-low class areas. The unfortunate part of the whole ordel usually is the fact that these youth are talented in specalized areas such as engineering or the like and in return, the extremists gurantee social and monetary compensation. These youths who usually feel like as if the class divide they lived in has always socially disregarded them end up finding a sense of unity amoung the dangerous and volitile ideology of extremists. Its also the main reason why sympathizers for such groups exist in regions where one wouldn't expect them to be. Its hard to fight such a presence in the given region through force alone. No... Reform in the region needs to happen and equal opportunities need to exist based on Islamic ideals of adaptation. Islam evolved not because of extremist adherence to codes that didn't even reflect the true teachings of the Quran or the like but because Muslims learned, adapted and accepted cultural and scientific knowladge of the regions where they lived. Heck the events of the Renissance were greatly assisted by Muslim Scholars and Scientists.

I really find it odd that extremists in tribal regions such as the Taliban in Afganistan choose to hold back education from the masses (particularly women) when Islam dictates that its the sacred right of all Muslims to aquire knowladge and education.

quote:

---

Muslim women are often very willing and even proud to wear burqas and niqabs because they see it as something that is good for the community. This is where the Arabesque character is most notable, too. Lust, as a great detractor of the hearts of men, is perceived directly as something that occurs in the physical world. In observing this, a great attention is given to the attractiveness of women in this regard. Therefore, it is the attractiveness of women that seems to be the cause of men’s lust. In other words, the spiritual value for the presence of the hijab in the Islamic tradition is found in the direct perception of the physical world through the senses. It is in this particular manner of experiencing the world, a manner that seems to me more fitting for the adjective “secular”, that allows for the acceptance of this tradition to take place even today, in the most “secular” of times. Many Muslim women hold fast to their nature in willing to make great sacrifices for what is right. So much so, that they are willing to sacrifice even their own rights. It should easily, then, be realized that a ban of such behavior is not addressing the root issue. Such adherence simply fights fire with fire. Those that would ban the burqa for this reason become exactly that to which they are opposed without even realizing it. (This is not to support the notion that no restrictions should apply. I find myself quite opposed to this garb in certain places like banks, for example).

---

I agree with you partially since the exact enforcement of the law that banned Burkas and Hijabs innitiated by the Shah of Iran led the Islamic revolution in that nation which inturn led to the institution of the will of the Ayatollahs. However, in the case of Burqas, the covering in question is not in anyway Islamic or has religious significance of any kind. Infact the Quran has stated that its not a good thing for a woman to cover her face during religious observances; Hence why women pilgrams do not cover their faces during Hajj.

Given this factor, the religious justification for wearing the Burka doesn't really exist and therefore one can't justify its need in a society where women can simply wear the Hijab and as such still adhere to the requirement of religious modesty and not walk around in a tent all day long.

quote:

---

BTW, I was wondering whether or not you are still a practicing Muslim and, if so, are you a Sunni, Shi'a, or another denomination?

---

I am . And technically I would fall under the Sunni denomination. However I personally feel that all three Abrahamic religions are way too interconnected and therefore because of those viable similarities, I draw upon and adhere to the teachings of all three.

However its hard for people to comprehend what a Muslim/Abrahamic spiritualist is Lol! Therefore I just classify my beliefs with the default defination of a Sunni Muslim .

quote:

---

Also, despite rumors, Moorish Spain wasn't necessarily the lone European outpost of peace and tranquility we're often led to believe.

---

It wasn't the lone European outpost of peace and tranquility but it was the only one in Europe that saw Prosperity with in the region both economically and culturally and at the same time, it encompassed and respected the beliefs of all three Abrahamic religions. Alhambra should be a testiment to that.

posted November 15, 2009 06:23 PM         

quote:

---

No, no, no. I don't know if there are any citizens of India left on the board (venusinindia? mannu?), but I imagine they might take offense to that. And examples exist elsewhere, of course.

---

Except for the rule of Aurangzeb, the rest of the Mughals expanded their territory through conquest but did not force the civilians to convert through force. Infact most of the local population converted to Islam under Mughal rule was due to economic and social benifits; Particularly because it was the right of every Muslim to aquire education.

quote:

---

At Islam's inception, the majority of Arabic tribes were polytheists. Mohammed had tried to bring them together into his monotheistic religion, first through preaching and quickly after by force. He came to possess a great amount of wealth by preying on caravans and taking the possessions of others.

---

posted November 15, 2009 07:01 PM         

quote:

---

not quite sure what you meant about india.

---

I'm referring here to various Muslim invasions of India. They were often brutal.

quote:

---

not sure why you think europe wasn't into domination.

---

I'm not saying that Medieval Europe wasn't 'into domination' so much as they didn't yet have the resources to successfully go out conquering the world. For the most part, they were too busy getting their own shiit together and defending their still fuzzy borders. The Crusades were doomed to failure because little Europe overreached. Basically the European Popes talked a good game, but they lacked the power and resources to back it up. Saladin, for instance - the product of an older and more refined culture and with far greater wealth and manpower at his disposal - could back it up. Unlike European colonialism, the Crusades weren't a case of the big guy bullying the little guy.

quote:

---

what were the romans doing then? or charlemagne, napoleon, hitler, the huns...

---

In my opinion, Charlemagne was a great man. An occasionally misguided man, but a great man nonetheless. His important position in European history is non-debatable. But compare the Christian court of Charlemagne to their contemporary Islamic court of Al-Rashid. Suddenly the mighty Charlemagne isn't quite so mighty.
Not so spiritually, but in nearly every other respect, Medieval Europe was one big backwards 'third world country'. Again, I'm referring specifically to Medieval Europeans so Hitler and Napolean aren't relevant to the discussion. The Huns weren't European. The Huns invaded Europe. Another case of a fledgling Europe desperately defending her borders.

quote:

---

yes, of course i'm being simplistic. this is a fairly simplistic format we're in, no?

---

posted November 15, 2009 09:44 PM         

I'm so very glad you're here.

It's a long convoluted mess these Muslim invasions. Yes, of course, some rulers were horribly oppressive while others were generally benevolent ... so its easy enough to produce evidence for and against. I also understand that there is much debate surrounding the Islamic conquest of India in the religious and historical communities. Honestly, I know 10x more about Islam in Europe than Islam in India, so I'm not very well prepared to argue either side. I could talk all day about Islam at the Gates of Vienna, but I can't come up with much when it comes to Muslims in Delhi. I will say that Timur comes to mind.

My point here again was that it's human nature to see historical events and persons through the lens of modern day circumstance. But the past really was a different place and they really did live differently there. It's the fashion for most liberal minded folks to consider the Arab world and its people the under dog. Rightfully so, in many ways, but this leads to our tendency to airbrush Islam's not always palatable history. The common PC view of Moorish Spain is that it was a utopia of equality, with Jews, Muslims and Christians living together in some sort of Peacable Kingdom. Not so. At least not to the extent so many seem to think. Now, if I were a 10th century Jew would I rather live in Cordoba than in London? You betcha. I'd be a lower class citizen but, yeah, I'd pack up and move to Spain in a heartbeat. But let's also remember the infamous jizya tax, the often forgotton Martyrs of Cordoba, the not always particularly pleasant Almoravids ( remember Yusuf Ibn Tashfin who was fiven 'permission' to overthrow the ruling Muslims because, in part, they were thought to have adopted *gasp* too many Christian habits) etc etc

Having said that ... I fully acknowledge the positive impact Moorish culture had on Europe and - and, for me, this is essential - that spiritual stream which entered Europe through Spain via the Moors, proving invaluable to that particular Christian stream nosis and I might call Grail Christianity.

posted November 15, 2009 10:25 PM         

I have had a brush with the Reliance of the Traveler when I was seeking to find a commonality in the Practices of the Abrahamic Faiths. In that experience, I know it to be guided by the Quran, Hadith`s and jurisprudential rulings of Islamic scholars.
Since rituals and practices were all I gave serious attention to, I am ignorant of other chapters in the Reliance of the Traveler. The book is on line and I am interested in addressing your original question by us looking at other the chapters in the book . Knowledge is power, yes?
http://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Islam/Reliance.html

As always, I eagerly look forward to Xodians sharing and Love of his Islamic Faith and Shura`s vast historical knowledge and Spiritual Wisdom !

Thank you NosiS for the opportunity to openly visit the questions!

juni

------------------
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted November 15, 2009 11:27 PM         

I cannot begin to express how grateful I am for sharing your time and thoughts with us.

I think there are still some things that I would like to harp on but it will take me at least a week to respond. Its taking a serious amount of energy and concentration to organize these feelings, but I will keep at it as long as I can.

edit:

quote:

---

Do keep in mind that a lot of the local population did chose to join the Prophet on their own because of the attocities committed by the polytheistic communities on their citizens.

---

posted November 16, 2009 01:27 AM         

Thank you for making an appearance! I've been hoping that you would show at some point.

My seeking has much to do with trying to get a taste of the veiled meaning of the world's current state of affairs. By opening up this thread, I hoped to open up a discussion that might help me come to terms with some emotions in my heart. Not until very recently has it been so important for me to understand Islam and the reasons behind its connections to the dangers that we face today. I have found that the current atmosphere in regards to this question is becoming more and more clouded. Throughout my own research, I have felt a growing contempt in my heart against Islam for the kinds of things I have seen in videos showing a culture of bigotry and hatred that seems quite prevalent in the Middle East. I had pondered about what to do in regards to this contempt and I decided to start this thread. It would be accurate to say that it was a call for help. I did not realize that I would receive so much from this. In truth, I had forgotten about all the wonderful people here that have proven so helpful.

Lately, this conflict has weighed on me quite heavily. It has riddled my heart with an intense sadness. I have been soaking in as much as I possibly can and I feel that I am beginning to make some ground in my search. If the place where my thoughts lead - however - turns out to be accurate, then my heart's trembling was not simply for the contempt that I have been harboring but an intuition for the revelation that the contempt unveils!

Forgive my ranting. I fear I am beginning to write unintelligibly.

Thank you for directing me to an online version of the book, juni. It will prove helpful.

posted November 16, 2009 11:16 AM         

I understand where you are coming from but, for me at least, it seems that your question is not difficult to answer. Personally speaking, I find myself naturally inclined to empathize when I have a good reign on my emotions.

What is troubling for me to grasp or even communicate (as this thread has proven) is that I see a grave, underlying message in the way that we are currently finding the interactions of the principles in question.
That to which I refer is not, by my prayers, a trite feeling of pity and shame for the horrible events that are occurring. I am beginning to find that the unbridled pain, the blind ignorance and arrogant intolerance presented on both sides of this conflict reveal deviant machinations for the unveiling of a spiritless evil.

It is in this line of thinking to which my concerns are aimed.

posted November 16, 2009 01:56 PM         

I do not appreciate what you seem to infer with your question. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. The orientation of my ignorance does not manifest in an inability to see what is beautiful, virtuous and truthful in Islam. Instead, I find myself intimately threatened by the underlying nature of the conflicts from which my questions proceed.

There are some thoughts that I am currently digesting and I hope to get to them soon enough. I am beginning to understand the historical implications involving Islam's current state and the reasons for its acute separation from its mystical tradition.

I hope this answers your question.

posted November 16, 2009 02:34 PM         

regarding history, middle age is a long time ago, and even though i'm sure crusades remained in the collective memory of islam, i think the problem you try to figure has much recent roots:

19th and 20th c colonialism, european powers dividing the middle east and creating a new social order in those regions, changing traditional systems to fit westerners needs.

i honestly think that extremists from both sides needs one another to exist, because the nature of extremists is anti- anti-masses, anti-middleground, anti-peace
they need opposing extremist views to exist.

i wanted to talk about the technical capacity to SEE (tv) the differences of standard of living between the west and other parts of the world but it would be another subject altogether.

so on topic, real life experience beats news report on what islam is about.

posted November 16, 2009 10:00 PM         

the islam in the news is one part of the whole, a part greatly magnified by the press who - let's face it - will sell a story about a 73 pound cat if they think it will sell papers! and so it goes on and on and on..

i was not being cavalier when i mentioned the nutjob" who killed dr tiller last summer. was he representative of christianity? do you know what sort of profile the press gave the crazy japanese suicide bombers of WWII?

i have to admit, i have not studied islam. but i know the terrorists are a minority who are being broadcast to give the whole religion a bad name.

and pire is right about the history too, much of which is too far back in my mind to argue about. the english, french and americans (and dutch, and portugese...etc) did a very good job of turning the peoples of those muslim and other non-christian countries into second-class citizens, and when they backed out left little dignity or material wealth behind.

posted November 17, 2009 02:34 AM         

quote:

---

I understand what you mean about evil Nosis

---

(It must be the heated, the humidity and the brewing storm).

I read the original link.......

quote:

---

"Americans will always be a target -- and a legitimate target -- until America changes its nature in the international arena," Mohammed said in an interview to air on tonight's "AC 360."

---

Sadly, I think this is true. Geopolitically, now that the United States is the only world's super power, and it can flex its muscle "to block a power or destabilize the region, not to impose power."

Italicised words from George Friedman: http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum26/HTML/000251.html

There's no point in targeting the States as there will never be victory for the attacker.

However, Americans are vulnerable due to the strength of its government in world terms. Individual Americans cannot be blamed for being born in a country that balloned out with economic and military power.

As the decades pass, I'm sure the States will become more responsible with its new found strength.

Middle East regions have a precarious history. There will always be issues in the Middle East somewhere, anywhere between Yugoslavia and Paskistan.

It just so happens the States will be visible in these regions and so will draw American citizens into its 'war strategies'.