[Logic]

Preventing a 'clash of civilisations'


I'm a bit worried that this might backfire, but I think it could be worth the risk. I don't like how they classified the groups, especially the fundamentalists. I consider myself to be a fundamentalist and I in no way "reject democratic values and contemporary Western culture". Something needs to be done about the people who twist my religion into the terror we have seen for years. But I'm not so sure this will help. I'm afraid that this might cause some "Islamic" nations to get even more extreme in their views since often much of what is "western" is not liked in muslim nations and societies. I'm also not sure about who should be the one defining what true Islam is. Will it be some Christian scholars, US politicians or will it be muslim scholars?

I'll let this do for now, but like to hear your views on this.

Discuss�

[Millennium]

An interesting idea, but unfortunately it's one that the extremists may have already thought of, and it won't work against them.

Consider the now-infamous letter in which al-Qaeda is said to endorse Bush. This letter claims that Kerry would "kill them while they slept", by doing more or less exactly what this article proposes. They consider Kerry to be a greater threat, and there is a very real chance that they will only become more aggressive towards a Kerry administration, not less. Certainly their recruiting, if not their strikes, will be stepped up in an attempt to counter such influence.

The only easy answer is that there are no easy answers. Cause and effect work in complicated ways, and unintended consequences abound for every act taken.

[voyageur]

Logic,
Why do you say you are a fundamentalist, not a modernist, as described in the article? How would you describe a fundamentalist? You seem very tolerant to me; not something I associate with a fundamentalist in any religion.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Logic:
I'm a bit worried that this might backfire, but I think it could be worth the risk. I don't like how they classified the groups, especially the fundamentalists. I consider myself to be a fundamentalist and I in no way "reject democratic values and contemporary Western culture".

just curious, since you live in iceland.- have you always been a muslim, have you recently converted, or did you move to iceland from somewhere else?

sorry, for the stereotyping, but i usually don't think about "muslims" when i think about iceland.

[Developer]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Logic,
Why do you say you are a fundamentalist, not a modernist, as described in the article? How would you describe a fundamentalist? You seem very tolerant to me; not something I associate with a fundamentalist in any religion.

You must not yet have been discussing religion with him. He appears pretty fundamentalist to me.

Edit:
Actually reading the article, with the definitions given there I would categorize Logic as modernist. By my own definition he would have gone through as religious fundamentalist.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Logic:
I'm also not sure about who should be the one defining what true Islam is. Will it be some Christian scholars, US politicians or will it be muslim scholars?

True Islam is defined by the individual Muslim reading the Quran. No instance is between a Muslim and god - unlike for example the pope for Catholics.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Millennium:
An interesting idea, but unfortunately it's one that the extremists may have already thought of, and it won't work against them.

Consider the now-infamous letter in which al-Qaeda is said to endorse Bush. This letter claims that Kerry would "kill them while they slept", by doing more or less exactly what this article proposes. They consider Kerry to be a greater threat, and there is a very real chance that they will only become more aggressive towards a Kerry administration, not less. Certainly their recruiting, if not their strikes, will be stepped up in an attempt to counter such influence.

The only easy answer is that there are no easy answers. Cause and effect work in complicated ways, and unintended consequences abound for every act taken.

Agreed.

Something needs to be done but I'm afraid this could backfire seriously. If these people who will be sponsored by the US will be seen as yet another US attempt on controlling the muslim world this could seriously backfire. But if they are someone already accepted by many muslims as "good" muslims this could help.

So like I said, I have no idea if this will work. But at the moment I think it could be necessary to try some other methods than invasions and sanctions against nations the western world don't like. If they would perhaps withdraw their support for the regimes they are currently supporting as well as do this, perhaps something good will come out of this.

[Logic]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Logic,
Why do you say you are a fundamentalist, not a modernist, as described in the article? How would you describe a fundamentalist? You seem very tolerant to me; not something I associate with a fundamentalist in any religion.

Well, I follow the Quran as well as I can. The ones that they label as fundamentalists are indeed nothing but people who twist the meaning of the Quran and Hadiths to something it doesn't say.

Islam means peace, and it teaches respect of other cultures. It teaches that it is not our job to punish people that don't follow islam, that is solely done by Allah.

Modern values do in fact very much work with fundamental Islam, so you wouldn't be wrong in "labeling" me a modernist. But that is only because I follow the Quran.

Like I said, tolerance is the true Islam and that is the one I follow. The Talibans, Al Qaida et al could never be called true muslims.

[Logic]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
just curious, since you live in iceland.- have you always been a muslim, have you recently converted, or did you move to iceland from somewhere else?

sorry, for the stereotyping, but i usually don't think about "muslims" when i think about iceland.

I'm a recent convert, but the only reason I converted was the fact that I've always believed in God but disagreed with some of the fundamental aspect of Christianity. I started reading the Quran just out of curiosity and by doing that I found that it explain much of what I thought was wrong in Christianity, and agreed with how I always looked at it.

I'm an Icelander, but I lived in Sweden in a neighborhood with about 50-60% foreigners. Most of them were muslims so that of course influenced me to see the good side of Islam. Not the one we normally see in the media. And after doing my peacekeeping job in Bosnia I found out more stuff about how my religion is, and felt for some reason like the Bosnian muslims were my people.

So to make a long story short, I'm a newly converted muslim but am as Nordic as most Icelanders/Swedes.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Developer:
You must not yet have been discussing religion with him. He appears pretty fundamentalist to me.

Edit:
Actually reading the article, with the definitions given there I would categorize Logic as modernist. By my own definition he would have gone through as religious fundamentalist.

Yup, like I said to voyager. Fundamentalists and Modernists can work together, so I don't like that the fundamentalists are viewed as "bad" in that classification in the article.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Developer:
True Islam is defined by the individual Muslim reading the Quran. No instance is between a Muslim and god - unlike for example the pope for Catholics.

This is also true. But there is, as in most religions, some common understanding of what the true religion is. So therefor I think this proposal could possibly work. But I do think they need to modify it a bit, and try to get fundamental muslims to teach the masses using the Quran as the source what true Islam is. Somehow challenge the Taliban/Al Qaida version of Islam by using the Quran to refute them. Basically show the people, using the Quran, how and why the extremists are wrong. But at the same time not call for a westernization of Islam. That will never work.

[quandarry]

sorry logic but you are a nut case.

i too was born into the christian religion and as soon as i could, shook off the total stupidity of it.

i didn't go run off and join another invented religion.

[Logic]

Originally posted by quandarry:
sorry logic but you are a nut case.

i too was born into the christian religion and as soon as i could, shook off the total stupidity of it.

i didn't go run off and join another invented religion.

Good for you.

And this post of yours shows exactly what I'm talking about. I never attacked anyone because of his religion, or his lack of religion. It's not my job to judge. You on the other hand show the lack of respect we see from many extremist in all religious and non-religious people.

What was the whole point of that post of yours except to judge me and others who believe?

I've never done anything like it and never will.

[quandarry]

what i'm trying to convey to you is that you don't have to be a part of an organized religious group to feel spiritual or have morals or believe in law and order and feel compassion...

unless you feel the need for artificial stimuli.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by quandarry:
what i'm trying to convey to you is that you don't have to be a part of an organized religious group to feel spiritual or have morals or believe in law and order and feel compassion...

unless you feel the need for artificial stimuli.

Quit bashing religion.

[quandarry]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Quit bashing religion.

i never felt more free as when i removed the shackles of organized mass religion. i was finally free to explore without feeling the guilt...

it may be good for the spiritually weak...or if you feel the need that you belong.

i am not an athiest...but i am not a christian, a muslim, or whatever...

[lil'babykitten]

I've got mixed feelings about this. It certainly speaks to me as the first intellectual attempt to address such a dangerous state of affairs. On the other hand, the fact that Rand has links with the State and Defense departments and indeed acquired help from those areas in the drawing up of this report, it makes me cautious. I'm hoping that this isn't an idea that was born out of the 'Project for the New American Century' or any other affiliated groups.

I don't like the way this report has categorised Islamic society. It runs the risk of further dividing the Islamic peoples, creating antagonisms between whatever is meant by a 'fundamentalist' and a 'modernist'. Though, if their (the authors of this report) intentions are sincere, then I can see how splitting them up in to groups can help them better approach it.

I think there is a risk that such a plan will not be so warmly received by the Islamic world. They are very much aware of the neo-conservative agenda and will undoubtedly be suspicious of a plan that is about to be endorsed by Bush at the G8 Summit.

In my view I think they would be more successful if they targeted the Arab League and helped stabilise that body. The Arab Summit which was due to take place earlier this week was cancelled over failures to agree on the agenda. The Arab leaders have for a long time failed to form a coherent, powerful voice. Egypt can no longer be regarded as a strong voice with a decent leadership role. The Arab League continues to disappoint the Arab world.

However, I think if the effort were to be directed at stabilising the Arab League, substantial reform throughout the Islamic world, and a unified response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, may become a reality.

Nevertheless, I'll be interested to see how the proposals made by this report are played out.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by quandarry:
sorry logic but you are a nut case.

i too was born into the christian religion and as soon as i could, shook off the total stupidity of it.

i didn't go run off and join another invented religion.

Now that's not a very nice thing to say. Whether you change faiths (to Islam, Judaism, atheism, Buddhism, or whatever) or discard them entirely (i.e. become an agnostic), doing so requires a lot of courage. It is true that I believe he has made a mistake, but even so he deserves congratulations; he's accomplished an exceedingly difficult task. A lot more people would be changing their faiths if it were an easy thing to do.

By the way, you appear to be using "invented religion" as an insult, yet your own beliefs are just as invented as anyone else's. In fact, you openly admit this. This does not seem like a very productive way of insulting people. If you wish to bash someone's beliefs, it might be wise to ensure that your words don't apply just as much to yourself.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It is true that I believe he has made a mistake

how so???

[Millennium]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
how so???

I mean only that I don't follow his faith. In retrospect, I'm not sure I put it as tactfully as I should have, and I sincerely apologize for any offense.

I said it for a reason, however. Even though I disagree with his new faith, I have great respect for the courage involved in changing faiths. It is not an easy thing to do, and he deserves congratulations for it. I posted this as a counter to quandarry, who appears to have no respect for Logic's change of faith precisely because he disagrees, and went so far as to insult Logic and his new beliefs.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by quandarry:
sorry logic but you are a nut case.

i too was born into the christian religion and as soon as i could, shook off the total stupidity of it.

i didn't go run off and join another invented religion.

Yeah, and you're such a closed-minded "free thinker" too. Most impressive.