[PacHead]

The very tiny minority of Muslim extremists have now made their presence known in Nigeria where thousands of religion of peace followers went on a bloody rampage, rioting, burning churches and setting people on fire.

“Most of the dead were Christians beaten to death on the streets by the rioters,” Ezeoke said. Witnesses said three children and a priest were among those killed.

http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynam...P&SECTION=HOME

In related cartoon news, a very tiny minority of Muslim extremists in Turkey started to stone a female reporter who wasn't wearing a headscarf when covering a cartoon riot story.

http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=2006021221421729



All Muslim extremists, the kind who goes berzerk over cartoons, should be denied access to civilized countries in the west. Meanwhile, the west should prepare itself for a showdown with Muslim extremist countries and terrorists, with Iran next in line for a beating. Islamic extremism will end up being defeated just like the nazis were. Both of those disgusting and horrible ideologies have nothing to offer the civilized world.

[PacHead]

It's slow in here tonight, so I'll amuse myself

Puckhead, all religions are equally as bad, do I need to mention Timothy McVeigh ?
The Danish newspaper should have never printed those cartoons. The cartoons are blasphemous and while I don't believe in censorship, things that I find highly offensive should be banned and the perpetrators killed. They should at least be stoned or maybe get a few fingers chopped off. They were asking for it anyhow, they should have known better. What is the root cause behind the cartoon rioting ? If we address the root cause, we can prevent any future riots. The Danish artists are obviously the root cause and a fatwa will take care of them soon enough. Christians were also pretty bad 500 years ago, if we just wait another 500 years and endure 73 more 9/11s, Islam will eventually mature into a fine, non-violent religion. (All the infidels should be dead by then).

[Kevin]

The Crusades all over again.

[Hawkeye_a]

i wonder where all those terrorist sympathizers on these boards are ? truely sickening..... hows that "toerance" for you ? Christians and Jews become targets yet again.

Religion of peace.... huh my arse. from Thailand to Chechnya, from Pakistan to Nigeria, from the U.S. to Australia, more people who follow this religion seem to be targeting civilians of different faiths. And they claim "tolerance". i wonder why no one ever wants to move to those countries.

We have one nut job on this board who's been planning to make the move to Iran for quite some time now, but yet he maintains residence in the west to this day for some awkward reason.

It truely sickens me.... many many non-muslims from predominantely muslim nations leave their homelands behind to safer shores in the civilized world everyday, and more often than not they prosper. But then you have these fanatics leave as well and settle in the west, and you end up with things like the riots in france or the london bombings. Apparently it's not in their 'culture' to demonstrate against terrorists...but to demonstrate against a cartoon they will. it truely makes me nauceous.

[undotwa]

No offense PacHead, but you write like a paranoid lunatic.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by undotwa

No offense PacHead, but you write like a paranoid lunatic.

Post of the year, so far!

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by undotwa

No offense PacHead, but you write like a paranoid lunatic.

I wish he'd take offense and go away.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by undotwa

No offense PacHead, but you write like a paranoid lunatic.

undotwa, KarlG, and Pendergast;

Would it hold more weight and seem less paranoid if it were an abortion clinic bombing?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by PacHead

It's slow in here tonight, so I'll amuse myself

Puckhead, all religions are equally as bad, do I need to mention Timothy McVeigh ?
The Danish newspaper should have never printed those cartoons. The cartoons are blasphemous and while I don't believe in censorship, things that I find highly offensive should be banned and the perpetrators killed. They should at least be stoned or maybe get a few fingers chopped off. They were asking for it anyhow, they should have known better. What is the root cause behind the cartoon rioting ? If we address the root cause, we can prevent any future riots. The Danish artists are obviously the root cause and a fatwa will take care of them soon enough. Christians were also pretty bad 500 years ago, if we just wait another 500 years and endure 73 more 9/11s, Islam will eventually mature into a fine, non-violent religion. (All the infidels should be dead by then).

You just put the forum's liberal population out of a job.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

undotwa, KarlG, and Pendergast;

Would it hold more weight and seem less paranoid if it were an abortion clinic bombing?

What is the parallel you are trying to draw here? Is it a parallel between the response to the cartoons by Muslims and the response to abortion clinic bombings by Christians?

I am confused as to the relevancy of your point.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by undotwa

No offense PacHead, but you write like a paranoid lunatic.

Lunatic Muslims are rioting and slaughtering Christians and that's the only comment you have ?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by KarlG

Post of the year, so far!

The same goes for you.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

I wish he'd take offense and go away.

I don't take offense to Liberal ad hominems and I won't go away.

[moodymonster]

people like to be told what to do, whether they realise it or not. They've been encouraged to go and do these things. Not in as many words, but it doesn't take a genius to manipulate people.

It seems to me that these people don't want Islam to be respected as a religion, but feared.

In Israel they're running a competition to see who can make the best anti-Semitic cartoon: http://www.boomka.org/

They're obviously really bothered about people taking the piss out of Judaism. Same way we have Father Ted and so on, and so forth.

If you really want respect, you take criticism and answer it. Not prove your critics right.

Therefore I am increasingly lead to believe that it is the intention of a significant proportion of the Islamic world to intimidate and destroy the Western way of life.

I also think the US would be better served by severing ties with Saudi Arabia - but that's not going to happen.

I also think that Muslims who don't believe you should kill all those who disagree with you and truely accept others ways of life, are equally threatened by these nutjobs.

These People = twisted, perverted, anti-human nutjobs

Whatever someone says can be twisted to mean anything else. Which is why all these new laws being rushed in by our respective governments are dangerous. We know what they're there for but will quickly be abused over the next decade or so. People have already been arrested under anti terror laws for protesting, walking on cycle lanes etc.

In the wider context, what was written down many hundreds of years ago can be interpreted in many different ways, and easily twisted to mean something else entirely.

^ Slightly rambling and open to interpretation

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

No offense PacHead, but you write like a paranoid lunatic.

Was that the sound of a self defense mechanism kicking in I just heard?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

undotwa, KarlG, and Pendergast;

Would it hold more weight and seem less paranoid if it were an abortion clinic bombing?

Irrelevant.

It's all about the hateful title. It's basically stupid.

The actions of the people have nothing to do with the religion, but with their interpretation of it.

Pachead's reaction has nothing to do with Islam; it all has to do with his stupidity and making generalization where there is none.

There is no excuse for murder; only explanations. However, it does not mean we should forgive them, unless murder is committed in defense, as a reaction to a deadly threat.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by PacHead

I don't take offense to Liberal ad hominems and I won't go away.

And why should you take offense? After all, you are totally incapable of self-criticism; how could you take any from others, let alone learn from facts and basic logic?

ad hominem:

appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Irrelevant.

It's all about the hateful title. It's basically stupid.

The actions of the people have nothing to do with the religion, but with their interpretation of it.

Pachead's reaction has nothing to do with Islam; it all has to do with his stupidity and making generalization where there is none.

There is no excuse for murder; only explanations. However, it does not mean we should forgive them, unless murder is committed in defense, as a reaction to a deadly threat.

Hiding behind "interpretations" is cowardly in my opinion. how can one interpretation preach peace while the other murder ? unless the language the book was written is is so horribly flawed that peace and war appear to be the same, how can u pin this one on interpretations ?

Therefore the whole book itself is flawed(or irreleant) since peace can mean war and white can mean black and thus provides no moral guidance whatsoever. so it should probably be abandoned completely, or what ive been suggesting since this discussion began, at the very least updated so when people read it....one person doesnt walk away with ideas on how to kill ppl, and others with ideas on how to ignore the problem completely.

Generalizations, no....... since none of us can be sure whats in the hearts and minds of 1 billion people. but .....thailand, e.timor, kashmir, afghanistan, chechnya, israel, cyprus, Serbia, Nigeria, Lebanon, France, U.K., USA.... that's one heck of a coincidence that this diverce group of people who follow the teachings out of the same book, seem to be doing the exact same thing, to people who are not like them. What do you think is at the root of the problem ? is it the people ? the teachers ? or the teachings ?

My opinion....people are born good, with good intentions and corrupted by the world around them, in this case....the teachings.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

My opinion....people are born good, with good intentions and corrupted by the world around them, in this case....the teachings.

Yeah.

Let's hang the teachings.

Or how about shooting them with good gun?

By the way, if you turn your back on the Moon, does it still exist?

[Y3a]

But we MUST continue to parady the Muslims way of life using humorous cartoons, and with as little respect as most Muslims have for the west. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the 'Muslim World' to "get it." The more they act like the cartoons that are drawn of them the worse they look to the rest of the world.

If, after a time, they are still being disruptive and violent, they will need to be dealt with in a violent and brutal fashion to stop them. I think they understand that the day is coming, but as with most all Muslim blather, they are setting themselves up for a slaughter that wouldn't need to happen had they learned that their violence isn't addressing the issue. It's just a temper tantrum of the culturally immature.

If it's a New Moon, how do you know where it is?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Y3a

But we MUST continue to parady the Muslims way of life using humorous cartoons, and with as little respect as most Muslims have for the west. It will be interesting to see how long it takes the 'Muslim World' to "get it." The more they act like the cartoons that are drawn of them the worse they look to the rest of the world.

If, after a time, they are still being disruptive and violent, they will need to be dealt with in a violent and brutal fashion to stop them. I think they understand that the day is coming, but as with most all Muslim blather, they are setting themselves up for a slaughter that wouldn't need to happen had they learned that their violence isn't addressing the issue. It's just a temper tantrum of the culturally immature.

Woaw. You seem so verse in human nature, I am amazed you waste your time posting here! How can you judge a population as "culturally immature" on the simple of observation of rioters whom may each and any of them may have rioted fro reasons they may not even have comprehended in the first place?

Before making blank statement about a whole group of people, checking up individuals about their personal motivations may create a totally different picture about the event.

If it's a New Moon, how do you know where it is?

Not knowing where it is does not mean it does not exist. I have no idea where you are, yet, there you are...

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Y3a

It's just a temper tantrum of the culturally immature.

Bing!

But of course. It's not their fault they are culturally immature!
It's ALL AMERICA!111

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

How can you judge a population as "culturally immature" on the simple of observation of rioters whom may each and any of them may have rioted fro reasons they may not even have comprehended in the first place?

Before making blank statement about a whole group of people, checking up individuals about their personal motivations may create a totally different picture about the event.

?! so the rioters are idiots, yet rather than distance yourself from thier idiocy you embrace it because you believe they may be misunderstood?

?! and again ?! this goes beyond talking in circles - i think you've started talking in spheres. insomuch as it appears some will go to tremendous depths to avoid condemning these egregious acts and all the while castigate those who disagree with them.

i am not saying that arabs or muslims are by default "culturally immature", but if they really don't want to appear that way some action from within is in order. if this behaviour does not stem from "true" islamic teachings and teachers why aren't these students of falsehoods engaged more in defending themselves against the true believers than in offensive maneuvers?

could it be that many muslims, while they wouldn't act out in this fashion, do believe the non-muslim world is evil and this is merely gawd's cleansing? if these idiot rioters don't represent the majority of muslim hearts, why aren't they jailed or dead?

be well.

laeth

[moodymonster]

it's kinda like dealing with Europe during the dark ages - NB 'kinda'

[Y3a]

So, lets treat the violent protesters like they were were unleashed, violent PIT BULLS. What would you do? Where are the owners? Hmmmm, nowhere to be found. can you reason with a pit bull? Nope. Can the violent pit bull be trusted to play with the other 'nice' doggies? NOPE!

Your Solution?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by isao bered

?! so the rioters are idiots, yet rather than distance yourself from thier idiocy you embrace it because you believe they may be misunderstood?

Another wide generalization? Uh, no, 3!

Where did you read I embrace their idiocy?

Have talked with them about their motives? Oh they certainly manifest around the idea of the cartoons alright! But I bet if you were to question them all you'd find surprises.

But please, we may disagree on the appreciation of their behavior, but no where have I said what they are doing is the right thing.

And yes, so far in these threads, all I see is "they are idiots". Yet, some of these individuals made a point they were offended. Their reaction is disproportional, but who are you to judge them on what offends them?

?! and again ?! this goes beyond talking in circles - i think you've started talking in spheres. insomuch as it appears some will go to tremendous depths to avoid condemning these egregious acts and all the while castigate those who disagree with them.

i am not saying that arabs or muslims are by default "culturally immature", but if they really don't want to appear that way some action from within is in order. if this behaviour does not stem from "true" islamic teachings and teachers why aren't these students of falsehoods engaged more in defending themselves against the true believers than in offensive maneuvers?

Why don't you ask them? I am sure they have their own motivations. But to I prefer to hear what they say about it than simply calling it "culturally immature".

People riot for many reasons; there are so many variables at play that usually, many of the rioters feel they have to justify their reactions after the fact. Mobs are groups of people interacting with each other in a very complex way. That does not excuse anything, but it brings explanations to a much higher level of complexity that is extremely difficult to comprehend.

Then, judging the mas of Islams on the sole behavior of some individuals is insane. If you think that some people are silent around this, you may be right to question their motives, but can you really judge them for that prior to hearing them?

There are people benefiting from these reactions, there is no doubt in my mind about it, from some religious leaders to reporters who sell more papers, through so-called "civilized" governments who see this more appropriate to feed a propaganda that aims at justifying more actions in Middle East.

Like this thread, you'd be well advised to take time to reflect on what is shown on TV versus the context in which it happened.

could it be that many muslims, while they wouldn't act out in this fashion, do believe the non-muslim world is evil and this is merely gawd's cleansing? if these idiot rioters don't represent the majority of muslim hearts, why aren't they jailed or dead?

be well.

laeth

I don't know. Ask them.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Y3a

So, lets treat the violent protesters like they were were unleashed, violent PIT BULLS. What would you do? Where are the owners? Hmmmm, nowhere to be found. can you reason with a pit bull? Nope. Can the violent pit bull be trusted to play with the other 'nice' doggies? NOPE!

Your Solution?

Oh? so they are dogs now?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Oh? so they are dogs now?

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Oh? so they are dogs now?

No, that would be an insult to all canines in the world. Dogs don't set humans on fire.

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Mobs are groups of people interacting with each other in a very complex way.

you what?

I've had the misfortune to end up in the middle or on the edges of a couple of mobs or crowds out of control - I would not describe their internal or external interactions as 'very complex'. More sheep-like. Once you're in the middle of it you can't really do anything other than go with the flow. As in moving, not lobbing bricks etc. (going with the flow: moving or getting trampled on. While I do feel a surge to go with the crowd, it's not something I would do, I just want to get out of it)

Maybe it's complex in a psychological sense in that a 'switch' is flipped to engage the mob/sheep mentality.

Watch how the police (London Met in particular), handle things like this. They channel crowds, split them up and remove the 'leaders'.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

you what?

I've had the misfortune to end up in the middle or on the edges of a couple of mobs or crowds out of control - I would not describe their internal or external interactions as 'very complex'. More sheep-like. Once you're in the middle of it you can't really do anything other than go with the flow. As in moving, not lobbing bricks etc. (going with the flow: moving or getting trampled on. While I do feel a surge to go with the crowd, it's not something I would do, I just want to get out of it)

Maybe it's complex in a psychological sense in that a 'switch' is flipped to engage the mob/sheep mentality.

Watch how the police (London Met in particular), handle things like this. They channel crowds, split them up and remove the 'leaders'.

Thank you for the observation. Of course, that is one good way to handle the situation. And sometimes, you can't do that, because:

1) the police does not know the technique
2) removing some leaders at the height of the anger may create more (but that may not last long)
3) many are followers; because of that, they may do the behaviors, simply because of the peer pressure.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I am confused as to the relevancy of your point.

That's because it was a question not directed at you.

Pachead is lodging an indictment against extremist Muslims for actions he deems nefarious. He believes the death sentence issued forth on three children and a priest is a disproportionately harsh penalty for someone's abuse of freedom of speech. He seems to believe this behavior is not exclusive to the Islamic Middle East, but could find its way abroad. He cited examples for his point.

The claim had been made that Pachead sounded paranoid not unlike a lunatic. This point was then agreed to and appended by two others. The ones I had addressed in my question.

Without fail when discussing fundamentalist Christians; abortion clinic bombings in 1998, Inquisitions, and examples of Christian crusades and imperialism are thrown about as if these are true threats to civilized cultures and progress today. Somehow I'm to understand their measurements for real threats, bloated misperceptions, and paranoia.

I'm just asking what those measurements are. Do you know?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Irrelevant.

It's all about the hateful title. It's basically stupid.

The actions of the people have nothing to do with the religion, but with their interpretation of it.

Pachead's reaction has nothing to do with Islam; it all has to do with his stupidity and making generalization where there is none.

Unfortunately, this is his perception and hence, his reality. He gave an explanation for his perception. The counterpoint? "He's paranoid not unlike a lunatic." Yet, it's acceptable for you to make the generalization that he is stupid. You're saying now that his generalization is meaningless and that it does not exist. I visit AlJazeera.com thinking surely with the voice of Islam prominent in that piece there would be a front-page denunciation of these actions, but there is none. I look to the news to hear of this denunciation, but there is none. I look to the local paper, local mosques, and among various Islam apologetics media and I see none there either. I am then forced to ask myself if Pachead is really as stupid as you claim he is. I'm not as quick as you to claim that Pachead is making generalizations that don't exist.

Why has there not been a concerted, focused attempt to get the word of denunciation out nationally, one local paper at a time?

Could it be that Islam has successfully been over-shadowed by its most extreme element?

Has its peaceful voice been silenced by those who commit attrocity for nothing more than to influence legislation and squelch diverse thought? Is it so divided within itself that it cannot organize peacefully to create a dominant voice of reason?

If the answers to my questions are yes, then Pachead's perception is real and it would in fact be stupid to question his insight. If the answer is no to any one of the questions, there is hope. For now, the only thing there is nothing of is a collected, peaceful, and dominating voice of Islam. Scrutiny, punishment, and contrarian views cannot come from the outside as it could alienate its adherents. It must come from the inside and be loud. It is not loud enough.

There is no excuse for murder; only explanations.

There are not even those. No explanations for killing three children and a priest unless they were an armed threat.

However, it does not mean we should forgive them

My ultimate fear is that we cannot.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Unfortunately, this is his perception and hence, his reality. He gave an explanation for his perception. The counterpoint? "He's paranoid not unlike a lunatic." Yet, it's acceptable for you to make the generalization that he is stupid.

Well, in general, his positions are no different than what I've seen from Muslim Extremists. To me, they are quite the same, at least in their speech.

You're saying now that his generalization is meaningless and that it does not exist. I visit AlJazeera.com thinking surely with the voice of Islam prominent in that piece there would be a front-page denunciation of these actions, but there is none. I look to the news to hear of this denunciation, but there is none. I look to the local paper, local mosques, and among various Islam apologetics media and I see none there either. I am then forced to ask myself if Pachead is really as stupid as you claim he is. I'm not as quick as you to claim that Pachead is making generalizations that don't exist.

Al-Jazeera is not "Religion of Peace followers".

Why has there not been a concerted, focused attempt to get the word of denunciation out nationally, one local paper at a time?

Could it be that Islam has successfully been over-shadowed by its most extreme element?

Has its peaceful voice been silenced by those who commit attrocity for nothing more than to influence legislation and squelch diverse thought? Is it so divided within itself that it cannot organize peacefully to create a dominant voice of reason?

If the answers to my questions are yes, then Pachead's perception is real and it would in fact be stupid to question his insight. If the answer is no to any one of the questions, there is hope. For now, the only thing there is nothing of is a collected, peaceful, and dominating voice of Islam. Scrutiny, punishment, and contrarian views cannot come from the outside as it could alienate its adherents. It must come from the inside and be loud. It is not loud enough.

Good questions. However, I suspect the answers are there and that there is opposition, but the political leaders have advantages in not being public about it.

There are not even those. No explanations for killing three children and a priest unless they were an armed threat.

None that we can understand at this time.

My ultimate fear is that we cannot.

Well, that is a personal choice now, isn't it?

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Well, in general, his positions are no different than what I've seen from Muslim Extremists. To me, they are quite the same, at least in their speech.

mind telling us how? specifically?

hyperbole.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by loki74

mind telling us how? specifically?

hyperbole.

Judge it yourself; read the posts, and have an opinion.

[Spliffdaddy]

My opinion is that Islam is not a good thing.

It took the better part of 3 years to arrive at that conclusion.

Prolly take 3 more to change it back.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

My opinion is that Islam is not a good thing.

It took the better part of 3 years to arrive at that conclusion.

Prolly take 3 more to change it back.

Something we have in common believe it or not.

Took me about that long too.

I doubt my feelings will ever change for the better tho.

Too much inaction by Islamic countries.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by undotwa

No offense PacHead, but you write like a paranoid lunatic.

Paranoia is not a sickness unless it's all imagined.

Paranoia can be real and it can save your life if you properly use this instinct.

I am paranoid and it's real.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Rolling Bones

Paranoia is not a sickness unless it's all imagined.

Paranoia can be real and it can save your life if you properly use this instinct.

I am paranoid and it's real.

I disagree with them calling Pachead paranoid altogether. I call it vigilant and aware. I call your take vigilant and aware as well. What the Islamic community must understand is perception is reality. I'm seeing some movement on this front, but they continue to be a day late and a dollar short. There needs to be a massive, nation-wide PR campaign that starts at the grass roots level. Such as every mosque in every county, every paper, and every town. They need to organize and verbalize. They've done no such thing and as long as they continue to be this divided, the perception will manifest in a real way. When they get the national attention they so richly deserve, they need to say more than; "these things are bad, but the West...". The message needs to be swift, loud, and clear. These things are bad. (.)

[Taliesin]

Nigeria has a long history of christian vs muslim -violence, with both sides using militias for massacres, riots, revenge...
Here is a short essay about it:

Nigeria Christian / Muslim Conflict

Nigeria’s two major religions, Islam and Christianity, are sometimes depicted as monolithic entities that confront each other in pitched battles, with formal implementation of the criminal aspects of the Muslim shari’a legal code (or the likelihood of implementation) providing the spark that touches off violence. Riots based (at least ostensibly) on religious affiliation and religious policies have indeed occurred, the worst such being the two confrontations that took place in Kaduna between February and May 2000.

Such descriptions, however, can be misleading. Within the Christian community one finds a broad range of churches spanning the gamut from the mainstream Roman Catholic and Anglican to many smaller Protestant organizations. These latter include many Pentecostal denominations that tend to be quite aggressive in their proselytizing.

Usman Dan Fodio’s jihad, or religious war, 1804–1810, ended with the establishment of the Sokoto sultanate. This Islamic theocratic empire extended from what is now extreme northwest Nigeria in a broad swath southeast into contemporary northwest Cameroon. Armed forces of the emirate of Zazzau, based in present-day Zaria in north-central Kaduna State, continued intermittent warfare and slave raiding in the southern half of contemporary Kaduna State, an area populated by some 15 Middle Belt minority ethnic groups. The emir claimed suzerainty over this area.

After colonization, a number of the minorities, including the Gbagyi, who are the indigenes (first occupants) of the area where Kaduna city developed, converted to Catholicism and various Protestant sects. The emir of Zazzau, however, continued to assert his jurisdiction over Middle Belt minorities.

In the Northwest, core of the old North, some emirates—for example, Sokoto, Katsina, and Kano—retain much of their old authority. Others, such as Zazzau, have recently lost control over areas they formerly claimed, and their authority may be waning. By contrast, minority groups in southern Kaduna State such as the Byagyi, have, as part of the same recent events, gained recognition as new “indigenous” governments. Still others—for example, the newly minted Emirate of Dutse (1990)—may lack, at least at the emirate level, the authority associated with governance structures in the original seven Hausa states (Daura, Kano, Rano, Gobir, Biram [Sokoto], Zamfara, and Zazzau [Zaria]).

The situation in Kano is both simpler and more complex than that in other locations in northern Nigeria. Although the vast majority of the population is Muslim (perhaps as much as 90–95 %), many different Islamic sects coexist in the city. The traditional sects, all of which are followers of Sunni Islam, include the Qadriyya, the Tijaniyya, the Tariqa, the Malikiya, the Ahmadiya, and the Islamiya. Another group is the Da’awa (some use the term to designate a separate sect, some use it as a synonym for hisba—the group that enforces shari’a provisions—while still others use it to denote the preaching arm of the hisba).

The newer and more fundamentalist sects include the Izala and the Shiites. The Izala in particular tend to attract educated young people, both men and women. The Shiites and sometimes the Izala are said to oppose applying shari’a in Nigeria until such time as religious leaders have taken over political leadership of the country. Whereas the hisba includes representatives of all sects, in Kano it tends to be dominated by Izalas and Da’awa. Just as NGOs have sprung up to take advantage of opportunities created by Western donors’ calls for civil society partners, so Muslim sects have arisen in response to the calls for faith-based partners issued by Islamic governments and religious groups from Libya, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab countries.

Some liberal Muslims are generally opposed to a nonsecular form of government and the implementation of shari’a. The parallel governance structures—traditional and elected—are less cohesive than they appear initially.

In Kano new ethnic categories (“southerner,” “northerner”) arose when southerners, particularly Igbo, began to threaten economic interests of the far-flung Hausa commercial empire based in Kano. The policy of northernization, adopted by northern elites during the late 1950s, sought to open jobs for Hausa in commercial firms in Kano; gain greater access to government contracts, civil service posts, and financial services; and reassert control over produce export. The fear of losing out economically heightened the sense among northern indigenes of marginalization. Northernization established the predominance of politics over economics, which made political competition at the national level a matter of primary concern. Nothing in the four decades since independence has lessened these concerns.

Some 11 northern states, beginning with Zamfara on October 27, 1999, and including Sokoto, Kano, and Niger, have passed into law the criminal law sections of the Islamic shari’a code of conduct. The states concerned have advanced with varying speed toward application. Zamfara and Katsina, for example, are now applying the code, while other states have not. Included as part of the shari’a criminal code are the penalties for specific violations—for example, flogging for imbibing alcohol, removal of hands and then feet for recidivist thieves, and stoning in cases of proven adultery (the standard of proof for the last type of behavior is very high). Many northern politicians have supported the so-called shari’a movement through personal conviction, political opportunism, political realism, or a sense that they should represent the wishes of those who elected them.

This poses a constitutional problem because the Nigerian constitution guarantees a secular state, guarantees freedom of religion, and vests in states concurrent power to establish their own court systems. At both constitutional and practical levels, these guarantees are incompatible in light of the fact that Islam rejects separation of political from religious authority and proposes a unified theocratic system of governance.

Governor Ahmed Sani of Zamfara State, which first introduced and applied the criminal provisions of the shari’a code, has realized considerable political advantage from his support for shari’a. The local population strongly supports application of shari’a and the governor who made it possible. By contrast, Kaduna State Governor E.H. Ahmed Mohammed Makarfi has deliberately and successfully sought to restrict application of shari’a civil and criminal provisions to Muslim populations of the state. In Kano, the elected state leadership appears split over the advisability of applying shari’a provisions.

Underlying these different public political agendas are significant variations in the character of local Muslim populations. Although most Muslims in Nigeria’s North follow orthodox Sunni Islam and the Maliki school of shari’a jurisprudence, Shiite Islam, in its Iranian variant, has attracted some adepts. These include the Shiite leader, Sheikh El Zakzaky, who initially opposed applying shari’a in Kano because he argued that the underlying socioeconomic conditions necessary for its proper application were not present. Both Zakzaky and another Shiite leader, Abubakar Mujahid, promote a thorough Islamic revolution to reclaim society for the Muslim faithful.

The Sunni group comprises several sects. In Katsina city, for instance, five are represented: Qadriyya, Tijani, Tarika, Shia, and Izala. Some of these have political programs that focus heavily on shari’a at the moment. The Izala attract bright, young, educated individuals who are strongly committed to Islam and to the application of the shari’a criminal code. As Shia sect members follow Shiite teachings, local indigenous political leaders view them as radical and believe they are committed to the overthrow of existing government. Other sects—the Qadriyya, Tijani, and Ahamadiyya, for instance—seem less committed on the political front and more centered on the practice of Islam as a nonmilitant doctrine.

Despite these differences, Muslims in Nigeria’s North can act together in a disciplined manner when they consider it politically necessary. But groups and leaders in each state also pursue their own agendas, including relationships with Christians. In some traditional chieftaincies (e.g., Katsina and Gumel), relationships between Muslim political and religious leaders and Christians appear better than in others. Some Muslim and Christian leaders have sought to engage in peaceful dialogue, and there would appear to be real opportunities in this area that should be exploited.

Part of the resentment felt for “settlers” (members of southern tribes, as opposed to “indigenes”) residing (and often born in) Kano stems from indigenes’ feeling that settlers are simply in Kano to make money. Settlers are perceived to be unwilling to adapt to the culture of Kano and to reject the values of Kano’s indigenous population. Indigenes see settlers as failing to commit or contribute to the community in either material or nonmaterial senses. On top of this, indigenes believe settlers look down on the indigenous Kano population. To some extent, Muslims feel marginalized on their own turf, which fuels their sense of grievance against the southern Christian settlers in their midst.

Kano counts a large number of Christian denominations. Christians span the full spectrum, from militant born-again proselytizers to merely born-into-Christianity liquor sellers. The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) members whom team members interviewed may not have represented either extreme, but they expressed clear determination to continue their religious missions, even if martyrdom might be the price of doing so.

Following the adoption of the shari’a criminal code by Zamfara State in October 1999, northern Muslim political and religious leaders established the Supreme Council for Sharia in Nigeria (SCSN), an organization designed to promote adoption of shari’a in other Nigerian states. Christian groups in the southern half of the country and in the Middle Belt reacted sharply to what they perceived as a Muslim, northern effort to lay the foundations for an Islamic, theocratic state.

In May 1999 violence erupted in Kaduna State over the succession of an Emir resulting in more than 100 deaths. In Kaduna in February-May 2000 over 1,000 people died in rioting over the introduction of criminal Shar'ia in the State. Hundreds of ethnic Hausa were killed in reprisal attacks in southeastern Nigeria. In September 2001, over 2,000 were people were killed in inter-religious rioting in Jos. In October 2001, hundred were killed and thousands displaced in communal violence that spread across the Middle-Belt states of Benue, Taraba, and Nasarawa.

In the wake of these riots, President Olusegun Obasanjo visited the state and urged Governor Makarfi to establish a peace and reconciliation committee. On October 1, 2001, President Obasanjo announced the formation of a National Security Commission to address the issue of communal violence. But Christian fears remained. To address them, the Executive Governor of the State, El Haji Ahmed Makarfi, followed a strategy of according a number of ethnic groups in the heavily Christian southern half of the state recognition as chieftaincies independent of the Muslim Emirate of Zazzau. He reinforced this political innovation—for which Middle Belt groups had long lobbied—by in effect recognizing the “customary” laws of each one of these groups and empowering the new chieftaincies to organize their own “customary” judicial systems in addition to the Islamic shari’a and state magistrate court systems. This system may lead to a certain confusion and conflict of laws cases among the three systems, but it offers the great advantage of providing Christians and animists in the new chieftaincies with an effective shield against the application of the shari’a legal code, much less its criminal elements, within their jurisdictions.

Plateau State has the highest number of displaced people as a result of clashes between Christians and Muslim communities there. The predominantly Christian Tarok farmers consider the mostly Muslim Hausa cattle herders as outsiders, and accuse them of stealing land and trying to usurp political power. These had led to the burning down of 72 villages over between 2002 and the end of 2003. More than 1,000 people were killed in sectarian clashes between Christians and Muslims in Jos, the Plateau State capital, in September 2001. Subsequently a low intensity conflict spread to the surrounding countryside, where the mainly Christian farmers clashed repeatedly with the predominantly Muslim livestock herders. Several hundred more people died in these skirmishes, which forced several thousand people to abandon their homes. Most of the clashes in Plateau have been portrayed as being between Christian and Muslim communities, but have often assumed an ethnic dimension.

By 27 April 2004 at least 20 people had died in three days of clashes between rival ethnic militias in central Plateau State. The clashes were between ethnic Tarok fighters and their Fulani rivals at Bakin Chiyawa in the Shendam district of the state. The fighting was intense, with both sides using guns, bows And arrows and machetes. The fighting was caused by a dispute over use of an area of land designated for cultivation by the agrarian Tarok and for grazing by the nomadic Fulani. Hausa fighters burned churches and killed nearly 100 people in a Tarok village. Extra armed policemen were deployed to the affected area to restore order.

In early May 2004 Nigerian security forces restored order in remote areas of central Plateau State, where sectarian violence had left scores of people dead. Calm returned to the highlands town of Telwa, as hundreds of police reinforcements arrived to quash revenge attacks by Christian ethnic-Tarok fighters against the mainly Muslim-ethnic Hausa community. Local authorities also announced drastic measures to put a stop to the recurring violence. The deputy governor of Plateau state imposed a dusk-to-dawn curfew on Yelwa town, and the government has, in addition, ordered the security personnel to shoot on sight anybody or group found fomenting trouble, as well as the immediate dismantling of all illegal roadblocks mounted by the militia. Police said the death toll of 80 announced on 04 May 2004 underestimates the number of casualties. Muslim Nigerian leaders said they believe more than 200 people were killed in the violence on 01-02 May 2004, and more than 100 others were missing. They called it mass murder, and accused local authorities of organizing militia fighters, while withdrawing police from the area before they stormed the town. The Red Cross estimated as many as 600 people may have been killed in attacks on the town of Yelwa by Christian tribe militias in the first week of May 2004.

About 30 people were killed in Kano, the largest city in northern Nigeria with a population of eight million people. Religious violence erupted with Muslim protest demonstration on 10 May 2004 against the killing of several hundred Muslims in the small town of Yelwa in Plateau State in central Nigeria on 02 May 2004. A further 45 had been arrested and 40 had been injured after mobs of youths armed with clubs, machetes and jerry cans of petrol roamed the streets on predominantly Muslim Kano, attacking suspected Christians. An estimated 10,000 Kano residents, mostly Christians fleeing from their homes in troubled parts of the city, took refuge at the main military and police barracks on 11 May 2004.

At least 57,000 people fled their homes following sectarian violence involving Christians and Muslims in northern and central Nigeria. More than 30,000 Christians have been displaced from their homes in Kano, the largest city in northern Nigeria, which was racked by religious violence on Tuesday and Wednesday. A further 27,000 displaced people had sought refuge in Bauchi state in east central Nigeria following a massacre of Muslims by Christian gangs in neighbouring Plateau state earlier in May.

President Olusegun Obasanjo declared a state of emergency in Plateau State in central Nigeria on 18 May 2004, following the Christian massacre of Muslims that in turn led to reprisal killings of Christians in the northern city of Kano. The bloodletting had claimed more than 2,000 lives since September 2001. Obasanjo sacked governor Joshua Dariye, accusing him of failing to act to end a cycle of violence between the Plateau State's Muslim and Christian communities. The president also disolved the Plateau State legislature and appointed a retired army general, Chris Ali, as interim administrator for the next six months. Ali is a native of Plateau State.

Source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../nigeria-1.htm

Actually Nigeria is a good casestudy for a lot of topics: political Islam seeking to impose sharia-law, radical and militant christians using force to proselyte but also to resist the imposing of sharia-law, oil-ressources in the hand of the federal state while local people have to fight oil-companies to protest, farmers vs. nomads, tribal structures vs. state-structures...

It seems like the rioters have taken the opportunity to pay some bills from the past. I can only hope that Nigeria doesn't slide back to the state of before 18 may 2004.

I don't think we have seen the last of the cartoon-related violence. All over the world there will be radical islamists trying to instrumentalise the controversy for their own goals and to press as much "milk" out of it as possible.

Espescially in countries that have either weak state-structures or dictatory regimes that fear being toppled by islamists, and therefore appeasing the radicals, the violence will probably continue.

It's a shame and disgrace for Islam, but that is the reality right now.

There are no easy solutions, and there are espescially no quick ones, but it would help if the silent mass broke out of their apathy and rediscovered the meaning of the Quran, and start to rebuke their ignorant companions.

It would help considerably to dispose all ahadiths, and the rest of the hadiths, too, and instead to base our religion on the Quran alone.

The next step would be to understand the Quran as a message and a chronology, ie. as consisting of an eternal message and a historic chronology of a war between polytheistic Mecca and monotheistic Medina.

Taliesin

P.S.: Pachead, Islam doesn't translate as peace, but as "devotion/submission to God".