Time out...
Cxt, your arguments may hold water. But by getting personal here - a violation of forum etiquette - you undermine your ability to conduct the rational discussion you claim to prefer.
There's certainly a lot of history here, and perhaps it's not altogether ridiculous to consider it. After all that was the topic of the original post, no? The problem is that when you get into the pi$$ing contest, everyone loses. You are right - there's blood on everyone's hands here.
So, now what? Cxt and Akil, where can we bring this discussion in a civil - if not constructive - fashion?
Don't make me have to stop this car, children...
- Bill
Islamic scholar expresses frustration
Moderator: Available
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
-
Akil Todd Harvey
- Posts: 790
- Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Tallahassee, FL
- Contact:
Akil
Again, please, please pretty please actually read what people post prior to responding.
Can't have any sort of debate or discussion if you won't read what we take the time to write.
In point of fact I mentioned BOTH the Crusades AND the Inqusition.
Again--if you do want to argue historical "bad acts" then where do we draw the line???
Who is blameless??
What nation does not have a history of invasion and conquest?
I do not think that either Christian OR Musliums have any corner on the moral high ground--both religious group have much to answer for.
I simply do not feel that current acts of violence can be justified by events that occured 1oo's of years in the past.
Again, its irrational and again nobodies hand are clean enough to be pointing fingers.
Again, please, please pretty please actually read what people post prior to responding.
Can't have any sort of debate or discussion if you won't read what we take the time to write.
In point of fact I mentioned BOTH the Crusades AND the Inqusition.
Again--if you do want to argue historical "bad acts" then where do we draw the line???
Who is blameless??
What nation does not have a history of invasion and conquest?
I do not think that either Christian OR Musliums have any corner on the moral high ground--both religious group have much to answer for.
I simply do not feel that current acts of violence can be justified by events that occured 1oo's of years in the past.
Again, its irrational and again nobodies hand are clean enough to be pointing fingers.
This may be inflammatory and I apologize if it is, but out of this discussion (which I thought was about a scholar's opportunity or lack thereof to explain how Islam was and how it fits into the world today) I caught a comment that captured my attention as much as the original post.
There's nothing wrong with favoring a group or taking a stand, but being overprotective and sheltering does more harm than good. I think you sense this by your statement but I wanted to make sure.
BTW, I don't see a lot of anti-Islamic sentiment around where I'm at. Maybe I'm just hanging out with the wrong crowd.
Not to try to sound superior, but when I got curious about Islam I picked up a scholarly book (pre-9/11) that discussed the actual religion and translations of important passages rather than a book about politics. I think a lot of people do this and recognize the books with hysterical tone for what they are. They may read them, but they won't necessarily believe them. There will always be people who will immediately buy such books, and will probably read them during commercial breaks while watching Jerry Springer, buying into every cent. They'll miss some of the points I gathered from the book I chose. One point that caught my attention claimed that jihad was never meant to inspire Muslims to 'convert by the sword' or war against their neighbors. It was meant to inspire self-awareness and soul searching and demanded that Muslims cut away the unpure parts of *themselves*, not attack the impure cultures of others no matter how tempting. If this is true and if this message is believed by most Muslims than that frustrated Islamic scholar is in fact missing a golden opportunity to present this to everyone willing to listen. Right now there are a lot of people listening. There are a lot of people who want a reason to not hate people they've never met. Now would be a good time for educated voices of reason.
You seem pretty reasonable to me. I'm listening, Akil. I've been reading your posts for awhile now and I'll keep reading them. I'm very interested in your point of view, rather than looking for ammo in your posts to shoot back at you.
Kami
A quick aside, Akil, thank you for the tone of introspection and reason you've taken with this statement. Here's a question: what am I supposed to call terrorists who claim that their cause is fueled by Islam vs. Christianity (I believe Osama bin Laden made that statement not too long ago)? I would call them radical Islamics, which comes with the built in concept that there are non-radical Islamics. I think it would be preferable to specify an extreme group with the word radical rather than eliminate the label, which has greater danger of grouping all of Islam together. I prefer to do this with all political situations when a distinction is necessary; radical left and right rather than more inflammatory statements like "Nazi", "Commie", "Redneck Hick" and so forth. I get frustrated when it seems like a person's favored group is supposed to get special treatment and have no labels attached, but others are fair game, or worse, having no labels at all for anyone which leads to 'this person of no labels or nation did this bad thing to this other person of no labels or nation'. It makes it very difficult to have a conversation. Would you be willing to accept the label of radical Islamics? If not, what label would you accept?I think the reason that I get upset with the term " Radical Islam" or " Islamic fundamentalism" is that it is an invented term coined by politicians to catagorise people to de- humanise them and make them more easily identifiable as enemies .when you look at how many unrelated arab countries or groups can be labeled this way.
There's nothing wrong with favoring a group or taking a stand, but being overprotective and sheltering does more harm than good. I think you sense this by your statement but I wanted to make sure.
BTW, I don't see a lot of anti-Islamic sentiment around where I'm at. Maybe I'm just hanging out with the wrong crowd.
Not to try to sound superior, but when I got curious about Islam I picked up a scholarly book (pre-9/11) that discussed the actual religion and translations of important passages rather than a book about politics. I think a lot of people do this and recognize the books with hysterical tone for what they are. They may read them, but they won't necessarily believe them. There will always be people who will immediately buy such books, and will probably read them during commercial breaks while watching Jerry Springer, buying into every cent. They'll miss some of the points I gathered from the book I chose. One point that caught my attention claimed that jihad was never meant to inspire Muslims to 'convert by the sword' or war against their neighbors. It was meant to inspire self-awareness and soul searching and demanded that Muslims cut away the unpure parts of *themselves*, not attack the impure cultures of others no matter how tempting. If this is true and if this message is believed by most Muslims than that frustrated Islamic scholar is in fact missing a golden opportunity to present this to everyone willing to listen. Right now there are a lot of people listening. There are a lot of people who want a reason to not hate people they've never met. Now would be a good time for educated voices of reason.You seem pretty reasonable to me. I'm listening, Akil. I've been reading your posts for awhile now and I'll keep reading them. I'm very interested in your point of view, rather than looking for ammo in your posts to shoot back at you.
Kami
One seed, many lives.
-
jorvik
Quote
" I think the reason that I get upset with the term " Radical Islam" or " Islamic fundamentalism" is that it is an invented term coined by politicians to catagorise people to de- humanise them and make them more easily identifiable as enemies .when you look at how many unrelated arab countries or groups can be labeled this way."
Kami, I believe I said that and not Akil
" A quick aside, Akil, thank you for the tone of introspection and reason you've taken with this statement. Here's a question: what am I supposed to call terrorists who claim that their cause is fueled by Islam vs. Christianity "
Kami.......IMHO you just call them terrorists, Islam doesn't come into it..nobody called the IRA " Catholic Fundamentalists" or " Radical Catholisiscm"
It's just a label to make you hate folks
I think that Akil ( As a Muslim) finds these posts very difficult, for one thing he is on his own.he is on the defensive.and he has got to justify Islam ....when he shouldn't have to.
I am not a muslim..but I do think that Islam is getting a raw deal out of all this.
" I think the reason that I get upset with the term " Radical Islam" or " Islamic fundamentalism" is that it is an invented term coined by politicians to catagorise people to de- humanise them and make them more easily identifiable as enemies .when you look at how many unrelated arab countries or groups can be labeled this way."
Kami, I believe I said that and not Akil
" A quick aside, Akil, thank you for the tone of introspection and reason you've taken with this statement. Here's a question: what am I supposed to call terrorists who claim that their cause is fueled by Islam vs. Christianity "
Kami.......IMHO you just call them terrorists, Islam doesn't come into it..nobody called the IRA " Catholic Fundamentalists" or " Radical Catholisiscm"
It's just a label to make you hate folks
I think that Akil ( As a Muslim) finds these posts very difficult, for one thing he is on his own.he is on the defensive.and he has got to justify Islam
....when he shouldn't have to.I am not a muslim..but I do think that Islam is getting a raw deal out of all this.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
On the mindset front, this is an important technique used to get people to kill others. This isn't my idea; it's a concept studied and discussed by Grossman et al. Gooks, nips, krauts, etc., etc.... Whatever it takes to get Johnny to pull the trigger in combat.it is an invented term coined by politicians to catagorise people to de- humanise them and make them more easily identifiable as enemies
Food for thought.
- Bill
I'm sorry if I misquoted. 
They do act in the name of Islam, however. Is it permissible to strip them of their religious origins? They want to be viewed as faithful Muslims.
I guess I have to accept that it dehumanizes people, but doesn't it dehumanize them to just call them terrorists too? I think it would dehumanize them less to connect them to the cause that inspires them.
Kami
They do act in the name of Islam, however. Is it permissible to strip them of their religious origins? They want to be viewed as faithful Muslims.
I guess I have to accept that it dehumanizes people, but doesn't it dehumanize them to just call them terrorists too? I think it would dehumanize them less to connect them to the cause that inspires them.
Kami
One seed, many lives.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
The dehumanization is a natural process that happens when groups wage battle against each other. It allows one group to rationalize severe actions against the next.
I don't necessarily view it as inappropriate - particularly when an opposing group chooses atrocity as a modus operendum. No matter the inspiration, the end cannot justify the means. In that case, one could argue that you reap what you sow.
The problem here lies more with generalization. Extremists in any group can effectively taint an entire group in the eyes of many. And once the violence starts, it's hard to break the cycle. Once a small group acts in the name of a cause, it's difficult for others in the group to separate themselves from the actions and views of the minority.
And perhaps the most deadly sin of all for the majority is silence.
- Bill
I don't necessarily view it as inappropriate - particularly when an opposing group chooses atrocity as a modus operendum. No matter the inspiration, the end cannot justify the means. In that case, one could argue that you reap what you sow.
The problem here lies more with generalization. Extremists in any group can effectively taint an entire group in the eyes of many. And once the violence starts, it's hard to break the cycle. Once a small group acts in the name of a cause, it's difficult for others in the group to separate themselves from the actions and views of the minority.
And perhaps the most deadly sin of all for the majority is silence.
- Bill
Bill
I would have to agree with that Bill.
A good chunk of my family left Ireland during the Troubles.
Only a small number of people on either side was involved in the violence.
What allowed it to go on was all the folks that kept silent and did nothing.
The vast majority of people were not involved and did not want to be.
Looking back seems like such as waste. If they really wanted the English to leave all/Self rule all they had to do was stop killing--it is way to expenseive to keep all those troops there without justification---ie. stopping the violence.
Both parties got locked into a kind of "killing spiral" where they lost sight of any goal and just went back to "an eye for an eye."
Such a waste.
I would have to agree with that Bill.
A good chunk of my family left Ireland during the Troubles.
Only a small number of people on either side was involved in the violence.
What allowed it to go on was all the folks that kept silent and did nothing.
The vast majority of people were not involved and did not want to be.
Looking back seems like such as waste. If they really wanted the English to leave all/Self rule all they had to do was stop killing--it is way to expenseive to keep all those troops there without justification---ie. stopping the violence.
Both parties got locked into a kind of "killing spiral" where they lost sight of any goal and just went back to "an eye for an eye."
Such a waste.
-
jorvik
Kami.
Maybe I didn't express myself very well. I don't care about the feelings of terrorists....but I am concerned that perfectly innocent people will get thought of badly, hurt and possibly killed because somebody has used the wrong language. There are millions of Muslims in the world, and just a few deluded madmen, who also happen to be muslims
So why use the language and terminology that is used
......a close friend of mine who is married to a Pakistani Muslim was worried sick after 9/11 that her family and kids would get attacked because of what had happened.....she kept on saying to me I hope they don't think that we would do anything like that.
Yet even now we don't know what was behind 9/11..it's all very vague
CXT
I got my information about Bush from Michael Moores book " Dude" what you do to my country?
there are appendices listing were the information came from
The " Washington Post" etc.
Maybe I didn't express myself very well. I don't care about the feelings of terrorists....but I am concerned that perfectly innocent people will get thought of badly, hurt and possibly killed because somebody has used the wrong language. There are millions of Muslims in the world, and just a few deluded madmen, who also happen to be muslims
So why use the language and terminology that is used
......a close friend of mine who is married to a Pakistani Muslim was worried sick after 9/11 that her family and kids would get attacked because of what had happened.....she kept on saying to me I hope they don't think that we would do anything like that.Yet even now we don't know what was behind 9/11..it's all very vague
CXT
I got my information about Bush from Michael Moores book " Dude" what you do to my country?
there are appendices listing were the information came from
The " Washington Post" etc.
Jorvik
I honestly appreciate you getting back to me on that.
I was a big fan of MM when he wrote "Roger and Me" was also a big fan of his short lived TV show.
I was really disappointed when stuff started to come out about his "staging" of events.
He got caught "staging" a number of clips from his "Bowling For Columbine" video.
In fact a couple of stateside news networks did an entire special on a number of things MM "staged" and some "editing" that crossed the line into outright twisting of events.
Not sure I would count MM as any kind of solid or even semi-solid source.
I did some checking and was unable to find any souce material on Bush and the Osamas being any kind of "friends" let alone "good friends."
Will check the source material of his latest book.
Maybe I missed something.
I honestly appreciate you getting back to me on that.
I was a big fan of MM when he wrote "Roger and Me" was also a big fan of his short lived TV show.
I was really disappointed when stuff started to come out about his "staging" of events.
He got caught "staging" a number of clips from his "Bowling For Columbine" video.
In fact a couple of stateside news networks did an entire special on a number of things MM "staged" and some "editing" that crossed the line into outright twisting of events.
Not sure I would count MM as any kind of solid or even semi-solid source.
I did some checking and was unable to find any souce material on Bush and the Osamas being any kind of "friends" let alone "good friends."
Will check the source material of his latest book.
Maybe I missed something.
CBC Canada ran a special a while back where it was pointed out that the Bin Laden family actually had a residence in Texas, and that Osama's father helped finance Bush's first oil company. They were business partners.
Also, after the strikes of 9/11, when all North American flights were grounded, the Bin Laden family (not with Osama) were allowed to fly out.
Anyone else know about this?
TG
Also, after the strikes of 9/11, when all North American flights were grounded, the Bin Laden family (not with Osama) were allowed to fly out.
Anyone else know about this?
TG
-
benzocaine
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
- Location: St. Thomas
-
jorvik
CXT
Thanks for the responce, openmindedness is a great quality.
I really don't know about MM But I've been questioning 9/11 since it happened and subsequent events.and he is the only person that I have read who does seem to ask questions that are relevant.
I must say something else, which a lot of folks miss. I am British, and of a different culture. Our news broadcasts are not the same etc. as an example..take MM, we don't have guns here, they are not legal and very few people would even want to own one. So he says something about guns and it's well curious
.we are interested, coz it's different, it's no biggy..but to your culture, it is
I'm not saying either viewpoint is wrong...it just is,
So MM will be talking about taking a right away from you, a right that we don't have ( or want)
I'm not taking any philospohical or political stance on this, ...I'm just saying things are different.
MM doesn't get a tremendous airtime here either
Thanks for the responce, openmindedness is a great quality.
I really don't know about MM
But I've been questioning 9/11 since it happened and subsequent events.and he is the only person that I have read who does seem to ask questions that are relevant.I must say something else, which a lot of folks miss. I am British, and of a different culture. Our news broadcasts are not the same etc. as an example..take MM, we don't have guns here, they are not legal and very few people would even want to own one. So he says something about guns and it's well curious
.we are interested, coz it's different, it's no biggy..but to your culture, it is I'm not saying either viewpoint is wrong...it just is,
So MM will be talking about taking a right away from you, a right that we don't have ( or want)
I'm not taking any philospohical or political stance on this, ...I'm just saying things are different.
MM doesn't get a tremendous airtime here either
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
It's pretty well known that the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia is wealthy, well respected, and influential. It would be difficult being in certain industries related to Saudi Arabia and not have contact with them directly or indirectly.
Osama is an outcast of both the family and the country. He is no longer connected with either of them in any way. To put it mildly, Osama's agenda is contrary to his former country's leadership and his family.
You can weave whataever conspiracy theories you want aout Osama vs. the rest of his family and Saudi Arabia, but you won't find many people taking you seriously.
- Bill
Osama is an outcast of both the family and the country. He is no longer connected with either of them in any way. To put it mildly, Osama's agenda is contrary to his former country's leadership and his family.
You can weave whataever conspiracy theories you want aout Osama vs. the rest of his family and Saudi Arabia, but you won't find many people taking you seriously.
- Bill
