Resolved, redux:
Islam is a culture of war, and not of peace. Islamic peoples are at peace in two states: When they are of sufficient numbers in a geographical area to completely overpower it, and when their numbers are sufficiently small to prevent them from taking any political action.
In geographical areas where the followers of Islam reach a critical mass N, those followers revolt and overcome opposition, and in most cases, enforce dhimmitude on the non-muslim peoples of that region.
Thus, the culture of islam can be divided into three states: The state of having imposed islam, the state of imposing islam, and the state of waiting for an opportunity to impose islam.
This is not a discussion of Christianity. This is not a place to say “well, someone else did it” because that argument flat out doesn’t fly. this is not about Zoroastrianisim, BaHa’i, voodoo, taoism, shinto, Buddhisim, or any other religion. The resolution is about islam. We can discuss any other religion anytime you want, just not in this post.
“Thus, the culture of islam can be divided into three states: The state of having imposed islam, the state of imposing islam, and the state of waiting for an opportunity to impose islam.”
So it’s all about imposition of Islam for you, eh? Sounds kinda paranoid, like mid-century Americans’ wild hair up the butt about those wily Communists! But I’ll play along like a good sport.
First of all, I agree to a point. The Qur’an does contain passages that are intolerant of Christians and Jews and others. But it also expresses a greater or lesser approval of their fellow monotheists (“People of the Book”) and a totally open embrace of their prophets (Moses, Jesus, etc.). Scholars generally divide the Qur’an into those revelations that came to Muhammad while in Mecca (earlier) and while in Medina (later). The Meccan verses generally preach peace and accommodation, leaving it to God and the Day of Judgment to separate the believers from the unbelievers. From the Middle Ages to the 16th century, religious tolerance in Europe was greatest within the Ottoman Empire, and we know of many Jewish and Christian scientists who blossomed under Muslim rule. Today, almost no Muslim nations have any legally defined second-class citizen-hood for them (“Dhimmis”), though for many centuries many places did, that’s true.
And you seem to have neglected the Sufis. For the most part, they strove to spread Islam by preaching and example rather than conquest/revolt, and the areas where it took root (sub-Saharan Africa, Indonesia, Bengal) largely continue to be tolerant of other faiths. Only 18% of Muslims live in the Arab world, after all; a fifth is found in sub-Saharan Africa, about 30% in the Indian subcontinental region of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, and the world’s largest single Muslim community (within the bounds of one nation) is in Indonesia. There are also significant Muslim populations in China, Europe, Central Asia, and Russia.
So just who are you referring to when you talk about Islam? Where are the “evil-doers”, and what movement within Islam do they identify with (Sufi, Salafism, Wahabism, Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafi’i, Asharite, Jabriyya, Maturidi, Murjite, Mu’tazili, Qadariyya, Jafari, Ismailiyah, Zaiddiyah, Alawi, Alevi, Sufri, Azraqi, Ibadi, Nation of Islam, Ahmadiyyah, Five Percenters, Submitters, Zikri, Progressive Muslim Union)? You paint with a mighty broad brush, my friend, and that is unfair. I assume that you’ve become alarmed about this whole thing only since 9/11. And how many people had direct knowledge of that, maybe 50, conceivably? I really think you need to switch to decaf. And you would be wiser to keep in the foreground the *political* objectives of recent Islamic terrorism: bin Laden’s big complaints were about the Palestinian occupation and foreign soldiers in Saudi Arabia; the London and Madrid bombings were about the occupations in Palestine and Iraq. I really don’t think we are in the slightest danger of being run over by the next caliphate! But that’s just me, I guess.
1: Nicely done!
2: No, I have been aware of the menace of Islam since my teens. I have never been surprised by anything I’ve seen muslims do.
3: “mid-century Americans’ wild hair up the butt about those wily Communists” good thing we had that hair up our butts, because communisim was a clear and present danger, and if we had succumbed to it, we’d now be in the kind of socioeconomic trouble most of the former soviet bloc is in.
4: What makes you believe anything any muslim says? the culture specifically expects it’s adherents to deceive.
5: “Today, almost no Muslim nations have any legally defined second-class citizen-hood “In most of the countries where islam has reached, oh, say 85% or more, they have suppressed or eliminated any other form of worship.Check that one out for yourself, you can do so here: That report, by the way, was 1998. Things have gotten a bit worse since then.
I’m not painting with anything. I’m reporting facts as I see them. Perhaps my vision is clouded, but you’ve done nothing to clarify it.
And I will repeat again: It is not muslims I am concerned about, nor their many sects, and I can name a few more than you can. It’s Islam. The core message of Islam is one of conquest and murder. If you’ve read the Koran, and it seems you have, it is extremely clear that the passages that are peaceful and tolerant are peaceful and tolerant only of muslims and those non muslims over which they exercise complete control. Please quote passages that prove this wrong, if you can.
I am completely disintereste in the ‘current” state of muslim affairs, or what the “targets” of OBL et al are or were, or their reasons for doing what they did. It is only the long term I am interested in, and in the long term, what I originally postulated is true, I have seen nothing in your comment that denied or contradicted that.
And, thanks! Welcome to Neanderpundit. This is the kind of discussion I welcome and enjoy
“4: What makes you believe anything any muslim says? the culture specifically expects it’s adherents to deceive.”
OK, now I’m really not sure that I’m dealing with a sane person. WHAT I WROTE ABOVE IS ALL VERIFIABLE FACT, not open to he-said she-said. You say you appreciate the way I went about it, but then you bring in this totally irrelevant suspicion. IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE SO, BUT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. If you can prove that this or that particular Muslim is lying, then fantastic. It shouldn’t be that difficult on important matters: journalists and other gov’ts are surely paying attention to the speeches of important Muslims, so the proof must be out there, if you do the legwork. But your blanket assertion is illegitimate, discriminatory, and frankly a little psychotic.
Here is a simple primer on whether Islam is warlike and expansionist:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_war.htm
Now, back to the meat of the matter.
“In most of the countries where islam has reached, oh, say 85% or more, they have suppressed or eliminated any other form of worship.Check that one out for yourself, you can do so here:”
That alleanzacatholica report was old and only from the Catholic POV, so I also used the 2005 report of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (who report to the President, Congress and State Department):
http://www.uscirf.gov/countries/publications/currentreport/2005annualRpt.pdf#page=1
You say that you are only interested in the long term, but this snapshot is part of the long term and can’t be ignored as a valid datapoint. You say you are only interested in the basis of Islam in the Qur’an, but if 2 different sects make different choices based on the same book, that reflects on the sects not the book.
Of the 8 countries that the State Dept agrees are the biggest offenders today (see p. 28), 4 are Muslim-majority. So, perhaps a statistically significant finding against Islam. Let’s take a closer look at each of them.
ERITREA (p. 39, with additional info from their 2003 report)
Approx. 50% Sunni Muslim, 40% Orthodox Christian, 5% Catholic, 2% Protestant. The only officially recognized religions are the first 3 and the Evangelical Church of Eritrea (Lutheran-based). It’s the Orthodox who are aligned with the gov’t. “The Orthodox Church has publicly expressed concern about the growth of denominations it views as heretical, and the loss, particularly of its younger members, to them… Government spokespersons have cited Pentecostals, along with extremist Islamist groups, as threats to national security.” In sum: NOT A MAJORITY MUSLIM PROBLEM AT ALL.
end of part 1
IRAN (p. 110)
Shi’a Muslim 89%, Sunni Muslim 9%, other 2%.
Persecution of Baha’is (200 killed since 1979), Evangelical Xians (“numerous” reportedly killed) and dissident/reformist Shi’a leaders. Some discrimination and harrassment against, yet also some official tolerance of: other Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Sufis, Sunnis.
In sum: a really bad scene, but most religions are not, in fact, banned, as you claim.
BTW, you said the Shah wasn’t so bad before the Islamic Revolution. Are you aware that the CIA and UK intelligence put him in power to get rid of the democratically elected guy who just wanted the UK to quit stealing their oil?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadeq
“In March 2000, then secretary of state Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: ‘The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America.'”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Reza_Pahlavi_of_Iran
“(The Shah) abolished the multi-party system of government so that he could rule through a one-party regime…in autocratic fashion… The Shah authorized the creation of the secret police force, SAVAK, infamous for its ruthless persecution of dissidents.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution
“The regime was renowned for its corruption and its brutal practices that, in response, witnessed protests in Iran and elicited criticism from many parts of the global community.”
Oil wealth enriched the Westernized elites while the poor suffered and got pissed off; they protested and got mowed down by the military. The Shah sucked balls.
SAUDI ARABIA (p. 113)
90-92% Sunni, 8-10% Shi’ite
And total assholes, no doubt about it!
Historically, the Sauds just kind of happened to ally themselves with Wahhabism. See the link for “The Saud Family and Wahhabi Islam, 1500-1850” on this site:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/satoc.html
Their conquests were all within Arabia and all over Shi’a Muslims, not Jews or Christians, as far as I can tell. They grew in power with each other and still legitimate each other.
“Non-Muslim services have long been discouraged, but never prohibited, in Arabia. Even at the height of the Wahhabi revival in the 1920s, Christian missionary doctors held prayer services in the palace of Abd al Aziz. In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, Christian religious services were held regularly in private houses and in housing compounds belonging to foreign companies.” (See the “Islamism in Saudi Arabia” link on same page.) But more recently, a lot of harrassment and arrests have occurred. And they’ve been exporting their views with their dollars. So they suck balls, too.
SUDAN
Sunni 70% (in the gov’t controlled north), indigenous/animists 25%, Christian 5% (both rebels in the south).
1983 Sharia introduced, but Christianity and Judaism tolerated. Rebellion in the black African south.
1994 The Missionary Act prohibits non-Muslim proselytizing. Destruction of churches.
Gov’t aim of “cultural assimilation (Islamisation) and linguistic assimilation (Arabisation)”.
Genocide (2 million dead), kidnapping, enslavement, forced conversions, work camps, executions, arrests, detentions, torture, rape.
Peace accords signed in Jan. 2005 after 23 years of civil war. In Darfur since 2003 gov’t forces & Arab Muslim Janjawid militias have attacked black Muslims. “…aerial bombardment of civilians, forced starvation as the result of deliberate denial of international humanitarian assistance, and the forcible displacement of civilian populations.”
Horrid shitheads. But now it’s just Muslim-on-Muslim, what does your theory make of that?
THE GOOD NEWS: Over half of world Muslims live in countries that meet international norms for religious freedom. In some areas there is anti-Muslim violence. 4 other countries on this list do not take Islam as their starting point. Yet you choose to see the glass as less than 1/2 full. Why? Just what is your proof for saying that the Qur’an is the problem? Doesn’t the Bible have stuff about “smiting thy enemy” and stoning people that most Christians today pay no attention to? The Qur’an and the Bible are like guns– they don’t kill people, PEOPLE kill people. And how the hell can you disengage your question from all the murder and mayhem done in the name of Christianity? Someone smarter than me should make a decent estimate of the number of people killed by Christians and Muslims and leave it at that.
Well, you broke the rules, you lose. We can discuss christianity elsewhere. As I said.
Re read the premise. Find facts that are verifiable that prove the premise wrong. You have not done so.
The closest you come is this:
“THE GOOD NEWS: Over half of world Muslims live in countries that meet international norms for religious freedom. In some areas there is anti-Muslim violence. 4 other countries on this list do not take Islam as their starting point.”
Just because those places have not imposed their will on the tiny non islamic population in visible ways does not mean they won’t, and their vastly superior numbers mean that there will be nothing to stop them, anywhere, ever.
“christians killed as many” Maybe. Could be more.“But they’re doing it too” is not an acceptible argument here, or anywhere.
Since it seems it is impossible to have a discussion about islam without “CHRISTIANS ARE BAD TOO” I’m closing comments here. I don’t care, that’s not the point. I’ll write a post in a bit where everyone can come back and talk about how eeeeeevil christians are, just to make you all happy.