Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > UWOA > Insurgencies & Guerrilla Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-16-2009, 10:50   #1
Warrior-Mentor
Quiet Professional
 
Warrior-Mentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: America, the Beautiful
Posts: 3,193
FRIEDMAN: Islam needs a Civil War

Seems Friedman is slowly starting to realize the truth about islam...

Unfortunately, he doesn't realize that the civil war he calls for negates islam - which has been "perfected" by Muhammed.


December 16, 2009
OP-ED COLUMNIST
www.jihad.com

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Let’s not fool ourselves. Whatever threat the real Afghanistan poses to U.S. national security, the “Virtual Afghanistan” now poses just as big a threat. The Virtual Afghanistan is the network of hundreds of jihadist Web sites that inspire, train, educate and recruit young Muslims to engage in jihad against America and the West. Whatever surge we do in the real Afghanistan has no chance of being a self-sustaining success, unless there is a parallel surge — by Arab and Muslim political and religious leaders — against those who promote violent jihadism on the ground in Muslim lands and online in the Virtual Afghanistan.

Last week, five men from northern Virginia were arrested in Pakistan, where they went, they told Pakistani police, to join the jihad against U.S. troops in Afghanistan. They first made contact with two extremist organizations in Pakistan by e-mail in August. As The Washington Post reported on Sunday: “ ‘Online recruiting has exponentially increased, with Facebook, YouTube and the increasing sophistication of people online,’ a high-ranking Department of Homeland Security official said. ... ‘Increasingly, recruiters are taking less prominent roles in mosques and community centers because places like that are under scrutiny. So what these guys are doing is turning to the Internet,’ said Evan Kohlmann, a senior analyst with the U.S.-based NEFA Foundation, a private group that monitors extremist Web sites.”

The Obama team is fond of citing how many “allies” we have in the Afghan coalition. Sorry, but we don’t need more NATO allies to kill more Taliban and Al Qaeda. We need more Arab and Muslim allies to kill their extremist ideas, which, thanks to the Virtual Afghanistan, are now being spread farther than ever before.

Only Arabs and Muslims can fight the war of ideas within Islam. We had a civil war in America in the mid-19th century because we had a lot of people who believed bad things — namely that you could enslave people because of the color of their skin. We defeated those ideas and the individuals, leaders and institutions that propagated them, and we did it with such ferocity that five generations later some of their offspring still have not forgiven the North.

Islam needs the same civil war. It has a violent minority that believes bad things: that it is O.K. to not only murder non-Muslims — “infidels,” who do not submit to Muslim authority — but to murder Muslims as well who will not accept the most rigid Muslim lifestyle and submit to rule by a Muslim caliphate.

What is really scary is that this violent, jihadist minority seems to enjoy the most “legitimacy” in the Muslim world today. Few political and religious leaders dare to speak out against them in public. Secular Arab leaders wink at these groups, telling them: “We’ll arrest if you do it to us, but if you leave us alone and do it elsewhere, no problem.”

How many fatwas — religious edicts — have been issued by the leading bodies of Islam against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Very few. Where was the outrage last week when, on the very day that Iraq’s Parliament agreed on a formula to hold free and fair multiparty elections — unprecedented in Iraq’s modern history — five explosions set off by suicide bombers hit ministries, a university and Baghdad’s Institute of Fine Arts, killing at least 127 people and wounding more than 400, many of them kids?

Not only was there no meaningful condemnation emerging from the Muslim world — which was primarily focused on resisting Switzerland’s ban on new mosque minarets — there was barely a peep coming out of Washington. President Obama expressed no public outrage. It is time he did.

“What Muslims were talking about last week were the minarets of Switzerland, not the killings of people in Iraq or Pakistan,” noted Mamoun Fandy, a Middle East expert at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. “People look for red herrings when they don’t want to look inward, when they don’t want to summon the moral courage to produce the counter-fatwa that would say: stabilizing Iraq is an Islamic duty and bringing peace to Afghanistan is part of the survival of the Islamic umma,” or community.

So please tell me, how are we supposed to help build something decent and self-sustaining in Afghanistan and Pakistan when jihadists murder other Muslims by the dozens and no one really calls them out?

A corrosive mind-set has taken hold since 9/11. It says that Arabs and Muslims are only objects, never responsible for anything in their world, and we are the only subjects, responsible for everything that happens in their world. We infantilize them.

Arab and Muslims are not just objects. They are subjects. They aspire to, are able to and must be challenged to take responsibility for their world. If we want a peaceful, tolerant region more than they do, they will hold our coats while we fight, and they will hold their tongues against their worst extremists. They will lose, and we will lose — here and there, in the real Afghanistan and in the Virtual Afghanistan.


SOURCE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/op...=1&ref=opinion
Warrior-Mentor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2009, 12:32   #2
Richard
Quiet Professional
 
Richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 15,370
Quote:
Unfortunately, he doesn't realize that the civil war he calls for negates {add belief of choice} - which has been "perfected" by {add deity of choice}.
This position has been used many times in aversion to such reasonably considered metamorphoses - however - there is always the chance that this time may be the exception to History's lessons on the matter.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02
__________________
“Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whisky bottle in the hand of (another)… There are just some kind of men who – who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.” - To Kill A Mockingbird (Atticus Finch)

“Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” - Robert Heinlein
Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2009, 22:25   #3
Warrior-Mentor
Quiet Professional
 
Warrior-Mentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: America, the Beautiful
Posts: 3,193
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard View Post
This position has been used many times in aversion to such reasonably considered metamorphoses - however - there is always the chance that this time may be the exception to History's lessons on the matter.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02
That's baloney. The Catholic Church under went significant changes during both Vatican 1 and Vatican 2.

Islam, by comparison can NEVER CHANGE. To change islam is to become an apostate, therefore, an unbeliever, who MUST be killed and then will have his or her soul burn in hell for eternity. This has been footnoted here multiple occasions with specific references to Islamic Law.

And I don't care if there's ever a change in Hinduism, or Buddhism or any other religion for that matter... because their religions don't condone or justify killing, mutilating, terrorizing and coercing others to convert or die.

Come on Richard, you are using weak arguments. You have to do better.

Quit trying to feed us liberal talking points. We're not buying it.

Last edited by Warrior-Mentor; 12-16-2009 at 22:28.
Warrior-Mentor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2009, 23:19   #4
Richard
Quiet Professional
 
Richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 15,370
Astounding - what a fine thing it must be to have such an intellect...and to live in an age which can technologically guarantee there will be room enough in the seat of ones pants to hold it all.

As for myself, after considering the labyrinthine issues related to Islam and modern society, I can't see it all so simply and have chosen to (1) side with History and (2) not feed The Narrative. However, YMMV...and so it goes...

Richard's jaded $.02
__________________
“Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whisky bottle in the hand of (another)… There are just some kind of men who – who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.” - To Kill A Mockingbird (Atticus Finch)

“Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” - Robert Heinlein
Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-16-2009, 23:35   #5
orion5
Guerrilla Chief
 
orion5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Driving the Texas highways
Posts: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor View Post
Islam, by comparison can NEVER CHANGE. To change islam is to become an apostate, therefore, an unbeliever, who MUST be killed and then will have his or her soul burn in hell for eternity. This has been footnoted here multiple occasions with specific references to Islamic Law.

And I don't care if there's ever a change in Hinduism, or Buddhism or any other religion for that matter... because their religions don't condone or justify killing, mutilating, terrorizing and coercing others to convert or die.
Warrior-Mentor, I have spent years living in a moderate Muslim country, Malaysia, that is tri-cultural: Muslim Malays, Chinese (mostly Buddhists), and Indian (mostly Hindu). That country operates more peacefully and is more stable than most Arab states. They do have their radical elements that pop up from time to time, including al Qaeda, but those are mostly squashed when they get out of control.

I understand your point on how Islam never changes. But what are your thoughts on how some of these countries are able to live by a more inclusive version of Islam. The entire time I was there (including during 9/11) I don't remember any stories of beheadings, torture, bombs etc. I felt very welcome there and never felt afraid to wander about in that country. It seems as if there are those Muslims who choose to operate by a softer standard - they might want to convert everyone to Islam, but in the meantime, they are not intent on killing everyone who disagrees.

Thoughts? Thanks...
orion5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 00:45   #6
Warrior-Mentor
Quiet Professional
 
Warrior-Mentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: America, the Beautiful
Posts: 3,193
Great question. Wafa Sultan explains better than I could.

From her book “A God who hates” pages 165-169:

Arab heritage has to be acquired from Arab books. Based on her conversations with non-Arab Muslims, she is convinced that there is a great deal of difference between Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims.

“Arab Muslims have a more profound understanding of the Koran, and of the life and sayings of the prophet Muhammed and what has been written about him. As a result, they have been more exposed to the application of Islamic teachings than have non-Arab Muslims. When an Arabic-speaking Muslim Prays, he understands what the prayer means, while a non-Arab Muslim repeats the prayer without understanding it.”

“A Muslim PRAYS FIVE TIMES A DAY, and on each occasion he recites the Fatiha, the first verse of the Koran, a number of times.” In this prayer “Muslims execrate Christians and Jews a number of times in the course of a single prayer, which they REPEAT FIVE TIMES A DAY. Non-Arab Muslims are un aware of that they are cursing Christians and Jews, because they pray in Arabic without understanding what they are saying. This means that the quantity of the hatred they absorb from their prayers is less than that absorbed by Arab Muslims, who are aware of what they are saying.”

She explains that, “Islamic Terrorism is the product of the Arab heartland.”

And Wafa is very clear stating,Islamic terrorism is led by Arabs, and those non-Arabs who aspire leadership are Arab trained.”

Wafa’s stories [throughout “A God Who Hates”] humanize the impact of the barbaric islamic laws that are sacrosanct in islam as codified in sharia.

GET “A GOD WHO HATES” HERE:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Who-Hates-...tt_at_ep_dpt_1
Warrior-Mentor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 01:48   #7
Books
Quiet Professional
 
Books's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In transit
Posts: 295
I largely agree with the Sir.

Islam, as it moves through the world, changed as it interacted with other cultures. It is a war based religion, the product of a brutal culture. However, SE Asia wasn't violently converted (at least not as violently as the Middle East) and the existent cultures (Buddhist, Hindu and animist) influenced its expression, namely tolerance. True, women wear the hijab and Arabic expressions have well made their way into Bahasa, but the Malay version of Islam is dramatically different that of the Arab world.

What does this really mean though for Islam? It means that the Malay version is essentially an apostate version of Islam (according to an Arabic perspective) in that it embraces (or allows) tolerance and coexistence. Obviously this is my read of the situation, but I think it bears up under scrutiny.

Just like there are folks born into a Catholic country who aren't really Catholic, there are Muslims born in an Islamic country who are only notionally Muslim. There are more of those in Malaysia than there are elsewhere. It is a lack of their "muslimness" that has largely enabled Malaysia to connect with the Western world and develop its people and infrastructure.

That said, one of the shitheads we were training there had a picture of OBL as his screen saver. Several of the good ones though came up and confessed that they were Christian or Buddhist. . . so it goes.
__________________
This is a dynamic business that is impacted by continuously changing variables complicated by human dimensions that are both unpredictable and fickle.

- Jack Moroney
__________________
Books is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 02:23   #8
T-Rock
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western NC
Posts: 1,243
IMO, The narrative needs no feeding - it feeds itself - it’s Shariah. How else can one explain why it is that a million Muslims will pour into the streets to protest Danish cartoons, but not one will take to the streets to protest Muslim suicide bombers who blow up fellow Muslims along with innocent infidels…

In order to defeat the radical ideology of Islam, it must slowly be discredited in the eyes of the world and it will undoubtedly take a very long time. The solution to Islam will be exposing Islam’s narrative for what it is.

What we are witnessing is Shariah Law, and to “not” criticize or to not “feed the narrative” is tantamount to the enforcement of Shariah. Shariah Law forbids criticism of Islam and the politically correct path our politicians have taken is well beyond political correctness, in fact, we are enforcing Shariah law and we’re doing this by self-flagellation, denial, excuses, submission, and deceiving the American people to just what Islamic Shariah really is…do we disrespect ourselves and our nation so that we might respect Islam?

Not feeding the narrative is nothing more than Dhimmitude…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnOWgCz5fj4
T-Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 04:20   #9
Sigaba
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,476
A few quick points.

First, if someone abandons/renounces a faith, that's an act of apostasy. If someone decides to follow a different doctrine within the same faith, that's an act of heresy. Unless, of course, we're using both words from subjective viewpoints: Anne Hutchison was a heretic in the eyes of her supporters but an apostate in John Eliot's.*

Second, IMO there's a tension between posts #3 and #6. The former states "Islam, by comparison can [never change]." The latter states: "Based on her conversations with non-Arab Muslims, [Wafa Sultan] is convinced that there is a great deal of difference between Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims." I suppose one could square the circle by saying that non-Arab Muslims are not really practicing true Islam, and are therefore "apostates." However, to do so would be to miss a good opportunity to vet the unspoken assumption that Islam is a monolith.

Third, the notion that nothing in history is inevitable is not a liberal talking point. If anything--and this point is developed in Herbert Butterfield's The Whig Interpretation of History (1931)--the notion is contrary to fundamental premises of liberal philosophy.

Fourth, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my objection to viewing any group of people through a lens crafted from knowledge of one aspect of their experiences to the detriment of other aspects of their everyday lives. I believe this objection reflects an approach to intellectual inquiry that is not looking to find answers to questions but rather to find questions raised by answers to questions. And also, there's something about the self being unknowable; there's that too.

Fifth, I do not care much for Mr. Friedman's views on most topics. This particular piece reminds me of some of the reasons why. Mr. Friedman's understanding of the causes, course, and consequences of the American Civil War is lamentably bad. His notion that a civil war is a preferable mechanism for resolving any internal difference on any topic is--abominable. He tells us that "Arab and Muslims are not just objects. They are subjects." Yet he would move them around the chessboard like pawns to satisfy his vision of how the world should be.

Correction--several somewhat quick points.

_________________________________________
*But then, if one is going to make such a distinction, one is on the path towards the cultural turn. Traveling this path undermines the central premise of many of the discussions on this BB about the inherent nature not only of Islam but of language itself, to say nothing of language in translation. (Or, for that matter, to say nothing of knowledge.) That is to say there are huge trade offs if one uses "apostasy" from a subjective viewpoint without regard to the viewpoint of the heretic. I suppose one could square this circle by deconstructing it but that doesn't seem to be the intent behind the posts in which Islamic "apostasy" is discussed.
Sigaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 07:52   #10
T-Rock
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western NC
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
“I have spent years living in a moderate Muslim country, Malaysia, that is tri-cultural: Muslim Malays, Chinese (mostly Buddhists), and Indian (mostly Hindu).”

“I understand your point on how Islam never changes. But what are your thoughts on how some of these countries are able to live by a more inclusive version of Islam.”
Out of curiosity, did you have to pay the “Jizya” - (aka - "Bumiputra") ?

Interesting articles:
http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/engl...n-malaysia.pdf

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/02/fi...-malaysia.html
T-Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 08:04   #11
Warrior-Mentor
Quiet Professional
 
Warrior-Mentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: America, the Beautiful
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
A few quick points.

First, if someone abandons/renounces a faith, that's an act of apostasy. If someone decides to follow a different doctrine within the same faith, that's an act of heresy. Unless, of course, we're using both words from subjective viewpoints: Anne Hutchison was a heretic in the eyes of her supporters but an apostate in John Eliot's.*
Agree if you are using a Western definition. Haven't heard or read any mention of heresy in islamic law. It defaults to apostacy and it's death threat and eternal condemnation burning in hell...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
Second, IMO there's a tension between posts #3 and #6. The former states "Islam, by comparison can [never change]."
By islamic law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
The latter states: "Based on her conversations with non-Arab Muslims, [Wafa Sultan] is convinced that there is a great deal of difference between Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims." I suppose one could square the circle by saying that non-Arab Muslims are not really practicing true Islam, and are therefore "apostates." However, to do so would be to miss a good opportunity to vet the unspoken assumption that Islam is a monolith.
This is a matter of implementation. They are following the same islamic law and doctrine. And one other point about Malaysia and the Philipines, as islam takes deeper roots, it will grow more militant as Muslims grow in numbers. Hence the morality police's first case of caning a woman in the video T-Rock posted [HAT TIP].

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
Third, the notion that nothing in history is inevitable is not a liberal talking point. If anything--and this point is developed in Herbert Butterfield's The Whig Interpretation of History (1931)--the notion is contrary to fundamental premises of liberal philosophy.
Not sure where this came from. T.E. Lawrence discussed the Muslim belief in the concept and expression "It is written." in the seven pillars of wisdom, but I'm travelling and don't have it with me. Certainly you can understand the implications on individual thought if you subscribe to a militant ideology and combine it with the idea that you have no free will - that everything has already been scripted [or written] by the god of war and his warrior prophet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
Fourth, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my objection to viewing any group of people through a lens crafted from knowledge of one aspect of their experiences to the detriment of other aspects of their everyday lives. I believe this objection reflects an approach to intellectual inquiry that is not looking to find answers to questions but rather to find questions raised by answers to questions. And also, there's something about the self being unknowable; there's that too.
Agreed you can't know an entire culture or country through the stories on one person. Taken in their totality and the repressive nature of islam with specific respect to freedom of expression - and the risk she and others like her assume when doing so - and we have to take these accounts seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
Fifth, I do not care much for Mr. Friedman's views on most topics. This particular piece reminds me of some of the reasons why. Mr. Friedman's understanding of the causes, course, and consequences of the American Civil War is lamentably bad. His notion that a civil war is a preferable mechanism for resolving any internal difference on any topic is--abominable. He tells us that "Arab and Muslims are not just objects. They are subjects." Yet he would move them around the chessboard like pawns to satisfy his vision of how the world should be.

Correction--several somewhat quick points.
Won't attempt to claim to be a civil war historian - so tagging out on this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
_________________________________________
*But then, if one is going to make such a distinction, one is on the path towards the cultural turn. Traveling this path undermines the central premise of many of the discussions on this BB about the inherent nature not only of Islam but of language itself, to say nothing of language in translation. (Or, for that matter, to say nothing of knowledge.) That is to say there are huge trade offs if one uses "apostasy" from a subjective viewpoint without regard to the viewpoint of the heretic. I suppose one could square this circle by deconstructing it but that doesn't seem to be the intent behind the posts in which Islamic "apostasy" is discussed.
Thanks Sigaba....good discussion.

Paraphrasing George Orwell's "Politics of the English Language" which Newt quoted in his speech - How can we know anything we can't identify? This is the problem with not being able to call a jihadi, a jihadi...which is now administration policy!
Warrior-Mentor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 11:35   #12
orion5
Guerrilla Chief
 
orion5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Driving the Texas highways
Posts: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor View Post
From Wafa Sultan's book “A God who hates”:

Arab heritage has to be acquired from Arab books. Based on her conversations with non-Arab Muslims, she is convinced that there is a great deal of difference between Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims.

“Arab Muslims have a more profound understanding of the Koran, and of the life and sayings of the prophet Muhammed and what has been written about him. As a result, they have been more exposed to the application of Islamic teachings than have non-Arab Muslims. When an Arabic-speaking Muslim Prays, he understands what the prayer means, while a non-Arab Muslim repeats the prayer without understanding it.”

“A Muslim PRAYS FIVE TIMES A DAY, and on each occasion he recites the Fatiha, the first verse of the Koran, a number of times.” In this prayer “Muslims execrate Christians and Jews a number of times in the course of a single prayer, which they REPEAT FIVE TIMES A DAY. Non-Arab Muslims are un aware of that they are cursing Christians and Jews, because they pray in Arabic without understanding what they are saying. This means that the quantity of the hatred they absorb from their prayers is less than that absorbed by Arab Muslims, who are aware of what they are saying.”
FASCINATING. Thanks for the explanation. You've already got me reading Oriana Fallaci's book "The Force of Reason" so it sounds like I need to queue up Wafa Sultan's book next! I am most curious to discuss some of Wafa's thoughts with my Malaysian friends. I seriously doubt they consider themselves apostates. I guess I should be careful what I stir up....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Books View Post
Islam, as it moves through the world, changed as it interacted with other cultures. It is a war based religion, the product of a brutal culture. However, SE Asia wasn't violently converted (at least not as violently as the Middle East) and the existent cultures (Buddhist, Hindu and animist) influenced its expression, namely tolerance. True, women wear the hijab and Arabic expressions have well made their way into Bahasa, but the Malay version of Islam is dramatically different that of the Arab world.

What does this really mean though for Islam? It means that the Malay version is essentially an apostate version of Islam (according to an Arabic perspective) in that it embraces (or allows) tolerance and coexistence. Obviously this is my read of the situation, but I think it bears up under scrutiny.
Books, your point on the tolerance of SE Asia makes sense. My perception, too. By the way, you probably already know this, but Malaysia is a huge vacation spot for Middle Eastern Arabs. It's quite a sight to see them at the beaches. The men are frolicking around in tiny speedos while their women are in solid black Boshiya (veil) & Abaya (dress). In 100 degrees. While swimming. Talk about double standards. The Malay (Muslim) women I worked with thought this was pure crazy.

Thanks, guys...great discussion.
orion5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 14:00   #13
frostfire
Area Commander
 
frostfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lone Star
Posts: 2,153
Thumbs up

Good heavens! Great thread!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard View Post
As for myself, after considering the labyrinthine issues related to Islam and modern society, I can't see it all so simply and have chosen to (1) side with History and (2) not feed The Narrative. However, YMMV...and so it goes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by orion5 View Post
Warrior-Mentor, I have spent years living in a moderate Muslim country, Malaysia, that is tri-cultural: Muslim Malays, Chinese (mostly Buddhists), and Indian (mostly Hindu). That country operates more peacefully and is more stable than most Arab states. They do have their radical elements that pop up from time to time, including al Qaeda, but those are mostly squashed when they get out of control.
I think one of the reason an explicit declaration of war on the religion of pieces cannot take place, is that we'll awaken the "Islamic giants" aka. Malaysia, Indonesia, and so on. As orion5 mentioned, right now AQ elements are being squashed in these places, but that is because they antagonize the population ie. Bali bombing, Marriott Hotel bombing, where local population were also killed in the process. If the US went all-out aggressive on Islam, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and these places may embrace AQ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Books View Post
I largely agree with the Sir.
Islam, as it moves through the world, changed as it interacted with other cultures. It is a war based religion, the product of a brutal culture. However, SE Asia wasn't violently converted (at least not as violently as the Middle East) and the existent cultures (Buddhist, Hindu and animist) influenced its expression, namely tolerance. True, women wear the hijab and Arabic expressions have well made their way into Bahasa, but the Malay version of Islam is dramatically different that of the Arab world.
What does this really mean though for Islam? It means that the Malay version is essentially an apostate version of Islam (according to an Arabic perspective) in that it embraces (or allows) tolerance and coexistence. Obviously this is my read of the situation, but I think it bears up under scrutiny.
Just like there are folks born into a Catholic country who aren't really Catholic, there are Muslims born in an Islamic country who are only notionally Muslim. There are more of those in Malaysia than there are elsewhere. It is a lack of their "muslimness" that has largely enabled Malaysia to connect with the Western world and develop its people and infrastructure.
That said, one of the shitheads we were training there had a picture of OBL as his screen saver. Several of the good ones though came up and confessed that they were Christian or Buddhist. . . so it goes.
Excellent analysis, Books. In the wake of 9/11, many offices in Indonesia put OBL poster, admiring him as one who dared to stick it to the great satan, without knowing much of the AQ role in the assasination of Ahmad Shah Massoud, Lion of Panjshir, a true mujaheedin against the Soviets. Over and over again, ignorance plays role in radicalization of "moderate" muslims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rock View Post
Out of curiosity, did you have to pay the “Jizya” - (aka - "Bumiputra") ?
Good catch! Yes, Islam has capacity for peace when everyone else is dhimmi. A Chinese-Malaysian back in college used to rant on and on about "Bumiputra". However, there is no jizya in Indonesia and despite 94% plus muslim population, it is "relatively peaceful" (Maluku, Ambon, and several other areas are exception). I guess Books covered the reason in his post. Islam was also the glue that formed that nationalistic sense in the resistance against the Dutch, the British, and the Japanese.
__________________
"we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope" Rom. 5:3-4

"So we can suffer, and in suffering we know who we are" David Goggins

"Aide-toi, Dieu t'aidera " Jehanne, la Pucelle

Der, der Geld verliert, verliert einiges;
Der, der einen Freund verliert, verliert viel mehr;
Der, der das Vertrauen verliert, verliert alles.

INDNJC
frostfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2009, 17:25   #14
ACE844
Guerrilla
 
ACE844's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Northeast
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba View Post
However, to do so would be to miss a good opportunity to vet the unspoken assumption that Islam is a monolith.
Sir,

I have a question in regards to this issue. I am in the early stages of learning about a lot of these issues and I'm attempting to correct that ignorance. So please forgive me if these questions are a bit basic. I have been reading alot of the things "Warrior-Mentor, and others" here have been posting and educating us all about in regards to the 'realities' of Islam.

As with most educated discourse however there seem to be some very disparent views in both the anecdotal and empirical realms. One seems to be in regards to whether
Quote:
Islam is a monolith
? In reference to your statement above how would one go about vetting this in the face of the fact of so many differing viewpoints? Some are close and many are all over the map. So how are the warriors and educators vetting-setting their 'zero' on this issue?

Thanks in advance,
ACE844
__________________
Never do anything you wouldn't want to explain to the Paramedics.

Last edited by ACE844; 12-27-2009 at 17:26. Reason: spelling
ACE844 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-27-2009, 17:53   #15
Warrior-Mentor
Quiet Professional
 
Warrior-Mentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: America, the Beautiful
Posts: 3,193
Start by vetting your sources.

Is it written by Muslims for Muslims?
Probably a good source of information.
Islamic Law manuals fall into this category.
Fatwas fall into this category.

Is it written by Muslims for Non-Muslims?

Unlikely to be a reliable source of information.
Why? The Muslim is the Brother of the Muslim. He cannot, by islamic law, say anything offensive about islam or Muslims.

Is it written by Non-Muslims for Non-Muslims?

Reliability depends on the author.
Here's two examples, one from each end of the spectrum:
John Esposito,bought and paid for by the Saudis, is an apologist for islam.
Robert Spencer is a polemic who will tell you the ugly truth about islam.

Comparing Spencer and Esposito against the authoritative sources (specifically the koran, hadith and islamic law),
I find Spencer to be credible and Esposito deceptive at best.

Esposito can't even give an honest definition of the word Jihad. He's that bad.
__________________
Like a free America? Join www.actforamerica.org

"The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy
or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."
- From Army Regulation 360-1, Paragraph 6-8 (2)
Warrior-Mentor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:57.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies