Are we at war with Islam?

[Patriot]

In the past, I've tried very hard to separate the radical element of islam from the non-radical when commenting on islam. Over the last few months, I've been reading the Q'ran, Sira and Hadith to gain some perspective. I've also been going over the history of islam. I have to finally admit to myself, that I think islam does indeed seek to become the dominant religion on earth by any means necessary. It is commanded in the Q'ran. When Muhammed was preaching in his early days in Mecca, the people rejected him. Greatly angerd at the rebuff, he moved to Medina where his preaching became confrontational and violent, in Mecca his sermons emphasized peaceful co-existance with Jews and Christians. That all changed when he went to Medina, and became "General" Muhammed. Muslims point to the Christian Crusades all the time, but astoundingly, people don't stop to realize that muslims had been invading Europe for centuries before and had even conquered Spain and many other European states, towns and cities. The muslims are responsible for the Christian Crusades because they were literally a defensive response. And the deafening silence from "moderate" muslims after terrorist attacks now appears to me to be tacit approval. Not all muslims will pick up the sword in their fight against the infidel. Some choose to use economic war, culture war, propaganda war, taking part in civil disturbances and riots in the streets of Europe, etc. I'm still trying not to group all muslims into the catagory of enemies of the west, but it's becoming more difficult to do.

[Team Sergeant]

I don't believe it!!!


Muslims are waging civil war against us, claims police union
By David Rennie, Europe Correspondent

(Filed: 05/10/2006 Oct 5th 2006)



Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day.


Interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy was warned of an 'intifada'


As the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were "in a state of civil war" with Muslims in the most depressed "banlieue" estates which are heavily populated by unemployed youths of north African origin.

It said the situation was so grave that it had asked the government to provide police with armoured cars to protect officers in the estates, which are becoming no-go zones.

The number of attacks has risen by a third in two years. Police representatives told the newspaper Le Figaro that the "taboo" of attacking officers on patrol has been broken.

Instead, officers – especially those patrolling in pairs or small groups – faced attacks as soon as they tried to arrest locals.

Senior officers insisted that the problem was essentially criminal in nature, with crime bosses on the estates fighting back against tough tactics.

The interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also the leading centre-Right candidate for the presidency, has sent heavily equipped units into areas with orders to regain control from drug smuggling gangs and other organised crime rings. Such aggressive raids were "disrupting the underground economy in the estates", one senior official told Le Figaro.

However, not all officers on the ground accept that essentially secular interpretation. Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the hardline Action Police trade union, has written to Mr Sarkozy warning of an "intifada" on the estates and demanding that officers be given armoured cars in the most dangerous areas.

He said yesterday: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

He added: "We need armoured vehicles and water cannon. They are the only things that can disperse crowds of hundreds of people who are trying to kill police and burn their vehicles."

However, Gerard Demarcq, of the largest police unions, Alliance, dismissed talk of an "intifada" as representing the views of only a minority.

Mr Demarcq said that the increased attacks on officers were proof that the policy of "retaking territory" from criminal gangs was working.

Mayors in the worst affected suburbs, which saw weeks of riots and car-burning a year ago, have expressed fears of a vicious circle, as attacks by locals lead the police to harden their tactics, further increasing resentment.

As if to prove that point, there were angry reactions in the western Paris suburb of Les Mureaux following dawn raids in search of youths who attacked a police unit on Sunday. The raids led to one arrest. They followed clashes on Sunday night when scores of youths attacked seven officers who had tried to arrest a man for not wearing his seat belt while driving. That driver refused to stop, and later rammed a police car trying to block his path.

The mayor of Les Mureaux, Francois Garay, criticised aggressive police tactics that afterwards left "the people on the ground to pick up the pieces".

david.rennie@telegraph.co.uk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wmuslims05.xml

[Gypsy]

Wish I could say I was surprised...

[Team Sergeant]

Nice of Dubai to show the tape publically in it's entirety, I'm sure it netted a few more demented cowards to fight for islam. TS



DUBAI (Reuters) - A man believed to be a top al Qaeda militant who escaped from a U.S. jail near Kabul was shown in a new videotape broadcast on Tuesday exhorting followers in Afghanistan to fight on until they attack the White House.

"Allah will not be pleased until we reach the rooftop of the White House," Abu Yahya al-Libi was shown telling fighters in the tape aired by the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya television.

The channel said the tape was one-hour long, showing footage of Libi urging fighters to train hard and even to try to acquire nuclear technology.

"You have to get well prepared by starting with exercise, and then you have to learn how to use technology until you are capable of nuclear weapons," he said.

Libi was shown in the footage bearded and wearing a long grey Muslim robe while standing in front of a group of fighters.

Libi is believed to be the alias of Libyan Mohammad Hassan who along with three other al Qaeda militants broke out of the U.S. jail at Bagram Air Base last year.

Analysts say he is an influential militant preacher, better known for recruiting fighters than for actual combat.

Arabiya said the authenticity of the tape could not be verified, but experts had told its bureau in Afghanistan the video was filmed in the southeast of the country.

British troops in Iraq said in September they killed one of the four al Qaeda escapees -- Omar Faruq, one of Osama bin Laden's top lieutenants -- in the city of Basra.


http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...src=rss&rpc=22

I would like to ask those with experience in the Middle East or South Asia what nationality means for the moslems in the regions? I have only a shallow appreciation.

I am asking because of the merging of politics and religion in Islam, and the Brittish poll about supporting the insurgency due to the invasion of Iraq. From the outset, you may thus think that Iraq symbolizes a geographical area rather than a grouping of people. The support could come from both a relative unity in Islamic perception of war against Islam.

It would be interesting to hear and be corrected by somebody more knowledgeable than myself.

Thanks in advance.

[smp52]

Originally Posted by Martin

I would like to ask those with experience in the Middle East or South Asia what nationality means for the moslems in the regions? I have only a shallow appreciation.

I can offer up some perspective on South Asia from personal experience. This by no means is a qualified opinion of an expert, merely a point of view from someone who lived there and has interest in the geopolitics of that area.

Muslim identity in South Asia (I'm grouping India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, ignoring Nepal and Sri Lanka) is quite complicated. My perspective is based primarily from an Indian one.

The partition of British India into India and Pakistan (east and west) was violent, least to say. Even though Gandhi's fear if no partition ensued was civil war, Hindu-Muslim violence happened regardless to the tune of many dead. Probably one of the largest mass migrations in modern times with Muslims from India migrating to Pakistan and Hindus/Sikhs/Christians moving to India. It was an absolute mess and the political lines were drawn, but the disruption of family units, leaving things behind, etc. was quite traumatic.

Once the partition ended, you still had a significant minority of Muslims in India. With East and West Pakistan on either side. 3 wars between India and Pakistan, with the last one resulting in the creation of Bangladesh.

Where does that leave Muslims on the subcontinent?

In India, there are Muslims that are progressive and loyal to the republic and in government service (Armed forces, Bureaucracy, Politics, prominent businessmen; the President is a non practicing Muslim - a scientist), those that are not (consider themselves Muslim first, then Indian or see the government as an oppressor), then the vast majority that are too poor or hamstrung by life to really have lofty opinions. They take care of their families, live life's daily grind, always aware that political stuff can explode into a religious conflict disturbing the status quo. Most know India is their home and at the end of the day, undercutting India doesn't do them any good. Not to their pocket books, not to their families, or community.

Cricket matches between India (with Muslim players having a good history on the secular Indian team) and Pakistan are VERY competitive. If Pakistan wins, sometimes you'll hear firecrackers going off in Muslim ghettos. Best analogy I can draw is a Latino (Mexican) immigrant here waving a Mexican flag over an American one. But that doesn't do credit to the whole picture.

Kashmir, 3 wars, local demographics, etc. plays into a very rich and layered history. The Muslim populations (as rest of the South Asia) are not homogeneous, divided by language, different sects of Islam (sunni-shia/inter sunni), socio-economics, a certain order (Local Pakistan Muslims consider themselves 'real' over those that immigrated to Pakistan, West Pakistanis-East Pakistanis/Bangla, etc.)

Islamists are brewing trouble in places like Bangladesh. Here is a story of a journalist that is facing accusations, false, which may eventually kill him.

[LongWire]

Originally Posted by Martin

I would like to ask those with experience in the Middle East or South Asia what nationality means for the moslems in the regions? I have only a shallow appreciation.

I am asking because of the merging of politics and religion in Islam, and the Brittish poll about supporting the insurgency due to the invasion of Iraq. From the outset, you may thus think that Iraq symbolizes a geographical area rather than a grouping of people. The support could come from both a relative unity in Islamic perception of war against Islam.

It would be interesting to hear and be corrected by somebody more knowledgeable than myself.

Thanks in advance.

You have to understand that borders and boundaries are a completely western ideal. Up until the last century, all of these countries did not really exist on the modern map as far as boundaries and national terms were concerned.

Most of these people have no national identity, but more of a tribal allegiance to whichever secular sect that they belong to. I.E. Sunni/Shia/Kurdish/Pashto.

If you were to think about our country in terms of religious demographics, it might make more sense. Try Catholicism and Southern Baptism, and then think about where those people would gravitate towards, and you might get a clearer picture.........I'm thinking about Boston/N.E. and the South, and that might be a poor example, but thats just my $.02 and you kinda get the idea.

Now that's not to say that these people cant work together against a common enemy. For an example of this look back at the Dems and Republicans following 911........all support, look now.........separation.

I think that sometimes as westerners, that we make some mistakes by bringing our understanding of things into the equation, because we simply don't comprehend and process information the same way as native indig do. What I mean by that is that what is common sense stuff to us is not to them and vice versa.

[Team Sergeant]

Christian missionaries should take note on how the lovely “religion” of islam is gently spreading across the globe. islam; nothing to lose your head over. TS



Somalia Town Threatens to Behead People Who Don't Pray 5 Times DailyWednesday, December 06, 2006
Foxnews.com

MOGADISHU, Somalia — Residents of a southern Somalia town who do not pray five times a day will be beheaded, an official said Wednesday, adding the edict will be implemented in three days.

Shops, tea houses and other public places in Bulo Burto, about 124 miles northeast of the capital, Mogadishu, should be closed during prayer time and no one should be on the streets, said Sheik Hussein Barre Rage, the chairman of the town's Islamic court. His court is part of a network backed by armed militiamen that has taken control of much of southern Somalia in recent months, bringing a strict interpretation of Islam that is alien to many Somalis.

Those who do not follow the prayer edict after three days have elapsed, "will definitely be beheaded according to Islamic law," Rage told The Associated Press by phone. "As Muslims we should practice Islam fully, not in part, and that is what our religion enjoins us to do."

rest of the story.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234817,00.html

[x SF med]

Believe in all merciful Allah, or die. Lovely religion, isn't it - "Cake, or Death?"

[incommin]

Lets see, the 12th century doesn't exist anymore. So should we see to it that people who want to live in the 12th century don't exist anymore?


Jim

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally Posted by incommin

Lets see, the 12th century doesn't exist anymore. So should we see to it that people who want to live in the 12th century don't exist anymore?


Jim

Neither do the 1960's, until you visit Vermont

[incommin]

The 1960's still exist in Vermont?????

I need to let my wife know. I missed it the first time; I think I spent too much time in the library, fishing, or maybe Southeast Asia.


Jim

[hoot72]

The lastest controversy in Malaysia is the fact if you are born a muslim (i.e your parents are muslim) or you marry a muslim woman and therefore have to give up your religion and convert into islam, you are apparently NOT allowed to convert back OUT of it.

There was a case last year with the death of a Malaysian Indian who was the first malaysian to climb Everest and was incidently a member of the special forces who was paralysed during a military exercise and was wheelchair bound.

In the space of the 3 yrs he was in the wheelchair, he amazingly "converted" to Islam (the army claims he converted while in hospital, but his wife knew/knows nothing about this) and there was a major battle in the high court and syiarah court (muslim high court) as to who had the right to his remains when he passed away during a freak accident at home from a fall.

The issue still remains unresolved as to who has a the final say in Malaysia on anything pretaining to individual rights; the malaysian legal system or the religious courts. Its a mess.

He was eventually given a muslim burial without the consent of his wife and family (his body was taken from the morgue by MUIS, the local muslim mufti group of clerics) and its a sore point with non muslims in malaysia now.

The muslims are dead keen on forcing people to stay in the religion and to make it as difficult as possible to convert back out...

Originally Posted by LongWire

You have to understand that borders and boundaries are a completely western ideal.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with the above. China, Japan, Siam, Amman (Vietnam), Tibet and Burma all existed with borders and boundaries long before the influence of Western nations impacted on them.

A more accurate statement might be that tribal nations (including the Americas before Europeans landed, the Middle-East, other parts of SW Asia, much of the island areas of the Pacific, and Africa in general) do not have borders and boundaries as a core concept.

Originally Posted by Greenhat

A more accurate statement might be that tribal nations (including the Americas before Europeans landed, the Middle-East, other parts of SW Asia, much of the island areas of the Pacific, and Africa in general) do not have borders and boundaries as a core concept.

There are the demands of tribal societies, power relationships, etc. But there are also the effects of media (including the amount of western material that is translated) and social perpetuation of norms and understanding of the societal framework, even if at an implicit level, and their relation to the world. Depending on how you look at the world, you will perceive different problems to the goals you want to attain, and solutions have to fit within your culture. Then there are legitimacy issues, among other things. When taken as a sum total, forcing a new organization on top of this society with insurgents running around, and the consequences of coalition handling and image, is this not first a matter of perception and understanding transformation, before nation building?

Do you think that we have to reconsider the general processes of nation and government building until it is phased in a way that is adapted to the local/regional situation?

M