Print
Town moves against Islamic school
by BBC
Thanks to Mark Dowe for the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7416145.stm
Town moves against Islamic school
By Nick Bryant
BBC News, Sydney
With its lace curtain bungalows and steepled Anglican church, the once tranquil town of Camden in New South Wales seems the most improbable of settings for a row that combines race and religion.
Proud of its rich history, the town promotes itself as "the birthplace of the nation's wealth", for it was here, in the early 19th Century, that the sheep and dairy industries first began to flourish.
Now the town, which lies on south-west fringes of Sydney, is confronting a very 21st Century issue: the proposal to construct an Islamic school for some 1,200 Muslim pupils.
Behind the proposal is the Sydney-based Quranic Society, which has purchased 15 acres of land on the fringes of town, and produced detailed plans and designs.
None of them reference any obvious Islamic influences. Functional and non-descript, the two-storey school could easily be a light industrial development.
Camden council is currently deciding whether to grant planning permission and allow the controversial development to go ahead.
'Wrecking Australia'
At the council's headquarters, 12 bulging ring-binders hold more than 3,200 submissions from the public. Only 100 are in favour of the development.
The council will deliver its verdict either later this month or early next.
Twice the town has managed to rebuff the fast food giant McDonald's. Now it has mobilised to block the construction of the Islamic school.
Back in November, more than 1,000 local people took part in a public meeting. Many participants expressed themselves with little regard for political correctness.
"This has to be one of the nicest places in New South Wales," said one woman, who has lived in Camden for the past nine years.
"Everywhere is being destroyed. Why don't we tell the truth. They're wrecking Australia. They're taking us over," she said.
"Why hasn't anyone got any guts? They've got terrorists amongst 'em... They want to be here so they can go and hide in all the farm houses... This town has every nationality... but Muslims do not fit in this town. We are Aussies, OK."
Some of the loudest cheers of the night greeted a speech from a local man in his late 70s.
"Can I just say this without being racist or political?" he said. "In 1983, in the streets of London a parade by Muslims chanted incessantly 'If we can take London, we can take the world'. Don't let them take Camden."
Some speakers focused solely on the environmental impact of locating an urban-scale school in such a bucolic setting; and, in particular, on the traffic congestion it would bring.
One speaker implored the crowd to stick to planning issues, and not let the campaign be contaminated by racism or xenophobia.
When the chair of the meeting invited anyone in favour of the development to speak up, no one stepped forward.
Camden does not harbour a large Muslim community - census figures suggest about 150 families.
Most of the pupils at the proposed school would therefore be bussed in from Sydney, a journey that takes about an hour each way.
'Planning issue'
Andrew Wynnet of the Camden/Macarthur Residents' Group showed me the site of the proposed school, and focused on its unsuitability and undesirability.
"When you have no Muslims living in Camden, why have a Muslim school here?" he asked.
He was also concerned about its long-term, demographic impact.
"The character of the town will change. When you have a large facility like this, the parents will follow. That amount of parents will change the character of the town."
Link to video.
"If you introduce 1,500 Muslim people to the town they'd be a majority. And that's not what this town is about."
Bravely, given that local council elections are due later in the year, Mayor Chris Patterson has adopted a neutral stance.
Presumably, it would have been more politically expedient to veer towards populism.
"This is not a nationalistic issue, it's not a religious issue, it's a planning issue, and it will be addressed on those merits," he says.
Determined that the planning process should be allowed to play out, Mr Patterson does not want to prejudge it.
Acrimonious
Many locals fear that the campaign is being hijacked by right-wing, nationalist groups with their own agendas.
The Australia First organisation has been advertising for members in Camden, and says it plans to field a candidate in September's local elections.
Pauline Hanson, the former leader of the One Nation Party, has also paid a visit to the town, though the local paper, the Camden Advertiser, reported that she mistakenly thought the proposal was for a mosque rather than a school.
The increasingly acrimonious and race-charged debate has also crossed into mainstream politics.
Camden is part of a Liberal-held parliamentary constituency which was high on Labor's target list at last November's federal election.
Campaigning in nearby Campbeltown, the then opposition leader Kevin Rudd said that the local infrastructure could not support such a large school, and that he therefore opposed it on "planning grounds".
The Quranic Society has kept a low public profile and was not available for comment.
But its position has been that Australian parents have the right to educate Australian children wherever they wish, regardless of race or religion. If the council rejects its planning application, it could appeal to the Land and Environment Court.
Camden residents will not give up easily.
"This town has fought all sorts of developments," Andrew Wynnet. "It will take on all-comers regardless of religion."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7416145.stm
Town moves against Islamic school
By Nick Bryant
BBC News, Sydney
With its lace curtain bungalows and steepled Anglican church, the once tranquil town of Camden in New South Wales seems the most improbable of settings for a row that combines race and religion.
Proud of its rich history, the town promotes itself as "the birthplace of the nation's wealth", for it was here, in the early 19th Century, that the sheep and dairy industries first began to flourish.
Now the town, which lies on south-west fringes of Sydney, is confronting a very 21st Century issue: the proposal to construct an Islamic school for some 1,200 Muslim pupils.
Behind the proposal is the Sydney-based Quranic Society, which has purchased 15 acres of land on the fringes of town, and produced detailed plans and designs.
None of them reference any obvious Islamic influences. Functional and non-descript, the two-storey school could easily be a light industrial development.
Camden council is currently deciding whether to grant planning permission and allow the controversial development to go ahead.
'Wrecking Australia'
At the council's headquarters, 12 bulging ring-binders hold more than 3,200 submissions from the public. Only 100 are in favour of the development.
The council will deliver its verdict either later this month or early next.
Twice the town has managed to rebuff the fast food giant McDonald's. Now it has mobilised to block the construction of the Islamic school.
Back in November, more than 1,000 local people took part in a public meeting. Many participants expressed themselves with little regard for political correctness.
"This has to be one of the nicest places in New South Wales," said one woman, who has lived in Camden for the past nine years.
"Everywhere is being destroyed. Why don't we tell the truth. They're wrecking Australia. They're taking us over," she said.
"Why hasn't anyone got any guts? They've got terrorists amongst 'em... They want to be here so they can go and hide in all the farm houses... This town has every nationality... but Muslims do not fit in this town. We are Aussies, OK."
Some of the loudest cheers of the night greeted a speech from a local man in his late 70s.
"Can I just say this without being racist or political?" he said. "In 1983, in the streets of London a parade by Muslims chanted incessantly 'If we can take London, we can take the world'. Don't let them take Camden."
Some speakers focused solely on the environmental impact of locating an urban-scale school in such a bucolic setting; and, in particular, on the traffic congestion it would bring.
One speaker implored the crowd to stick to planning issues, and not let the campaign be contaminated by racism or xenophobia.
When the chair of the meeting invited anyone in favour of the development to speak up, no one stepped forward.
Camden does not harbour a large Muslim community - census figures suggest about 150 families.
Most of the pupils at the proposed school would therefore be bussed in from Sydney, a journey that takes about an hour each way.
'Planning issue'
Andrew Wynnet of the Camden/Macarthur Residents' Group showed me the site of the proposed school, and focused on its unsuitability and undesirability.
"When you have no Muslims living in Camden, why have a Muslim school here?" he asked.
He was also concerned about its long-term, demographic impact.
"The character of the town will change. When you have a large facility like this, the parents will follow. That amount of parents will change the character of the town."
Link to video.
"If you introduce 1,500 Muslim people to the town they'd be a majority. And that's not what this town is about."
Bravely, given that local council elections are due later in the year, Mayor Chris Patterson has adopted a neutral stance.
Presumably, it would have been more politically expedient to veer towards populism.
"This is not a nationalistic issue, it's not a religious issue, it's a planning issue, and it will be addressed on those merits," he says.
Determined that the planning process should be allowed to play out, Mr Patterson does not want to prejudge it.
Acrimonious
Many locals fear that the campaign is being hijacked by right-wing, nationalist groups with their own agendas.
The Australia First organisation has been advertising for members in Camden, and says it plans to field a candidate in September's local elections.
Pauline Hanson, the former leader of the One Nation Party, has also paid a visit to the town, though the local paper, the Camden Advertiser, reported that she mistakenly thought the proposal was for a mosque rather than a school.
The increasingly acrimonious and race-charged debate has also crossed into mainstream politics.
Camden is part of a Liberal-held parliamentary constituency which was high on Labor's target list at last November's federal election.
Campaigning in nearby Campbeltown, the then opposition leader Kevin Rudd said that the local infrastructure could not support such a large school, and that he therefore opposed it on "planning grounds".
The Quranic Society has kept a low public profile and was not available for comment.
But its position has been that Australian parents have the right to educate Australian children wherever they wish, regardless of race or religion. If the council rejects its planning application, it could appeal to the Land and Environment Court.
Camden residents will not give up easily.
"This town has fought all sorts of developments," Andrew Wynnet. "It will take on all-comers regardless of religion."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, May 26, 2008 | PermalinkComments 201 - 250 of 376 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers202. Comment #185387 by MaxD on May 27, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Goldy said,
And these are hardly the preserve of Islam, are they? I am sure you'll find the very same happening in rural China. A product of a couple of decades of war and rampant corruption ?quot; not religion.
Holy shit. That is one of the most amazing things I've yet encountered on this site. And that is saying something for there are no shortage of equivocators found here.
How many chinese bombers have there been lately? Where were the chinese freedom fighters and suicide bombers in when the chinese and irish were being exploited to lay the railroads? (This isn't a time with out violence but much of it was the Irish and the Chinese killing each other in a variety of boredom relieving ways). But why weren't these two abused ethinic groups putting it to there oppressors with horrendous vioence? Where was the targeting of innocents? How many chinese honor killings have there been recently? Eh? You can continue to demur otherwise but Islam is a religious ideology that is only just now having its pivotal clash, as a whole, with modernity. For whatever reason it (Islam) has become associated with fanaticism, and its tenets seem ready made for such usage.
You further say
I am sure if Christianity had stayed the Middle Eastern religion of choice, or pre-Islamic religion, the same would be happening now.
Can you be so sure of this? It may be true but I am not so sure. Christianity of the middle ages would brook no challengers in the cruelty and barbarity department? How then did it open up, and allow for the enlightenment?
Is it really your position that religion doesn't cause violence?
Other Comments by MaxD
203. Comment #185399 by Epinephrine on May 27, 2008 at 5:59 pm
MaxD -
I am going to have to go with your numbers because I cannot locate the source for mine. As I said I was going from memory. Could you send me the site for your numbers epinephrine
I was just looking at the numbers from the study posted by Frankus, which are derived from Statistics Canada/Department of Justice numbers.
Here's a DoJ paper though:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/1997/wd97_3-dt97_3.pdf
It only shows number of households with a gun, not number of guns, but it's somewhat illustrative.
And statcan on gun related deaths
http://www.statcan.ca/english/ads/82-003-XPE/pdf/16-4-04.pdf
Other Comments by Epinephrine
204. Comment #185406 by Christopher Davis on May 27, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Goldy,
It's obvious I'm not making myself clear.
I made my comments about schools here in Afghanistan because the topic of the original article dealt with schools.
Granted, I don't know a lot about what goes on in China, so I won't claim that Afghan attitudes toward education represent a "preserve" of Muslim culture. But, if apathy toward progress was an Olmypic sport these bastards would take the Gold, Silver and Bronze medal everytime.
However, Islamic education is not the topic I'm trying to debate here, so I apologize for digressing.
You contend that the people of Camden are racists because they don't want a 1500 student Islamic school in their town. Your proof? Most of the Muslims here are Arabic looking. That's fucking weak and you know it.
Now I know even less about Camden than I do about China, and as one of the other posters said here (I'm paraphrasing) you don't have to step in it to smell it. You're closer to the Aussie culture, maybe these people are racists, but unless you can prove that this community would not be upset about a school for 1500 lily-white Muslims being built in their community then you can't make that charge.
You claim that you understand that Muslims are adherents to an ideaology not a race, your posts say otherwise.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
205. Comment #185415 by Goldy on May 27, 2008 at 6:59 pm
MaxDHoly shit. That is one of the most amazing things I've yet encountered on this site. And that is saying something for there are no shortage of equivocators found here.What?? And Wooter is...? Damn, I am disappointed. I'm trying to argue rationally and I am willing to have my mind changed. For this I am compared to Wooter, Clearmind, ASMarques! :-( Damn! That hurts! Luckily my Triumph passed - that's salved my hurt a bit...
As for suicide bombers in China - there have been a few. Luckily for us, they are directed against the Chinese state. I think honour killings would be not that uncommon in parts of China - but not reported. Not something the state would allow Xinhua to tell the world, is it? Shit, we can't even get reporters into Tibetan regions to find out the real situation there regarding the anti-Han rioting. Just becasue you don't hear anything doesn't mean it isn't happening. I've heard precious little about East Turkestan - I don't for a minute presume it's all quiet and hunky-dory there.
Can you be so sure of this? It may be true but I am not so sure. Christianity of the middle ages would brook no challengers in the cruelty and barbarity department? How then did it open up, and allow for the enlightenment?
Is it really your position that religion doesn't cause violence?
Of course that was conjecture on my part. However, I think religion is like a gun. Just as guns need the people to use them as weapons, I think religion does the same. In fact, given that religion is a man made construct (there is no God or gods), it is some mystical mumbo-jumbo that gives people powers way above their intelligence and allows unimaginable horrors to be perpetrated in the name of something that does not exist. Religion causes violence by justifying it. But it is just a philosophy, a series of words in a book or parchment. How people react to those words causes the violence - and if they are fucked up enough to use words in a book as justification to kill, I don't think a lack of religion would have stopped them. They are mentally fucked already.
Christopher Davis
You contend that the people of Camden are racists because they don't want a 1500 student Islamic school in their town. Your proof? Most of the Muslims here are Arabic looking. That's fucking weak and you know it.
Now I know even less about Camden than I do about China, and as one of the other posters said here (I'm paraphrasing) you don't have to step in it to smell it. You're closer to the Aussie culture, maybe these people are racists, but unless you can prove that this community would not be upset about a school for 1500 lily-white Muslims being built in their community then you can't make that charge.
You claim that you understand that Muslims are adherents to an ideaology not a race, your posts say otherwise.
I know piss all about Camden. I just read the BBC article adn hear it on the news when I wake up. Going back to my first post, I actually maintained the inhabitants of Camden were NIMBYs. Getting to your assertion that I see Islam as a racial issue - in a way, yes. You think my argument is "fucking weak". Well, maybe. BUt poeple are tarred with a broad brush, aren't they? Most Muslims in Austtralia are Arabs, at a guess. The Cronulla riots appeared to be about groups of "whites" against groups of men of Lebanese extraction and with a "Middle Eastern" appearance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Cronulla_riots). Read how this site put it http://www.australian-news.com.au/Cronulla_riots.htm
Hardly, then, a great leap of imagination to see Muslims being associated with Arabic looking people. Any more, I think, than Sikhs being attacked for being predominantly dark and turban wearing after 11/9, even though the attackers were Muslim and most Muslim men don't wear turbans (as far as I know).
I know Islam is not a race. No religion is a race. Only thing is, people associate certain races with religion. I may have mentioned that somewhere too.
What they should try and do now is get a Chinese school set up in Camden and see what happens. Then an Anglican school. I think you'll probably see what i think you'll see, even if most of the Anglican students are Chinese (because no one really associates Chinese with Anglicanism, do they?).
Other Comments by Goldy
206. Comment #185430 by Christopher Davis on May 27, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Slow down Goldy, I'm not rying to piss you off (the increase in typos leads me to believe you are irritated).
This is simple logic...if you understand that Muslims don't constitute a race (as I believe you do) then you should understand that even outright hatred of Muslims can't constitute racism.
I've conceded that the citizens of Camden might be racist. I've apologized for digressing into a diatribe about Afghan schools. But I refuse to let you off the hook for making false equivocations.
It is not encumbent on me or anyone else to propose a Chinese (or any other type) school in the area and see how the citizens react. You are the one claiming racism, so you need to show that a school for 1500 white Muslims would not be met with the same amount of resistance.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
207. Comment #185444 by MaxD on May 27, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Goldy!
Whoa good buddy! I am simply saying that you were striking me as one of those who goes out of their way to absolve Islam when it seems at least mildly clear that it, in this currrent instant in history, is more of a danger than some of our other religions.
I did not compare you to wooter, clearmind, or God forfuckingbid ASM. That you got that out of my post makes me feel bad.
Apologies.
You say of chinese honor killings:
Just becasue you don't hear anything doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Certainly this is true but could be said of a Quaker community as well. My question is compared to Islamic communities what is the prevalence of such violence. What I am trying to say is that you seem to be bending over backwards to make a balanced critique when in fact the scales may not balance.
Other Comments by MaxD
208. Comment #185447 by Goldy on May 27, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Slow down Goldy, I'm not rying to piss you off (the increase in typos leads me to believe you are irritated).
just bad typing on my part. you should see my MSN messaging!
I am not saying that hatred of Muslims constitutes racism if (maybe I should write IF) Muslims were not seen in the public perception as, well, not white. Trust me, had they said OK to this school (all academic now as I have heard the powers that be said no - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7420907.stm) and the first load of school kids turned out to be Bosniacs, then I would really have wanted to see the townspeople's reaction :-)
I know it is not racism to hate religion. It can't be - hell, what race is any religion? But there are associations in people's minds when you mention religion. After Bali and Cronulla, I really don't think people in Australia see Muslims as anything other than, well, not white. I would love to be shown to be very wrong and I would apologise wholeheartedly. But I don't see it that way, no more than I'd see anyone assuming a Chinese bloke is called Mohammed and is a Uigher (he is Chinese - one of the 56 "nationalities". It is Han he ain't).
We have images on our heads of who is what - a Muslim in the UK, in my mind, is Pakistani, probably Pashtun. It's not my fault that we associate things with people and races. And reading something like this
Tensions reached their height last November when two pigs' heads were left on the site of the proposed school. Pork products are forbidden for consumption according to Islamic dietary laws.in the link provided doesn't make me feel any less in the mood to change my mind.
As for the Afghan schools - I guess it is hard for them to drum up enthusiasm. As soon as NATO goes, the Taliban will be back. I heard a BBC thing where they say they are torn (the Afghans, not Taliban) between wanting the troops to leave and yet knowing they need them for peace. They know as soon as the troops go, they will be back to fighting and Islamic excesses. And if you know that as a teacher you could be killed for teaching girls and having the school burnt down, I'd guess enthusiasm is hard to muster. Maybe they just have a wait and see attitude. No point getting all excited - the troops will go. See what happens then, then get enthused.
OK, lets round up 1500 white Muslims and send them to Camden :-)
Question - is hating Jews racism? I mean, seeing as they pretty much encompass quite a few races now....
And yes, my spelling was awful! Sorry for that!
Other Comments by Goldy
209. Comment #185450 by Bonzai on May 27, 2008 at 8:34 pm
HunterSolomonI'm still completely astounded to see that there are still quite a few people on this board who think criticizing Islam is racism.
Well, criticizing Islam is not racism in and of itself, but you can't deny that in the real world some people criticize Islam because of racism, they are the people who bash immigrants in general and Islam happens to be a convenient excuse against Muslims,--most of whom do happen to be non white.
Other Comments by Bonzai
210. Comment #185452 by Goldy on May 27, 2008 at 8:38 pm
MaxDCertainly this is true but could be said of a Quaker community as well. My question is compared to Islamic communities what is the prevalence of such violence. What I am trying to say is that you seem to be bending over backwards to make a balanced critique when in fact the scales may not balance.
We have Fanusi comparing Islam to the most monstrous thing ever to slither out of people's heads. Of course I shall try and balance the scales a bit. If they don't balance, so be it. I will be wrong. But I cannot let my faith in humanity go. When we talk of Muslims, we are talking of people. The doctor that delivered my child was Iraqi and I think a Muslim. I have worked in Syria, I have lived in Muslim areas in the UK, I have had Muslim friends.
Islam is a danger, maybe. So is China, apparently. And Russia (if the Telegraph has any credibility). Islam is a danger to our way of life because we appear to let them. That, to me, suggests it is not Islam that is the danger to us but we ourselves.
As for the prevalence of violence in China - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1122/p01s03-woap.html (pardon the source...ahem!). I don't know what goes on in rural China, but female infanticide apparently happens, as in India, quite often. What difference that with honour killings in the grand scheme of things? Or of selling females? We hear a lot about honour killings in the Muslim world - but what percentage of families practise that? Could it be that the media, by reporting factual stories, might distort the picture somewhat (I know that doesn't make sense, but it does to me...sort of).
Again, I just have faith in normal people.
Other Comments by Goldy
211. Comment #185460 by Bonzai on May 27, 2008 at 9:06 pm
GoldyI don't know what goes on in rural China, but female infanticide apparently happens, as in India, quite often. What difference that with honour killings in the grand scheme of things?
I don't know about India, but for China, the difference with honour killing is that the perpetrators of infanticides and selling of females don't have any grand theory to justify their acts, they are just criminals and are seen as such by the authority. I don't think even they themselves think they are doing God's work.
Other Comments by Bonzai
212. Comment #185461 by Goldy on May 27, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Bonzai, I don't think those committing honour killings are seeing themselves doing God's work either. Merely protecting their tribal standing.As for infanticide, they want a boy. If they kill teh girl and try again, maybe they'll ge that boy. If they sell the girl, they get money and who knows, maybe she gets a better life.
My father in law, before my daughter was born, told us that it would be OK if we had a girl - he wouldn't mind. I thought this was a bit funny at the time. Still, he's very taken by her :-) Now we are expecting another child - hooo boy! Mother in law is a bit surprised and shocked that we're having another and with her daughter being 38...golly. Still, wife and daughter going to Shanghai for 3 weeks in a fortnight - should get all teh shouting and arguing out of their systems then :-D
Other Comments by Goldy
213. Comment #185463 by Goldy on May 27, 2008 at 9:29 pm
MaxD, I said beforeIslam is a danger, maybe. So is China, apparently. And Russia (if the Telegraph has any credibility). Islam is a danger to our way of life because we appear to let them. That, to me, suggests it is not Islam that is the danger to us but we ourselves.
Have a gander here
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/world/europe/28terror.html?ref=world
I read this in the article
After all, she said, she knows the rules. "I write in a legal way," she said. "I know what I'm doing. I'm Belgian. I know the system."
That system often has been lenient toward her. She was detained last December with 13 others in what the authorities suspected was a plot to free a convicted terrorist from prison and to launch an attack in Brussels. But Belgian law required that they be released within 24 hours, because no charges were brought and searches failed to turn up weapons, explosives or incriminating documents.
Now, even as Ms. El Aroud remains under constant surveillance, she is back home rallying militants on her main Internet forum and collecting more than $1,100 a month in government unemployment benefits.
So, who is more a danger to us? This psychopathic woman, or the western system that allows her to indirectly kill others?
Other Comments by Goldy
214. Comment #185466 by mordacious1 on May 27, 2008 at 9:41 pm
I have to kind of lean toward Laurie Fraser (post 148) on this topic. He is kind of like our correspondant on the spot. It's always nice to have insight from a local.I live in a conservative christian area, for the most part. They have constructed two large christians schools recently, which bus kids in from all over. Not a peep from anyone.
Today I went around and took an informal poll. I asked people I met if they would be against the new muslim school that they were building out of town. This was from my imagination. Boy, did people go beserk. Had one guy say, "I ain't letten no f-ing muslims build no terrorist training camp here." I said that it was a school for young kids. "I don give a f"
I got a 10 to 1 result against the school. I asked if it was because of the religion or race. It seems that most people thought that all muslims are foreigners.
As an aside, we recently had a big flap here because the catholic church was serving one mass in spanish. People were pissed. Many were afraid that it would draw more "Mexicans" to the area.
My point is: this whole topic is a mixture of religious bigotry, racism (I know, I read all the posts), and just plain "they're different, so I don't like 'em". Like I posted before, I don't like religious schools either, but I dislike them equally.
Other Comments by mordacious1
215. Comment #185467 by MaxD on May 27, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Goldy,
I'll say El Aroud is the more dangerous. Ms El is abusing her freedoms to incite more damage to the very provider thereof.
If she wasn't a holy warrior for her crappy Islam then she wouldn't be a danger. She gets a nice little welfare stipend, what could be more generous than that? That you could even think that the very system that provides Ms. El Aroud the forum to stand up and speak is on the same footing as that of Ms Aroud herself and the ideology she is espouses is to me a strange, strange claim, and one that seems to contradict what you have tried to say about Islam in general.
EDIT: Goldy you are attributing to her some psychosis. This seems like a possible mistake on your part. It isn't clear to me that she is crazy from this story, she seems simply to be following the radical teachings of her beloved Islsm.
Other Comments by MaxD
216. Comment #185473 by NakedCelt on May 27, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Comment #185098 by Fanusi Khiyal:And, you know, it's funny but there seem to be alot of Muslims who disagree with Scott Atran too. Like the Ayatollah Khomeni, spiritual leader of 10% of the world's muslims and a huge inspiration to all of them. The Al Azar also seems to have this wierd idea that Islam teaches war and subjugation of the world under Shariah. Now I know what you're saying: But Fanusi, what is the opinion of the Vatican of Sunni Islam worth in comparison to Scott Atran? So we move on to polling data.
40% of British Muslims want Shariah law in the United Kingdom. Polling over 175 000 arab Muslims throughout the Middle East showed a 75% support rating for Hamas. And so on and so forth.
Strange isn't it? All these people, conservative and liberal, living and dead, Muslim and Infidel - all have got it wrong about Islam and only Scott Atran has it right.
Since you've forgotten what Scott Atran actually said,
Our data show that support for suicide actions is triggered by moral outrage at perceived attacks against Islam and sacred values, but this is converted to action as a result of small world factors. Out of millions who express sympathy with global jihad, only a few thousand show willingness to commit violence.
It appears that this concept has given you some difficulty, so I'll make it nice and explicit for you. The Ayatollah Khomeini, who you mention — he's one of the "millions who express sympathy with jihad". The Al Azar believes Islam teaches war and subjugation... gee, so do "millions", according to Scott Atran. I wouldn't mind betting that those millions also include the British Muslims who want Shariah law and the Arabs who support Hamas. Where exactly does this contradict Atran's conclusion?
Sorry, that paragraph is getting a bit long, and I've probably lost you, so let me reiterate. According to Scott Atran, millions of Muslims sympathize with jihad, but only thousands commit it. You can't discredit Atran's point by enumerating the millions who sympathize, because his argument comprehends and allows for those.
Comment #185134 by Fanusi Khiyal:
NC, time to deal with a few points of yours:OK, a better analogy then: Saying that the Holy Catholic Church is a human construct is the same thing as saying that either the Body of Christ on Earth is imperfect, or that St Paul made things up for his own benefit.
This would come as a surprise to, say, the Greek Orthodox Church, or the Nestorian Christians, or the Coptic Christians. Fact is, Christians rejecting the authority of Rome date back to the dawn of Christianity. Not one single sect of Islam that rejects the idea of the Qur'an as the uncreated word of God has survived. Not one.
Only because those who do — the Baha'i spring to mind — are no longer identified as "Muslim". What of it? There are many Protestants still who don't include Roman Catholics under the category of "Christian", and (I imagine, though I haven't personally encountered so many of these) vice versa.
As regards your whole spiel about root causes and oil deals, why do you never answer my challenge that jihad predates the use of oil, and today jihad is predominantly being waged against those who have never interfered in the Muslim world - the Christians and Animists in Africa, Buddhists in Thailand etc. Now that suggests something to me: Muslims would be waging jihad no matter what we do.
What do you mean by "jihad"? Any war where the aggressors' side was predominantly Muslim? In that case I claim all wars waged by Europeans since Constantine for the Christian side of the ledger.
Do you mean specifically wars where propagandists claimed their armies were doing Allah's work? Most warmongers of Christian background have used the equivalent propaganda trick, including Kaiser Wilhelm and Adolf Hitler. Even the current Iraq war is being justified and promoted in the US with explicitly evangelical Christian ideals.
One of the central functions of organized religion as the civilized world knows it is to provide justifications for war. Soldiers who believe they are doing God's work will risk more for their nation than soldiers who are fully aware that they're pawns in a squabble over shipping routes. On the largest historical scale, the usefulness of religion as a propaganda tool is probably the single biggest factor contributing to its success.
Therefore, it's no surprise to me that polities whose majority religion happens to be Islam promote the jihad meme when they want some killing done. It doesn't alter the fact that wars happen for economic reasons.
And you can ask the sixty/seventy million Hindus they slaughtered in the subcontinent if you think differently.
And how many Muslims were killed by Hindus? Here's a hint — look it up before you answer.
My point about Israel is that it has always had a jewish presence, Muslim Arabs are newcomers who arrived principally in the nineteenth century, attracted by the prosperity of the nascent Zionist movement, and the Jews have been victims of the most hideous persecution by Muslims throughout all of their history. So I really don't give a damn that the dar al-Islam has lost a country the size of Wales.
Yes, I know what your point about Israel is. What do you think my point about Israel is?
Christians have lived in Europe for a very long time; does that give any Christian from America or Africa the right to kick a European Buddhist out of her house and move in?
Paraphrasing this point has so far failed to get it across, so I'll try again, as clearly as possible:
Yes, there have been Jews living in Israel continuously for a very long time.
Yes, some Muslims treated them very badly.
No, that doesn't give Jews from anywhere in the world the right to kick non-Jews off land in Israel.
No, not even if they happen to be Muslim.
Belonging to the Jewish religion does not give you a historical claim to Israeli land just because some people who were treated badly in Israel happened to belong to the Jewish religion.
Is this getting through yet?
And I'll add that I'll start listening to the long winded whine about those nasty jews stealing Palestinian land when I see Muslims returns some of the land they've stolen from everyone else. They can start with Kashmere and Constantinople.
Ah, yes, the converse. Muslims took land in Kashmir and Constantinople, therefore no Muslim has a right to complain about land being taken from them anywhere until all Muslims, collectively, redress those historic thefts.
Does merely subscribing to a particular religion mean you, personally, share in the collective grievances and guilts of every other person and/or organization that has subscribed to that religion? Because your position on Israel depends on the answer to that question being "yes", whereas I would answer it with a firm, clear "no". Justify your position or concede the point.
Other Comments by NakedCelt
217. Comment #185474 by Christopher Davis on May 27, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Goldy,
You are spot on in your description of how teachers are intimidated by the Taliban here in Afghanistan, but as I said before, it's more complicated than that.
The area I work in has 4% literacy among males and 0% literacy among women. Not a lot of teacher candidates here. Furthermore, they are tribal to a ridiculous degree. So even if people wanted to immigrate in to take a teaching job they would have more than just the Taliban to worry about.
Of course you are right, Muslims are people and I've met some damn fine ones here. Just about a month ago one of the locals and his three sons fought off a band of 20 (his report, I doubt it was that many, probably 5-6, nevertheless)armed men who were trying to burn down the newly constructed school and clinic. And that's what makes this so damn infuriating.
Nearly every able-bodied man in this Province has access to an AK-47. They outnumber the Taliban. They don't have to cave in. The problem is, for most of them formal education is a foreign concept, so they don't think it's worth fighting for.
I realize I have digressed again, but I have just accepted that you and I aren't going to see eye to eye on the meat of this debate.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
218. Comment #185491 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 27, 2008 at 11:33 pm
NC Scott Atran's still wrong - it's not millions, it's hundreds of millions. And nore are only a few thousand active in it. Jihad is more than military endeavour. There's demographic conquest, immigration ( hijra), legal campaigns, propaganda. Jihad spreads first with the word and the pen, then with the sword.Open Jihad warfare still goes on in huge amounts - what do you think is going on in Darfur? Or Somlia's campaigns?
What do you mean by "jihad"? Any war where the aggressors' side was predominantly Muslim?
No: Jihad is the war by Muslims to expand the dar al-Islam, justified and sanctioned by reference to the Qur'an and Hadith. Is this really difficult?
You still haven't answered my point that Jihad has been raging for fourteen hundred years, and it's only root cause is Muhammad.
Finally I am getting sick of having to point out that the Crusades were a defensive conflict, a response to centuries of jihad warfare.
Belonging to the Jewish religion does not give you a historical claim to Israeli land just because some people who were treated badly in Israel happened to belong to the Jewish religion.
Is this getting through yet?
Out of pure interest, why then should Germany have had to pay massive reparations for the Second World War?
Ah, yes, the converse. Muslims took land in Kashmir and Constantinople, therefore no Muslim has a right to complain about land being taken from them anywhere until all Muslims, collectively, redress those historic thefts.
By George, I think he's got it! Correct. the Muslims in the Palestinian territories have no nationalist ambition, merely an Islamic one - to reclaim a portion of the dar al-Islam for Muslims. They're intentions are explicitly genocidal. So I say they lost the first and second world wars, and the wars to destroy Israel - too bad if they loose their land.
I know you are going to complain about this, but you then have to come up with a reason why it is legitimate for Muslims to hold all the territory they have wrongfully seized.
Reduced to it's basics it's this:
Israel - tiny, first world democracy, an island of civilisation.
The Palestinians - genocidal savages who have no desire or ability beyond murder.
You can choose one, and only one side to back. Back Israel and preserve it's existence. Back the Palestinians and be complicit in a second Holocaust.
It's not a hard call.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
219. Comment #185498 by keith on May 28, 2008 at 12:33 am
Al,
That is interesting. I assume the statistics that show banning guns increases gun crime, won't mean much to you?
Washington D.C. banned hand guns and violent crime sky rocketed. The places in the US with the lowest rates of violent crime are the ones that make it easiest to carry fire arms.
I'm not really sure what you mean when you suggest that those statistics won't mean anything to me. If you mean, "You probably don't know about these figures" then you're right. However, if you mean that I wouldn't be prepared to accept them regardless of whether they were true or not, then the answer is that I'm happy to go wherever the evidence leads. It interested me a lot that gun crime went up when Washington D.C. tried to restrict guns. Were there any explanations for this?
Actually, my main point was more about the difference between gun crime in the US and gun crime in Britain, where guns aren't allowed. It goes without saying that gun crime in the UK is a tiny fraction (though growing) of what it is in America. Your stats regarding Washington almost seemed to suggest that violent crime would go down if we introduced guns into the UK. This isn't what you are saying...is it?
Other Comments by keith
220. Comment #185506 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 1:39 am
I just noticed something:Only because those who do - the Baha'i spring to mind - are no longer identified as "Muslim". What of it?
So you are basically agreeing with me that you cannot reform Islam, just destroy it? Nice of you to notice.
An excellent article on the subject:
Kafir Dreams
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/front-page-magazine-interviews-bill-warner/
Money quote:
To reform the Koran, all of the hateful, cruel, and bigoted references to kafirs would have to be removed. If the kafir material is removed, then only 39% of the Koran remains. The greatest part of the part of the Koran, 61%, is devoted to negativity about kafirs.
The Sira (the life of Mohammed) has about 75% of its material devoted to jihad.
The Hadith has 20% of its material devoted to jihad. There is no one positive reference to kafirs.
If you delete 61% of the Koran, 75% of the Sira and 20% of the Hadith, you will have reformed Islam. You will also have destroyed it. There is a very good reason that Islam has never been reformed. It is impossible.
Also, viz a vis the 'Palestinians', I don't see any one of them hanging their head in shame about the genocide they committed on the Maronite Christians of Lebanon. I also don't see you even trying to answer that subject.
Christopher Davis
Of course you are right, Muslims are people and I've met some damn fine ones here.
There are, of course, millions of 'muslims-for-identification-purposes-only' who'd never dream of waging jihad or subverting civil society. However, what these can principally be counted on is to do absolutely nothing against those who will do precisely that. Furthermore, there is no real way to distinguish these Muslims from the true believers, until it's too late.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
221. Comment #185510 by NakedCelt on May 28, 2008 at 1:49 am
Comment #185491 by Fanusi Khiyal:NC Scott Atran's still wrong - it's not millions, it's hundreds of millions. And nore are only a few thousand active in it. Jihad is more than military endeavour. There's demographic conquest, immigration ( hijra), legal campaigns, propaganda. Jihad spreads first with the word and the pen, then with the sword.
So the large numbers that Atran emphasizes are even larger than he says? Gee, that really damages his case. And I think you just might find that when Atran says "jihad", he means specifically "terrorist acts", whatever your definition of it might be. Are there more than a few thousand Muslims actively committing terrorist acts?
Comment #185491 by Fanusi Khiyal:
Open Jihad warfare still goes on in huge amounts - what do you think is going on in Darfur? Or Somlia's campaigns?
Same thing that happened in Christian Rwanda in 1994. Environmental degradation plus overpopulation causing famine causing struggles for food, with pre-existing ethnic and religious divisions creating a narrative framework for identifying loyalties.
Comment #185491 by Fanusi Khiyal:
What do you mean by "jihad"? Any war where the aggressors' side was predominantly Muslim?
No: Jihad is the war by Muslims to expand the dar al-Islam, justified and sanctioned by reference to the Qur'an and Hadith. Is this really difficult?
You still haven't answered my point that Jihad has been raging for fourteen hundred years, and it's only root cause is Muhammad.
You haven't made a case that "Jihad" has been raging for fourteen hundred years (as opposed to Muslim leaders starting wars for various pragmatic reasons and using the Qur'an as a propaganda tool). Far less have you made a case that the only root cause is Muhammad. All you've done is assert these points over and over.
Since you've expanded your definition of jihad to include more than war, I can expand my definition of Christian expansionism to include all European colonization, all missionary effort, all Christian radio and television, all Christian websites... and I still say Christianity beats Islam for aggressiveness, summed over its history.
Comment #185491 by Fanusi Khiyal:
Finally I am getting sick of having to point out that the Crusades were a defensive conflict, a response to centuries of jihad warfare.
Here's a hint: try presenting some evidence.
Comment #185491 by Fanusi Khiyal:
Belonging to the Jewish religion does not give you a historical claim to Israeli land just because some people who were treated badly in Israel happened to belong to the Jewish religion.
Is this getting through yet?
Out of pure interest, why then should Germany have had to pay massive reparations for the Second World War?
Because lots of people were suffering as a direct result of the Nazis' actions. Those who were suffering, got compensation. Or did Germany pay a lump sum to all Jews collectively everywhere, regardless of how many close relatives they'd lost in the concentration camps?
Comment #185491 by Fanusi Khiyal:
Ah, yes, the converse. Muslims took land in Kashmir and Constantinople, therefore no Muslim has a right to complain about land being taken from them anywhere until all Muslims, collectively, redress those historic thefts.
By George, I think he's got it! Correct.
Your sarcasm detector needs its battery charged. I was, or I thought I was, hyperbolically summarizing your apparent position in the hope of exposing its fundamental absurdity. Tell me, Fanusi, how much should Muhammad Ali pay Indian President Pratibha Patil in compensation for the deaths of Hindus at Muslim hands during the partition of India?
By the way, how many Muslims were killed by Hindus?
Comment #185491 by Fanusi Khiyal:
the Muslims in the Palestinian territories have no nationalist ambition, merely an Islamic one - to reclaim a portion of the dar al-Islam for Muslims. They're intentions are explicitly genocidal. So I say they lost the first and second world wars, and the wars to destroy Israel - too bad if they loose their land.
Um, I don't know how to break this to you, Fanusi, but the World Wars were primarily fought by Christians. Yes, some Muslims were involved, but then there were also Buddhists and Shintoists fighting on the side of the Axis in World War II. The "Gott" in the "Gott Mit Uns" on Nazi belt-buckles wasn't Allah. The Ottomans didn't start World War I, they just got dragged into it by the tangle of mutual defence treaties that were the cause of the war in the first place. You do know this, don't you?
Comment #185491 by Fanusi Khiyal:
I know you are going to complain about this, but you then have to come up with a reason why it is legitimate for Muslims to hold all the territory they have wrongfully seized.
Collective responsibility again. Does merely subscribing to a particular religion mean you, personally, share in the collective grievances and guilts of every other person and/or organization that has subscribed to that religion? Justify your position or concede the point.
Somehow, I have a feeling your real answer to that question goes "No, unless the religion is Judaism, in which case you do personally share in the grievances, or Islam, in which case you do personally share in the guilts." This is the only answer that renders your arguments consistent and logical. But it is not a sane answer.
Comment #185491 by Fanusi Khiyal:
Reduced to it's basics it's this:
Israel - tiny, first world democracy, an island of civilisation.
The Palestinians - genocidal savages who have no desire or ability beyond murder.
You can choose one, and only one side to back. Back Israel and preserve it's existence. Back the Palestinians and be complicit in a second Holocaust.
It's not a hard call.
I don't buy that kind of stereotype when I meet it in Mein Kampf, and I don't buy it from you. There aren't many Muslims in New Zealand, but living in a university town you meet a few. They aren't genocidal savages with no desire or ability beyond murder. And you forgot to put "nuclear-armed" in the description of Israel, and "backed by the United States", and "...which discriminates between its citizens on the basis of religion".
Other Comments by NakedCelt
222. Comment #185514 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 2:16 am
Don't really have that much time, so I'll just repeat my points. I have made this one several times, which you continually ignore: Muslim Arabs in the Palestinian Mandate continually waged pogroms and massacres of the local jews long before Israel existed. They were also complicit in the Holocaust (google the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem). So the "Gott" in "Gott mit uns" really was Allah, at least as far as the Handscharr were concerned.Mein Kampf is still a bestseller throughout the Muslim world.
I'd also appreciate it if you'd learn a few reading comprehension skills:
here aren't many Muslims in New Zealand, but living in a university town you meet a few. They aren't genocidal savages with no desire or ability beyond murder.
It's interesting that you keep complaining when I point out the collective sins of the Muslims - which are beyond imagining - but you think that a few innocents can redeem an entire group. Fascinating.
I was specifically talking about the Palestinians, and anyone who studies that area recognizes that their intentions are explicitly genocidal. Now, what is difficult about that to grasp?
Here's a hint: try presenting some evidence.
I already have. You told me to go and reread the Blind Faith's thread, I tell you the same. I have pointed this out time and time again and I am tired of having to explain the obvious to the ignorant.
By the way, how many Muslims were killed by Hindus?
I have no idea. Nor do you, I'm certain of it. More importantly, I don't care - anymore than I care how many Germans were killed in the Warsaw ghetto uprising. After the sixty to seventy million Hindus slaughtered by Muslims, they have forfeited any right to be taken seriously.
Until I see some attempt by Muslims to square the record, to make compensation for the fourteen centuries of jihad war (btw, this is recorded in every single history of Islam - even lickspittle apologists such as Karen Armstrong don't deny that. You could try reading Efraim Karsh's Islamic Imperialism), the slave trade, the genocides, I don't give a tinker's damn for any Muslim complains on any subject whatsoever. This is just the typical Islamic dualism that excuplates any Muslim of anything done to the kafirs, but complains when kafirs respond in kind. Muslims do this, it's just to be expected, but it's insane for kafirs to sign onto it too.
Far less have you made a case that the only root cause is Muhammad. All you've done is assert these points over and over.
Please read a little. Two thirds of the Qur'an preaches hatred towards the kafirs. 75% of the Sira is devoted to Jihad, and 20% of the Hadith. I just stated that and I am tired of repeating myself.
Nor do I expand the definition of Jihad - this is the traditional definition, as grounded in the Qur'an and Hadith and Sira, and elaborated by the Islamic schools of jurisprudence.
As to your comparisons with Rwanda - refresh my memory, which of Christ's words were used to justify that? Or European colonialism - much maligned, but I'll leave that to another day - what Christian texts were cited? That is what atrocities were justified on the basis of Christ's teachings? The explicit words?
Jihad, on the other hand, has always been justified by the explict commands of Islam.
I am having trouble believing that anyone who knows about the bloody history of the twentieth century can believe that war's are fought only for economic reasons. This discounting of the role of fanaticism in human history is so ignorant it's unbelievable.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
223. Comment #185518 by mordacious1 on May 28, 2008 at 2:25 am
Fanusi Khiyal"Mein Kampf is still a bestseller throughout the Muslim world".
Do you have a source for that? I'm not questioning it, I'd just like to know, before I repeat it to others.
Other Comments by mordacious1
224. Comment #185524 by HunterZolomon on May 28, 2008 at 2:34 am
Well, criticizing Islam is not racism in and of itself, but you can't deny that in the real world some people criticize Islam because of racism, they are the people who bash immigrants in general and Islam happens to be a convenient excuse against Muslims,--most of whom do happen to be non white.
Bonzai
Sure there are. But consider this. There are some people who value their own holier-than-thou pride of being opposed to racism far more than they value free speech in the form of valid and honest criticism of barbaric Islamic culture. Or really any other questionable cultural phenomenon. Why some people do this I'm not sure. Fear of being labeled themselves? Easier (and safer!) to criticize own culture? In any case, shout "RACIST!" and you effectively put an end to any rational discourse.
Decent people, people who can tell the difference between right and wrong are terrified of being accused of this. And making decent people shut up is about the worst thing you can do. Especially in situations where nutters are prevalent.
Whenever someone mentions racism in a debate *such as this*, what they're really doing is preventing an honest and open debate, indirectly enabling the barbaric practices of backward cultures.
Opposing color is just plain ignorant. Opposing Islam should be the duty of rationalists and humanists everywhere.
Other Comments by HunterZolomon
225. Comment #185527 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 2:49 am
Sure, thing mordacious , always happy to oblige:http://www.intelligence.org.il/Eng/sib/3_05/mein_kampf.htm
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=4&Article_id=13511
It's not really that surprising. Think about it: What was Muhammad? A successful warlord who came to a broken and disorganised people, believed himself to be the agent of a higher power, preached a totalitarian doctrine that affected every aspect of life, brought a book that worshipped war and faith and was viciously anti-semitic, and believed that women's only place was Children, Kitchen, and Church.
Go figure.
HunterZolomon the reason why there is so much outcry about 'racism' - that is, white supremacism - is because of this cult of moral narcissim. The criers have no concern about actual racism - when was the last time you heard them complaining about the Arab supremacism in Islam, or the murder of Zimbabwean and Nigerian immigrants to South Africa? No, they want to show off how 'courageous' and 'principled' they are. For this kind of mental masturbation, it's helpful to have position that not only involves no risk, but no controversy. This is why you have self-righteous denunciations of the Holocaust with a defense of those who are gearing up for the second one. And at the time of the Holocaust there was the same thing: people complaining about British and American militarism, and how unfair it was that they were picking on a broken country with a democratically elected leader who'd only build roads and hospitals and ended inflation.
You'll find that these vermin are immortal. It's best to just shine a strong light on them.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
226. Comment #185528 by Goldy on May 28, 2008 at 2:52 am
MaxDEDIT: Goldy you are attributing to her some psychosis. This seems like a possible mistake on your part. It isn't clear to me that she is crazy from this story, she seems simply to be following the radical teachings of her beloved Islsm.
Mate, I see religous people as slightly touched upstairs anyway. She's going out of her way to spread discord and strife. That's seriously touched upstairs! I stand by my assumption in this case! I am also worried that someone this mentally unstable is allowed to carry on as normal (albeit under surveillance). Seems to me like society allows the cancer to spread because, well, cancerous cells have rights too...
Christopher Davis
I realize I have digressed again, but I have just accepted that you and I aren't going to see eye to eye on the meat of this debate.
Digression is good - lets some more information filter to those of us who are not there and do not know. I am sorry we can't meet eye to eye here, but then we are different and, as they say, vive la difference! :-) I'll ponder over the next few days on the subject and see if I can't maybe see your point. Will be busy, mind - moving my garage tomorrow and then moving house on Friday. Bought a new house just as interest rates shoot up. Oh, yes, I'm smart, me... ;-)
Opposing Islam should be the duty of rationalists and humanists everywhere.
Just Islam?
Other Comments by Goldy
227. Comment #185529 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 2:53 am
Goldy, not just Islam, but principally. No other religion poses a similar threat, not even remotely.Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
228. Comment #185530 by HunterZolomon on May 28, 2008 at 2:59 am
Fanusi Khiyal
I always thought you were a bit of an extreme hardliner on these forums, but (sadly) I find it difficult to contradict your arguments.
Your mention of "show off how courageous and principled they are without risk nor controversy" is exactly the kind of hypocrisy I was talking about. These people lack perspective, in a rather serious way.
Other Comments by HunterZolomon
229. Comment #185532 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 3:10 am
HunterZolomon *chuckles* Thanks for the compliment. Believe me, I'd give anything to be proved wrong. I have no desire whatsoever to believe that there are about three hundred million who are dedicated to destroying everything that I hold dear. Nor do I like thinking that, out of moral narcissism, those who should be sounding the alarm will stick their heads into the stand and do nothing.But, unfortunately, I'm a scientist and I am bound to follow the evidence wherever it leads me, regardless of how unpleasant the conclusions are.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
230. Comment #185537 by hungarianelephant on May 28, 2008 at 3:28 am
227. Comment #185527 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 2:49 amHunterZolomon the reason why there is so much outcry about 'racism' - that is, white supremacism - is because of this cult of moral narcissim. The criers have no concern about actual racism - when was the last time you heard them complaining about the Arab supremacism in Islam, or the murder of Zimbabwean and Nigerian immigrants to South Africa? No, they want to show off how 'courageous' and 'principled' they are. For this kind of mental masturbation, it's helpful to have position that not only involves no risk, but no controversy.
It's more than that.
Political correctness in all forms, and especially anti-racism, is quasi-religious in nature. Not only are you expected to believe in it, you are expected to proclaim your faith at every opportunity and shout loudly about the sinfulness of all heretics.
A denial of racism is conclusive proof of racism. An attempt to distinguish a racist sentiment from a distinction made on other grounds is conclusive proof of racism. Being a "hick" and having an opinion almost certainly makes you a racist.
I guarantee you that there are people reading this comment, thinking "hungarianelephant is a racist".
It's difficult to overstate the chilling effect that this has. Often, it hurts most the very people who are supposed to be the "oppressed". In London as in much of the US, a wildly disproportionate amount of the crime committed is nonwhite on nonwhite. We could discuss the broken, repressive "big man" culture which is endemic in areas of high crime. But instead, we have to send the Met on sensitivity awareness courses, and fret about whether too many black- or brown-skinned kids are being stopped and searched. And when 15 year old girls are packed off to Pakistan to be forced to marry their cousins, we don't charge their families with kidnap and accessory to rape and demand the extradition of the Islamabad end of the operation - no, we lecture the public on the equal value of all cultures.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
231. Comment #185539 by fiagottpf on May 28, 2008 at 3:31 am
Hmmm.Not sure how I feel about this.
I'm tending toward thinking that the town council have made the right decision, but for the wrong reason.
Other Comments by fiagottpf
232. Comment #185547 by mordacious1 on May 28, 2008 at 3:53 am
Fanusi KhiyalThanks for the link. That is scary. I do not think people are buying the book because it is cheap, that would be stupid. There is a lot of cheap crap that no one buys. And why is it cheap? Someone might be subsidizing the printing. I think the difference in the 1975 cover and the current one tells the story. Like I said, scary.
Other Comments by mordacious1
233. Comment #185560 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 4:29 am
Again, mordacious no problem. As you might have noticed - and this is relevant since there are those who insist on not understanding what jihad means - Mein Kampf in Arabic is translated as My Jihad.Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
234. Comment #185563 by keith on May 28, 2008 at 4:35 am
NakedCelt: Environmental degradation plus overpopulation causing famine causing struggles for food, with pre-existing ethnic and religious divisions creating a narrative framework for identifying loyalties.
This was great stuff until the phrase 'narrative framework' appeared and then my eyes suddenly glazed over.
Fanusi: Finally I am getting sick of having to point out that the Crusades were a defensive conflict, a response to centuries of jihad warfare.
NakedCelt: Here's a hint: try presenting some evidence.
Hmm. This must be a hint in the same way that, "Don't know the capital of France? Here's a hint. It's Paris." is a hint.
Other Comments by keith
235. Comment #185566 by HunterZolomon on May 28, 2008 at 4:51 am
Just Islam?
Missed this one. Well Goldy, I'm certainly glad that you are here to add a comment to cast doubts on my motives and insinuate discrimination. In all fairness, I should have listed every single religion since it might make me seem intolerant otherwise...
Other Comments by HunterZolomon
236. Comment #185568 by keith on May 28, 2008 at 5:01 am
fiagottpf,Hmmm.
Not sure how I feel about this.
I'm tending toward thinking that the town council have made the right decision, but for the wrong reason.
I've been trying to figure this one out. 'The right decision' can only refer to the town council's decision to try to stop an Islamic school being built in their town. So this you agree with.
I'm much harder pressed to guess what the wrong reason might be. The stated reason of the council is that they don't want an Islamic school in their midst. Do you have reason to doubt this?
What would represent for you a good reason for not allowing an Islamic school to open there? To use the land to create a miniature golf course instead?
Something tells me you believe the town council to be motivated by racism rather than a suspicion of Islam. Am I right? If so, why do you think this?
Other Comments by keith
237. Comment #185570 by Christopher Davis on May 28, 2008 at 5:04 am
Hunter, Fanusi and hungarianelephant,
Excellent posts. I would only add that to me it seems a bit patronizing for whites to constantly defend minorities (and by this I mean people with skin generally darker than theirs) from criticism by accusing their attackers of racism.
Most of the time, in their rush to take up the cause of the underdog, they end up treating the very group they are defending as one homogenous unit. They forget that the greatest evil of racism is that it fails to recognize people as individuals.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
238. Comment #185572 by tieInterceptor on May 28, 2008 at 5:22 am
Fanusi Khiyal
An excellent article on the subject:
Kafir Dreams
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/front-page-magazine-interviews-bill-warner/
thanks for this link, amazing article...
nothing I did not knew already, but nicely explanined, and the % numbers needed to reform Islam are very eye opening,
I use a lot this link too as argument fother, againts the Islam is peace fallacy
http://en.knowquran.org/koran/disbelievers/
hatred of non-muslims 349 suras... that's 349 too many.
Other Comments by tieInterceptor
239. Comment #185574 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 5:26 am
Keith since it appears that I have to repeat everything, here's some stuff on the Crusades:The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the Holy Land from Muslim rule and were originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuk Turks into Anatolia.
...
The First Crusade was launched in 1096 by Pope Urban II with the dual goals of conquering the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and freeing the Eastern Christians from Islamic rule.
from Wikipedia.
Here you can see the extent of Islamic expansion at the time:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Age_of_Caliphs.png
t beginning in the early eleventh century, Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah began to persecute the Christians of Palestine. In 1009, he destroyed Christianity's holiest shrine the Holy Sepulcher. He eventually relented and instead of burning and killing, he implemented a toll tax for Christian pilgrims entering Jerusalem. The worst was yet to come. A group of Turkish Muslims, the Seljuks, very powerful, very aggressive and very stringent followers of Islam, began their rise to power. The Seljuks viewed Christian pilgrims negatively as pollutants and 'cracked down' on Christians in Palestine
Ibid
i.e. the Muslims had fortified their position enough to be able to enforce the full horror of Islamic law. Islam has only ever been 'tolerant' when it has lacked the power to be otherwise.
expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land, to conquer pagan areas, and to recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins. Between 1095, when the First Crusade was launched, and 1291, when the Latin Christians were finally expelled from their kingdom in Syria, there were numerous expeditions to the Holy Land, to Spain, and even to the Baltic; the Crusades continued for several centuries after 1291, usually as military campaigns intended to halt or slow the advance of Muslim power or to conquer pagan areas.
...
Approximately two-thirds of the ancient Christian world had been conquered by Muslims by the end of the 11th century, including the important regions of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Anatolia
from the Encyclopaedia Britannica
From the confines of Jerusalem and from the city of Constantinople a grievous report has gone forth and has -repeatedly been brought to our ears; namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race wholly alienated from God, `a generation that set not their heart aright and whose spirit was not steadfast with God,' violently invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by pillage and fire. They have led away ap art of the captives into their own country, and a part have they have killed by cruel tortures. They have either destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of their own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness....The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and has been deprived of territory so vast in extent that it could be traversed in two months' time
from Pope Urban II's speech.
Now you might discount this as propaganda. Or you might look at the behavior of Muslims throughout history and at this day, and conclude that 'violent invasion', 'depopulation by pillage and fire', 'killing by cruel torture' and so on is the usual Muslim modus operandi. Violent invasion? Look at East Timor. Depopulation by pillage and fire? What NC's precious palestinian's did in Lebanon. Cruel torture? Pretty much everyhwere.
And so on. It's a little tiring to have to state the obvious.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
240. Comment #185579 by keith on May 28, 2008 at 5:46 am
Fanusi,Perhaps you misunderstood my post. I was objecting to NakedCelt's use of modern-speak in such phrases as 'narrative framework'. I feel that this term should be confined to Lit Crit.
Also the overuse of the word 'hint', when people really mean 'advice', is a bit annoying.
Anyway, you don't need to repeat anything for me. I'm already convinced.
Other Comments by keith
241. Comment #185580 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 5:48 am
Sorry about that. Slightly thin skinned today.Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
242. Comment #185584 by Peacebeuponme on May 28, 2008 at 6:11 am
"Why hasn't anyone got any guts? They've got terrorists amongst 'em... They want to be here so they can go and hide in all the farm houses... This town has every nationality... but Muslims do not fit in this town. We are Aussies, OK."This seems to be a pretty straight up piece of bigotry. However, in small towns there can be an air of resentment to outsiders, and to a certain extent, why not, if it significantly alters the way of life to which you are accustomed and enjoy?
Its no use comparing with christianity either. I suspect that the christians in this town are a pretty beaten down lot and don't affect the lives of others too greatly. Muslims tend to bring with them halal requirements, demonstrations against the slightest perceived offence, political organisations (such as the old "Muslim Parliament") and burkhas.
I can understand why the community would not want this, and particularly not want children to be taught that such a way of life is a virtue.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
243. Comment #185593 by Frankus1122 on May 28, 2008 at 6:51 am
Christopher Davis:
They forget that the greatest evil of racism is that it fails to recognize people as individuals.
It is a difficult line to walk. Statistically certain groups of people have particular traits. Steven Pinker talks about this rather well in The Blank Slate.
It gets messy when we try to determine why certain people are the way they are. Is it genetic? environmental? cultural? a combination of all of these factors? Because I can be defined as belonging to a certain group does that mean I am not to be treated as an individual? Are there dangers in not treating me as a member of a particular group, if members of that group tend to act in dangerous ways?
As I understand it you are in Afghanistan. How do you tell if someone is part of the Taliban? Are there certain characteristics that Taliban seem to share that you use as a guide? Are there people who are not Taliban that also share these characteristics?
I see humans as pattern seekers. Racism is a result of this. We can't treat every thing we encounter as wholly unique. We just can't. This leads to errors on occasion.
I don't think I am saying anything relavatory here. And I'm not entirely sure how this relates to the original topic of this thread. But trying to bring it back to the quote that started this off: yes it is evil to fail to recognize indivduals as such, but is it always possible?
Other Comments by Frankus1122
244. Comment #185599 by MaxD on May 28, 2008 at 6:58 am
Fanusi,
You said:
Reduced to it's basics it's this:
Israel - tiny, first world democracy, an island of civilisation.
The Palestinians - genocidal savages who have no desire or ability beyond murder.
You can choose one, and only one side to back. Back Israel and preserve it's existence. Back the Palestinians and be complicit in a second Holocaust.
It's not a hard call
Is it terribly useful to reduce this to its basics? In college I had many thoughtful palestinian friends from Ramallah. I think many of them were from the Friends School there, were they just an anomaly?
Other Comments by MaxD
245. Comment #185602 by al-rawandi on May 28, 2008 at 7:04 am
MaxD,
That comment by Fanusi can't even be taken seriously. As a person who has many friends on both sides of the conflict I can tell you Fanusi's dichotomy there is absolutely false. He musnt' forget that there are more than a few Israelis pushing for ethnic cleansing as well. And certainly not every Palestinian seeks the destruction of Israel, not even most. Most just want to go on about their lives, unmolested. The radicals aren't popular when things start to get better in the territories, and they gain popularity when things get worse. And eventually people will see that Hamas has done nothing but bring misery to Palestinians.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
246. Comment #185604 by MaxD on May 28, 2008 at 7:11 am
Goldy you said;
Mate, I see religous people as slightly touched upstairs anyway. She's going out of her way to spread discord and strife. That's seriously touched upstairs! I stand by my assumption in this case! I am also worried that someone this mentally unstable is allowed to carry on as normal (albeit under surveillance). Seems to me like society allows the cancer to spread because, well, cancerous cells have rights too...
Sorry psychosis is a mental illness you'd have a hard time getting diagnosed in this particular case. At least given what I know of the facts. You think there is no god, so from this first principle a certain amount of your actions are determined by this belief. You don't go to church, you don't pay tithes, etc. Are you crazy? Your actions are somewhat determined by this belief.
This woman, who came to her belief, very likely on the basis of some authority telling her it was so probably is no less strong in her conviction evenso. If you believed every word of the Koran, or the bible you'd be duty bound to wage Jihad against the infidel. If you were a consistent bible believing person, of course you could have nothing but scorn for homosexuals. These are completely rational actions for those who believe they are on the side of God. We can quibble here about the evidence for their positions (non-existant of course) but most of us here are western educated, free thinking, and had the freedom, or found the breathing space, to feed a certain curiosity.
Not everyone has had such opportunity. If the woman from your example had messianic fantasies then I would probably have to agree with you, and a diagnosis would be rather easy. This woman is probably as sane as you or I and that, in a nutshell, is what is so scary.
Other Comments by MaxD
247. Comment #185607 by MaxD on May 28, 2008 at 7:16 am
Keith,
Not to be jumping on your bandwagon, but when I read the phrase "narrative framework" I felt like vomiting.
Ugh.
No offense NakedCelt. It felt like a post-modernist phrase to me, or something you'd find in the worst kind of Sociology class.
Other Comments by MaxD
248. Comment #185608 by Fanusi Khiyal on May 28, 2008 at 7:19 am
MaxD, al-rawandi ask your friends about what happened during the Lebanese civil war. Ask them how those palestinians treated the maronite Christians who were foolish to let them in. Ask them about babies's skulls dashed in, or mothers physically forced to cut their own child's throat.Ask them about the museum's in Palestine where the dismembered bodies of jews can be seen. Or the ones where they recreate the scenes of suicide murder. Or about cartoons like this: http://www.pmw.org.il/car/Animals/c208412.html
Ask them why twenty-five members of the PLO took the name Hitler or Abu-Hitler. Ask them why they sided en masse with the Grand Mufti and Hitler's ambitions. Ask them why, when the PLO wasn't insane enough, they chose the explicitly genocidal HAMAS in huge numbers. Ask them why they name streets after suicide-murderers, and why there are continual parties when one of them detonates. Ask them about schoolchildren taught songs like 'Arabs are beloved and jews are our dogs', or 'make my flesh into molotov cocktails'. Ask them why their 'heroic resistance' routinely uses hospitals and schools as shields, or drags children to the front lines. Ask them about clips like this:
http://www.pmw.org.il/
And then try to tell me that the Muslim Palestinians are anything but what I have said: savages with no ability or desire beyond murder.
So the hell with them.
Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal
249. Comment #185609 by MaxD on May 28, 2008 at 7:21 am
Al,
That is what I thought. Israel is a democracy but it is no golden pillar of nobility. And Palestinians aren't wholly the victims, but the situation is vastly more nuanced than Fanusi allowed for in his comment.
Other Comments by MaxD
250. Comment #185611 by al-rawandi on May 28, 2008 at 7:25 am
Fanusi,
Of course, as is your habit, you leave out what the Maronites did to the Palestinians. And when you speak of Palestinians, you mean all Palestinians, or certain elements? So to hell with 100% of a people for the actions of 50% or 25% or 85%... is that the message? That sounds a lot like some radical Islamist's opinion of Israel.
And it isn't "Arabs are beloved and the Jews are our dogs" this wouldn't rhyme in Arabic, it is "Palestine is our land and Jews are our dogs" (Falasteen Ibladna wa Yahud Iklabna). You should at least strive to make your sweeping generalizations somewhat accurate.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
201. Comment #185381 by MaxD on May 27, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I am going to have to go with your numbers because I cannot locate the source for mine. As I said I was going from memory. Could you send me the site for your numbers epinephrine.
Other Comments by MaxD