Keep Islam & Politics Separate
the_x5
the Xzianthian Join Date: 2004-03-02 Member: 27041Members, Constellation
the Xzianthian Join Date: 2004-03-02 Member: 27041Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<!--QuoteBegin-"Keep Islam & politics separate"
By Siddique Malik
Special to The Courier-Journal+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ("Keep Islam & politics separate"
By Siddique Malik
Special to The Courier-Journal)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Muslim terrorists' claim that their conduct is sanctioned by Islam is a blasphemous lie that must be exposed.
Terrorists' attacks on humanity constitute just one side of the problem. What compounds the problem is the fact that many of the world's Muslims fail to condemn terrorism; instead, they demonstrate the repugnant irrationality of the attempts to rationalize these attacks.
The American society clearly rejected Timothy McVeigh's ideas and treated him as a terrorist, not a folk hero. I challenge the Muslim world to ensure that al-Qaida's supply of terrorists dries up. I have no illusion that this will happen any time soon.
The Muslim world has a serious problem of perception and suffers from an inferiority complex, a combination that can only engender anarchy, and this is exactly with what the Muslim world seems to be afflicted. The Muslim world must quickly transform itself before it degenerates into a giant warehouse of terror. It must assimilate the essential traits of modern civilization, i.e., freedom, accountability, equality, respect for diversity, etc. In other words, it must emulate secular democracy, the only civilized way to govern and be governed.
A country must be run under tangible laws based upon practical issues, not religious perceptions. Whose perceptions will constitute the state's statutory springboard? Will laws change every time this person wakes up after having dreamed in sleep? How would one apply these laws to non-Muslim members of society? They will not share these dreams and justifiably so.
The solution is thus simple: Keep religion and politics separate. The West learned this secret a long time ago. Unfortunately, the Muslim world is still under the illusion of the viability of the theocratic state. Why not learn from history?
Muslim extremists argue that Islam expects "the best among you" to be the ruler, but fail to explain who will be the arbiter of this qualification. If such a person were somehow found, then how could the society ensure his (forget "her," because Muslim extremists would rather die than live under the rule of a woman) continued altruism? What if after being ushered into the echelons of power, this ruler became corrupt (power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely)? How would society then jettison him and quickly find another "best among you"?
Shortly after the death of the prophet Muhammad, a turf war materialized between the forces of Ayesha, the prophet's young widow, and the forces loyal to Fatima, his daughter from one of his previous wives. Later, the prophet's two grandsons, Hassan and Hussein (Fatima's sons), were brutally killed in their individual power struggles with those who considered themselves "the best among you".
Were Islam meant to be more than just a source of religious rituals, Muhammad would have clearly defined Islam's political mechanisms. All individuals involved in the above-mentioned episodes were devout Muslims and would have followed his advice to the letter, and these tragic episodes would have been avoided. With his prophetic vision and wisdom, he must have foreseen these conflicts but he issued no directives on how to avoid these after his death. He didn't want to extend the domain of religion into politics, as his advice would have automatically become a part of the tenets of Islam. How, then, can today's mullahs mix Islam with politics?
Today, an honest interpretation of the Quran will constitute a blow of death to the unwarranted clout of the politico-religious demons in the Muslim world. This is the reason that they are ready to kill and die over the issue of depoliticizing Islam.
Those who have no hesitation in torturing a kindergartner or beheading an innocent person obviously have crossed the point of redemption and must be crushed by force. The rest of the Muslims need to resolve all conflicts between their perception of Islam and the needs of humanity. Nothing short of this will curb the slide of a great religion into being just a tool of murderous cultists.
Before the emergence of Islam 14 centuries ago, the practice of female infanticide was rampant. Islam banned this ghastly custom of the ignorant Arab tribes of the time. Today's terrorists are killing schoolchildren in the name of Islam. My fellow Muslims, something has definitely gone wrong, and it is our duty to fix it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting.
By Siddique Malik
Special to The Courier-Journal+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ("Keep Islam & politics separate"
By Siddique Malik
Special to The Courier-Journal)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Muslim terrorists' claim that their conduct is sanctioned by Islam is a blasphemous lie that must be exposed.
Terrorists' attacks on humanity constitute just one side of the problem. What compounds the problem is the fact that many of the world's Muslims fail to condemn terrorism; instead, they demonstrate the repugnant irrationality of the attempts to rationalize these attacks.
The American society clearly rejected Timothy McVeigh's ideas and treated him as a terrorist, not a folk hero. I challenge the Muslim world to ensure that al-Qaida's supply of terrorists dries up. I have no illusion that this will happen any time soon.
The Muslim world has a serious problem of perception and suffers from an inferiority complex, a combination that can only engender anarchy, and this is exactly with what the Muslim world seems to be afflicted. The Muslim world must quickly transform itself before it degenerates into a giant warehouse of terror. It must assimilate the essential traits of modern civilization, i.e., freedom, accountability, equality, respect for diversity, etc. In other words, it must emulate secular democracy, the only civilized way to govern and be governed.
A country must be run under tangible laws based upon practical issues, not religious perceptions. Whose perceptions will constitute the state's statutory springboard? Will laws change every time this person wakes up after having dreamed in sleep? How would one apply these laws to non-Muslim members of society? They will not share these dreams and justifiably so.
The solution is thus simple: Keep religion and politics separate. The West learned this secret a long time ago. Unfortunately, the Muslim world is still under the illusion of the viability of the theocratic state. Why not learn from history?
Muslim extremists argue that Islam expects "the best among you" to be the ruler, but fail to explain who will be the arbiter of this qualification. If such a person were somehow found, then how could the society ensure his (forget "her," because Muslim extremists would rather die than live under the rule of a woman) continued altruism? What if after being ushered into the echelons of power, this ruler became corrupt (power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely)? How would society then jettison him and quickly find another "best among you"?
Shortly after the death of the prophet Muhammad, a turf war materialized between the forces of Ayesha, the prophet's young widow, and the forces loyal to Fatima, his daughter from one of his previous wives. Later, the prophet's two grandsons, Hassan and Hussein (Fatima's sons), were brutally killed in their individual power struggles with those who considered themselves "the best among you".
Were Islam meant to be more than just a source of religious rituals, Muhammad would have clearly defined Islam's political mechanisms. All individuals involved in the above-mentioned episodes were devout Muslims and would have followed his advice to the letter, and these tragic episodes would have been avoided. With his prophetic vision and wisdom, he must have foreseen these conflicts but he issued no directives on how to avoid these after his death. He didn't want to extend the domain of religion into politics, as his advice would have automatically become a part of the tenets of Islam. How, then, can today's mullahs mix Islam with politics?
Today, an honest interpretation of the Quran will constitute a blow of death to the unwarranted clout of the politico-religious demons in the Muslim world. This is the reason that they are ready to kill and die over the issue of depoliticizing Islam.
Those who have no hesitation in torturing a kindergartner or beheading an innocent person obviously have crossed the point of redemption and must be crushed by force. The rest of the Muslims need to resolve all conflicts between their perception of Islam and the needs of humanity. Nothing short of this will curb the slide of a great religion into being just a tool of murderous cultists.
Before the emergence of Islam 14 centuries ago, the practice of female infanticide was rampant. Islam banned this ghastly custom of the ignorant Arab tribes of the time. Today's terrorists are killing schoolchildren in the name of Islam. My fellow Muslims, something has definitely gone wrong, and it is our duty to fix it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting.
Comments
Yeah. Woah, thats really, REALLY off on base wise. Woah.
Yeah. Woah, thats really, REALLY off on base wise. Woah. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, it WAS a suggestion <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Good article, but one line he said summed it up for me: Unfortunately, I dont see this happening any time soon.
But it would appear that the entire Middle East suffers from this malady. Even the head Muslim leader in Australia was praising Arab suicide bombers in Israel - and this generates a hell of a lot of negative sentiment. Its also why I reject comparisions between "this doesnt represent Islam any more than the Crusades represented Christianity" - because this is a present and real problem for Muslims, and they are in sufficient numbers to have a large scale impact on the world. You have entire countries that are defined by extremist Islamic views - and I see no evidence of this sentiment on the wane.
(Marik, now you can see why I had the acronym word "ASAP" in that PM)
It'd have been easier if the threadmakers we given move permission for their topics. Just like how you can edit your own topics. Anyways now it's in the intended forum...
OOOPS! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I fail to see how any of those differenciate the current situation from the Crusades of the past. You could reasonably say any of them about the Crusades.
But yes, nothing is going to change until people that Muslims respect start speaking out on the matter in greater numbers than those supporting it. I imagine that the common people fear for the safety of their families when they speak out against a pervasive and religiously colored idea like Jihad.
Not that non-Muslim forces are innocent. We need to give them a way out of the cycle, a way to get the basic respect and independance that every human deserves without killing.
Already my mind brimmes with malicious and abusive functions I could exploit with that feature <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyways, this whole thing is one of the reasons that I disagree with combining religion and politics in any way. Religion is designed to be a constructive way for people to live thier lives, but it quickly degrades in its ability to handle complex issues due to interpretion. Politics is just to complicated for religion to properly apply.
I really wish you americans would stop voting in people who take strong stances on issues for the soul reason that they take strong stances on issues. To me, a strong stance means that not nearly enough thought has been put into the issue. You don't need a strong stance to act on something, you just need a strong compelling to act in the greater good.
But yes, nothing is going to change until people that Muslims respect start speaking out on the matter in greater numbers than those supporting it. I imagine that the common people fear for the safety of their families when they speak out against a pervasive and religiously colored idea like Jihad.
Not that non-Muslim forces are innocent. We need to give them a way out of the cycle, a way to get the basic respect and independance that every human deserves without killing. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because if this were the times of the Crusades, I could sit here all day talking about how the Crusades werent representative of Christianity, while every Christian I knew didnt honestly care about the Muslims getting slaughtered, with some even actively supporting it. As long as you have that majority that either sit by and do nothing, or actively support, then you will have problems.
What I see is a pretty good description of either the Crusades or Jihad right there, but with slightly different driving motivations.
edit: does anyone else see this? Or am I just suffering from too much sleep depravation?
What I see is a pretty good description of either the Crusades or Jihad right there, but with slightly different driving motivations.
edit: does anyone else see this? Or am I just suffering from too much sleep depravation? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
the Christians won the crusades?
What I see is a pretty good description of either the Crusades or Jihad right there, but with slightly different driving motivations.
edit: does anyone else see this? Or am I just suffering from too much sleep depravation? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the Christians won the crusades? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh, in what history book? I have a real question though. Why does it matter whether the current situation is similar to the Crusades or not? Does this similarity (assuming it exists) offer up some pertinant solution that will bring peace to the world? Or is it just a talking point you can use to illustrate that Christians are bad people too.
I personally don't really see a connection between the two and this is from the "why is this happening" area of questioning. The Crusades were executed by the rich and powerful in Europe. The Kings of England and France, the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope. Heck even the soldiers were professional mercenaries, by and large. How many rich and powerful suicide bombers have you heard about? The Jihad is coming from a vastly different strata in society.
His call is admirable, of course, but an empty gesture. Until he's out in the streets quoting verses from the Quran and developing a large following, this means nothing. Religious texts are open to interpretation, and he's no more correct or incorrect than is the Mullah who delivers last rites to a young suicide bomber before he makes his final journey. The only being that could conceivably settle the debate with any authority would be Allah, were he to exist.
What I see is a pretty good description of either the Crusades or Jihad right there, but with slightly different driving motivations.
edit: does anyone else see this? Or am I just suffering from too much sleep depravation? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
the Christians won the crusades? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh, in what history book? I have a real question though. Why does it matter whether the current situation is similar to the Crusades or not? Does this similarity (assuming it exists) offer up some pertinant solution that will bring peace to the world? Or is it just a talking point you can use to illustrate that Christians are bad people too.
I personally don't really see a connection between the two and this is from the "why is this happening" area of questioning. The Crusades were executed by the rich and powerful in Europe. The Kings of England and France, the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope. Heck even the soldiers were professional mercenaries, by and large. How many rich and powerful suicide bombers have you heard about? The Jihad is coming from a vastly different strata in society. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say that any region of the world has more than enough bad people, and there is no area where everyone might as well be the devil. I bear no prejudice.
Hello? The bin Ladin family? It's not like there isn't money in the middle east. That's one of the reasons they went in that direction in the Crusades (yes, there was wealth before oil money).
A fair number of the suicide bombers are quite mercenary. They go seeking the benefits of a martyr, for themselves (afterlife) and their families (they get cash, lots of it).
If I took all of the conflicts and wars that I could think of, and barred the other Jihads, I would say the modern conflict is most like the Crusades. The goals vary between power, revenge, and independance, and there's a massive underlying issue of racism and religious intolerance.
And as great as it would be if we could apply logic to end any war, it doesn't happen. If smarts were part of the equation to start with, then the war probably wouldn't have even started! Fortunately war is distasteful, and all parties will grow tired of it eventually. Then the brains can turn back on until something else comes along.