Turn on thread page Beta

Fifth of the European Union will be muslim by 2050 watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    I understand what you are saying in relation to the last half of your post concerning Partition, Iraq and Afghanistan- why I mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan is because there were no bomb blasts etc. before you lot (US, UK etc.) came in.

    Yes OK fine there weren't any forced conversions supported by the state but nevertheless the phenomenon did exist. Also you seem educated about the topic and must know how many of the countries treasures the British stole while they were there. You probably also know of the other "killing of innocent scenarios" except the Amristar massacre.
    Yeah no bomb blasts just 1,000,000 dead in the iran-iraq war. 100,000 dead from the gulf war. 150,000 dead from al-anfal. Plus a measly estimated 200,000 disappearences while saddam was in power.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crusading)
    I have no problem if Europe was made up of 20% Sikhs or Hindus. I am disgusted with the possibility of 20% of my European homeland being made up of Muslims. A people so alien and different to us that it threatens our existence. Your people have a track record of not integrating and imposing your disgusting beliefs on us.

    Muslims belong on muslim countries, muslims do not belong in secular, democratic europe. You are an insult to everything my ancestors fought for.
    Didn't Muslims fight with the British Army during WW1/WW2 and many of its colonial expeditions?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFroggy)
    Yeah no bomb blasts just 1,000,000 dead in the iran-iraq war.
    Which we supported, financed and encouraged.

    100,000 dead from the gulf war.
    Which we waged to ensure Dollar hedgemony.

    Plus a measly estimated 200,000 disappearences while saddam was in power.
    Again we supported and financed him for a period while he was in power including the gassing of the kurds in 1988. Then for the other ten years we enforced an embargo which killed double thae above figure, not to mention the decade of bombings.

    So im not sure what your point is.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Milk'n*Honey)
    I think we must first dedifferentiate between "radical" and "orthodox" Islam, Salafism is split between countless groups some more political than others and Sufi can be both conservative and liberal in equal measure.

    You're right in pointing out most terrorists are from either prosperous families or well-integrated ones (which yes, I did touch upon), but much of that rage stems from material rather than purely theological underpinnings; can we be certain of predicting the political climate in the Muslim world in 2059? All trends seem to indicate liberalization (albeit at snails pace), and that still doesn't account for those who are genuinely integrating and will be taking on leadership positions. The Muslims who rioted in Paris' banlieues rarely if ever attended mosques. And apart from hot spots like Helmand and Swat valley, radical Islam is increasingly loosing support as a legitimate form protest, I would look at Harvards Pluralism projects recent studies for Obama.

    Ultimately integration in Europe will only prove to be insurmountable if liberal Europeans demand all Muslims share the same moral values on hot topics like homosexuality. I am not suggesting that there aren't legitimate concerns (quite the opposite), just that these kinds of stories are often accompanied by hysterics. Perhaps a sensible public debate on Islam in Europe (Britain) which involved Muslim voices would be helpful.

    P.S Hope that makes sense, it's a challenge expressing myself in English and my TSR preview post isn't working:facepalm:
    "much of that rage stems from material rather than purely theological underpinnings"

    This bit I don't agree with, I think the western mind is inclined to overlook the primary importance of religious ideas, and to suppose that all problems in the world come down to rational discernible grievances which can be addressed to resolve such problems. There is no rational underpinning for suicidal martyrdom on the level of the individual, it is entirely rooted in religio-ideological belief. I think your nuanced analysis fails to recognise a kind of conveyor belt towards extremism, in which more 'mainstream' beliefs have a relationship to more radical beliefs that ultimate lead to violent acts. There is a spectrum of support, empathy and rationalisation of violent acts which mean that its not conclusively meaningful to simply speak of a huge panoply of difference or of simple binary analytical categories.

    What you are saying is very reasonable and well expressed, but I think too reasonable, just as you think others are too alarmist. What you are saying does not bear enough resemblance to the realities of simplistically minded youths turning to straight forward, unnuanced and hateful ideas.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Which we supported, financed and encouraged.



    Which we waged to ensure Dollar hedgemony.



    Again we supported and financed him for a period while he was in power including the gassing of the kurds in 1988. Then for the other ten years we enforced an embargo which killed double thae above figure, not to mention the decade of bombings.

    So im not sure what your point is.
    My point was that things were not fine and dandy before the invasion. Surely even you can't disagree with that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrFroggy)
    My point was that things were not fine and dandy before the invasion. Surely even you can't disagree with that?

    But it is not as simple as that.... But discussing it would go waay off topic. No, it was not fine and dandy but that was as much to do with us as it was the Isalmic world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    "much of that rage stems from material rather than purely theological underpinnings"

    This bit I don't agree with, I think the western mind is inclined to overlook the primary importance of religious ideas, and to suppose that all problems in the world come down to rational discernible grievances which can be addressed to resolve such problems. There is no rational underpinning for suicidal martyrdom on the level of the individual, it is entirely rooted in religio-ideological belief. I think your nuanced analysis fails to recognise a kind of conveyor belt towards extremism, in which more 'mainstream' beliefs have a relationship to more radical beliefs that ultimate lead to violent acts. There is a spectrum of support, empathy and rationalisation of violent acts which mean that its not conclusively meaningful to simply speak of a huge panoply of difference or of simple binary analytical categories.

    What you are saying is very reasonable and well expressed, but I think too reasonable, just as you think others are too alarmist. What you are saying does not bear enough resemblance to the realities of simplistically minded youths turning to straight forward, unnuanced and hateful ideas.
    I think it's quite the opposite, western establishment discourse is often susceptible to dismissing political grievances (some legitimate, others not) as contributing factors to global ills. There's a palpable, and tbh snooty attitude toward the developing world which goes something like this: "I know what your problem is, you don't. I don't even have to listen". Despite the overwhelming evidence it took decades for the west to move on admitting there could be some correlation between Palestine and radicalization.

    Am I suggesting religion has no baring? No. but you simply can't look at religion in isolation, it's interwoven into clusters of geo-socio-political issues, but that's precisely how the categorisation you refer to is often employed; focusing only on what is politically convenient like "ideology" which is easy to differentiate from your own in simple terms, or "martydom". Without much consideration for it's wider context it is unsurprising "martydom on the level of the individual" is inexplicable, what else could it be? All of which contribute to spinning a narrative which is then entrenched in society:egg:, and simply accepted as truth. I would go as far as to say religiously so.

    Whether consciously, or not. Thats the desire because inexplicable is easy, and easy to dismiss, and doesn't "rock the boat" but it doesn't lead to solutions either. Thats reverse side of the conveyer belt, equally leading to a predetermined destination, which fails those youth simple minded, or not.

    Personally believe humans are capable of more, and can, do, and will jump off.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "The numbers are startling. Only 3.2 per cent of Spain's population was foreign-born in 1998. In 2007 it was 13.4 per cent. Europe's Muslim population has more than doubled in the past 30 years and will have doubled again by 2015. In Brussels, the top seven baby boys' names recently were Mohamed, Adam, Rayan, Ayoub, Mehdi, Amine and Hamza."

    "Europe's low white birth rate, coupled with faster multiplying migrants, will change fundamentally what we take to mean by European culture and society. The altered population mix has far-reaching implications for education, housing, welfare, labour, the arts and everything in between. It could have a critical impact on foreign policy: a study was submitted to the US Air Force on how America's relationship with Europe might evolve. Yet EU officials admit that these issues are not receiving the attention they deserve."

    "America's Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, part of the non-partisan Pew Research Center, said in a report: "These [EU] countries possess deep historical, cultural, religious and linguistic traditions. Injecting hundreds of thousands, and in some cases millions, of people who look, speak and act differently into these settings often makes for a difficult social fit." "

    "The increased pace has made a nonsense of previous forecasts. In 2004 the EU thought its population would decline by 16 million by 2050. Now it thinks it will increase by 10 million by 2060. Britain is expected to become the most populous EU country by 2060, with 77 million inhabitants. Right now it has 20 million fewer people than Germany."

    "The population changes are stirring unease on the ground. Europeans often tell pollsters that they have had enough immigration, but politicians largely avoid debate."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "Anti-Nazism has mutated into a permanent witch-hunt on an imaginary enemy. The notion that “neo-Nazis” constitute a prominent group today is nonsense. The most dangerous people by far are those running the European Union, who are busy dismantling European civilization and enlarging the borders of the EU to include the Middle East and North Africa, thus flooding their own countries with tens of millions of Muslims and other hostile aliens without consulting the native population."

    "The French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut thinks that “Europe does not love itself.” He says that it's not forces from outside that are threatening Europe as much as the voluntary renunciation of European identity, its wish of freeing itself from its own history and traditions, only replaced by human rights. The EU isn’t just post-national; it’s post-European."

    "Next to the EU, the most dangerous people are the Leftists all over the Western world who are waging a Jihad to destroy their own civilization and have teamed up with Muslims to achieve this goal. Unlike neo-Nazis, these people are not only far more numerous but socially accepted and disproportionately represented in the media and the education system, where they systematically silence “racist” dissenters by destroying their livelihoods and reputations. They use an imaginary “far-Right” threat to crush people they don’t like."

    "According to Dr Aidan Rankin, “anti-Fascism” is the new Fascism. The so-called anti-racists and Multiculturalists are aggressors with totalitarian leanings; the people they unfairly attack are victims of a failed social experiment and one of the greatest betrayals in history"

    “Progressives (as they invariably call themselves) use accusations of racism and fascism as excuses to bully and oppress impoverished white communities and isolate them in racially based ghettos. For white liberals, anti-racism becomes a form of auto-racism, directed at members of their own race who are deemed to be socially inferior. It is, in other words, a new type of snobbery and social exclusion"

    "A supposedly “tolerant” nation such as Britain is becoming more and more totalitarian the more “diverse” it gets, and I sometimes suspect that was the whole point. The fact that prominent groups can despise Christianity, destroy free speech, practice widespread censorship and ideological indoctrination, hate capitalism, promote the concept of the all-encompassing state and support other known Nazi policies while denouncing their opponents as “Nazis” only demonstrates that most people no longer understand the real nature of Nazism. “Discrimination” doesn’t necessarily lead to gas chambers. We discriminated quite sensibly in the past against allowing Muslims and other obviously hostile groups to settle in our lands."

    "In the United States, the host D.L. Hughley at TV channel CNN stated that the Republican Party looked like “Nazi Germany” because a majority of their members are white. Being a “Nazi” today means “being born white and standing up for yourself,” nothing more and nothing less. In fact, you don’t even need to stand up for yourself; merely being white and still breathing is sufficient for some."

    "The escalating wave of physical violence targeting whites in Western streets is closely tied to a rise in verbal abuse directed against whites from Western media. Even the “conservative” Swedish Prime Minister Reinfeldt has stated that the traditional culture of his country was “barbarism” and that everything good was imported from abroad. If he had said something similar about any other ethnic group on the planet he would have been forced to apologize, but saying disparaging things about Europeans and their culture is actively encouraged."

    "The truth is that, perhaps next to Jews, people of European origins are currently the most demonized people on the planet, systematically denied even the most basic level of dignity and self-preservation. Yet while anti-Semitism is at least mentioned in the media as a problem, anti-Whiteism is simply taken for granted."

    "Ironically, both self-professed “anti-Nazis” as well as the marginal neo-Nazi groups that do exist seem to labor under the delusion that the Nazis were “pro-white.” They were not. While Jews and Gypsies topped their hate list, they didn't particularly like “Slavs” such as Poles or Russians, either, even though they were white and in many cases a lot blonder than Mr. Hitler. Most of the people who died in Europe during the Second World War were non-Jewish whites, even though the percentage of the Jewish population that was eliminated was certainly extremely high. The Nazis waged a brutal war against other Europeans but had a positive relationship with Arab Muslims. Frankly, I would be tempted to say that Nazism was a form of Jihad against European civilization, and unfortunately a rather successful one at that."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    1) If ur prejudiced against a religion you can be defined as racist.
    No, only an idiot would say that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of you could stop yourselves from being quite so offensive if you just put "radical" before Muslim in front of your anti-muslim rants. That's not directed to those of you who are arguing reasonably, but just those suffering from islamophobia. I imagine we would be quite offended if we were all treated as though we were members of the Westboro Baptist Family.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atypicalsurreygirl)
    A lot of you could stop yourselves from being quite so offensive if you just put "radical" before Muslim in front of your anti-muslim rants. That's not directed to those of you who are arguing reasonably, but just those suffering from islamophobia.
    What's the difference between a 'radical' Muslim and a 'non-radical' Muslim?

    (Original post by atypicalsurreygirl)
    I imagine we would be quite offended if we were all treated as though we were members of the Westboro Baptist Family.
    To be honest, the Westboro Baptist Church's view on the only topic they are concerned about, homosexuality, is not that different from the Muslim position, is it? As far as I know, both members of the Westboro Baptist Church and Muslims argue that gay people should be murdered.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Human Condition)
    What's the difference between a 'radical' Muslim and a 'non-radical' Muslim?
    The clue is in the word "radical".



    To be honest, the Westboro Baptist Church's view on the only topic they are concerned about, homosexuality, is not that different from the Muslim position, is it? As far as I know, both members of the Westboro Baptist Church and Muslims argue that gay people should be murdered.
    And you've personally asked all one billion of them?:rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Milk'n*Honey)
    I think it's quite the opposite, western establishment discourse is often susceptible to dismissing political grievances (some legitimate, others not) as contributing factors to global ills. There's a palpable, and tbh snooty attitude toward the developing world which goes something like this: "I know what your problem is, you don't. I don't even have to listen". Despite the overwhelming evidence it took decades for the west to move on admitting there could be some correlation between Palestine and radicalization.

    Am I suggesting religion has no baring? No. but you simply can't look at religion in isolation, it's interwoven into clusters of geo-socio-political issues, but that's precisely how the categorisation you refer to is often employed; focusing only on what is politically convenient like "ideology" which is easy to differentiate from your own in simple terms, or "martydom". Without much consideration for it's wider context it is unsurprising "martydom on the level of the individual" is inexplicable, what else could it be? All of which contribute to spinning a narrative which is then entrenched in society:egg:, and simply accepted as truth. I would go as far as to say religiously so.

    Whether consciously, or not. Thats the desire because inexplicable is easy, and easy to dismiss, and doesn't "rock the boat" but it doesn't lead to solutions either. Thats reverse side of the conveyer belt, equally leading to a predetermined destination, which fails those youth simple minded, or not.

    Personally believe humans are capable of more, and can, do, and will jump off.
    Tony Blair and the BBC led media establishment have pretty much always been convinced of the link with the Arab-Israeli conflict, a link which I think they overstate - it helps to convert young Muslim men to radical Islam, but it is not the cause of radical Islamic beliefs and its resolution will not destroy the intellectual edifice of radical Islam.

    The British intellectual establishment has generally understood the post 9/11 world through the prism of the Northern Ireland conflict, which although characterised by a religious sectarian divide was both localised and rooted in specific historical grievances and politically realisable objectives. Very few people in the British establishment are fervently religious, and so they find it hard to put themselves into the mind of someone prepared to die for a religious belief. I cannot speak for continental Europeans, but I believe that post-Enlightenment secularists also find it hard to take religious beliefs seriously enough. The British establishment generally believes, and there has not been much dissent across the political spectrum, that Islamism is rooted in specific grievances connected with the Arab-Israeli conflict and western foreign policy (both current and historical).

    I think that you need to divide the question into the ideas themselves and converting more followers for these strains of political Islam. The ideas themselves have little or nothing to do with specific grievances or realisable objectives in the way that IRA terrorism for example did, and that is were the British establishment has got it completely wrong. In terms of attracting more followers to the banner of political and radical Islam, there are endless causes in the world and in history which presented within the Islamist narrative are effective - the most potent of these being the Arab-Israeli conflict and the recent wars carried out by the Soviets and the West in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

    The flaw in logic in the British assessment is the supposition that resolving these issues will extinguish the threat from Islamic terrorism. It would only deprive terrorists of part of their support base and recruiting pool - which isn't entirely insignificant, but is far from decisive - these things are not the cause of the ideas which underpin Islamic terrorism so they cannot be the solution.

    The arrogance of the west is not in dismissing political grievances, it is in entirely failing to listen to what Islamists and their ideologues actually say. I take very seriously what the Islamists are saying, I think we ought to believe what they profess to believe rather than just ridiculing or ignoring it as the only-half-serious juvenile rantings of some kind of wacko fringe. And if you listen to what they are saying, you'll see that its a comprehensive ideological political-military programme for hummanity.

    Their literalist attention to the Qu'ran has led them to believe the following: that there should be one Islamic state under the Sharia, which will eventually conquer and subdue the whole world and thus bring about peace through submission to Allah; that for the present the world is divided into the Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam, within which there is submission to Islam and accordingly peace) and the Dar al-Harb (the House of War, the land of infidels where Muslims can at most only temporarily coexist peaceably beside unbelievers, and where there is ultimately war until these lands are brought under the Islam); that the covenant of security with western governments has been broken, and so Muslims who feel able should wage violent Jihad against the unbelievers; that non-Muslim states should be progressively brought under the tenants of Islamic law and their democratic systems should ultimately be dismantled; that blasphemy against Islam and the prophet, apostasy and homosexuality should be punishable by death and all the other delightful aspects of the Sharia (as practiced under the Taliban) be applied such as the stoning of adulterers etc; and that martyrdom attacks against non-Muslim civilians should be carried out as a means to immediate salvation for the martyr.

    That is the reality of the ideology we face, that the British establishment has yet to really face up to. And Wahhabism out of which the doctrine of violent Jihad against the West has arisen is not an aberration that can simply be dismissed, it has a state - the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it possesses the land at the religious core of the Muslim world and their most holy city - it wields incredible influence in Mosques across the world backed by billions of Saudi PetroDollars. The political arm of this movement has very serious objectives in Europe parallel to acts of terror and violence, to progressively convert the populations by proselytisation, migration and other means not merely to Islam but to Wahhabi version of Islam.

    I don't see this through the prism of post-Enlightenment Europe, I see this as really something more akin to the wars of religion in Europe following the Reformation. Having spent quite a lot of time studying the Reformation I would argue that the modern world does not really get the independent power of ideas and particularly religious ideas beyond all other considerations. When Martin Luther refused to accept any ideological compromise or even ambiguous fudge with Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy, when all other factors and considerations desperately necessitated that they agree in order to form a Protestant-Reformed alliance against the Catholics, it showed just how much religious ideas matter irrespective of all material and political considerations. People in Europe spent centuries killing and torturing each other largely over the nature of an abstract doctrine about the real or symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharistic bread and wine. Most modern Europeans would find that hard to understand if it were taking place somewhere else in the world today, it has become entirely alien to the Western way of thinking about religion.

    The Islamists do not have realisable objectives, or at least objectives which we can allow them to realise, because their grievances do not stop with Palestine, with non-Islamic governments in Muslim countries, with the presence of Western troops on Muslim soil, the independence of any Muslim region ruled over by a non-Muslim state, or even with the recovery of any territory that has ever been considered, however briefly, as part of the Dar al-Islam. These things merely help them recruit followers, but the power of their dangerous ideas would remain and increase the more of these objectives they could actually achieve. Something is either a grievance or it is a triumph of overturning that grievance, not through the reasonable acquiescence of others but through the will of Allah and the strength of his followers. Their march would continue and they would be stronger. Appeasement cannot win peace from an ideology which plans to subjugate the entire world in the cause of religious beliefs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atypicalsurreygirl)
    A lot of you could stop yourselves from being quite so offensive if you just put "radical" before Muslim in front of your anti-muslim rants. That's not directed to those of you who are arguing reasonably, but just those suffering from islamophobia. I imagine we would be quite offended if we were all treated as though we were members of the Westboro Baptist Family.
    Phobia implies irrational fear, I think the fear that many in the West have about Islam is entirely rational and thus not a phobia. The idea that criticism of Islam arise from irrationality or lack of understanding is part of a ridiculous discourse, its perfectly possible to understand an idea, belief or practice and reject it. The attempt to equate disagreement with a religion as something to do with race or equivalent to racism is nonsensical and a cynical attempt to silence criticism and public discourse on the part of political Islamists, the fact that many Muslim's feel under threat in a hostile environment has caused this term to be circulated amongst people intelligent enough to know better.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saff123)
    The clue is in the word "radical".
    That doesn't answer my question so I'll ask again: what is the difference between a 'radical Muslim' and a 'non-radical Muslim'? I pose this question because it seems rather clear to me that the distinction between 'moderate', 'extremist' and 'radical' religious believers in religions such as Christianity and Judaism has simply not surfaced in Islam. In this sense, most Muslims are fundamentalist (or radical or whatever word you want to use). They really appear to believe that the Quran is the literal and inerrant word of 'god'.

    (Original post by Saff123)
    And you've personally asked all one billion of them?
    As horrifying as it sounds, most Muslim scholars believe that gay people should be murdered; they merely disagree on the method of the killing - i.e. whether gay people should be thrown off a cliff or instead beheaded.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Human Condition)
    As horrifying as it sounds, most Muslim scholars believe that gay people should be murdered; they merely disagree on the method of the killing - i.e. whether gay people should be thrown off a cliff or instead beheaded.
    :eek3: :eek3: :eek3:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting projection, although quite simplistic.

    I don't get why such an uninteresting topic got so many replies. Is it perhaps because a lot of the posters want to revert to the said religion?

    Btw did the forecast take into account possible reversion to the mentioned religion?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Tony Blair and the BBC led media establishment have pretty much always been convinced of the link with the Arab-Israeli conflict, a link which I think they overstate - it helps to convert young Muslim men to radical Islam, but it is not the cause of radical Islamic beliefs and its resolution will not destroy the intellectual edifice of radical Islam.

    The British intellectual establishment has generally understood the post 9/11 world through the prism of the Northern Ireland conflict, which although characterised by a religious sectarian divide was both localised and rooted in specific historical grievances and politically realisable objectives. Very few people in the British establishment are fervently religious, and so they find it hard to put themselves into the mind of someone prepared to die for a religious belief. I cannot speak for continental Europeans, but I believe that post-Enlightenment secularists also find it hard to take religious beliefs seriously enough. The British establishment generally believes, and there has not been much dissent across the political spectrum, that Islamism is rooted in specific grievances connected with the Arab-Israeli conflict and western foreign policy (both current and historical).

    I think that you need to divide the question into the ideas themselves and converting more followers for these strains of political Islam. The ideas themselves have little or nothing to do with specific grievances or realisable objectives in the way that IRA terrorism for example did, and that is were the British establishment has got it completely wrong. In terms of attracting more followers to the banner of political and radical Islam, there are endless causes in the world and in history which presented within the Islamist narrative are effective - the most potent of these being the Arab-Israeli conflict and the recent wars carried out by the Soviets and the West in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

    The flaw in logic in the British assessment is the supposition that resolving these issues will extinguish the threat from Islamic terrorism. It would only deprive terrorists of part of their support base and recruiting pool - which isn't entirely insignificant, but is far from decisive - these things are not the cause of the ideas which underpin Islamic terrorism so they cannot be the solution.

    The arrogance of the west is not in dismissing political grievances, it is in entirely failing to listen to what Islamists and their ideologues actually say. I take very seriously what the Islamists are saying, I think we ought to believe what they profess to believe rather than just ridiculing or ignoring it as the only-half-serious juvenile rantings of some kind of wacko fringe. And if you listen to what they are saying, you'll see that its a comprehensive ideological political-military programme for hummanity.

    Their literalist attention to the Qu'ran has led them to believe the following: that there should be one Islamic state under the Sharia, which will eventually conquer and subdue the whole world and thus bring about peace through submission to Allah; that for the present the world is divided into the Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam, within which there is submission to Islam and accordingly peace) and the Dar al-Harb (the House of War, the land of infidels where Muslims can at most only temporarily coexist peaceably beside unbelievers, and where there is ultimately war until these lands are brought under the Islam); that the covenant of security with western governments has been broken, and so Muslims who feel able should wage violent Jihad against the unbelievers; that non-Muslim states should be progressively brought under the tenants of Islamic law and their democratic systems should ultimately be dismantled; that blasphemy against Islam and the prophet, apostasy and homosexuality should be punishable by death and all the other delightful aspects of the Sharia (as practiced under the Taliban) be applied such as the stoning of adulterers etc; and that martyrdom attacks against non-Muslim civilians should be carried out as a means to immediate salvation for the martyr.

    That is the reality of the ideology we face, that the British establishment has yet to really face up to. And Wahhabism out of which the doctrine of violent Jihad against the West has arisen is not an aberration that can simply be dismissed, it has a state - the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, it possesses the land at the religious core of the Muslim world and their most holy city - it wields incredible influence in Mosques across the world backed by billions of Saudi PetroDollars. The political arm of this movement has very serious objectives in Europe parallel to acts of terror and violence, to progressively convert the populations by proselytisation, migration and other means not merely to Islam but to Wahhabi version of Islam.

    I don't see this through the prism of post-Enlightenment Europe, I see this as really something more akin to the wars of religion in Europe following the Reformation. Having spent quite a lot of time studying the Reformation I would argue that the modern world does not really get the independent power of ideas and particularly religious ideas beyond all other considerations. When Martin Luther refused to accept any ideological compromise or even ambiguous fudge with Zwingli at the Marburg Colloquy, when all other factors and considerations desperately necessitated that they agree in order to form a Protestant-Reformed alliance against the Catholics, it showed just how much religious ideas matter irrespective of all material and political considerations. People in Europe spent centuries killing and torturing each other largely over the nature of an abstract doctrine about the real or symbolic presence of Christ in the Eucharistic bread and wine. Most modern Europeans would find that hard to understand if it were taking place somewhere else in the world today, it has become entirely alien to the Western way of thinking about religion.

    The Islamists do not have realisable objectives, or at least objectives which we can allow them to realise, because their grievances do not stop with Palestine, with non-Islamic governments in Muslim countries, with the presence of Western troops on Muslim soil, the independence of any Muslim region ruled over by a non-Muslim state, or even with the recovery of any territory that has ever been considered, however briefly, as part of the Dar al-Islam. These things merely help them recruit followers, but the power of their dangerous ideas would remain and increase the more of these objectives they could actually achieve. Something is either a grievance or it is a triumph of overturning that grievance, not through the reasonable acquiescence of others but through the will of Allah and the strength of his followers. Their march would continue and they would be stronger. Appeasement cannot win peace from an ideology which plans to subjugate the entire world in the cause of religious beliefs.
    While "ideas" are important you must place them in the context in which they developed and came to prominance. I won't argue with you on the Reformation, clearly you have a better grasp of that subject than I. However, don't you believe that the historical context played a contributing factor to the development of those ideas? the development of sophisticated trade and prosperity in Italy and the Netherlands and the rise of the mercantile class as an example?

    Much of the context for the "radical-Islamist" ideology lies in the the cold war; western support for the Saudi establishment despite it's woeful human rights, or the Taliban who were "ideologically" incubated in the Soviet invasion cannont simply be dismissed, and the failure of Arab nationalism to offer unity, let alone a credible threat to Israel, the Gulf Wars I, II and III and other conflicts contributed to the Islamic resurgence, compare Egypts socio-culturul outlook in 1970 to the present. And what of the biggest nonstate players, the al-Qaeda "network"; Who formed them? Western intelligence, financed by the Saudi, etc etc. Afghanistan brought together the most extreme Muslims together from across the Muslim world, most moderate Muslim voices were eradicated. Where in that is there a differentiation between Islamist and western interests? Mohamad Saqique Khan didn't mention global Jihad, and theology as his motivation for the London bombings he mentioned Iraq, he could not have carried out the attack without the ideology, but equally so without the context. None of which supports the the idea that the western establishment is this naive, innocent observer standing at the periphery.

    So will solving the Palestinan-Israeli conflict banish the ideology? No, because removing grievances doesn't simply banish an Ideology once it has been created and has some following. The solution like the root cause lies in both ideological and material reform. There must be viable alternative ideologies like democratic reform, and material economic prosperity. Within even Saudi Arabia there are both constructive and unconstructive scholars and arguments, the level of thought may not be upto western standards but it exists, and in Pakistan as elsewhere hardline Islamists have consistently performed poorly at elections which is why they wish to replace the system; and stand opposed by both secular and moderate voices. I do not speak of appeasement of the Islamists and their methods, but neither should we fall into the trap of reducio ad hitleriums when speaking about objectives as appeasement.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Human Condition)
    That doesn't answer my question so I'll ask again: what is the difference between a 'radical Muslim' and a 'non-radical Muslim'? I pose this question because it seems rather clear to me that the distinction between 'moderate', 'extremist' and 'radical' religious believers in religions such as Christianity and Judaism has simply not surfaced in Islam. In this sense, most Muslims are fundamentalist (or radical or whatever word you want to use). They really appear to believe that the Quran is the literal and inerrant word of 'god'.
    Like every other faith there is a spectrum of beliefs, ancient sects like the Nizariyyun are as liberal today as reform Jews, and Episcopalians. There are the Sufi on the mystical side, and the new progressive movement in North America. If your defining a Muslim by the standards set by the most radical elements your not doing justice to the whole.

    As horrifying as it sounds, most Muslim scholars believe that gay people should be murdered; they merely disagree on the method of the killing - i.e. whether gay people should be thrown off a cliff or instead beheaded.
    Most doesn't equate with all scholars, and that doesn't take into account what ordinary Muslims believe. Muslims like anyone else who believes homosexuality should be met with a death sentence should be condemned, but simply claiming all Muslims believe that is lazy, and prejudice. You seem intelligent enough to know better.
 
 
 

2,261

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.