When the concept of “multiculturalism” was introduced to Canadians, most assumed it meant “more pavilions at Folkfest”;
If convicted, Aqsa’s father and brother must be awarded the strictest penalty available under the law. As for the imams and clergy of Canada’s mosques, who constantly berate young women for not wearing the hijab or snub them for “violating Islam,” they need to reflect on the consequences of their sermons.
Consider, as an example, the Montreal mosque that recently posted on its Web site a warning to the effect that if young girls took off their hijab, they could end up getting raped and having “illegitimate children.” Other proferred risks included “Stresses, insecurity and suspicion in the minds of husbands” and “instigating young people to deviate towards the path of lust.”
As if the threat of rape and the fear of illegitimate children were not enough, these pre-teen girls were told that if they took off their hijab, they would cease to be Muslims: “By removing your hijab, you have destroyed your faith. Islam means submission to Allah in all our actions.” Little wonder then, that Canadian girls walk away from sports tournaments rather than remove their hijabs.
Muslims need to stand up to this sort of emotional and religious blackmail by imams who spread the competing agendas of Saudi Arabia and Iran into Canada. Young Aqsa Pervez’s death cannot be reversed. But in her memory, we can at least challenge those whose message leads to rage and madness.
Greg in Dallas:
OK dude, precition time for Me No Dhimmi (sadly I got Conrad Black right – guilty AND jail time).
It won’t be murder 1, nor murder 2, but manslaughter. If there’s jail, out in 5 years or less. There’ll be a publication ban while the “community” interfaces with the elites, and it’ll be a long, long, long time before it comes to trial, by which time most people will have forgotten about it. The female judge will probably be a feminist who feels the father’s pain from his daughter’s “unfortunate passing”.
I’m still waiting for the Toronto 17 trial — those errant school boys misled by immoderate misunderstanders of Islam. I’m hearing nothing about it all. I’m guessing the thing will just fade away ….
I think the two key differences between MCC and CIC are: Funding and “imams”. For both, the latter gets it’s load from teh Saudi desert.
“Irwin daisy – you state that no change is possible. I’d like to ask you then, what is your solution to the reality of Islam in this world, since you posit that they are, basically, an evil and monstrous people (who must behave as Mohammed) and cannot change. What’s your solution? You seem to be focusing on abolishing Islam, since according to you, it cannot be reformed. How would you do that?”
Up to your old lies again ET? I never said any of the above. I never said all Muslims are anything of the sort. I pointed out the fact, though, that they are required to emmulate Mohammad who was a truly monstrous and evil man.
What do you think this does for your crediblity?
Dander,
You are either the most ignorant person on this thread or a blatant liar.
“You are either being truly naive or deliberately misleading. People claiming to be secularists, as well as so-called “Judaeo-Christians” have all killed their daughters and committed much worse crimes over issues as equally petty as defying one’s father over the hijab. Read the history of the 20th century. While some rabid so-called “fundamentalists” (so-called because such people have nothing to do with the fundamentals of Islam) are cutting off heads and blowing up innocents because of their misguided interpretations of religion.”
Answer this: Was Mohammad a pedophile, a mass-murderer, a rapist and a thief as described in the Hadith and Sira? Also, are Muslims commanded to emmulate Mohammad, ‘the perfect man?’
“Read the history of the 20th century”
Really? The same century that started out with the Muslim Ottoman pogram against the Armenian Christians and Greeks? You mean the 1.5 million butchered by these good Muslims? Or the Muslim butchery in East Pak/Bangladesh which resulted in similar numbers of Hindus killed? Or perhaps you mean the 100 million murdered by non-Christian Communists and Nazis?
And as mentioned above – Christian fundamentalists performing honour killings? Prove it?.
You truly are an idiot and a liar.
As for ‘winning over Muslims’ and other such b.s. Bullocks. After 1400 years of violence, theft, war and genocide – it is them who need to win non-Muslims over. Not the other way around.
Oh dear, I see the moral relativists are out, trying to justify their relativism. Well, my dear relativists, if you keep this stupidity up, you may well undermine the West such that you will realise the error of your ways. Perhaps you have a death-wish; I don’t, and find your obnoxious and hateful philosophical position a denial of all that is good in humanity. Remember, denial is bad.
dander…I don’t think you know what you are talking about. Maybe you haven’t caught on to the fact that if this man killed his daughter in the ME he would have done it publicly, and would be applauded by his peers.
“In my mind this was an honour killing,” Tarek Fatah the founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, says adamantly about what he calls a blight on Islam. Make no mistake, says Fatah: “This has happened before” and will again.
Fatah says these murders have been covered up.
“Sometimes they involve a balcony and they say it’s suicide and other times they just don’t find the body.”
(from TO Sun, via Halls of Macadamia)
Phobics and bigots have unrealistic prejudices.
This is reality.
ET, Islam reforming itself?, just how is that going to happen without a progressive Pope, a Martin Luther, a central council or the state stepping in as in the Reformation in Europe? (I’m posting this question again as my earlier message got eaten.) Since it’s primative inception, a lot of centuries have past by Islam in reformed Judeo-Christian time. There’s a reason.
Anyone like Hirsi Ali, and they are so damn few, with a public cache that criticizes Islam is under police protection.
…you’re never going to win over any moderate Muslims to your side by disparaging their religion dress….
Hey, Hana, you absolute moonbat, how moderate are those folks that they can’t cope with criticism and need “won over” from the violence and intolerance of their religion. You really are a self-loathing female with you continued defense of the indefensible that being that females live subjugated lives under Islam. Think moderate Muslims can deal with that factual observation?
…although I have tried to educate myself on the religion to the extent possible…
And, dander, please share with us what exactly you learned about Islam?
Jeff Peterson, you miss my point. Not all secular humanists demand heads, any more than Muslims demand heads, as a rule. However, there certainly have been, and are, as many mobs consisting of seculars (or so-called Christians) as there are of (so-called) Muslims. Mobs of people who could be defined as “seculars” (communists, for example) have been known to commit horrible atrocities, and communists (who will always describe themselves as “humanists”) in fact are demonstrably accountable for the most massive genocidal acts in history. I’m not saying all secular humanists are bad; my point is that some people who call themselves by any label (Muslim or humanist or Christian) are capable of the worst crimes, but this reflects on their state of being, and not necessarily on the belief system (although the absence of any recognition of higher principles has certainly seemed to lead us down a very destructive path indeed – Personally, I’m more worried about the immanent destruction of our planet by “liberal democracy” than the hothead fanatical terrorists right now). And I’d be surprised if there were fewer frivolous “Human Rights” cases put forward by seculars than Muslims. You are confusing a “sociology that holds women in contempt” with Islam, which only demonstrates your ignorance of the religion in its fullness.
penny – Islam, as a religion, or ideology of tribalism, moved into the tribal economies of the world – the ME and Africa. These economies stayed tribal and primitive up until the 20th century. That’s why Islam didn’t change; the economy didn’t change.
Then, in the ME, the two World Wars brought industrialism into the area – but – because it was a resource extraction rather than manufacturing industrialism, the wealth remained in the control of the elite hereditary tribe. No economic or political change.
With the growth in population in these areas in the ME, the result was Islamic fascism rather than a movt to empower this increased population by enabling the development of a middle class and democracy. This is the battle that is going on now in Islamic countries – the battle between tribalism, which is incapable of operating as a modern state – and a modern civic state. Islam, as a tribal ideology, has to change and adapt to a civic ideology. The West went through its change from tribalism (aka feudalism) to a civic state in the 12th-16th centuries.
irwin daisy – on dec 11th, you wrote:
I would like to know how the idiots in charge of immigration would have ever thought that simply by allowing muslims to immigrate here, that somehow they would adapt to our ways and give up their savagery and quest for world domination (in other words, political Islam)?
Every country that has been conquered, or allowed muslims to immigrate is in the process of Islamic subjugation. Some more, some less – but it is progressive. Exactly like a virus. ”
You’ve previously written against Muslim immigration to Canada; previously written against Islamic reform, saying that it is impossible, because Islam either exists, in its original state, or it Is Not Islam. So, I’m not making anything up.
HANA
I will address your lack of understanding of the muslum moderates, as I have quit a few muslim friends. These friends ( as early as the mid 90-T’s) informed me that many of the “moderate” muslims subtly support the extremist’s POV. They are generally all bush /american haters, and largely detest western culture. So, when you can match their knowledge on muslims, then I will find your nonsense credible!!!!!!
ET: For the record, I went to the MCC site. I read the Mission Statement and was pleasantly surprised esp. with the reference to the UN Universal Declaration of Rights; as you probably know the OIC (?) (Organization of Islamic countries?) bypassed this and did their own version of Mulsim human rights, which have, er, nothing to do with human rights.
I was pleased by the topics and an tenor of many of the articles, while being extremely wary about their middle east stuff, esp. the story about Israel’s brutal attack on Gaza. What???
I was also thrilled by a review of “Little Mosque on the Prairie” which one Muslim playwright described as worse than his kid’s grade 5 play.
AND mostly encouragingly, in that same review was mentioned the unrealistic portrayal of what goes on in the mosques including THE FAILURE TO REFER TO SAUDI MONEY, and the simplistic portrayal of Canadians as backwoods bigots. Bingo, good on them.
But as I had said, I was pleased they sided with Macleans, and had NOT expressed a firm opinion on them — only asked some questions about the language.
Finally, much of this pointless discussion about “reform” is really just semantics. If you have to ignore half of the stuff in the texts, you may call that reform — I call what remains something different than Islam. New Islam maybe? Islam 1.1?
Just out of curiosity … where was the mother in this whole misunderstanding? … sisters? … aunts? … any female relative?
Just asking – “normal” families sometimes discuss what’s going on with their kids … we do … maybe we’re abnormal.
Hey Doug! Ya got me, here I am looking at the world through my bigoted glasses. I can’t believe based on the abundance of evidence that I have somehow jumped to the conclusion that any one ideology is more likely to be intolerant than another, how silly. From now on I will accept your belief that the evils of “liberal democracy” are more likely to tear society down than, say, a dogmatic religious approach. And I have now seen the light in regards to the fact that Islam holds women in the highest esteem.
Now look, my friend, your arguments are boring and uninformed, I am sorry to say this, but I just feel that you need to get a little more life experience under your burka before you get to a position in life where you no longer have the luxury of ludicrous opinions.
ET: Whilte I agree there’s absolutely no way to have a policy prohibiting “muslim immigration” per se, there’s no reason we can’t stop immigration from very high risk countries like Pakistan.
AND, a thorough overhaul of the refugee system — which is too often just queue jumping. And we should have some kind of social contract with the immigrants and their clear understanding that they face deportation if they fail to comply. And a self-interested Canada-centric approach, not a disguised global welfare programme (which you correctly identify the global warming hoax to be).
Sounding like a dreamer here, but it would be great if we could turn off the magnets — like instant social benefits, free medical care, free housing, free language training etc. These massive migrations — which the UN and EU characterize as almost like natural forces — are caused by our insanely delusionsal white/liberal/guilt welfare state apparatus.
I’m bored with this, but your theory about the emergence of Islam is sheer invention — in all my reading on the subject, I’ve encountered nothing even remotely aligned with it. Maybe on another thread I’ll try and relate my understanding of it. One thing: you completely leave out Monster Mohammed’s Will to Power.
As for Irwin Daisy’s allegations that Mohammad was “a pedophile, a mass-murderer, a rapist and a thief as described in the Hadith and Sira”
Irwin has obviously been “educating” himself about Islam by reading the hate literature and hate web sites. I’ve looked into all these “charges” and they’re malarkey. Irwin, your are no scholar of Islam, and I’d venture to say you’re no Christian either, since you’re so averse to older men in ancient times wedding and impregnating girls who today would be considered illegal (i.e., Joseph and Mary). Good God man, “render unto Caesar…” these people were simply following the practice of their day and cannot be judged by us since we do not know what was in their hearts or how they behaved. Did Joseph (or Mohammed) mistreat or rape or “child abuse” Mary (or Aisha)? I don’t know. But I “look at their works” as the Man Jesus said, and I doubt it. They appear to have been following accepted exoteric (social) practices of their day while practicing esoteric (inward) religion. Hell, it’s not even all that ancient: My wife’s grandmother is from an Ojibwe family and had 14 kids, starting when she was 14 years old.
Which brings me to my final point: When Irwin rants about the Muslim Ottoman pogram against the Armenian Christians and Greeks and so on and so forth… Come on. First of all, the whole Armenian massacre was political, and if religion played a part, it was in word only. Hardly a “Muslim” act at the heart as Islam is defined by Islamic scholars.
As for so-called Christian “fundamentalists” (who are far from reflecting the true fundamentals of Christianity, with their laughable cartoon version of religion), people claiming to be of this ilk have been known to string up a few blacks in their day, my friend, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. A lot of literalist Bible thumpers also took several generations of my Cree ancestors forcefully from their homes as children and raped and beat them in the residential schools, destroying the spirit of a whole nation of people. Then the church tried to cover it up. Of course none of those people were actually truly acting as Christians, any more than Ali the terrorist is acting as a Muslim.
Please, people, if you want to be able to discuss Islam at all intelligently, read something authoritative on the matter. Someone asked what I read as a Christian in the West who needs to know the basics – again, I recommend “The Heart of Islam” by Seyyed Hossein Nasr. Or the Quran – from start to finish. Just don’t visit some bigot’s web site and repeat the misinformed opinions of bigots.
Thank you. I am too busy to keep this up, so I will not be returning here, but thanks for reading my opinions, if you got this far.
Dander
Hana waaaay back at 11:36 AM had this to say:
“Hmm, a group of “moderate” Muslims standing up and denouncing their fanatical neighbours. I fully expect The Phantom to arrive shortly to “applaud, aid and abet” the MCC. Perhaps with a generous donation of some kind.”
Missed this attempted barb earlier, so I thought I’d comment. First of all, bite me.
Second, are you aware of the history of the Sikhs, Hana? Most bleeding heart multiculturalists aren’t.
In a nutshell, the Sikh religion exists because Hinduism wasn’t cutting it against the conquering hordes that would sweep through the Punjab periodically. The religious symbol of Christianity is the Cross, the Sikhs have a spear with crossed swords. Muslims are the reason why.
If you want something more recent to chew on, look up the Partition and the creation of Pakistan. I’ve got inlaws who lived through that one. The question you should ask yourself Hana, is why Ghandi, Nehru and all those famous pacifists felt the need to pack up every single Muslim in India and make them walk to Pakistan. At gun point.
Historically Hana, Islam lends itself to bad behavior. And by bad I mean things that would make you ill just to read about them.
So yes Hana, I applaud any Muslim who bucks the historic trend. It takes guts. Good on the MCC for showing up with a pair. Where the hell are the rest of ’em?
Donations: I’ll personally deliver a drum of roofing tar and half a ton of feathers to the first Muslim organization who wants to use it on these fascist, fanatic, murder preaching a-holes intent on screwing up -my- country.
I’d give more, but I’ve only got a half ton truck.
Okay, one more, I can’t resist. This other Doug who so loves “liberal democracy”. Buddy, the whole thing is based on tearing societies down all over the world, creating superficial materialistic needs, and turning traditional peoples and their lands into industrial dumps. That may be a boring statement, but it’s a fact. “Liberal democracy” was good pals with Saddam Hussein in the 80’s, feeding him all the tech he needed to slaughter Kurds and Iranians (who, by the way, were only a sorry reaction to the insidious influences of an oppressive Shah whose strings were pulled by – well, well, “liberal democracies.”) I could go on and on and on with so many examples all over the world. I only mention middle eastern examples to demonstrate that fanaticism in the Muslim world has often arisen as a rabid and sorry and misguided reaction to – our wonderful way of life.
As for that guy ranting about the immigrants disrespecting and destroying our way of life, that’s rich. Guess what the English and other Western Europeans did to the Indians here for the last few hundred years, and continue to do? If you don’t like it here, go back to Europe.
Ok Dander. Maybe you can ‘splain to me why Mr. Mahatma “Peace Through Non-violence” Gandhi (a Hindu, incidentally) sent all the Muslims to Pakistan in the 1940’s, and while you’re at it tell us ignorant red necks how many died of it.
Or maybe not, eh?
You might enjoy reading this thread…
A preview (comment #2):
“Parents punish their children. For religious and other reasons. Some children die. Others survive and make peace with their parents.”
Again I ask – what do the females in the family unit say … one less now … but what … or is it a death sentence to speak?
dander – give it up, your tangential ranting is getting boring. You spew the same mindless mantras of every inexperienced and gullible college kid unable to digest the information overload coming at them.
You’ve basically read squat of any value, can’t process what you’ve read or deal with the topic at hand without globalizing stupid historic incidents that are irrelevant now. Time moves on.
Oh, and, Dander, comparing Joseph and Mary(age unknown) versus Mohammed and 9 year old 4th and consummated wife, Fatima makes you a flaming idiot.
Reading the post and the comments, an idea comes to mind.
It would seem that the Middle Eastern mind is set to deceive. There is one thing said in public and another altogether said in private, there is no need for polemic about that point, a multiple first hand experience is sufficient. What anybody in the Middle East says, only applies to that moment, not for the short or the long run, because in another moment following the first it will mean nothing.
The thing that is important is, that the comment is registered, so to speak, if there is more to the report on what followed, that can be remedied by charges of racism or something that will attempt to destroy the messenger. A well known manager of this was a guy by the name of Arafat or some such.
So what some commenter say about justifying the criminal act is irrelevant.
It is interesting also to note that those claiming to be religionists, atheist and such, would not give a second to the thought that where we are today, in what we call European and western society is very much due to the classical European thought and later renaissance, and horrors of it all, it was the dammed Christians.
Renaissance is one hundred percent responsible for today’s world, even the atheist, the profane and the piss ‘sculpture’ if you like.
Wha? I have no idea what point this “phantom” guy’s trying to make about India and Pakistan and the Mahatma, but I will say this: I like the real rednecks, those common sense folk who know honest hard work with their hands outdoors and don’t bitch and whine too much (unfortunately there’s almost none left, and certainly none of us on this site appear to qualify, myself included). However, there does seem to be a lot of doctrinaire right-wingers and neo-cons on here, which is almost as bad as doctrinaire left-wingers and “progressives” and all the other “isms” (same difference to me, all misguided idiots who repeat simplistic slogans and arguments that reinforce their rigid views of the world and can’t think for themselves). Anyway, if that’s the level of conversation here, it really is time for bed. Won’t be back. Promise. Level of chatter is too low and misinformed to be bothered with. Obviously a symptom of our completely farcical “education” system. Before I go, I beg you one last time, if there is anyone interested in the truth: Please. Read “The Heart of Islam” by Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Learn a little bit of Something about this topic. Or go on believing whatever you want, however misinformed. After all, that’s what “liberal democracy” is all about, isn’t it?
Maybe you can ‘splain to me why Mr. Mahatma “Peace Through Non-violence” Gandhi (a Hindu, incidentally) sent all the Muslims to Pakistan in the 1940’s, and while you’re at it tell us ignorant red necks how many died of it.
Or maybe not, eh?
I had a vague feeling of unease when I read MCC speaking for Muslims, when in my experience MCC means Mennonite Central Committee.
Posted by: irwin daisy at December 12, 2007 3:43 PM
“Did we allow hordes of Communists to immigrate here during the cold war?And I might add that their political ideology was shared by well over a billion people as well”.
Seems you wrote to fast or you are dumb. Don’t mean to insult, though that is silly.
The political ideology was shared by few that controlled the guns, the police, the army and the secret police.
Of course that may be your preference.
A tendency I’ve noticed on the part of the pedantic Canadian left is that they affect the posture of “I’m so much more intelligent than you.”
The reason that doesn’t fly in the US is that the only people who do it are 8th grade girls who think they are the teacher’s pet and believe they have a good chance of winning the spelling bee.
Nobody takes them seriously.
What I want to know is what is going to happen to this homicidal father who had committed an atrocity to a Canadian citizen who simply wanted to more fully integrate herself into Canadian culture?
Frankly, at this juncture my concern is not whose theory will stand the test of time. A heinous act has occurred to a young, defenseless girl, by a father whose intent was murder. Now, the ball is in Canada’s court, the outcome of Canada’s relationship to radical Muslims lies on the shoulders of Canadians.
Who is going to champion the cause of this little girl who could be anyone’s daughter or granddaughter? Where is justice for her?
ET
I can’t understand you motives for fabricating History. I have studied world History for over forty years and I challenge you to point out a shred of proof for your assertion that Islam grew out of a threat from Christian agrarians on Arab lands ! How can you pretend you know what you talk about when you fabricate your own reality? Your a fraud ET. I have asked you to debate your “facts” in the past and you have ignored me. You just ignored my request to tell me who and where the Zionists are, you replied it was a state of mind….the state of mind of Jews you mean?
Give me a solid date, name, place, or event that proves Islam delveloped as a foil to Roman incursions ET.
I managed through Google to find out what MCC was. Muslim Canadian Congress. One does learn through the internet.
I have bookmarked their site. I will give them a chance myself. The closest to reason, from that quarter, just my humble opinion though.
Dander, dude, you’re messed up. As an example of an older Christian man impregnating a young girl, you give the example of Joseph and Mary? That one little example of yours has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don’t know the first thing about Christianity or the Bible.
Here’s the idiots guide to Christianity that even Kindergarten kids know…Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit, that is why it has been referred to as the immaculate conception for, oh, only about 2,000 years. The WHOLE POINT of Jesus Christ was that he was the SON OF GOD, born to a woman…therefore, God made flesh.
THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL aspect of Christianity and Dander is COMPLETELY uninformed on it. That destroys any credibility that your opinions about Christianity may have had.
Thanks, Eeyore, you make some excellent points.
However, on a point of infomation, which is generally misunderstood, the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary’s conception: in Catholic doctrine, she is the only human being, apart from Jesus, to be born free from the taint of original sin.
The Virgin Birth refers to the conception and birth of Jesus.
T’would appear that “maybe not” wins.
Well, since neither Dander or Hana has a CLUE about the Partition and the creation of Pakistan, I guess we all will have to learn to use Google.
Damn, and I was so looking forward to finding that out. Must have had something to do with Muslims behaving badly all over India, maybe a bit about Gandhi being a frickin’ Communist. Gee Dander, d’ya think?
Its funny how these Lefties change the subject when faced with their own ignorance, eh? Can’t even push the search button.
Yes Lookout and the raising of Mary from bearer of God (human father and mother) to mother of God (immaculate conception),which BTW can not be justified from Scripture or the Christian understanding of Christ’s redemtive work, has served to weaken the Christian faith by creating scism between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox, Coptic and Prostestant branches of the faith.
blackbird (and me no dhimmi) – you are taking a wrong approach to studying history, because you are focusing on individual causality. That is, you are making an assumption that history is the result of individual and singular actions, and are looking for the specifics about these.
That’s a kinetic and mechanical view of human behaviour and, I argue, quite incorrect. History is more accurately a complex rather than mechanical process; it’s made up of many seemingly unrelated processes that link together as a network.
Therefore, to understand the history of the ME and the Arabian peninsula, you have to first understand the ecology of the area – the climate, soil, water, types of animals and plants that could live there, etc.
Then, you take what is called in historical analysis, not a focus on individual actors and acts, but ‘la longue duree’ (Braudel), the study of ‘the history of man in relation to his surroundings…a history which unfolds slowly” ..and is “a history ..of groups and groupings’ (Braudel: On History). This history is grounded in the economy, the production of goods and services, the communication of goods and services. For that, history looks at geography, the human interaction and intervention with geography. Given this perspective, you can consider how changes can occur, and the results of these changes. Again, the focus is not on any individual agent or act, but on the ‘long process’.
That is why I claim that the Roman expansion of its city infrastructure in the ME, led to a requirement for an ideology of collaboration. That is the nature of Christianity, which is why it both developed and took root in the area, and was eventually legitimized by Constantine. Collaboration was required because previously isolate groups were being brought into contact; and, because the economy was changing, to produce surplus rather than self-sufficiency.
Then, you have to know something about the nature of different types of economies. You need to understand the ecological and population nature of settled horticulture, (enabled by Roman irrigation)along with the growth of a market economy (enabled by roads and protection of travellers). And the very different nature of nomadic economies. These two economies are socially and politically and ideologically, organized in completely different ways.
The economy of Islam, which is pastoral nomadic, existed long before the specific emergence of Islam as an ideology. But the specifics of Islam, its militant reactionism, is a symptom of an economy under threat. A pastoral economy must protect is vacant land base, but the militant nature of Islam, in its texts, suggests its land base was threatened.
That’s why I can say that Islam, as a social and political ideology, is very obviously a nomadic economy, and also, equally obviously, one that is stressed for its land base. Pastoral economies require a very large land base, with much of the land left empty at various times of the year. Settled economies, on the other hand, increase their population rapidly, and expand. This sets up a conflict with the nomadics and their land base. This is a common conflict, but, in the ME, the Roman-induced settlements increased the population base far beyond the capacity of the local land base – and into the nomadic base.
So, again, looking at history and focusing only on individual actors and acts (individual occurrences: Braudel) is, in my view, a serious error. As Braudel says, ‘history exists at different levels’. The surface level, the individual level, is a ‘sort of microhistory’. You won’t see what is happening if you get trapped in mechanical (individual) causality. The economic cycles and intercycles, looks at slower, almost organic rhythms – and individuals, in a sense, almost disappear in that level. They aren’t irrelevant, but, they are part of, not causal of, the deeper level.
blackbird, might I suggest that you lower your level of anger a bit?
ET: I won’t bother getting into it, except that I really don’t believe in THE GREAT MAN OF HISTORY that much. Probably the only thing I remember from my attempt to read the dreary Oswald Spengler a few years back. The image of “the great man” as some kind of essential residue of what’s actually already happening — emerging from the river … something like that …
BUT, I also don’t believe in your mechanical view either, tho I think I understand how your scholarly background has you looking at history in this way.
To me, Mohammed essentially suffered from text-envy. He encountered the Jews on his trade travels and was singularly impressed with their great learning and accomplishment. They also rejected his phony claims. Islam went nowhere for 10 years in Mecca — the peaceful, spiritual period — a period in which he gathered a grand total of around 150 followers. He was essentially exiled by his own tribe who correctly thought him a nutter. He moved to Medina — the Hirjah (sp?) very signififantly year #1 for Islam. One of his first missions was the wiping out of all three Jewish tribes there. His followership exploded when he hit on the notion of caravan raiding and looting and dividing the spoils — 1/5 for himself and 4/5 for the followers. There were no Christians on the peninsula to speak of.
To me, the very foundation of Islam was Jew-envy, Jew-hatred — it’s dripping with the vile hatred, which is why it can’t be reformed and why you fail to understand the Arab-Israel jihad.
me no dhimmi – I don’t think you understand. I’m AGAINST the mechanical view! The mechanical view operates within direct causality; this specific thing causes that specific result. I disagree; that’s reductionist.
And it’s nothing to do with ‘scholarly background’. There are many historians who focus on the individual act and actor. I’m following the Braudel and Bloch school of ‘la longue duree’.
I’m focusing on the organic, the complex adaptive system (CAS) and that is much deeper and broader. And certainly not mechanical.
Mohammed wouldn’t have arisen, or been listened to, or followed, unless there was already both an infrastructure of a pastoral nomadic economy already long, long existent there, AND one that was under stress from other, different economies in the area. So, I don’t focus on one person, eg, Mohammed. That’s what I call a mechanical focus.
And I’m saying that no-one would have listened to or followed him or expanded on his talk (after all, it wasn’t written, so who knows who embelished it all, and how much of it is rooted in pre-islamic and others)….no-one would have taken up this Islamic ideology UNLESS there was a situation of stress that required such a militant agenda. I’m focusing, not on Mohammed, who I say is irrelevant, but on the deeper ‘goings-on’ at the time within the economy of the area and of neighbouring areas. That’s the reason for the raids and attacks; their own economy, the nomadic, was falling apart.
So, I don’t see it the way you do (Jew-envy). I completely disagree. And, of course, I consider that the Israel-Palestine situation has zilch to do with Islam (though the Islamic fascists have recently taken it on but only as a superficial metaphor).
And, the rise of Islamic fascism has nothing to do with Israel or Jews but everything to do with the dysfunctionality of a tribal mode of governance in the ME, a tribal mode that has moved into totalitarian tribalism to deal with the expanding population. It ought to have dropped tribalism, which is suitable only for medium size populations, and enabled a middle class. Thats’ the reason for Islamic fascism.
So, as usual, we’ll have to ‘agree to disagree’ on these issues. But, I’m most certainly NOT analyzing the rise of Islam in a mechanical way; that would be valid only if I focused on individuals – as you are doing.
“since you posit that they are, basically, an evil and monstrous people (who must behave as Mohammed) and cannot change.”
Rather than your erroneous extrapolations, ET, what I actually say and have said ad infinitum is that the Islamic ideology is based on foundational violence as expressed in the Quran, Hadith and Sira. As well, Muslims are required to emulate Mohammad, who, based on their own writings, was a monstrously evil person.
Now, some Muslims may white wash the commands and rewards for perpetual violence against the non-Muslim world (until the whole world is for allah) as plainly expressed in their texts and teaching and they may sanitize the evil actions and sayings of Mo. They may choose not to emulate Mo at all. These are the people who we call ‘moderate’ Muslims.
On the other hand, Muslims who practice all of what their religion requires from them, and emulate Mohammad to a ‘t’ without failure, are indeed, monsters.
Without having to quote their writings again – the bio of Mo, including his actions and sayings are all there for everybody to read in black and white – in the Sira and Hadith. Both of these texts are vital to Islam, because otherwise the Quran has no context. As well, the Quran does not describe the five pillars, nor the content of their shariah laws.
As for reform, I would think that they would have to get rid of the political aspect of their ideology, which would require re-writing or editing out most of the Quran, Sira and Hadith. They would most certainly have to stop emulating Mo, if not edit him out altogether. But then, how do they get around that the Quran is supposedly the immutable word of allah, created before time?
I’ve also reasonably stated that there must be a moratorium on Muslim immigration from those Islamic countries that practice political Islam or sharia in any form. This is only rational. As well, existing laws should be enforced that deal with political Islam and its ambitions. If not, new laws should be created.
The problem with the west is that when we came up with laws, etc. to protect freedom of religion, we were (and still are) ignorant of Islam – a competitive and totalitarian political ideology that is counter to our political system – and then veiled as religion. Therefore, if we are inadequately equipped to recognize it, how do we deal with it?
There may be some hope though: If Islamic organisations including mosques would voluntarily adopt the principles put forward by organisations like the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, then we might start seeing some headway towards reform.
Dander,
You read a book by an Islamic apologist. Woopdeedoo.
Do you really want me to post Mohammads actions and words as described in the Sira and Hadith, again?
You provide your opinion, based on one questionable and biased source. You provide no evidence for your opinion, therefore your opinion is worthless.
Further, you make statements like: “Irwin has obviously been “educating” himself about Islam by reading the hate literature and hate web sites.”
You don’t know me and have no idea what my sources of study are, or how knowledgable I am. Yet this is the best you can do to defend your opinion? Ridiculous.
I assure you my opinion is based on more scholarly and historical sources than one book.
And those sources include what it unequivically states in black and white in their own texts.
————
I suspect that ‘dander’ is a Muslim practicing taqiyya. He offers a complimentary opinion of Islam supported by no facts or evidence whatsoever. Rather than facts, he falsely attacks Christianity, attempting to build moral equivalence through lies, which is a typical tactic, and he flings around ad hominems. In actual fact, his opinion runs contrary to their own texts, teachings and the historical evidence.
He is a liar.
Thanks ET for taking the time with my tired old over-taxed brain! I certainly agree with a lot of this and I found this post a bit clearer. Completely agree with your point about the breaking down of a dysfuntional social system.
Probably, my problem has to do with a sense that your arguments seem sometimes to justify (but that’s too strong a word) events as blowback, tho I noted with approval your strong statement about global jihad NOT being blowback on US foreign policy (which a couple of my friends believe).
I’m reading Walid Shoebat at the moment (former Pali terrorist, turned Christian Israel-supporter) who makes precisely the opposite argument: that it IS Islam and that the land dispute is just a cover. But I had come to that conclusion well before reading him.
Finally, in context of the thread: surely you can agree that Canada should simply end immigration from Pakistan. What possible reason would we have to important this dysfunctional alien culture into ours? Why take that risk? We need to start looking at immigration from a self-interested standpoint — not as a form of moral exhibiionist global welfare!
Thanks, Lookout…virgin birth versus immaculate conception…being non-RC, I thought they were the same.
Having read the Bible a number of times, I do not recall reading anything about Mary being born without original sin being written or even suggested…I suspect this is just RC “tradition” and not biblical in origin. But, we shouldn’t debate that, its not the topic of this thread.
me no dhimmi – I don’t see how one can stop immigration from countries like Pakistan. You can’t focus on group identities; you must only deal with individual. But, I think that immigration should not be as open as it is now; the refugee system must be narrowed. Importantly, multiculturalism as a national policy must be absolutely and totally stopped.
By this I mean, that all immigrants should have to agree to and sign, an acknowledgement that they agree to and abide with the laws, Charter and Constitution of Canada. These include basic tenets such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, gender equality. That has to be an open and legal declaration, not for citizenship which they might never take out, but to even get into the country as a permanent resident.
Multiculturalism must be stopped. Our practice of setting up mini-nations in Canada, which actually operate with their own leaders, who govern and rule their population in often dictatorial fashion, who are focused on setting up a replica of their old homeland in Canada, with their own rules, their own beliefs, their own language, their own schools, all quite separate from the mainstream..this has to be stopped. Absolutely ended. Anyone who comes to Canada comes to be a Canadian. No more group identity politics.
ET: Well I heartily agree with everything you say here and elsewhere on multiculturalism, which I never ever bought from the get-go (nor, like you, official bilingualism). But I have to disagree on one aspect: we really CAN and SHOULD exclude certain high-risk countries like Pakistan; Britain needs to do this even more desperately. We also need to get away from the fairly recent family re-union basis for acceptance — you can’t do that in a welfare state! And indeed, the refugee system needs a root and branch over haul.
I’m also 100% with you on having immigrants sign certain undertakings about what we accept and don’t accept BUT I’d also back this up with the very real threat of deportation AND I would not be concerned with how the country of origin punishes people. Not OUR problem. As it is now, we are accepting phony system-gaming refugees with criminal/terrorist backgrounds who know that they have a pass to stay here due to our squeamishness about returning them to their countries of origin. While I’m generally against torture and capital punishment I have no hesitation returning people to their countries of origin which may follow these practices.
Me No Dhimmi,
CSIS agrees. They are on the record saying that they are already overburdened and under financed to deal with the threat of Islamic domestic terrorism.
As well, as taxpayers, we should not be willing to pay for the increased security measures and hassles required in allowing further Muslim immigration.
It’s irrational.
Holy COW!!!
Is there any further proof required than that of Dander and Hana’s words above, to prove the merits of multiculturalism ?
Well done !
Arabs are not bad people its the few remaining bunch of cracked urns that are hazerdoius