Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Choada_Boy

"This is What Democracy Looks Like."

Recommended Posts

Isn't it odd that JayB supporting Bush and being silent on most of his liberticide policies don't strike him as 'handing over unchecked power to the state'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The Trouble With Islam

Sadly, mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence.

 

by TAWFIK HAMID

Tuesday, April 3, 2007 12:01 A.M. EDT

 

Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, published a short history of the Islamic world's decline, entitled "What Went Wrong?" Astonishingly, there was, among many Western "progressives," a vocal dislike for the title. It is a false premise, these critics protested. They ignored Mr. Lewis's implicit statement that things have been, or could be, right.

 

But indeed, there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic world. Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists' defense.

 

These "progressives" frequently cite the need to examine "root causes." In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological "rootlets" of Islamism, the main tap root has a name--Salafism, or Salafi Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.

 

It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.

 

The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.

 

Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals--who unceasingly claim to support human rights--have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah's inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

 

Politicians and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This analysis cannot convince any rational person that the Islamist murder of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria--which happened in the last few decades--or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

 

Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.

 

The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them. Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.

 

Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine's formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.

 

Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America's enemies.

 

Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.

 

Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand--but so far haven't--that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered "moderates."

 

All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.

 

Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.

 

Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West. "

 

 

What a pile of tripe and lies. Progressives have denounced military agression, and the attending racism and xenophobia (in order to gain support for military adventurism) masquerading under the pretense of fighting against barbarism, as well as denounced the backwardness of fundamntalists everywhere. Progressives already denounced the same things when Brzezinski, Carter and Reagan supported islamic fundamentalists because they fought the soviets in Afghanistan and elsewhere. These same extremists who came from all around the islamic world to fight in Afghanistan eventually returned to their countries and often formed the core groups that engaged in terrorism (like the algerian example cited in the article). The bit about feminists ignoring the oppression of women in islamic societies is particularly grotesque and gives an idea of the author's own prejudices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the same logic, I think we should consider the number of civilian 'collateral damage' casualties perpetrated by each nation's military, and compare this figure to your measure, then demand a repudiation from that nation's population.

 

Or, we could consider the number of murders committed, by nationality, and demand a repudiation of violence from that population.

 

Or, we could measure the number of bankruptcies in first world countries due to the UNIQUE lack of a national health care program, the decry the systemic cruelty of such a result.

 

Or, we could measure the total dollar amount of military weapons bought and sold, by nationality, and demand a repudiation of those purchases/sales by that population.

 

Or we could...

 

...oh, wait....

 

Yeah, I guess our shit stinks too, huh?

 

Oh well, just another day in the life of an angry, hairless monkey. Personally, I don't take any responsibility whatsoever for the behavior of fellow atheists with buddhist overtones, so I'm really not at all sure why anyone would think that muslims at large bear any responsibility to 'control' (good luck) the behavior of violent extremists, many of whom aren't genuine, practicing muslims, anyway. But I'm sure that if the muslim world were to rise up in one voice, as they have done so many times in the past, and write that angry letter, all those car bombings would certainly cease immediately. After all, muslim extremists have been waiting for their bretheran (who comprise a majority of their targets) to express their dissatisfaction.

 

Like a party balloon, your logic is seamless.

 

If you want to discuss various statistical aggregates and how they specifically implicate the morals of a particular country or ideology, I'll be happy to have those discussions in due time. You may have a compelling set of facts and logic to support the claim that the absence of a universal single-payer health care renders every American the moral equivalent jihadists, for example, and I hope that you'll give that argument the lengthy treatment that it deserves as soon as you can.

 

In the meantime, I hope that you'll spare a moment to respond to the arguments put forth by Hamid about the connection between specific tenets of the Muslim faith and violent acts of jihad directed against civilians, etc, and use your superior knowledge of Islam to demonstrate why he and the other reformers, apostates, etc that have spoken out and share his agenda are wrong.

 

You might also spell out precisely what, exactly, qualifies you to evaluate the convictions of those who self-identify as Muslims and who publicly proclaim themselves as such aren't, in fact, Muslims.

 

 

"For 20 years, I have preached a reformed interpretation of Islam that teaches peace and respects human rights. I have consistently spoken out--with dozens of other Muslim and Arab reformers--against the mistreatment of women, gays and religious minorities in the Islamic world. We have pointed out the violent teachings of Salafism and the imperative of Westerners to protect themselves against it.

 

Yet according to CAIR's Michigan spokeswoman, Zeinab Chami, I am "the latest weapon in the Islamophobe arsenal." If standing against the violent edicts of Shariah law is "Islamophobic," then I will treat her accusation as a badge of honor.

 

Muslims must ask what prompts this "phobia" in the first place. When we in the West examine the worldwide atrocities perpetrated daily in the name of Islam, it is vital to question if we--Muslims--should lay the blame on others for Islamophobia or if we should first look hard at ourselves.

 

According to a recent Pew Global Attitudes survey, "younger Muslims in the U.S. are much more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified." About one out of every four American Muslims under 30 think suicide bombing in defense of Islam is justified in at least some circumstances. Twenty-eight percent believe that Muslims did not carry out the 9/11 attacks and 32% declined to answer that question.

 

While the survey has been represented in the media as proof of moderation among American Muslims, the actual results should yield the opposite conclusion. If, as the Pew study estimates, there are 2.35 million Muslims in America, that means there are a substantial number of people in the U.S. who think suicide bombing is sometimes justified. Similarly, if 5% of American Muslims support al Qaeda, that's more than 100,000 people.

 

To bring an end to Islamophobia, we must employ a holistic approach that treats the core of the disease. It will not suffice to merely suppress the symptoms. It is imperative to adopt new Islamic teachings that do not allow killing apostates (Redda Law). Islamic authorities must provide mainstream Islamic books that forbid polygamy and beating women. Accepted Islamic doctrine should take a strong stand against slavery and the raping of female war prisoners, as happens in Darfur under the explicit canons of Shariah ("Ma Malakat Aimanikum"). Muslims should teach, everywhere and universally, that a woman's testimony in court counts as much as a man's, that women should not be punished if they marry whom they please or dress as they wish.

 

We Muslims should publicly show our strong disapproval for the growing number of attacks by Muslims against other faiths and against other Muslims. Let us not even dwell on 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali and countless other scenes of carnage. It has been estimated that of the two million refugees fleeing Islamic terror in Iraq, 40% are Christian, and many of them seek a haven in Lebanon, where the Christian population itself has declined by 60%. Even in Turkey, Islamists recently found it necessary to slit the throats of three Christians for publishing Bibles.

 

Of course, Islamist attacks are not limited to Christians and Jews. Why do we hear no Muslim condemnation of the ongoing slaughter of Buddhists in Thailand by Islamic groups? Why was there silence over the Mumbai train bombings which took the lives of over 200 Hindus in 2006? We must not forget that innocent Muslims, too, are suffering. Indeed, the most common murderers of Muslims are, and have always been, other Muslims. Where is the Muslim outcry over the Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq?

 

Islamophobia could end when masses of Muslims demonstrate in the streets against videos displaying innocent people being beheaded with the same vigor we employ against airlines, Israel and cartoons of Muhammad. It might cease when Muslims unambiguously and publicly insist that Shariah law should have no binding legal status in free, democratic societies.

 

It is well past time that Muslims cease using the charge of "Islamophobia" as a tool to intimidate and blackmail those who speak up against suspicious passengers and against those who rightly criticize current Islamic practices and preachings. Instead, Muslims must engage in honest and humble introspection. Muslims should--must--develop strategies to rescue our religion by combating the tyranny of Salafi Islam and its dreadful consequences. Among more important outcomes, this will also put an end to so-called Islamophobia.

 

Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't it odd that JayB supporting Bush and being silent on most of his liberticide policies don't strike him as 'handing over unchecked power to the state'?

 

Might as well get to specifics here and cite both the details of the policies that you have in mind, the manner in which they hand over unchecked power to the state, and how that renders them consistent with the free-trade, free-speech, anti-prohibition, etc arguments that I've made here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what has Dr. Hamid said about western leaders paling around with dictators of countries that have the equivalent of sharia law (saudi arabia, yemen, etc..)?

 

Not too long ago you yourself flaunted Dubai as some kind of paradise (remember?). What happens to women who are said to have sex outside marriage in Dubai? What happens to homosexuals in Dubai?

Edited by j_b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't it odd that JayB supporting Bush and being silent on most of his liberticide policies don't strike him as 'handing over unchecked power to the state'?

 

Might as well get to specifics here and cite both the details of the policies that you have in mind, the manner in which they hand over unchecked power to the state, and how that renders them consistent with the free-trade, free-speech, anti-prohibition, etc arguments that I've made here.

 

It'd probably be faster if you reminded us of the Bush policies with which you have actually expressed disgreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'd probably be faster if you reminded us of the Bush policies with which you have actually expressed disgreement.

 

:lmao: You're a weak mind, j_b. :noway:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't it odd that JayB supporting Bush and being silent on most of his liberticide policies don't strike him as 'handing over unchecked power to the state'?

 

Might as well get to specifics here and cite both the details of the policies that you have in mind, the manner in which they hand over unchecked power to the state, and how that renders them consistent with the free-trade, free-speech, anti-prohibition, etc arguments that I've made here.

 

It'd probably be faster if you reminded us of the Bush policies with which you have actually expressed disgreement.

 

Come on, did you say anything about the patriot act and its 'sneak and peek', its demanding from librarian they turn over records, ..? what about 'free speech zones'? what about banning suspected critics from taxpayer funded political events? etc ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well lets be honest, democracy is pretty messy.

 

yeah...something back in 1776 was along those lines too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...there's only so far take your moral accounting before you start placing modern-day Swedes on an equal footing with the Taliban because of their propensity to rampage and pillage in the 11th and 12th centuries...

 

Don't worry, your neoliberal "reforms" still have a ways to go up there.

 

[video:youtube]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Huh? You're kidding, right? The Iranian election is a sham--no matter who is "declared" the winner. Even you likely know this. As for the "reform" candidate--Mr Hossein Mousavi--he was one of Ayatollah Khomeini's top henchmen in the early 1980's and personally ordered the execution of over 7000 political prisoners (Kind of a post-Islamic revolution version of Che Guevara). Until the people of Iran somehow tear themselves away from the most ardent practitioners of the most fucked up religion on the planet there will be no democracy in that nation. But I'm glad you're celebrating. :rolleyes:

 

No shit, you fucking moron. The "democracy" in this is people willing to get their asses kicked to have their voices heard. You are a fucking idiot, regardless. Thanks for the Wikipedia facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just trying to fill you in on the facts, since you're obviously lacking--again. Please tell me that idiot-tools like you aren't being hired as school teachers. If so, I know a place where the cuts can begin. Asswipe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

delineating between the stupidest/cruelest/best/worst of faiths when they all involve believing in an invisible man/woman/spaghetti-monster in the sky is an inherently silly enterprise :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree--partly. I just think its funny the way Choada & Co. get all worked up when Islam is maligned despite their own frequent and enthusiastic Christian-bashing exploits. That said, Islam is a big problem right now and the silence of its masses in the face of its radical elements is telling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree--partly. I just think its funny the way Choada & Co. get all worked up when Islam is maligned despite their own frequent and enthusiastic Christian-bashing exploits. That said, Islam is a big problem right now and the silence of its masses in the face of its radical elements is telling.

it's not hard to understand why a person who was literate in history would be slow to decry a group a people as worthy of destruction based on their creed (or quick to harsh on jesusanity)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "democracy" in this is people willing to get their asses kicked to have their voices heard.
Now I'm confused as to whether this reference was a mockery of the Seattle WTO demonstrations (initial assumption) or in support of both incidents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree--partly. I just think its funny the way Choada & Co. get all worked up when Islam is maligned despite their own frequent and enthusiastic Christian-bashing exploits. That said, Islam is a big problem right now and the silence of its masses in the face of its radical elements is telling.

it's not hard to understand why a person who was literate in history would be slow to decry a group a people as worthy of destruction based on their creed (or quick to harsh on jesusanity)

 

You make quite a leap there. I think the only elements of Islam that are in need of destruction are its jihadists. If the mainstream religion would speak out more forcefully against its violent adherents then war and the meeting of violence with violence would likely become unnecessary. Absent this, one has to conclude that they are either too afraid to speak out--or tacitly approve of jihad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wish the Islamists would give us Christians their oil without this stupid fight. Its all we want with that area anyway. That and their virgins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just wish the Islamists would give us Christians their oil without this stupid fight. Its all we want with that area anyway. That and their virgins.

 

Both of them? :lmao:

__________________________________________________________________-

 

No shit, you fucking moron. The "democracy" in this is people willing to get their asses kicked to have their voices heard. You are a fucking idiot, regardless. Thanks for the Wikipedia facts.

 

No sense being an annoying prick about it Justin, he didn't attack you at all, if you have a point you should try and make it without sounding like a complaining whinny little bitch.

 

Anyway, can't we just continue to blame the Zionists? It's been working great for the Saudi King and most of the other regional PooBahs for years and years. I suppose that's what you use when you don't have a boogeyman. :shock:http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=839

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning agents of progress at work: Amazonian indians beat back pillagers

 

Peru’s Congress on Thursday overturned two decrees by President Alan García that were aimed at opening large areas of the Peruvian Amazon to logging, dams and oil drilling but set off protests by indigenous groups this month in which dozens died.

 

[..]

 

The decrees, issued by Mr. García as part of a regulatory overhaul for a trade deal with the United States, were intended to open parts of jungle to investment and allow companies to bypass indigenous communities to attain permits for petroleum, biofuels and hydroelectric projects.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/world/americas/19peru.html?em

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta side with the indigenous peoples on this one. Glad they're standing up for what's right for their land and their lives. I would like to believe this is all grass-roots rebellion, but Bolivia's Morales likely has a hand in it and Peru isn't likely to stand idly by while he meddles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×