h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> So why use their religion in defining them? <<

I think the point (as made by Anhaga, and others) is that the terrorists are defining themselves by their religion.

RF

'So why don't the many rise up in loud and forceful vilification of the actions of the few who claim to be acting in their name?'


Well, hd, to be fair, many of the many, for example, Mr. Fatah to whom I have referred (sadly, he has himself been vilified by a great many Muslims), have risen up in loud and forceful vilification of the actions of the few. A year or two ago a group of Canadian and U.S. Imams issued a fatwah against all Muslims who use terrorism or support terrorism. That fatwah was given great coverage by North American news sources including, if I remember correctly, Fox News. I'm not sure how it was covered in the more dominantly Muslim areas of the world.


I'd like to see condemnation by leaders of 'Muslim' countries and by non-Saudi Imams of the Saudi regime and the wahabists who back that regime.

Thanks anhaga. I hadn't heard of that here in the UK. However, while I was reading what you wrote, I realised that my connection with ongoing news is sufficiently flimsy (like a lot of people, unfortunately) that I really shouldn't make statements like >>"why don't the many rise up"<<, because the more aware people of the world might go "Ahem, actually they did. There. And there. And there."

Any takers?

'Any takers?'

I think I've done my part on that score around here over the years.

The thing is, it's not such a big issue around where I live. As I think I mentioned, my Federal riding had an MP for a number of terms who, occasionally mentioned in passing -- is Muslim. He's also a Ugandan refugee. He's also been a successful business man. He was also elected in a Province which generally in the rest of the country has a reputation for being the whitest, most Christian, most rednecked reactionary right-wing part of the country. Now my MP is a socialist, environmentalist woman. As I also mentioned earlier I think, the largest city in our Province elected a Muslim as mayor a few weeks ago *and nobody cared about his religion*. It's not an issue here. My mayor is Jewish, I think. He just won reelection for a third term. His main competitor was a Mormon.

As I mentioned before, the *only* problem we have in this city (apart from that small Hindu protest over some statues of Ganesha a few years ago) that can be in any way connected to religion has been the ongoing problem of murderous recruiters from the Somali 'Islamist insurgency group' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shabaab) Al-Shabaab.


Now, to be fair: 'Several islamic organizations such as al-Ictisam have also denounced al-Shabab's unorthodox, al-Qaeda inspired tactics and decrees as "unislamic".' wikithingy again.


Al-Shabaab claims to be following Islam. To me, they are Somali extremist murderers who are an insult to the religion they claim to follow.


But then, I've seldom met anyone who shines a very clean light on the religion they claim to follow when they make the claim loudly.

Hide that light under a bushel, okay?


I was thinking about this thread earlier while doing some chores and, being as it is Remembrance Day here tomorrow, I was also thinking about a friend of mine, now departed, who was a member of the Loyal Eddies as they fought their way north through Italy in WWII.

About forty years after Angus and his young comrades fought their way through certain rural mountain valley on their way to Ortona (please, everyone, look it up), and a few months before I met Angus, I found myself unknowingly, also as a young man, in that same valley. I spent several months there receiving wonderful treatment from the local people. Oddly -- to me at the time it seemed -- if they mistook my tall stature, pale skin and blond hair as signs of being German, they were very rude to me. But as soon as I said 'No, no -- Canadese!' they literally started to give gifts. After I met Angus and learned the story of what he had done to prepare the welcome I received for decades later, I became impossibly grateful to the Loyal Eddies for the wonderful summer they gave me, many of them paying for it with their lives.

Now, what, you may ask, is the point of bringing this up here?

Here is the point:

Who did my friend Angus fight in that Christmas season of 1943?

Did he fight Nazis? Surely many of them were just conscripts with no particular political iron in the fire.

Did he fight Germans? Certainly. Does saying that he fought Germans somehow tar all Germans with the same brush? Of course not.

What was my friend Angus?

Was he a member of the Loyal Edmonton Regiment? Of course. Should the people of Italy be grateful for their liberation by the Loyal Edies? Certainly.

Was Angus a Canadian? Of course he was. Should the people of Italy four decades later -- now six decades later, be grateful to any Canadian they come across for the liberation of their country?

I don't know . . .

but I was sure happy to get the reception I got, and if I'd known at the time why they were being so nice to me, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have argued with it.


But, if I'd been a young German man in that part of Italy that summer, as I was being sold bruised, green tomatoes and being refused service at restaurants as Canadians were pampered, I would very likely have felt like I was being tarred with a brush I did not personally deserve.

Ever since that summer and the light shed on my experiences in Italy by Angus, I've tried to be ever grateful for the good fortune I have due to where I happen to have been born and to those who have gone before me. I've also tried to be ever conscious of the discrimination that so many experience through no fault of their own, due to the accident of their birth or the bad memories created by those who have gone before.

I don't want to do anything that makes Canadians look bad. I cringe at the idea of Canadians doing things which make us look bad. I publicly object when Canadians make asses of themselves. I phone political leaders -- yes, even our Prime Minister -- if I think they are representing us badly to the world. If my country or my fellow citizens have done, are doing, or intend to do something which I feel to be wrong, I will stand up to say something in opposition.


I don't think that my friend Angus would accept anything less.

I don't think anyone, wherever they are, whatever nation, creed or people they may claim to be a part of should accept anything less of themselves.

Not to harp on Tarek Fatah, but he has spent his life standing up to speak out, defending his faith by pointing out the errors of the faithful *and of his country, Canada*, hoping for improvement, rather than by shrilly trying to shout down the gadfly bigots from the U.S. right wing.


Sorry for the vent.


I think I've had a little too much Barley Wine.

I wish I could write that well without barley wine.

@ImranKhan:

I almost don't need to bother replying to your posts. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume English is your first language. If it's not - and from your reading comprehension it appears it might not be - I apologise for what follows and forgive you your ignorance.

I said: "the nearest thing they had to a Pope decreed a British subject should die at the hands of a Muslim because he'd written a book"

You said: "Which Muslim has written this book?"

It's been said already, but I'll say it again: do try to read and understand something before you call it silly. I didn't say a Muslim had written a book. I said a British subject had written a book, and that a Muslim decreed that a Muslim should kill him for it. Are you denying that that happened?

You then compounded your idiocy by saying "That makes it an even more silly post and from someone who has little knowledge of Islam. The Ayatollah is nothing like the Pope."

You have no idea of my level of knowledge of Islam, so don't, please, presume to criticise it. Instead, answer this simple question:

In 1989, who was the single most famous Catholic leader in the world?

Tell you what - I don't trust you to get that one right, so I'll give you the answer. It was Karol Józef Wojty&#322;a, better known to the world as Pope John Paul the second.

Now: in 1989, who was the single most famous Muslim leader in the world?

Do, please, make whatever case you can for anyone other than Khomeini. I shall be interested to see who you might suggest. But the thing is - regardless of how you organise your sky-pixie-bothering, someone, somewhere, is at any given time, the most famous Muslim leader in the world, and right at that point, that makes them "the nearest thing" Islam has to the Pope. I understand perfectly well that Islam simply doesn't have the rigid hierarchy of Catholicism - but that doesn't matter. In 1989, and for years afterwards, yer man Khomeini was THE public face of Islam for the world, whether you like it or not.

Just as an example, and I do love this one - in 1988, Khomeini was so famous, and so famously murderously anti-Western, that he appeared as himself in a Batman comic and appointed the Joker as Iranian ambassador in order to give him diplomatic immunity to carry out acts of terrorism.

The guy was so famous, and so famously evil, that comic writers were using him as a villain in a comic for kids! THAT was the face of Islam for the world in 1988. And things have only gone downhill from there, and most only because of the actions of Muslims.

I repeat - until you mentioned him here, I'd never heard of Robert Spencer. I had, however, heard of:
Richard Reid
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
Mohamed Atta
Marwan al-Shehhi
Ziad Jarrah
Ramzi Binalshibh
Mohammad Sidique Khan
Shehzad Tanweer
Germaine Lindsay
Hasib Hussain

Shall I go on?

>> So why use their religion in defining them? <<

<<I think the point (as made by Anhaga, and others) is that the terrorists are defining themselves by their religion.<< RF
Indeed.
It is terrorists who first use religion to define themselves, then there are people who say that religion is an excuse for their acts, so religion isn´t the issue.
We refer to them as radical Muslims or Islamists, but it´s up to each one and their ideas what to do with the word Muslim, if you are a prejudiced bigot you will highlight religion and etnicity, but others will say that all Muslims aren´t the same, etc.

I´m afraid there´s no many words to choose.
Catholic and Spanish were who did massacres in southamerica during a period of History, now if you think that being Catholic and Spanish is an essential trait, you must tar my fellows citizens as criminals.

Your point actually is wrong if you think you defend Muslims, because if you feel so attached to the word Muslim, you are assuming that there is something essentially good in the fact of being Muslim, just what islamophobes do, but reversely, there´s something intrinsically wrong in the fact of being Muslim, they can´t detach from evil just because they are Muslims.
I know that to reject the word Muslim joined to terrorist is a claim of some Muslims, they feel annoyed, but, that´s not the real problem.
They shouldn´t waste their time with that, I prefer what people,like those Anhaga has mentioned, do.

btw, I´m sorry you haven´t appreciated Anhaga´s words, I´ve thought you also were too prejudiced.

Higienicdispenser,
there are many Muslims everywhere, men and women, who work hard and critisize not only terrorists but also patriarchal traditions. Recently the IV congress of islamic feminism was hold in Madrid, BUT, nobody has heard of it in the media.

"Catholic and Spanish were who did massacres in southamerica during a period of History, now if you think that being Catholic and Spanish is an essential trait, you must tar my fellows citizens as criminals."

Two points about that:

1. That happened hundreds of years ago, rather than within the lifetime of anyone who spell "lifetime".

2. When it did happen, the Catholics/Spanish people who did it did not, before and after the event, make a big show of announcing "we are doing these violent things because we are Catholics/Spanish, and every Catholic/Spaniard should do these things". One of the hallmarks of Muslim terrorism, which marks it out even from other recent terrorism such as that perpetrated by the Irish, is the clear, unambiguous statements made on video before, during or after the event, in which the terrorists identify their Muslims faith and identity as the entirety of the reason for their actions.

<<One of the hallmarks of Muslim terrorism, which marks it out even from other recent terrorism such as that perpetrated by the Irish, is the clear, unambiguous statements made on video before, during or after the event, in which the terrorists identify their Muslims faith and identity as .<<

Yes, and your point is? I´ve already commented in my previous post that.
However, they don´t say that "the entirety of the reason for their actions" come only inspired by God, they also talk about political abuses, which, sadly, it´s a fact that we should bear in mind. (although they lack moral authority to say anything and, obviously, abuses don´t justify their criminal actions)

::
When it did happen, the Catholics/Spanish people who did it did not, before and after the event, make a big show of announcing "we are doing these violent things because we are Catholics/Spanish, and every Catholic/Spaniard should do these things"<<

And do you thing that all Muslims in the world have in mind to do what is recommended in a video?
On the other hand, the Santo Oficio, in the name of God, loved to do bonfires , rippings, cutting of heads, etc. publicly, In Spain and in Southamerica. They would have loved youtube.

::
Why do you insist on "the Irish"? it is SOME Irish, the IRA.
It seems that you also are essentialist, a trait of fanatic nationalist and religious people, and bigots in general.

"it is SOME Irish, the IRA."

And the UDA. And the INLA. And the UVF. And OIRA. And the LVF. And the IPLO. And the RHC. And the Real IRA. And the Continuity IRA. You obviously have no idea of the extent of the problem.

Don't, please, presume, from the comfort of mainland Europe, to lecture from a perspective of almost complete ignorance of the complications and extent of Irish terrorism. I wouldn't presume to lecture you about Basque terrorism, for instance, because beyond knowing of the existence of ETA (sp?) I know nothing. You might have the good taste and humility to remain similarly silent in your ignorance.

Just for a little back ground

http://www.islam-watch.org/MA_Khan/IncessantTerrorism.htm

Mr Harper, that links is right-wing propaganda. I know about it. Did you read the link I posted before about Islamophobia and the media?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3648

There´s a lot to see in the web, but it´s only people with no toxic prejudices who bother to find information in the web or in libraries. And they have to bother because what pervails is islamophobia, fostered by politicians and media.

As this thread is getting into a loop of rethorical yuxtaposed posts, and as I still haven´t forgotten Tiggy´s words in the Oposing fascism thread, and as I´m afraid that this thread is in risk of becoming another one to bash religious people and religion, I , in full possesion- maybe not- of my mental faculties... declare myself fed up with all this and move to pastures new.

@Tigger

"- I apologise for what follows and forgive you your ignorance"

Oh the Irony!

"Now: in 1989, who was the single most famous Muslim leader in the world?"

It wasn't who you claim, a man who only represents a sect which is only 10% of the whole religious community. It was very idiotic to even compare him with the Pope. Not everyone around the world watches western news media. The most famous Muslim leader is always the custodian of the two holy mosques, the king of Saudi Arabia.

Obviously you have heard of those but the world doesn't revolve around you. Others have heard of Bush and Blair, they make the names you mentioned look like decent guys.

Oh good grief, a Wahhabist. I wonder just how much of the denial that Khomeni was the pre-eminent leader of a Muslim nation comes from Saudi Arabia's insecurity that it is barely 5th rate power in the Middle East.

I did love SoRB's argumentum ad Batman, that was one of hootoo's more bizarre moments.

lol.

What is a Whabbist? Stop watching fox news.

>>What is a Whabbist?<<

A follower of al-Wahhab, an Islamic ascetic and Salafist from the 18th century. Wahhabists formed an alliance with the Al-Saud family and gave their regime religious backing. Principally defined by an extremely ascetic interpretation of Islam, their utter intolerance for other interpretations of Islam, other religions and women.

Outside the al-Saud family, other noted Wahhabists are the Mahdi from 19th century Sudan, Mohammed Omar of the Taliban and many other Afghan warlords and Osama Bin Laden and the entire Al-Qai'da organisation.

If you need me to explain any other terms, simply ask and I'll be delighted to educate you.

I've got a question:
What's a Salafist?

It's someone who follows a very narrow, very conservative interpretation of Sunni Islam that rejects any kind of innovation or metaphysics. It is particularly ferocious in its rejection of any other school of Islam, even other Sunni schools are rejected as not being Islamic.

It also follows a doctrine of iconoclasm, rejecting religious depictions of any kind.

"What is a Whabbist?"

And this person is trying to lecture ME about Islam? And irony, come to that.

If you think the king of Saudi Arabia (who I note you can't, apparently, even name, despite his global fame) was more famous than Khomeini in 1989, then I'm afraid the only person you're fooling is yourself.

I've been reflecting on this. Also occurring to me was this: twenty years after his death, I think a fair proportion of people would recognise a picture of Khomeini. They might even be able to remember he had something to do with Iraq or Iran. They'd likely remember the word "fatwa" had something to do with him.

I strongly doubt most British or Americans could name the current king of Saudi Arabia. I further doubt they'd recognise him if he walked into the room. (Speaking personally, after a Google image search, if he'd walked into this room ten minutes ago I'd have assumed he was the Great Soprendo.)