The Jihad Against The Jihadis

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ed Normile' date='24 February 2010 - 02:30 PM' timestamp='1267039830' post='2062481']

[QUOTE]Sorry sport, I actually read every line of this artcile before I came up with that idea, so you have immediately resorted to calling me a rascist to nullify my opinion? Well if you have no other weapon available I guess use whatever you can.[/QUOTE]

You your discounting of his opinion based on your assumption that he was Muslim was what I called racist. How you arrived at that assumption is not important. I'd love to see what brilliant hermeneutics you employed to draw from the article that the author came from Muslim stock aside from his name though.


[QUOTE]I never said he praised liberals, I did say he was blaming republicans, its a fact that republicans are firm in the idea of defense and offense on terrorism, while liberals have the lets just leave them alone so they won't hurt us mentality[/QUOTE]

That's not so much a fact as your poorly informed assertion.

[QUOTE]
No my ill informed friend I am not joking with you, Saudi Arabia has been our allies for a long time, the first and second wars against iraq we actually staged our military there. During the Persian gulf war Saudis contributed 40-60 billion dollars towards the effort. [/QUOTE]

That is the mainstream of the established Saudi monarch and business interests. That is not Saudi Arabia as a whole, a nation. He did not say that Saudi Arabia's monarchy was unwilling to work with us in pursuit of their economic and geopolitical self interest. He described the nation itself as troubling. Like the monarchy capitulating to conservative Saudi interests by using their oil money to subsidize translation of the Qur'an that have commentaries more inline with Wahabist ideology.

[QUOTE]
If you can only respond with "language" that would "get me in trouble" then I feel sorrow for you, have a blessed day.

ed
[/quote]

I find ignorance of the level I encountered in your post frustrating. I think it's legitimate.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Era Might' date='24 February 2010 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1267043558' post='2062542']
Are you serious? Read the history of the colonization of the Americas.

It wasn't Muslims who enslaved Africans in the United States.
[/quote]
I don't really know what religion the other tribes were who sold Africans to the slave traders. My guess is mostly animists of some sort, but I could be wrong.

[Winchester]

Looking at the behavior of the Jews in the OT, I really can't fathom anyone being astonished by Christian behavior.

As regards religions made by God, people are the problem. With those made by men...

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Hassan' date='25 February 2010 - 05:48 PM' timestamp='1267138097' post='2062990']
You your discounting of his opinion based on your assumption that he was Muslim was what I called racist. How you arrived at that assumption is not important. I'd love to see what brilliant hermeneutics you employed to draw from the article that the author came from Muslim stock aside from his name though.




That's not so much a fact as your poorly informed assertion.



That is the mainstream of the established Saudi monarch and business interests. That is not Saudi Arabia as a whole, a nation. He did not say that Saudi Arabia's monarchy was unwilling to work with us in pursuit of their economic and geopolitical self interest. He described the nation itself as troubling. Like the monarchy capitulating to conservative Saudi interests by using their oil money to subsidize translation of the Qur'an that have commentaries more inline with Wahabist ideology.



I find ignorance of the level I encountered in your post frustrating. I think it's legitimate.
[/quote]

Hassan, I have to say I feel the same about your reply here about the ignorance level being legitimate, only I must assume you are addressing yourself, this is the worst level of ignorance I have ever run across. First off I never placed my "assumption on his name, that would be insane as he could be christian as well as hindu, I placed my "assumption" on the tone of his ridiculous article. I guess you are not familiar with american politics, or you are purposely being deceitful just to argue with me, which I tend to lean towards the latter as you have already used the tact of calling me a rascist and ignorant as you have nothing more than a juvenile opinion, but here in america it is a well known fact that republicans are the party which is strong on the nations defense while the liberal democrats are the party of lets not upset them and maybe they will leave us alone, their tact has always been appeasment, one needs only to look at their policies and leaders, Jimmy Carters indecision with Iranian hostage takers, Bill Clintons inept treatment of the first trade tower bombers and the U.S. Cole attack as well as several embassy bombings. In the future you could easily research something like this and save yourself embarrassment. However I doubt truth or facts have anything to do with your agenda. Oh and the "mainstream of the established saudi monarch and business interests" that is the country my friend, at least the only viable part that makes any difference in national policy, are yo really that naive?

ed

Edited February 27, 2010 by Ed Normile

[Ed Normile]

Hassan,

Perhaps I am foolish to try and explain myself to someone as closed minded as yourself, but let me try. After reading the first paragraph of the article you posted Hassan, it seemed to me he indentified himself as a muslim with the use of the word "we" in the following sentence " [b]And if Muslims sympathized with Al Qaeda's cause, we were in for a herculean struggle[/b]" so I looked him up online and came up with a lot of stuff, about his socio-religious affiliations, Fareed Zakaria was born in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India to a Kokani [b]Muslim[/b] family, about his position as a politician at the Indian National Council and that he is an Islamic scholar also he is the host of CNN's Fareed Zakaria's GPS, as well an editor of Newsweek International. I did not just go and look at his name and say he is a muslim. It is easy for you to call me a rascist and call me ignorant, I do not hide behind some knickname, I am brave enough to use my real name, maybe this will save you from having to come up with anymore more big guy words like "hermeneutics" to try and demean my opinion, afterall we all have opinions and your rushing to insult me shows what your opinion is worth.

ed

[Jesus_lol]

the most disturbing thing about this thread is how little it actually has to do with the original post. Were i a mod id put most of the responses in the apparently "one and only" muslim thread.



[quote name='dominicansoul' date='24 February 2010 - 12:59 PM' timestamp='1267045178' post='2062564']
...but in Christianity, there is a backlash against the violence done by other "Christians." We can chastise our violent bretheren, and stand up against them, repudiate their faults because there is no sound Christian principle in which they act out the violence...

but in Islam there is no such thing...sometimes you are a better muslim for the violence against the infidels...
[/quote]

but this stood out, cause it makes you seem like you didnt read the article at all. no muslim backlash?
the Coles Notes summary of this article, if there were one, would be "In a surprising turn of events, many Muslims in Muslim countrys backlash against Jihadists"
if it were an extravagantly long 2 sentences, the 2nd would probably read "Lots of backlash, terrorists pwned."

Edited February 27, 2010 by Jesus_lol

[Socrates]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='24 February 2010 - 04:29 PM' timestamp='1267046949' post='2062593']
I do.
[/quote]
Strongly agreed.

For all its sins, Christian Western civilization and culture is the best this world has ever known, all politically-correct nonsense to the contrary, and what's left of it should be preserved and defended.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Era Might' date='25 February 2010 - 08:24 AM' timestamp='1267046666' post='2062586']
I do not consider "Christian civilization" something to be proud of.
[/quote]

Why? I'm very proud of what we do. Western Catholic countries have been known to defend Muslims from other groups namely Christians who are not really Christians.(that seems familiar) Here in Oz during the Cronula riots police shielded Muslims from being beaten by 'others'.
All over the world Christian charities are working and sometimes paying with their lives for the love of others. My home town has a charity that supports East Timor's St Antonio Catholic school. When the plate came around for Haiti it was chockers full of big bills, yet many families are undergoing tough times in our community. Don't be fooled by what the media relates. The truth is that evil in Catholicism wouldn't stack up to 1% against all the good works we do.

Edited February 28, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[Era Might]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='27 February 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1267318023' post='2064011']
Why? I'm very proud of what we do. Western Catholic countries have been known to defend Muslims from other groups namely Christians who are not really Christians.(that seems familiar) Here in Oz during the Cronula riots police shielded Muslims from being beaten by 'others'.
All over the world Christian charities are working and sometimes paying with their lives for the love of others. My home town has a charity that supports East Timor's St Antonio Catholic school. When the plate came around for Haiti it was chockers full of big bills, yet many families are undergoing tough times in our community. Don't be fooled by what the media relates. The truth is that evil in Catholicism wouldn't stack up to 1% against all the good works we do.
[/quote]
Your reference to Christian charities and schools illustrates the main problem with "Western Christian civilization." It is built on the institutionalization of good. The Gospel is not about building institutions. The Gospel is about personal encounter (with Christ, and with your neighbor).

I do not equate "Western Christian civilization" with the Gospel. Christ did not come to build a civilization. He certainly did not come to build institutions.

The Gospel is useless for anything other than bringing people to an encounter with the person of Christ. The Gospel cannot solve homelessness. The Gospel cannot solve poverty. The Gospel cannot solve hunger. Not because the Gospel is powerless, but rather because its message is not about "how to build a temporal society"; its message is about coming into communion with Christ. Christ told us to feed and clothe the hungry; this is a personal act, it is not something that can be passed on to an institution. Christ told us to feed and clothe the hungry so as to encounter other persons, not to solve the world's social problems. Even pagans can come up with solutions to social ills; the Gospel is not about solving social ills.

"Western Christian civilization" does not offer anything that pagans could not come up with. The Gospel is not about civilization-building. The Gospel is about communion in the Body of Christ. Inevitably, Christians are going to be part of civilizations; unfortunately, Christians in Western civilization conflated the Gospel with temporal civilization, and in the process the Gospel was corrupted through institutionalization.

[KeenanParkerII]

I'd like to pause the personal debate going on for a moment to comment on the article at hand.

I do not often agree with Fareed Zakaria, but anyone familiar with his work will quickly realize that regardless of political or religious orientation he provides a strong analysis of most world events. His news program is the only one I follow from the American entertain news networks. I am not saying they are sound, for I can soundly bet that I will disagree, but they are strong enough to know that he is genuine in what he says and better researched than most online opinion or armchair politicians. If I was interested in truly aspiring to peace and diplomacy with the Islamic world, I would consult Fareed Zakaria above any other public figure I can think of. Bias? Perhaps.. But it is so slight that I hardly feels it justifies any attack on his person. Surely he is less bias than most people here, and he is very consistent in his thoroughness.

And also, I noticed someone made some comment about Muslims not being the ones who enslaved the Africans? I have a few interesting historical facts that may cause you to chuckle at your own remark. (I think it was Era?)

- Slavery began in the Middle East, with pre-Arab semitic tribes enslaving Africans as well as white Anatolians and Europeans.
- When Britain abolished slavery, representatives from every coastal African nation flooded British parliament to reinstate slavery.
- Only 1 in 10 African slaves went to America. The vast majority of slaving was committed by the Spanish and Portuguese and dedicated to Brazil.

I always feel bad for Americans when people play the guilt card. Okay continue with the argument! Yay emotions!

[KeenanParkerII]

[quote]Your reference to Christian charities and schools illustrates the main problem with "Western Christian civilization." It is built on the institutionalization of good. The Gospel is not about building institutions. The Gospel is about personal encounter (with Christ, and with your neighbor).

I do not equate "Western Christian civilization" with the Gospel. Christ did not come to build a civilization. He certainly did not come to build institutions.

The Gospel is useless for anything other than bringing people to an encounter with the person of Christ. The Gospel cannot solve homelessness. The Gospel cannot solve poverty. The Gospel cannot solve hunger. Not because the Gospel is powerless, but rather because its message is not about "how to build a temporal society"; its message is about coming into communion with Christ. Christ told us to feed and clothe the hungry; this is a personal act, it is not something that can be passed on to an institution. Christ told us to feed and clothe the hungry so as to encounter other persons, not to solve the world's social problems. Even pagans can come up with solutions to social ills; the Gospel is not about solving social ills.

"Western Christian civilization" does not offer anything that pagans could not come up with. The Gospel is not about civilization-building. The Gospel is about communion in the Body of Christ. Inevitably, Christians are going to be part of civilizations; unfortunately, Christians in Western civilization conflated the Gospel with temporal civilization, and in the process the Gospel was corrupted through institutionalization. [/quote]

Indeed. Let us dissolve those institutions. Surely, it is more evil to institutionalize good than to let a few million people starve. Purity in all things. : (

[Era Might]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='27 February 2010 - 09:15 PM' timestamp='1267323310' post='2064041']
Indeed. Let us dissolve those institutions. Surely, it is more evil to institutionalize good than to let a few million people starve. Purity in all things. : (
[/quote]
Christ fed 5,000 people himself. He didn't found an institution to do so.

The Gospel is a personal vocation, not an institutional vocation. The Gospel is about encountering persons, not about solving the world's social ills.

Institutions may feed people. But that is not some uniquely Christian accomplishment. Even pagans can found institutions to feed people. When Christ told us to feed and clothe the poor, he was inviting us to a personal encounter with the poor. He was not giving us a solution to poverty. Solving poverty is a political problem, and the Gospel is not a political program.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Era Might' date='28 February 2010 - 12:37 PM' timestamp='1267321055' post='2064022']
Your reference to Christian charities and schools illustrates the main problem with "Western Christian civilization." It is built on the institutionalization of good. The Gospel is not about building institutions. The Gospel is about personal encounter (with Christ, and with your neighbor).

I do not equate "Western Christian civilization" with the Gospel. Christ did not come to build a civilization. He certainly did not come to build institutions.

The Gospel is useless for anything other than bringing people to an encounter with the person of Christ. The Gospel cannot solve homelessness. The Gospel cannot solve poverty. The Gospel cannot solve hunger. Not because the Gospel is powerless, but rather because its message is not about "how to build a temporal society"; its message is about coming into communion with Christ. Christ told us to feed and clothe the hungry; this is a personal act, it is not something that can be passed on to an institution. Christ told us to feed and clothe the hungry so as to encounter other persons, not to solve the world's social problems. Even pagans can come up with solutions to social ills; the Gospel is not about solving social ills.

"Western Christian civilization" does not offer anything that pagans could not come up with. The Gospel is not about civilization-building. The Gospel is about communion in the Body of Christ. Inevitably, Christians are going to be part of civilizations; unfortunately, Christians in Western civilization conflated the Gospel with temporal civilization, and in the process the Gospel was corrupted through institutionalization.
[/quote]

Jesus accused the Pharisees of knowing and obeying rules and regulations, all 1000 of them, but he also accused them of not doing one good dam' thing for another. Sure you're quite correct in saying that the gospel can be separated from charity. I went to Mass this morning and prayed and communed with others and was a Minister of the Eucharist and didn't do one dam'ed good thing for another person. but if I make a habit of doing that, which many do, I don't think Jesus will be all that pleased. '2nd-To love my neighbour' I must feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned or lend a hand in any way. Besides I still don't see the connection to not being something to be proud of. What does it matter if there are just as many kind hearted atheists? All the more reason to make a statement of who we are. When I saw my congregation putting large bills in the plate for Haiti I was full of pride for them. Jesus taught to build civilisation on the gospels message of love for others.

[KeenanParkerII]

does not the Gospel call us to feed the hungry and clothe the poor?

did not Christ found an institution to continue his work?

if we are strong in our personal faith, is it not right that it should spill over into our other institutions?




Keep a personal faith, but do not condemn the needy in order to do so.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='27 February 2010 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1267323703' post='2064044']
Jesus accused the Pharisees of knowing and obeying rules and regulations, all 1000 of them, but he also accused them of not doing one good dam' thing for another. Sure you're quite correct in saying that the gospel can be separated from charity. I went to Mass this morning and prayed and communed with others and was a Minister of the Eucharist and didn't do one dam'ed good thing for another person. but if I make a habit of doing that, which many do, I don't think Jesus will be all that pleased. '2nd-To love my neighbour' I must feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned or lend a hand in any way. Besides I still don't see the connection to not being something to be proud of. What does it matter if there are just as many kind hearted atheists? All the more reason to make a statement of who we are. When I saw my congregation putting large bills in the plate for Haiti I was full of pride for them. Jesus taught to build civilisation on the gospels message of love for others.
[/quote]
I disagree that Christ taught us to build a civilization. Christ founded a family (that is, the Church); he did not found a civilization or an institution. Christ's teaching was about communion with himself in his Body (the Church), not about building a civilization.

As I said before, even pagans can think of ways to build a just civilization. That is not some unique Christian ability.

Of course Christians must feed and clothe the hungry. But that is a PERSONAL vocation. The reason why Christians feed and clothe the hungry is not to solve poverty, but rather to encounter Christ in the poor. Institutions feed and clothe the hungry in order to solve poverty. Christ did not give us any solutions to solving poverty; solving poverty is a philosophical/political problem. Instead, Christ came to invite us to a personal vocation, which involves looking another person in the face and feeding and clothing them, and in that encounter establishing a relationship.