Evil's true name

Herald Sun ^ | 8th September 2004 | Andrew Bolt

[sweneop]

I can interpret many things in the bible that christians today do not follow.

also, the fact is that many 'muslims' arent overly religious. they dont care for the pure interpretation or whatever. if you think everyone in islamic countries are zealots reporting to their mosques daily, you are wrong. they just have families and homes and jobs, you know? many of them are apathetic about politics and religion and so on...

there is a definite push by the more extreme edge if islam, and i still cant understand why people dont want to fight this. THE ENEMY IS RFECRUITING. THE ENEMY IS PUSHING THE ANTI-WEST INTERPRETATIONS YOU MENTION. THE ENEMY IS TRYING TO RAISE ISLAM TO JIHAD. why not fight this? if the enemy wants these people unbder his wing, then dammit, i want to deny them to him - and if i can, i want these people to come closer to me and my side.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

I can interpret many things in the bible that christians today do not follow.

That is a leftist canard used to equate Christianity and Islam. And I don't believe you can. And even if you pull things from the Old Testament, the New Testament changes things because of Jesus' final sacrifice. The most obnoxious verses of the Koran are among the last "revelations." And unlike the Old Testament, it wishes death on people who are alive today.

also, the fact is that many 'muslims' arent overly religious. they dont care for the pure interpretation or whatever. if you think everyone in islamic countries are zealots reporting to their mosques daily, you are wrong. they just have families and homes and jobs, you know? many of them are apathetic about politics and religion and so on...

First, apathy is an insufficient response to radicals who are carrying them forward with them. The plain language (not some arcane twisted logic) inspires and will continue to inspire some to repudiate the apathetic and launch jihad both to destroy the West and to rule over Muslims. And the other Muslims are too apathetic (your word) or in passive agreement (more the truth) to be a bulwark against them.

And second, if they are apathetic, then they won't mind repudiating the language of the 9th surah when asked.

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

[sweneop]

hey, i understand your position. im not trying to defend their apathy, i dont really care except that it affects me. we should be trying to win these people. really.

my point about the bible/koran was that this represents pure theology, which doesnt necesarily equate to the mindset 'on the ground' for many 'muslims' (or christians). its not an attack on the bible, its a comment that islamic countries arent full of zealots any more than christian countries. many people might call themselves muslim or christian but arent realy practising.

now i remember having a talk with an older iranian woman who wore the chador, which shows only the face. it really not very popular over there, and she didnt understand why women should be forced by law to cover if they didnt want to. she didnt care that the girls i was with only covered to the minimum of modesty required over there (you know, casue otherwise the islamic police can arrest you), wore modern western clothnes, and said she wouldnt have cared if they didnt cover their hair.

the koran can say something about jihad or whatever, but this woman just wanted to chat with me as a westerner. she was a simple muslim and didnt really know or care about the rest of the world much.

this is typical. of course, i could also tell you about walking the streets of bahrain and getting open looks of hate from young men sitting, drinking tea. theres no doubt my blond hair and blue eyes wasnt welcomed by all. i know about anti-westernism.

but its not all of them. they are blinded by islam, they think for themselves, form their own opinions. and many of them are very moderate.

ive driven past murals in tehran that say stuff like 'we will stand by the palestinians and against their enemies', but when a bombing in israel is on tv, i heard comments of sympathy.

things arent as simple as you want to make out. yes the extremists are VERY extreme, and you can argue what percentage of the population is extremist (klets say in iran its less than 5%... in arab countries im guessing anywhere from 10%-50%) but to put them all in one category is simply ignorant. thats a point i often make.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

And I understand what you're saying. My problem is with Islam, not with Muslims. You are right that there are interpretations and people who don't get into it in a deep or intellectual way. But a religion is not what people say it is. Judaism is what the Old Testament says it is. Christianity is what the New Testament says it is. And Islam is what the Koran says it is. And if it is hostile and has proven to inspire hostility in its adherents, then I am hostile toward it. It will be a constant source of trouble, as it has been. I am for eradicating the root cause, the REAL root cause.

[sweneop]

the majority of chechens arent strict muslims, they are sufis. many muslim scholars argue that sufis arent even muslims. sufism may predate islam, and teaches tolerance of other religions. dervishes (those guys with dresses that spin and spin till they reach a trance like state) are sufis. sufis are actually pretty ok.

Sufis believe that their teachings are the essence of every religion, and indeed of the evolution of humanity as a whole. The central concept in Sufism is "love".

doesnt sound much like islam? it pretty much isnt.

from 1999 to 2002, the actual chechen government issued 121 statements against terrorism. here are some: http://www.peaceinchechnya.org/background/bg_denounceterr.pdf

russias been conquering chechnya (first in 1858 after a 46 year war), losing it, getting it again, stalin shipping the ENTIRE population to siberia and kazakistan (between one quarter to one half the population dies that time), allowing them back, they declare independance from the commies, russia invades them a few times (1994 - 100,000 killed, apparently mostly civilians). google 'filtration camps' as well.

i dont want to defend any actions of the terrorists, id be happy to tie them all up and throw them off a cliff, but i dont like generalisations. if you look at what the terrorists do and generalise about a whole nation, you are letting those terrorists dictate your opinion to you.

now apparently 70% of chechen fighters are secular and loyal to the president. one faction, which has ties to organised crime and arab mercs is believed to have ties to terrorists. these ties appear to be a little more confirmed based on recent events.

we need to know who our enemies are. this needs more thought than just a knee-jerk reaction. our enemy knows the regional complications a lot better than we do, and they use this to their advantage. if their goal is to ignite the caucuses then just a knee jerk reaction is falling right into their hands. when we (or in this case, the russians) strike, we need to do it where it hurts them, not where they want us to.

[Little Ray]

The lack of "crimes against humanity" has more do with lack of opportunity and ability than with intent; they lack the suicidal fanaticism the Muslims have. And, as I said previously, they may have had something to do with OKC bombing.