Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Islam, the Religion of Peace?

Britain's decision to award Salman Rushdie a knighthood set off a storm of protest in the Islamic world today, with a Pakistani government minister giving warning that it could provide justification for suicide bomb attacks.

[Rushdie] has lived under police protection since the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran pronounced a fatwa (death sentence) on him over alleged blasphemies against Islam in his 1988 novel The Satanic Verses.

Today, Pakistan's religious affairs minister suggested that the knighthood was so grave an offence that any Muslim anywhere in the world would be justified in taking violent action.

"If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet then it is justified," Mr ul-Haq told the National Assembly.

The minister, the son of Zia ul-Haq, the military dictator who died in a plane crash in 1988, later retracted his statement in parliament, then told the AFP news agency that he meant to say that knighting Rushdie would foster extremism.

"If someone blows himself up he will consider himself justified. How can we fight terrorism when those who commit blasphemy are rewarded by the West?" he said....


So, is Islam a religion of peace? What a fucking joke!

34 comments:

jan said...

Is any religion a "religion of peace"?

They all say their god is the strongest or whatever, and then they're scared of everyone else's god!

Not to harp, but Jesus told his followers to love their enemies and turn the other cheek if their enemies used violence against them.

So, who are the biggest war-mongers on this side of the world?
The followers of Jesus.

I truly believe religious people are some of the most scared shitless of any of us.
Personally, I think it has to do with the thought that they know heaven doesn't really exist.

Otherwise, people like Jesus' followers really would not concern themselves with being killed by their enemies, and then they really would not have a care in this world.
I've only seen that lack of hypocrisy from the Amish, when their kids were killed last year. They frigging forgave the guy, and I've got to be impressed by that love for all of mankind, if I can say it that way.

Yeah, the world would be a much better place without organized religion.

BAWDYSCOT said...

It is interesting you started this thread today, csm, as I was ruminating(that's right, ruminating) about this very subject last night after reading some reports about mercenary behavior being detected in Lebanon. Fatah-al-Islam, the militant group fighting the Lebanese army in the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp, looks like they are receiving backing from the Syrians. The Syrians are trying like hell to get back into Lebanon as they derive much of their income from their neighbor. Syria is using this group to create chaos in Lebanon and setting themselves up to be the White Knight. Fatah-Al-Islam is a new group which has some ties to Al Qaeda and is made up from fighters from all over the area. What struck me is the amount of people who would be willing to do another state's bidding. This really has nothing to do with religion per se, money and power seems to be more of the point in this conflict, but the combatants ARE from differnet religious backgrounds. It almost looks like some of these people just want to fight. I am beginning to think this might have more to do with male-dominated societies than religion, but this also does nothing to make me retract my statement that religion is an impediment to human progress.

I also don't think any religion is any better in this respect than any other; all have their homicidal warts.

BAWDYSCOT said...

I just heard a quote from our fearless(fear can be a healthy emotion)leader, and I paraphrase, "destroying a life to save a life is unethical". I guess it doesn't fucking matter if that life is a Muslim one though. That one gets past that ethics screen. Motherfucker!

Ceroill said...

bawdy, one thing that impressed itself into my mind years ago, thinking about the various ongoing and longstanding feuds in the middle east is simply that there has been almost constant fighting in that part of the world for at least 5000 years now, on a rough estimate. Since long before Islam, Judaism and Christianity came along. Finding a way to have peace there is not going to be a quick process. It will likely take centuries if it can be done at all.

jan said...

Well, we sort of forget that we had this situation in Ireland within the last ten years -- Catholic against Protestant, over land. I saw it in Greece -- Muslim against Orthodox over Cypress.
I think GWB's biggest mistakes was deciding there is "good" and "evil" in the Middle East. Those are religious terms, imo.

There's no doubt that money and power enter in the religion as well. I'm not so much disagreeing with any points made so far. Just saying that a lot of the fiery rhetoric is based in religious rhetoric.

To me, the most ironic part is that the actual teachings of the leaders aren't so bad. But these followers read the message and wonder immediately how it applies to their neighbors, not to themselves.

As far as people doing another state's bidding... I don't find that so surprising.

No opinion yet, just wondering...
Is "mercenary" necessarily a bad word?
And is Blackwater a company of mercenaries?

BAWDYSCOT said...

I guess my wonderment is based on people acting as mercenaries under the guise of religion. What is it gonna be, the money or salvation?

As far as Blackwater and covert missions are concerned, this is how I would have gone after Al Qaeda in the first place. We should have left Afghanistan after we routed the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We never should have even thought about invading Iraq. We should have hunted down Al Qaeda members one by one(or two by two, etc.), infiltrate the organization and rot it from the inside(maybe I watched too much television(Mission Impossible) as a kid, but I visualized one of our agents, who had gotten deep into the hierarchy of Al Qaeda, cutting the brake lines to a vehicle Osama would have traveled in and have it plunge from one of those treacherous mountain pass roads). The result would have been less innocents dead, less potential jihadist recruiting and much more deniability on our part. Oh well, such is life.

Ceroill said...

Bawdy, what? You mean...you mean actually keeping our attention on the guy who was/is the figurehead of the avowed enemy forces? Gosh! That would actually make some kind of logical sense! We can't have that going on in DC!

jan said...

While I agree with nearly every word, bawdy, I still don't know why we need Blackwater.
We have military Special Ops.
Using contractors is a way of continuing a war that the majority of The People no longer support. That comment's not just directed at Iraq, but Iraq happens to be right before our very eyes.
If Blackwater is capable of Special Ops, they should join the military, not get paid ten times more than our military, out of the exact same pot of revenue.

I have a neighbor who works for Blackwater. Hecompletely creeps me out. When I imagine those who condone torture, his face leaps to mind.

But, is a merceniary a "bad" person?
Unpatriotic?
Simply "pursuing happiness"?

----
Anyone have any thoughts on the news that the Vice President has been refusing to be a part of the Executive Branch in terms of rules governing declassifying classified information -- since 2003?
Valarie Plame's name was passed to Scooter Libby on May 28, *2003* and Libby was tasked with talking to Judith Miller in an attempt to bust the claims of Joe wilson regarding the 16 words in the State of the Union.
If a covert name can be declassified with no oversight, it can't be a crime to reveal a covert name, right?
Libby never countered the Wilson Op-Ed. In fact, Wilson's claim brought an apology.

Is that okay with everyone?
Do you agree that Cheney not a part of the Executive Branch since 2003?

If you think Cheney is wrong in his conclusions, is there anything We the People can do about it?

As of yesterday, the VP of the USA is telling Congress that his office is unique in our government, in that his office has absolutely no oversight Constitutionally.
Can someone familiar with the Constitution give me their take, and a suggestion for what I can do to stop this man?

BAWDYSCOT said...

Jan, the one advantage to Blackwater is the lack of culpability it provides our government if one of Al Qaeda's leaders ends up dead. I am not saying I necessarily agree with organizations like Blackwater, but you have to admit our enemy is like no other we have encountered in the past and the way they wage war is beyond MOST of our military's capabilities.

As far as Cheney and the rest of the crew, as trying as it may be I would profess patience. This Black Hour of our history is almost over. We must keep diligent and aware of what they are capable of doing in the last months(tougher media attention would help)and hope the Constitution can hold on a little longer.

jan said...

bawdy: "Jan, the one advantage to Blackwater is the lack of culpability it provides our government if one of Al Qaeda's leaders ends up dead. I am not saying I necessarily agree with organizations like Blackwater, but you have to admit our enemy is like no other we have encountered in the past and the way they wage war is beyond MOST of our military's capabilities."

No, I'm not going to admit that.

The GOP will tell you that Clinton sat around with his dick in his hand, but Clinton had a bead on Al Qaeda his entire Presidency. WTC was hit a few weeks into Clinton's Presidency, yet ZERO information had been passed on to Clinton from GHWBush re: Al Qaeda.

In contrast, Al Qaeda was passed on eyeball-to-eyeball to every person in the new GWBush administration, with them being warned that it would be the ONLY problem they would deal with in the next four years.
And the Bush adminstration's response?
They fired Richard Clarke, the world's leading expert on Al Qaeda.

I *KNOW* that, regardless of the Clinton Haters Noise Machine. I *KNOW* the bead Clinton had on them, because my husband was holding the big, fat, fucking gun.

And, of course, we know that Bush completely ignored a memo that said that OBL was determined to strike in the US.

And...
To this very day, do they ever depend on the advice of the world's leading expert on Al Qaeda?
NO.
I wonder why not.

Now, what has happened since January 2001 is criminal (literally, I'm sure). So, when the leader of the parade is The Worst President Ever, he probably needs Blackwater.

I'm not so naive as to believe that bad stuff doesn't happen in our democracy, but I don't want us to give up the high moral standing I truly think our Founders had, just for the sake of staying alive.

I'm not saying you don't agree with that.
I'm just saying that, no, I won't admit Blackwater is a good thing just because Al Qaeda has proven to be a worthy enemy. We have been stupid and arrogant.

Like, I know the story about the Red Coats being stupid and all, but the British were also greedy, arrogant assholes.
I say we should try not being greedy, arrogant assholes first, and see where that gets us.

Ceroill said...

Sometimes, such as times like this, I am reminded of an episode of South Park. In this episode they have two major plotthreads. One is that the political division in town comes down to a contest/concert of Democrat/Rock and Roll/Peace vs. Republican/Country/War. The other is Cartman falling asleep while doing history homework about the Continental Congress. He 'goes back in time' to see Addams and Jefferson arguing. Addams says War, Jefferson says Peace, and finally Franklin gives out his famous "We must all hang together or surely we shall hang separately." Cartman has a bit of an epiphany, and when he wakes up he runs out to the concert, which is about to come to blows, and makes his grand announcement. Namely, that this country needs BOTH the hard minded, tough, aggressive Conservatives to defend us and be the Big Stick. But we also need the compassionate, empathizing Liberals to be our diplomats and put a warm fuzzy face on our operations. With ONLY the conservatives we wind up being hated and distrusted by the rest of the world. With ONLY the liberals we wind up being taken advantage of and not given any respect by the rest of the world.

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

BAWDYSCOT said...

It is not that I consider Al Qaeda a worthy enemy(I actually don't, what have they destroyed lately), it has to do with the way they fight. They use stealth and small cells to do their dirty work and our military is not set up to fight that kind of war. The vast majority of our military is set up to fight nation states in territorial battles, not insurgents in cities, towns and villages. That is what I was trying to say(my bad). Our Special Ops, our intelligence organizations and maybe even Blackwater are much better equipped to fight this kind of war. At this point I am tired of rehashing the history of how we got in this mess; I am trying to enunciate a plan which is much more in tune with the mission at hand.

Lou said...

Islam is a religion of peace. Yes, in fact, that's exactly what much of the feel good fuzzy left attempts to tell us most recently Andy Rooney. On the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Andy shared this little treasure with his audience: "Ameri¬cans are puzzled over why so many people in the world hate us. We seem so nice to ourselves. They do hate us, though. We know that and we're trying to protect ourselves with more weapons. We have to do it I suppose, but it might be better if we figured out how to behave as a nation in a way that wouldn't make so many people in the world want to kill us."
This is modern-day Democratic liberalism at its most despica¬ble. If only we behaved differently, then they wouldn't want to kill us. Would Andy Rooney have ever told the Jews in the 1940s "Yes, white Nazis hate you. But if you would only behave differently, maybe they wouldn't want to incinerate you."
Liberals like Andy Rooney can spot America's shortcomings a mile away, but they refuse to see Islamic evil even when it's staring them right in the face.

When I think about Christianity I think of the Salvation Army and World Hunger Relief.
When I think about Islam I think of Hamas and Al Qaeda

BAWDYSCOT said...

When I think of Christianity, I think of Jerry Falwell and James Dobson, then I shudder.

Lou said...

Dobson and Falwell vs. OBL and Hussein.

No beheadings
No Suicide bombers
No Jihad
No raping of the women
No schools as bunkers
No conversion or else death threats
No "Mickey Mouse & Jihad Fun" TV shows.

The decision seems clear. I too can relate with your dilemna. I get the shudder when I fondly reflect on Madelyn Murray O'Hair and Ellen Johnson.

BAWDYSCOT said...

So Lou, when should we start invading Iran? And I am not a left leaning peacenik. I think we need to leave enough troops in Iraq to keep Iran in check. They should be based in the southern deserts north of the Saudi and Kuwaiti borders. In the deserts our troops would be able to make out friend or foe much easier than in the cities and towns and ultimately would be much safer.

I applauded invading Afghanistan and the routing of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, but we should have left right after. We never should have invaded Iraq, the stopper in the genie's bottle. Again, I am not a peacenik, but putting our military into political situations just doesn't work. Capice!

Heathen said...

Madelyn Murray O'Hair was an awesome patriot... I miss her every day.

Heathen said...

And, by te way, O'Hair was brutally murdered for her beliefs.

Lou said...

Heathen,

Actually O-Hair was murdered by her former office manager who was angry at his firing for stealing. In the end, she was murdered for the AA money.

But I must say, it does sound better to say she was murdered for her beliefs. But it was just was not that nobel of an end.

Ceroill said...

So is being murdered for money any less heinous than being murdered for principles? I don't think murder of any kind counts as a noble end.

Heathen said...

O'Hair did a lot to break down the religious shit that was intertwined within our government. She may have been rough in her demeanor (who the fuck cares) but she was a beacon of freedom and constitutional propriety.

Lou said...

I should have known someone would attempt to change the subject to the horrors of murder rather than the lie of why she was murdered.

lou said...

I should have known someone would attempt to change the subject to the horrors of murder rather than the lie of why she was murdered.

lou said...

I should have known someone would attempt to change the subject to the horrors of murder rather than the lie of why she was murdered.

lou said...

I should have known someone would attempt to change the subject to the horrors of murder rather than the lie of why she was murdered.

Ceroill said...

Gee, posting four times in a row. That really put me in my place. Heaven forbid someone should respond to your secondary comment rather than your main point. As to changing the subject, that happened well before I did that, so why single me out for that crime? If you look up to the heading of the thread, you'll see it's got nothing to do with why someone in particular was murdered, or whether incorrect information was provided about that, or even whether one sort of murder is more or less 'noble' than any other. But then again, sticking strictly to the main topic at hand has never been a hallmark of this kind of exchange. If it were, we'd seldom wind up with a thread longer than maybe 6 replies (just guessing).
And by the way, saying that she was murdered just for her money is just as inaccurate as the previous statement. Rather than recounting all the gruesome details here, I'll just post a link or two. I won't even bother with the one for the Wikipedia article, knowing how little regard many have for that source. Ok, 2 links, but I didn't want to spend all day on this.
http://crimemagazine.com/ohair.htm
http://www.dallasobserver.com/
2001-02-01/news/dead-giveaway/

Had to chop up the second link to get it to fit.

lou said...

Thanks for the links but I am more than just a little familiar with this fastidious case. Let me be more precise. O’Hair was murdered for straightforward revenge and she was a woman who believed in revenge. So in the end, yes maybe she did die for her beliefs. It just didn’t happen to be her atheist beliefs. She was a woman that her fellow atheist in Texas loathed not to mention one of her own off-spring. Her death was the culmination of a poignant story.
As to you fist observation, yes murder of all kinds is heinous. Doesn’t that go without saying? Additionally, I am certain that in no way did I indicate to the contrary so why make the insinuation?

BAWDYSCOT said...

lou,

Just goes to show there are lowlifes in every faith or non-faith. The opposite is also true, good people can be found everywhere. So how about answering my question, so when should we invade Iran?

Ceroill said...

lou, what you said is: "But I must say, it does sound better to say she was murdered for her beliefs. But it was just was not that nobel of an end."

In my mind this implied that if one is less noble then it is not as bad, and therefore less of a crime. My apologies if I misread your intent.

lou said...

Cerolli you are bounding to a conclusion that is not there by logical progression. There are persons whose death/murder could be expressed as noble maybe even heroic as opposed to those whose death/murder maybe NOT be depicted as noble. Soldiers, good Samaritans and even martyrs of a worthy cause come to mind as does thieves and rapist. That in no way lessens the revulsion of murder.

Bawdy, I sense no need to assault Iran outside of eradicating their involvement in Iraq. Do you know something?

Ceroill said...

lou, I hereby apologize for misreading your intent.

jan said...

Just want to give kudos to one of my heroes, MM O'Hair.

I saw her when I was maybe 13-14 years old, about 6 months after I had been baptized into the Southern Baptist Church. She was on TV and she said, "Well, if I ever did decide to believe in God, I would never be a Christian. All other faiths are respectful to my views. Only Christians treat me with hatred. And I don't know why, because their Jesus tells them that the only thing that counts is them loving people. But Christians don't really love people. Instead, they hate people who aren't fellow Christians."

My sentiments exactly.

lou said...

Cerolli I find it is pragmatic to clear the air early. I have watched with great fascination many of the insult-fests on what was avowed and what was projected among the bloggers.

Jan, I guess it is a shame that O'Hair couldn't persuade her own son on the evils of Christianity? Bill is an evangelical minister and upon his conversion O’Hair is quoted

“One could call this a postnatal abortion on the part of a mother, I guess; I repudiate him entirely and completely for now and all times...He is beyond human forgiveness."

This seems reminiscent of the Islamic loyalty. If one was to embrace the atheist faith would not it be under this guise of atheism? So intolerant and so hate-filled?

Howard Thompson, the editor of the newsletter The Texas Atheist, within his writings claimed that O'Hair was the biggest problem facing atheists in the United States, and that she was not fit to be called any sort of "atheist-heroine.”

Ceroill said...

Not a problem, lou. I agree completely. As you see, I have no intent to upset folk, and if I am mistaken I will apologize.