I'm a Muslim!

Post Reply New Topic

I'm suprised the term "islamofascism" hasn't come up yet. I hate that term, too. I always hear neo-cons and other intolerant, nationalist warmongers throwing that word around carelessly, without any consideration for what Islam and fascism are really about. It doesn't make any sense. It's like, who ya calling fascist, wh***y.

The thing that's great about Islam is that it absolutely terrifies the hell out of small minded, privileged Westerners.

Same stereotyping existed against Russians too during the cold war. The media tends to create such feelings against certain groups. For instance, Bennet Coleman & Co is trying to create create feelings of war in their news channel and newspapers, by linking the Pakistani army to Al Qaeda, and portraying Pakistan as a nuclear power ready to strike. In most Bollywood films regarding Pakistan, all the Pakistanis are shown as evil and cunning.

Peace.

Without good reason?

These small-minded privileged Westerners are being swindled out of the whole story, as are their small-minded privileged Middle-Eastern counterparets. It's not so much misinformation, I think, as it is distortion and incomplete information. All this misinformation going back and forth between the two civilizations, how much of it is actually malicious? I have to wonder.

As a news outlet, does Al-Jazeera have no bias of its own?

so pretty much anyone who subscribes to any sect of theism considering that claiming absolute knowledge that their god is the correct one also fits under that subject...fundamentally unprovable so saying allah is what god is or jehova is what god is. making such a substantial claim as monotheism does fit pretty damned close with claiming absolute knowledge. afterall, look at the repercussions if they're wrong...they're claiming absolute knowledge. the difference is because they have NO EVIDENCE, it makes them appear as the victim because they can't defend something that doesn't exist other than in some mythic tales.

i don't know what's out there, but i know what isn't out there.

because most of the people in here aren't that stupid.


the term islamofascism is more propaganda tool of the government. granted there are islamic fascists out there (theocracies) but it doesn't make it any more special than mugabe's fascism or the fascism that was seen under chuck taylor who even "ran for election" with this lovely slogan: "he killed my ma, he killed my pa, but i will vote for him."

What's your angle with Muslim thing? You talk a lot of smack about a lot of people, but Muslims are near & dear to you for some reason. You defend them. Why?

i don't think i defend them anymore than to point out that they're human and just like the rest of us. there's this huge trend of alienating muslims and it's stupid and tantamount to just being out and out racism and i don't put up with that BS.

islamofascism is about the same as the 50's and 60's "black unrest" and the threat of the black panthers but on a more dynamic level because many of the terrorists are coming from much worse, much more impoverished areas that see a different rule of law from here and has a different level of availability of weapons such as bombs or communication methods that allow anyone to learn how to make explosive devices on their own.

the slums of saudi arabia are much worse than that of DC or detroit or even new orleans.

Pardon me, but there are no "slums" in Saudi. There are some poor neighbourhoods, such as those suburbs outside Riyadh, but these incorporate temporary workers and such, from India or the Phillipines. There are also some areas dominated by African drug cartels, the town of Taif, for example. As for the conditions compared to some areas in the USA, as you mentioned, I have no idea regarding that.

Peace.

I wonder what the Mid-Eastern equivalent of "Islamofascism" is. If Islam wants to convert the whole world into a new caliphate by any means necessary, what is it that the Christian world is trying to do? I think people are pretty much the same, no matter where in the world you are. Human nature never changes.

Qutbism and Wahaabism are small minorities within Islam. Most Muslims are waiting for the arrival of the Mahdi, or "saviour", and the Dajjal, the anti-Christ, followed by the return of Jesus. Most Sunni Muslims have long realised that the caliphate in this day and age is no longer possible. The Shi'a too await the return of their version of the Mahdi, from his hidden occultation.

As for Christians, I see only few trying to convert the world. Like you, most Christians are not bothered.

I agree with you though, human nature won't change.

Btw, there's a popular Sunni Muslim proselytising group called Tablighi Jamaat, based in London, with a lot of activity centres in Pakistan, although it's spread out worldwide.

Peace.

Last edited by Khan_Sama on 24 Dec 2008, 2:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

it's amazing how frequently people forget this.

The thing is, I've encountered many atheists who believe the "war on terror" and invasions of middle-eastern countries are a good thing because they view it as a war against religious fundamentalism, "Islamofascism." Usually in every other thread I've read about Islam elsewhere, somebody brings it up eventually. It's something I'm sick to death of hearing about and I find it very refreshing that nobody has brought it up until now.

But I disagree, there are no Islamic fascists. I would go as far as to say that Islamic fascism is impossible. First and foremost you need to understand what fascism really is. There is a very popular and reductionist tendency to refer to any state that doesn't have elected leaders as fascist, but this is incorrect. Fascism is the open, terroristic dictatorship of an oppressor nation over other nations. By this, Islamic nations cannot be fascist because they are not oppressor nations (they don't have very much economic or miltary power over other nations). It is especially wrong to label Robert Mugabe fascist, since he fought a war of liberation against British colonialism and won. He is simply a Third-World nationalist who is trying to resist Western control of his nation.

"so pretty much anyone who subscribes to any sect of theism considering that claiming absolute knowledge that their god is the correct one also fits under that subject"

Agreed.

"...fundamentally unprovable so saying allah is what god is or jehova is what god is. making such a substantial claim as monotheism does fit pretty damned close with claiming absolute knowledge. afterall, look at the repercussions if they're wrong...they're claiming absolute knowledge."

Not all of the theists do so.

"the difference is because they have NO EVIDENCE, it makes them appear as the victim because they can't defend something that doesn't exist other than in some mythic tales."

How does that make them appear as the victim? I'd think they were just making decisions based on evidence that works for them, even if it doesn't work for you. Just because their evidence is subjective it doesn't mean it doesn't exist -- it just means YOU can't prove it.

"i don't know what's out there, but i know what isn't out there."

Do you really? Amazing! Well, why don't you make a list, along with your evidence, so we can all know that. (And I rest my case...)

The thing people need to realize is that real fascists are not terribly preoccupied with religion. For the fascist, the nation, and its right to rule over other nations, is everything. Hitler would sometimes publicly make appeals to popular religious sentiments, but in private, he was incredibly indifferent to religion. He didn't care if you were Protestant, Catholic, atheist, Buddhist or Pagan as long as you supported National Socialism.

various holy books prescribe various different sacrifices to call up deities.


if you really want, i'd be more than glad to re-enact the "who's god is better" sacrificial offering....i'm certain i can light the pyre before praying to any god would light it. and if it's good enough to be put into the bible, then it has to be good enough to put into practice.


as far as evidence...again and again: the burden of proof lays with those making claims. in other words, those who claim of deities need to prove such deities exist. this was done back before the holy books were written and if it was good enough for them, i fail to see how it's not good enough now. short of people not wanting to admit their god is made up....which no one wants to admit their god doesn't exist. what a failure of humanity....to be too proud than to give up a fairy tale that obviously doesn't exist*.

to make great claims, one must present great evidence. no evidence has been given other than books and specious claims of miracle healings.


*yeah yeah, jesus existed. so did author...excalibur and its mythic powers are still just works of fiction.

i demand real evidence and none is produced and there's claims that's not fair. those people then claim to be victims because they cannot actually back up their claims to a god with evidence.

that and they try to spin it around as that i need to produce evidence...when i'm not the one claiming something is there when it's not....no one asks for evidence from those who claim the loch ness monster doesn't exist...they demand it of those claiming it does exist....how is this any different?