Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Understanding Our Enemy
Bush showed a little knowledge of this recently,but he's also shown a propensity to kiss Islamic as.s,too. I would imagine until the people elect a leader that reflects a national concensus that the dreams of Muslims,moderate or radical,to have a unfied caliphate are in opposition to the United States of America and all we stand for and as such we will oppose the idea at every turn,we really aren't even understanding the enemy at all.

Palladin says:
Quote:I would imagine until the people elect a leader that reflects a national concensus that the dreams of Muslims, moderate or radical,to have a unfied caliphate are in opposition to the United States of America and all we stand for and as such we will oppose the idea at every turn,we really aren't even understanding the enemy at all.

Ataturk and moderate Moslems of Turkey are the ones that rejected Calipathe.
Why would you think that suddenly the moderate Moslems anywhere in the world would support it now?

Image of Ataturk, giving up Calipathe
[Image: Ataturk6.jpg]

I didn't think Ataturk was a Muslim,he was an agnostic secularist? His acts were hostile toward outward Islamist exhibitions,such as the hijab.

Kamil,the Koran teaches caliphate,no loyal Muslim can oppose it. How can you be a loyal Muslim and oppose basic Islamic tenets?
Palladin, Koran can not teach caliphate. Caliphate was established after death of Mohammed and not part of the Koran.

Even in the early days of Caliphate, the Caliphate had a very limited control on Moslems. I would say it was weaker than Vatican's power over Catholics.

Religious leader of Turkey Ali Bardakoglu has made it very clear that Hijap, Burka, Scarves, Beards, Moustaches, etc. have nothing to do with Islam, and wearing one or having one does not make somebody a better Moslem.
Excerpt from:

Caliphate was eventually nullified (in Sunni Islam, at least) by the rising power of the ulema, or Islamic scholars, clerics, and religious specialists. The ulema insisted on their right to determine what was legal and orthodox. The proper Muslim leader, in the ulema's opinion, was the leader who enforced the rulings of the ulema, rather than making rulings of his own. Conflict between caliph and ulema was a recurring theme in early Islamic history, and ended in the victory of the ulema. The caliph was henceforth limited to temporal rule. He would be considered a righteous caliph if he were guided by the ulema. Crone and Hinds argue that Shi'a Muslims, with their expansive view of the powers of the imamate, have preserved some of the beliefs of early Islam. Crone and Hinds' thesis is not accepted by all scholars.

Most Sunni Muslims now believe that the caliph has always been a merely temporal ruler, and that the ulema has always been responsible for adjudicating orthodoxy and Islamic law (shari'a).
Hi all.

I’ve been relegated to 2nd class citizen – the evil corp I work for these days block poor old Jane, so I’m forced to distract myself with Ornery during the day… A 4 yr old PC, dial up, and sitting on my rear all day pretty much keep me offline at night… but I’ve some time to kill tonight.

Pick up this month’s Playboy Shock yes, that magazine. (Aside from the obvious reasons to subscribe, it does have some of the best articles and short fiction you can find these days).

There’s a great article on Jordan’s struggle to control radicals and encourage moderates. It touches on efforts on other countries.

One of the interesting thing is the side story of a young Imam who is also a government agent to monitor and report on radicals. The story quickly covers a conversation he has with one of his contemporaries about the Caliphate and how the guys professing he is for the Caliphate means he’s against the monarchy of Jordan, therefore a radical and would be removed from his position…

So, no, on the progressive Muslim angle, not everyone is for the Caliphate.

Although, it is interesting, also. There’s a quick comment in there from a radical type Imam about why they oppose the US and western powers – due to the globalist agenda. Seems to me the “radical” Muslims aren’t so off base as the MSM and our leaders would have us believe on why they oppose the US – not that I agree with how they oppose. Replacing one far-reaching, controlling agenda for Sharia law is hardly a solution.
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
F. Scott Fitzgerald
I generally agree with Zakaria's theory, which is that Muslims are both frightened and desirous of the benefits of a global economyIwhich they are exposed to through the media), and this tension causes a lot of hatred.

Also, the Mideast traditionally has a violent culture because of the numerous invasions throughout history.

OK,so it is your opinion then that only the most radicals are for caliphate renewal?


That is some psychology there. I think it's right. What happens is our culture is sort of a "apple" in the garden of eden,they eat and then are disgusted with themselves,which leads to various psycho reactions,projection,introjection,etc.
Palladin, I don't know for sure. From Sultan Selim to Abdulhamid, Ottoman Sultans held the title of Caliphate. However, most Arabs and Iranians considered that to be an illegimate Caliphate, but the power of Caliphate was diminished much earlier than the Ottoman period.

Ulema (Religious Schoolars) is considered to be the authority in Islam. If I'm not mistaken even secular Turkey has Ulema that announces clarifications on religious issues. Like the latest announcement from Ali Bardakoglu on terrorism and dress codes for Moslem women.

You know,the fact that the last caliphate was in Istanbul and the caliph was not an Arab might have something to do with the hostility to it from Arabs.

No sense in being dishonest,Islam is at heart an Arabic religion,the Arabs see themselves as the rightful heirs of the promises of God to Abraham through Ishmael.

Just a thought there. Turks may be Muslim,but they will always be second rate Muslims to Arabs.
I can certainly imagine that there's opposition to a caliphate among the more elite and educated Muslims, but also that there's a wide gulf between them and the average Muslim. Polls have shown that Muslims have a stronger sense of Muslim identity than national identity, which makes it hard for the states to resist such a trend.

With regards to the last comment, I'm not sure Muslim has meant Arab since many centuries ago. Bin Laden himself viewed Afghanistan as the last remaining stand of true Islam, and today the battle lines are in places like Somalia and Malaysia. I guess a lot of their religious sites are in the Middle East, but that's true of several religions.

You have to be willing to nuance this a little. Or trust me on this one. I'm a Christian and I have some fair degree of knowledge of Scripture. Bear with me and understand that others believe in these Divine pieces of knowledge,to include non Christians.

In Genesis,God made certain promises or covenants with Abraham. Ultimately,included was the main promise in human history,The Messiah of the Jews and the "needed one" of all the nations would come from Abraham's loins. He would be a Jew. That's The Biblical Promise.

Abraham foolishly did not believe God's Promise at one time because it involved Sarah,his wife. She was elderly and she actually told Abraham to screw Hagar,their Egyptian slave who was probably a good looking chick and young.

Abraham DID. Hagar had a boy,named Ishmael. That is the father of all genetic Arabs. Later,Sarah had a son,his name was Issac and THAT is the lineage of God's Promise.

The Bible teaches the seed of unbelief,Ishmael and the seed of belief,Issac will ALWAYS have enmity between them.

The Koran teaches that Ishmael is who God fulfilled this promise through,not Issac as The Bible teaches. The Koran is a frontal assault on The Biblical input in most areas incidentally. Through the Arab seed,not the "failure Jews". This is why the religion is an Arabic religion,it explains why non Arabs change their names to Arabic after conversion.

Religious Jews take pride in their role and so do Arabs. Both are wrong to. That's another story though. Bottom line,Arabs see themselves as the seed of the promise and all non Arabs are lesser Muslims,always will be.

No non Arab is seen as worthy of being a caliph,IMO,from the Arab view.
Palladin: what you've explained goes beyond the knowledge of 99% of Muslims. 80% of these people don't even know any Arabic, beyond a few simple prayers.

When our political leaders talk of "an empire that streches from Spain to Indonesia," they're talking about a political entity, not the Pope. A spiritual leader who advised people to keep their lives on the straight path or whatever would be fine, if that were all it was. The problem is when they start going into politics. Bin Laden is arguably the political leader of the Muslim world, and although he is originally from Saudi Arabia, that doesn't really seem to be his selling point, and, like I mentioned, he prefers to operate out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The political leaders are the ones we need to oppose, because a pan-Islamic political leader usurps the state system we have in place.
The Islamic world doesn't have a political leader. Muslims are extremely disunited - even the Arabs themselves have been unable to unify in over 60 years since Nasser first made a shot at the idea.

The Islamic states of medieval times were able to exist precisely because they recognized that diversity and thus were religiously and culturally tolerant.

Thats the irony. Osama's mythical state couldn't exist even if they tried to impose it by force. And thats something most Westerners can't get their minds around - that the Islamic world is so diverse.
Well, that's my point exactly. The Muslim world is extremely diverse, and in fact, this ideology of pan-Islamism, which most Muslims share, requires that someone need not have anything in common with anyone else other than their religion to join their 'empire.' That's why they need such a strong, charismatic leader to unite such a diverse coalition.

Bin Laden is the closest they have to a political leader. Sure he's not a political leader with an iron fist in the line of Hu Jintao or something like that, but he is the closest they have to it. He may not collect the garbage in any of his 'precincts,' but he has a consistent ideology with which to guide his 'foreign policy.' If an election were held today comprising everyone who considers themself part of such an 'empire,' Osama would win just for the lack of name recognition of any opponents, and their political divisions. Controversial, perhaps, but he is a man with a plan, which is more than any of the other pan-Islamists can say.
There are approximately one billion Muslims, but only about 200 million of those Muslims are Arabs - 20%.
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
There are possibly 1 billion Christians and Jews are the ROOT of Christianity as MY MESSIAH(and theirs) came through THEIR community. Within those 1 billion Christians,maybe only .05% are ethnic Jews today.

However,the branches(we gentiles) do not support the root of this tree,the root of this tree supports us. That is Jews. They have yet to see their greatest era.

That's how it is in Christianity and I'm telling you guys that ARABS see themselves as the ROOT of the promise of God to Abraham(not Jews) concerning the true FAITH of the 1 true God. I say they are wrong,The Bible says they are wrong,but the Koran says they are right.

No non Arab is worthy of being a Muslim caliph. That is why the Arabs revolted against the Turks during WWI.

Malaysians don't take Turkic names,they take Arabic names. Mohammad Ali is an Arabic name,Cassius Clay didn't consider taking a Malaysian name. It's an Arabcentric religion,always has been ,always will be.
Just as faith in Christ will always be associated with Jews and in the end Jews will be exalted above all nations in due time and The Messiah will rule the earth from Jerusalem.

However,we gentile Christians do not take Hebew names like non Arabic Muslims take Arab names,so all the more this is an Arab centric religion to the extent most think Arabic is a Divine language and refuse to have the Koran translated.

As far as Muslims being divided,that's a seperate debate.
But what does the religious theology have to do with anything.

It is what animates 95% of Arabs and you being an agnostic don't have the first idea of it. You may as well be driving 100 MPH towards a washed out bridge with me screaming and waving a white jacket to get your attention and you just drive right by calling ME a dam.ned fool.

We people of faith are not figments of your imagination and simply because you see all of us as idiots and children does not make us go away or of no consequence. In fact,we are of great consequence,both good and evil.

Your nation is at war with a religion driven mass of people who have various beliefs 100% antithet with their mentality does NOT mean your own family may not face evil due to them.

Therefore,I suggest you learn about them and stop seeing everything through the lenses of Darwin. That's all. They exist,they think through the mentality of Mohammad,it is past time you try and respond understanding that fact. He was a shrewd warlord of the 7th century,nothing else.

I see the world through the lenses of Jesus Christ,I am not shy about pointing this out. I am harmless to you and our nation. I am not harmless to Islam and do not intend to be harmless to Islam until they stop attacking the USA,Christians and Jews.
So they base their political ideas on worshipping a warlord. You base your political ideas on worshipping a true God, and I base them off of not worshipping anybody. How does that make you any closer to understanding them than me?
Actually, that's not entirely accurate. I do worship a false god - money.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)