A Pattern for Muslim/Non-muslim interaction?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by jumpinjarhead, Sep 9, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Without getting into the relative merits of the NYC mosque or quran burning issues that have been discussed already in other threads, I wonder if I am the only one who sees a pattern emerging in terms of the "islamic" position, strategy etc. (and I realize(s)e this is generalizing so if there are other "muslim" voices that do not take this approach I would be interested to see them) vis-à-vis the non-muslim world reflected in this:

    How are we non-muslims to interpret such an argument (or reality as in the case of the violence after the Danish cartoon or the fatwah against Rushdie etc.)going forward. Or put it another way, why is there this backdrop of violence an apparent common denominator?
  2. I suspect it is actual an "Mahgreb/Middle East/SW Asia" thing more than a "Muslim" thing. I don't see any real (i.e. popularly supported) protests in Malaysia, Indonesia or other democratic, muslim majority, countries. The protests typically happen in countries with an autocratic system of government, where protests against the "West" divert pressure away from the state.
  3. There are sections of the Muslim world that will use ANY excuse to try & stir up trouble against the West or any other non Muslim community! These are normally the extremists, unfortunately far too few of the moderate Muslims seem prepared to stand up and condemn/dispute the fanatics claims! Also many of the Muslim countries have comparatively poor literacy rates and depend on the local Imams or political leaders to tell them about world affairs, rather than taking what we would consider, an objective view by looking at wider issues!
    Living in a Muslim country I see this frequently, there is a lack of questioning, of curiosity to anything except the given authority of the Koran! All is justified by "insh Allah", the "will of god", very frightening when drivers take this view when overtaking on a blind bend (a very common occurence in this country, which is why with a population half of the UK they have more than four times the number of fatalities on the road)!
    I have said this on numerous posts and been heavily criticised for doing so, I would not expect the country I am living in to make any concessions for me, but continually and with ever increasing frequency the Muslim population living in the west expect and demand concessions to their archaic religion! Considering that Saudi Arabia, the epicenter of Islam, will not allow ANY other religions literature or centers AT ALL, whilst funding numerous Mosques & literature in the West, it strikes me as one way traffic!
  4. rampant

    rampant LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario here: with reagrds to the Iman using the fear of a backlash to justify the Community Centre staying put I don't think that is a deliberate or scheming ploy. He is absolutley right on the issue becoming so unbelieveably politicised it's ridiculous.

    Fear and prejudice has created a narrative on one side whilst feeding the fear and prejudice espoused in other. Neither narrative is in any way accurate but they have become so intertwined it is like two snakes trying to swallow each other by the tail.
  5. It's just a pattern that I know we will see grow in the future, from the Danish cartoons of Allah, the fatwa against Rushdie, the proposed Koran burning in the States, the reaction is the same. It tends to be violent and extreme, the rhetoric passionate and uncompromising, the tone strident and demanding, the scope rapidly escalating to an international incident. We seem to take it for granted these days but many of us can remember a time when an increasingly radical Islam was not expanding in all corners of the globe. When I came out of the Middle East twenty five years ago and voiced the opinion that the greatest threat to world peace in the future would be Islam, half my friends said "what's Islam?" With the West being so conciliatory and accommodating, there is no limit to expansion of this increasingly demanding, controlling and intolerant creed. Only the tiniest portion of modern Muslims seem willing to integrate or try to find some middle ground and even then they retain a quiet contempt for Western thought and tolerance. This was summed up when I was chatting with Ali at my local Indian (read Bangladeshi) restaurant a while back. He was telling me and the Llamette about his life and religious practices, summing up the conversation by saying with a smile . . "and that's what makes me a better person than you."

    I think we can expect to see this happening more often and the accusing finger of intolerance pointed at the West with ever increasing vehemence.
  6. I was listening to General Mattis introducing another speaker at the recent Joint War-fighting Conference. He characterised the current ISAF deployment as being in defense of the Enlightenment.

    "The Western intellectual, scientific, and cultural philosophy, promulgated during the 18th century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source for legitimacy and authority."

    Not too sloppy as aims go. I would stand up for reason against the forces of militant religion whether foreign or domestic.

  7. Because it worked in Europe. Look at the Spanish response to the train bombs in Madrid. You can find lots of minor things, like people bending over backwards to avoid offence, because the backdrop is the risk of violence from 'disaffected youth'.

    Most Americans don't see much news about what's happened in Europe, so this is all new to them. I just got back from a trip around the Pacific NorthWest (where half the cars still have 'Obama/Biden 2008' bumper stickers on), and any 'threat' from Islam just isn't on the radar. This despite Abu Hamza's little visit to Oregon back in 1999-2000. The attitudes reminded me of England in 1995.

    The US Geert Wilders is probably still in High School, but I think there'll be a gap in the market relatively soon.
  8. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Nothing like a little bit of blackmail. While the worthy Imam is saying yes we can come to a deal, at the back of it is the threat of violence.

    "So let us have our mosque where we want it or you will feel the backlash, and it will be all your fault." is the way I am reading this.
  9. It's a bit like, 'if you don't do what I want, and I am reasonable, then the bogey-man will get you'. The man, posing as a moderate, is still using the threat of extremism to get his own way. Makes him an extremist in my book.

    The initiative is very much in their hands, and will remain so as long as the rest of us adopt a conciliatory attitude to everything.

    The reason this sort of thing didn't happen many years ago is that it would be stamped on very quickly, with no press to see it or report it. Now we have decided that we are better, and people have rights, the world is arguable a better place but this sort of thing is the price we pay for 'freedom'.

    Bugger, isn't it?
  10. JJH, around 7-800 years ago Europe was full of uneducated peasants ekeing out a living from subsistance agriculture, with nothing much for entertainment except shagging their cousins and chasing livestock (or vice-versa in some parts like Norwich and Wales).

    When the head-shed of the day, a bunch of religious nut jobs based in Rome, decided something was bad (and they could earn a few quid into the bargain) they'd declare a holy war --Crusade in catholic---, and the peasantry would flock along for something to do.

    Deciding Jerusalem looked sunny in winter, and with ROE that simply said "No quarter", off they went to create mayhem.

    They continued doing this until a chap called Saladin found a secret supply of whupass.

    Much of Islamic territory is today in a similar state of ignorant peasantry led by nutjobs, with similar ROE.

    Who's got the whupass now, and the willingness to use it?

  11. Are you suggesting the long awaited sequel to the Crusades?
  12. With all due respect, sir, I have a better idea. Turning up and even delivering several hundred buckets of instant sunshine ain't going to do more than cull the inhabitants down to a greatly reduced but extremely embittered remnant, who will then hate our guts even more. No, what I suggest is that we offer them a Pandora's Box of high-end biotech.

    Firstly, let us offer and subsidise ways by which the gender of children a mother will bear can be altered at will. Islamic societies traditionally value males over females (macho culture, plus bride dowries etc) so we can reasonably expect that the male births will hugely out-number the female births when such technology is introduced, which will clobber future birth rates far, far more severely than if females were favoured over males. Even better, it'll be these silly buggers doing it to themselves, not us imposing a solution on them.

    Secondly, let us begin with a simple couple of observations. Many countries in the middle east have a very longstanding tradition of arranged marriages, where cousins are married together. Nubia is the worst of these countries, and there about 80% of the marriages are close cousin marriages. Now, if we look at pedigree dogs as shown at Crufts, then an incredibly high rate of genetic disease can be observed. All this was caused by inbreeding; occasionally brother-sister pairs but more usually close cousin pairings, and has taken an incredibly short time to wreak terrible consequences.

    Working from these observations, the wonder is not that the idiotic practice of close cousin marriage is practiced, but that the populations that do this sort of thing have not yet imploded from genetic armageddon. There must be some means whereby genetic diversity is being maintained. I propose that a low but pervasive infidelity rate is what is doing this. In Western populations, about 2% of the population are sired by someone other than their official father (known as the non-paternity rate if you want to google it).

    Close cousin marriages however are a lot less fertile than more outbred marriages; a lot of fertilised eggs spontaneously abort, or the child dies in pregnancy or early infancy from genetic faults. A similar rate of infidelity to Western cultures that here gives 2% non-paternity could in these stranger cultures give a non-paternity rate of as much as 20%, and in a primarily agrarian society, you only need a fairly low percentage of the population to have normal brains seeing as so much of the work is basic labour, do-able by any old moron, so this level of normal individuals is what keeps things going.

    However, just because it happens doesn't mean the fathers who're bringing up someone else's kid are going to like this; on the contrary they're going to hate the suggestion. Which is where Cunning Evil Plan #2 comes in: cheap paternity testing. Make it easy to see if all your kids are really yours. Do that, and the non-paternity rate is going to drop, and the society will rapidly become more inbred, and once again start to collapse.

    Implement those two technological tricks, and a large area of the middle east is going to become extremely busy for a few years, then extremely quiet thereafter.