Sam Harris on Fitna & coewardice of western media

#2
At 1:12 on the film ive never seen that angle of the plane hitting the tower quite shocking.
 
#3
Excellent article. Though will such a well argued point be allowed to see the light of day in the National Press?
It reminds me of a phrase I heard feminists chanting while protesting about the Israeli invasion of The Lebanon " We are Hizbollah!" I could never understand why they would say that as that organization is total opposed to every one of there ideals.
The Times posed the same question and the response? There not white so to criticise them is being racist!
 
#4
Again agreed,it is a great article and right on the money.Where are the great satirists when you need them?I want to see a film entitled 'life of mohammed' and dont want to have to wait two hundred years for the 'religion of peace' to grow up and take a bit on the chin.
 
#5
insert-coin-here said:
Again agreed,it is a great article and right on the money.Where are the great satirists when you need them?I want to see a film entitled 'life of mohammed' and dont want to have to wait two hundred years for the 'religion of peace' to grow up and take a bit on the chin.
FFS grow up. Apart from a few loonies EVERYBODY knows what the major threat is at the moment. These nutters films aren't adding anything new.
 
#6
MikeMcc said:
insert-coin-here said:
Again agreed,it is a great article and right on the money.Where are the great satirists when you need them?I want to see a film entitled 'life of mohammed' and dont want to have to wait two hundred years for the 'religion of peace' to grow up and take a bit on the chin.
FFS grow up. Apart from a few loonies EVERYBODY knows what the major threat is at the moment. These nutters films aren't adding anything new.
I take it you did not agree with the sentiment of the article then?And if it is mearly 'a few loonies' causing the trouble why does such a small group wield such a disproportional strangle hold over freedom of expression in the western media?Perhaps you think that the threats they make are to be taken with a pinch of salt?
 
#7
That movie is pathetic IMO. Does nothing but spread propaganda and make people even more ignorant to what's really going on.

Might as well make a video showing the kkk and neo nazis and relate that to all white people. Or maybe a video connecting christianity the kkk etc.
 
#8
DaPs said:
That movie is pathetic IMO. Does nothing but spread propaganda and make people even more ignorant to what's really going on.

Might as well make a video showing the kkk and neo nazis and relate that to all white people. Or maybe a video connecting christianity the kkk etc.
Did you actually bother to read the article? Your comments are ignorant and miss the point that is being debated.

The lesson we should draw from the Fitna controversy is that we need more criticism of Islam, not less. Let it come down in such torrents that not even the most deluded Islamist could conceive of containing it. As Ibn Warraq, author of the revelatory Why I Am Not a Muslim, said in response to recent events:

It is perverse for the western media to lament the lack of an Islamic reformation and willfully ignore works such as Wilders' film, Fitna. How do they think reformation will come about if not with criticism? There is no such right as 'the right not to be offended; indeed, I am deeply offended by the contents of the Koran, with its overt hatred of Christians, Jews, apostates, non-believers, homosexuals but cannot demand its suppression.

It is time we recognized that those who claim the "right not to be offended" have also announced their hatred of civil society.
 
#9
DaPs said:
That movie is pathetic IMO. Does nothing but spread propaganda and make people even more ignorant to what's really going on.

Might as well make a video showing the kkk and neo nazis and relate that to all white people. Or maybe a video connecting christianity the kkk etc.
You ignorant tit. You're part of the problem. Try reading the article before gobbing off.
 
#10
Given how much the Western media bashes Muslims these days, I wouldn't say that they were shackled by political correctness.

For an intelligent Muslim response to the current problems in the Islamic world, you should read this: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/moonlight.htm

The author is the Professor of Islamic Studies at Cambridge and probably the best-known Islamic theologian in the UK today.

Traditional Sunnis intuit that al-Qaida is a Western invention, but one which cannot be defeated in a battleground where the logic is Western. This was one of the messages that emerged from the 2003 summit meeting of eight hundred Muslim scholars at Putrajaya. Al-Qaida is inauthentic: it rejects the classical canons of Islamic law and theology, and issues fatwas that are neither formally nor in their habit of mind deducible from medieval exegesis. But it is not enough for the entire leadership of the religion to denounce al-Qaida, as it did at Putrajaya, and then to hope and pray that the same strange logic of modernity that bred this insurgency can spirit it away again. The West inseminates, but does not so easily abort. Faced with this, the Sunni leadership needs to be more alert to its responsibilities. Even the radical Westernisation of Islamic piety remains the responsibility of Muslim ulema, not, ultimately, of the Western matrix that inspired it. And it has to be said that the Sunni leadership has not done enough. Denunciations alone will not dent the puritan’s armour, and may strengthen it; this the Counter-Reformation learned by experience.
The argument is that al-Qaeda is a fundamentally modern phenomenon, like fascism or communism, and has nothing to do with the traditional Islam of the ulama.

The targeting of civilians is more Western than otherwise; contemplating the Ground Zero of a hundred German cities, this can hardly be denied. Yet it will be claimed that suicidal terrorism is something new, and definitively un-Western. Here, we are told by xenophobes on both sides, the Islamic suicide squads, the Black Widows, the death-dealing pilots, are an indigenously Islamic product. And yet here again, when we detach ourselves from the emotive chauvinism of the Islamists and their Judeo-Christian misinterpreters, we soon find that the roots of such practices in the Islamic imagination are as recent as they are shallow. The genealogy of suicide bombing clearly stretches back from Palestine, through Shi‘a guerillas in southern Lebanon, to the Hindu-nativist zealots of the Tamil Tigers, and to the holy warriors of Shinto Japan, who initiated the tradition of donning a bandanna and making a final testament on camera before climbing into the instrument of destruction. The kamikaze was literally the 'Wind of Heaven', a term evocative of the divine intervention which destroyed the Mongol fleet as it crossed the Yellow Sea.
Shaikh Abdul Hakim suggests that there is nothing inherently Islamic about suicide bombing; that in fact it has appeared in other cultures at other times; that it represents a mistaken interpretation of Islam.

An audio talk on a related subject here (criticising suicide bombing in the Middle East and praising pluralism in Jerusalem): http://www.halaltube.com/abdal-hakim-murad/audio/isra-wal-miraaj
 
#11
What a load of waffling crap. AQ is simply a name to cover extremists ideoligy, theres nothing modern or otherwise about it, its a name. This is an attempt to blame western society for Islamist fundamentalist terrorism. It's not my fault fuckwits are trying to murder non muslims in the name of god.

Suicide bombing is a tactic, no different than a right flanking.

He might be a clever bloke but he still talks rubbish.
 
#12
The article is interesting, but the film shows nothing we don't already know. I,m sure someone could come up with extracts from the bible that call for killing and punishment, and follow it up with some film clips.

It is the disproportionate amount of understanding and acceptance of the radical Muslim ranting that is the worry. Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus , Buddists etc etc would not be allowed to behave the same way, yet it could be argued they speak for larger proportions of our society than the Muslims do.
 
#13
It is the disproportionate amount of understanding and acceptance of the radical Muslim ranting that is the worry. Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus , Buddists etc etc would not be allowed to behave the same way, yet it could be argued they speak for larger proportions of our society than the Muslims do.
Now RAB that is the nub of the problem and you put is so clearly.
 
#14
Ord_Sgt said:
What a load of waffling crap. AQ is simply a name to cover extremists ideoligy, theres nothing modern or otherwise about it, its a name. This is an attempt to blame western society for Islamist fundamentalist terrorism. It's not my fault fuckwits are trying to murder non muslims in the name of god.

Suicide bombing is a tactic, no different than a right flanking.

He might be a clever bloke but he still talks rubbish.
That's too simplistic - the idea that AQ is a modernist ideology like Fascism has been recognised by many thinkers, including people as diverse as John Gray or Michael Gove.

Abdul Hakim Murad is a really important thinker because he is urging young Muslims to return to a traditional, pluralistic form of Islam, and to reject Wahhabism. He believes that AQ is a aberration created by Western modernity, with its "them-and-us" emphasis and its rejection of Islamic tradition. Maybe you think he's naive but if his ideas get more widely accepted (which seems to be starting to happen) then it can only be healthy for Muslims living in the UK.

I just wanted to suggest that there are other voices out there, and that "Fitna" is not an accurate representation of what Islam is about.
 
#15
Simplistic or not, it is not the wests fault radical islam is murdering its way across the world. This way of thinking seeks to place the blame for this behaviour somehow on my shoulders and I'm telling you its rubbish.

Muslims living in the UK will have to realise that religious murder is not acceptable, or excusable under any circumstances. It cannot be justified in any shape or form, end-fcuking-dex.

This bollocks seeks somehow to justify this murderous behaviour and I for one reject it outright.

I'm not anti-muslim, but you cannot justify the extremist viepoint in any way, so why are you trying to.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#16
Yellow_Devil said:
Ord_Sgt said:
What a load of waffling crap. AQ is simply a name to cover extremists ideoligy, theres nothing modern or otherwise about it, its a name. This is an attempt to blame western society for Islamist fundamentalist terrorism. It's not my fault fuckwits are trying to murder non muslims in the name of god.

Suicide bombing is a tactic, no different than a right flanking.

He might be a clever bloke but he still talks rubbish.
That's too simplistic - the idea that AQ is a modernist ideology like Fascism has been recognised by many thinkers, including people as diverse as John Gray or Michael Gove.

Abdul Hakim Murad is a really important thinker because he is urging young Muslims to return to a traditional, pluralistic form of Islam, and to reject Wahhabism. He believes that AQ is a aberration created by Western modernity, with its "them-and-us" emphasis and its rejection of Islamic tradition. Maybe you think he's naive but if his ideas get more widely accepted (which seems to be starting to happen) then it can only be healthy for Muslims living in the UK.

I just wanted to suggest that there are other voices out there, and that "Fitna" is not an accurate representation of what Islam is about.
Interesting point. In Palastine, Christians and Muslims live side by side, and are subjugated almost equally by Israel.

Extreme interpretations and views within Islam is due to the extreme language within the Q'ran and the poor literacy of many of the extremists.

For your man to state that colonialism is one of the roots of the problem is disingenuous. Most of the world was conquered and colonised by the West at one point, and American Indians still live on reservations; denied ownership of their own country. Many Indians are illiterate in the US, and yet, they do not seek to bomb their colonisers. If they were Muslims, perhaps the Indians might be doing the same thing.

India was comprehensively colonised by the British, and many, many Indians were killed fighting for independence, and yet, they do not seek to bomb the West or murder civilians. They do not have the oil wealth of the Middle East, and yet, they work hard, the respect women, and they will soon by one of the worlds largest economies.

Perhaps if India was a Muslim country . . .
 
#17
Yellow_Devil said:
Given how much the Western media bashes Muslims these days, I wouldn't say that they were shackled by political correctness.

For an intelligent Muslim response to the current problems in the Islamic world, you should read this: http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/moonlight.htm

The author is the Professor of Islamic Studies at Cambridge and probably the best-known Islamic theologian in the UK today.

Traditional Sunnis intuit that al-Qaida is a Western invention, but one which cannot be defeated in a battleground where the logic is Western. This was one of the messages that emerged from the 2003 summit meeting of eight hundred Muslim scholars at Putrajaya. Al-Qaida is inauthentic: it rejects the classical canons of Islamic law and theology, and issues fatwas that are neither formally nor in their habit of mind deducible from medieval exegesis. But it is not enough for the entire leadership of the religion to denounce al-Qaida, as it did at Putrajaya, and then to hope and pray that the same strange logic of modernity that bred this insurgency can spirit it away again. The West inseminates, but does not so easily abort. Faced with this, the Sunni leadership needs to be more alert to its responsibilities. Even the radical Westernisation of Islamic piety remains the responsibility of Muslim ulema, not, ultimately, of the Western matrix that inspired it. And it has to be said that the Sunni leadership has not done enough. Denunciations alone will not dent the puritan’s armour, and may strengthen it; this the Counter-Reformation learned by experience.
The argument is that al-Qaeda is a fundamentally modern phenomenon, like fascism or communism, and has nothing to do with the traditional Islam of the ulama.

The targeting of civilians is more Western than otherwise; contemplating the Ground Zero of a hundred German cities, this can hardly be denied. Yet it will be claimed that suicidal terrorism is something new, and definitively un-Western. Here, we are told by xenophobes on both sides, the Islamic suicide squads, the Black Widows, the death-dealing pilots, are an indigenously Islamic product. And yet here again, when we detach ourselves from the emotive chauvinism of the Islamists and their Judeo-Christian misinterpreters, we soon find that the roots of such practices in the Islamic imagination are as recent as they are shallow. The genealogy of suicide bombing clearly stretches back from Palestine, through Shi‘a guerillas in southern Lebanon, to the Hindu-nativist zealots of the Tamil Tigers, and to the holy warriors of Shinto Japan, who initiated the tradition of donning a bandanna and making a final testament on camera before climbing into the instrument of destruction. The kamikaze was literally the 'Wind of Heaven', a term evocative of the divine intervention which destroyed the Mongol fleet as it crossed the Yellow Sea.
Shaikh Abdul Hakim suggests that there is nothing inherently Islamic about suicide bombing; that in fact it has appeared in other cultures at other times; that it represents a mistaken interpretation of Islam.

An audio talk on a related subject here (criticising suicide bombing in the Middle East and praising pluralism in Jerusalem): http://www.halaltube.com/abdal-hakim-murad/audio/isra-wal-miraaj
Prior to 9/11, the most effective (in casualty terms) suicide terror campaign was that of the LTTE, who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered Islamic. The phenomenon, in contemporary terms at least, cannot be seen to predate the 1983 bombings in Beirut. Pape's, Dying to Win; The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, draws a very clear relationship between the use of suicide tactics and the conjunction of occupation and the perception of religious difference in the occupier: history simply does not show the suicide attack to be a specifically Islamic phenomenon. It is now, on the basis that the areas which the West, and their proxies, are busy occupying are Islamic, but it is not axiomatic.

An essay which seems to make sense, though. 'Fitna' might not truly represent that which mainstream Islam has striven to be throughout the centuries, but it is a reasonable representation of the iman as it has come to be accepted by a swathe of contemporary individuals who see Islamism as a counterpoint to Western domination and a lack of cultural parity and individual identity.
 
#18
Biped said:
Yellow_Devil said:
Ord_Sgt said:
What a load of waffling crap. AQ is simply a name to cover extremists ideoligy, theres nothing modern or otherwise about it, its a name. This is an attempt to blame western society for Islamist fundamentalist terrorism. It's not my fault fuckwits are trying to murder non muslims in the name of god.

Suicide bombing is a tactic, no different than a right flanking.

He might be a clever bloke but he still talks rubbish.
That's too simplistic - the idea that AQ is a modernist ideology like Fascism has been recognised by many thinkers, including people as diverse as John Gray or Michael Gove.

Abdul Hakim Murad is a really important thinker because he is urging young Muslims to return to a traditional, pluralistic form of Islam, and to reject Wahhabism. He believes that AQ is a aberration created by Western modernity, with its "them-and-us" emphasis and its rejection of Islamic tradition. Maybe you think he's naive but if his ideas get more widely accepted (which seems to be starting to happen) then it can only be healthy for Muslims living in the UK.

I just wanted to suggest that there are other voices out there, and that "Fitna" is not an accurate representation of what Islam is about.
Interesting point. In Palastine, Christians and Muslims live side by side, and are subjugated almost equally by Israel.

Extreme interpretations and views within Islam is due to the extreme language within the Q'ran and the poor literacy of many of the extremists.

For your man to state that colonialism is one of the roots of the problem is disingenuous. Most of the world was conquered and colonised by the West at one point, and American Indians still live on reservations; denied ownership of their own country. Many Indians are illiterate in the US, and yet, they do not seek to bomb their colonisers. If they were Muslims, perhaps the Indians might be doing the same thing.

India was comprehensively colonised by the British, and many, many Indians were killed fighting for independence, and yet, they do not seek to bomb the West or murder civilians. They do not have the oil wealth of the Middle East, and yet, they work hard, the respect women, and they will soon by one of the worlds largest economies.

Perhaps if India was a Muslim country . . .
I am the last to suggest that imperialism is the reason behind contemporary Islamist Jihadism. However, it's disingenuous to suggest that there is no connection between the two, just as to compare the (?) pro-Western (?) stance of India to that of individual Muslims.

The conceit of Islam (rightly or wrongly) is that it was the hegemonic world power for centuries. That came to an end with the military-industrial expansion of the West and dissilusion of the Caliphate after WWI. The rise of the petro-economies has funded the spread of radicalism whilst post-colonial government in the ME has failed to live up to the aspirations of the wider population. Gove, who gets a mention above, suggests that much of the approbation reserved for Israel is fueled by the Arab governments who have failed to give their peoples the benefits provided by democracy in Tel Aviv.

Colonialism is not the reason for the rise of violent Islamism, but it is a factor in that rise. Absent the fall of the Caliphate, the Turks would still be ruling a creaking empire, and the debate would be moot.
 
#19
Ord_Sgt said:
Simplistic or not, it is not the wests fault radical islam is murdering its way across the world. This way of thinking seeks to place the blame for this behaviour somehow on my shoulders and I'm telling you its rubbish.

Muslims living in the UK will have to realise that religious murder is not acceptable, or excusable under any circumstances. It cannot be justified in any shape or form, end-fcuking-dex.

This balls seeks somehow to justify this murderous behaviour and I for one reject it outright.

I'm not anti-muslim, but you cannot justify the extremist viepoint in any way, so why are you trying to.
Why would I try to justify it? I am just pointing out that there are some really prominent theologians in the West who have completely condemned AQ and are urging Muslims to return to a more traditional, tolerant view of Islam. This particular thinker is very well-known for his staunch criticism of Wahhabism. He and others like him seem to be becoming more and more popular among young British Muslims even though they don't get much attention in the mainstream press (that's just an anecdotal impression btw, there are still plenty of Salafis around).

I don't like "Fitna" because it helps no-one. It antagonises Muslims because it implies that flying planes into buildings is justified by the Quran, and it winds up Westerners by suggesting that we shouldn't have these dangerous minorities in our midst.

I pointed to Abdul Hakim Murad as an example of a man who may actually change those famous Muslim "hearts and minds" that our leaders always tell us about. He can actually back up what he believes with the Quran and the Sunnah. He and others like him (Hamza Yusuf and the Zaytuna Institute for example) are pointing out the way that Muslims can retain their faith, and still reside in and participate in the political life of the West. Of course he is critical of many aspects of Western society - but to be honest, many ARRSErs would agree with him, eg. loss of moral values, damage to the family, drugs, alcohol abuse, etc. I don't doubt he is also critical of some parts of Western foreign policy, but he wouldn't exactly be alone on that, would he?
 
#20
Yellow_Devil said:
Ord_Sgt said:
Simplistic or not, it is not the wests fault radical islam is murdering its way across the world. This way of thinking seeks to place the blame for this behaviour somehow on my shoulders and I'm telling you its rubbish.

Muslims living in the UK will have to realise that religious murder is not acceptable, or excusable under any circumstances. It cannot be justified in any shape or form, end-fcuking-dex.

This balls seeks somehow to justify this murderous behaviour and I for one reject it outright.

I'm not anti-muslim, but you cannot justify the extremist viepoint in any way, so why are you trying to.
Why would I try to justify it? I am just pointing out that there are some really prominent theologians in the West who have completely condemned AQ and are urging Muslims to return to a more traditional, tolerant view of Islam. This particular thinker is very well-known for his staunch criticism of Wahhabism. He and others like him seem to be becoming more and more popular among young British Muslims even though they don't get much attention in the mainstream press (that's just an anecdotal impression btw, there are still plenty of Salafis around).

I don't like "Fitna" because it helps no-one. It antagonises Muslims because it implies that flying planes into buildings is justified by the Quran, and it winds up Westerners by suggesting that we shouldn't have these dangerous minorities in our midst.

I pointed to Abdul Hakim Murad as an example of a man who may actually change those famous Muslim "hearts and minds" that our leaders always tell us about. He can actually back up what he believes with the Quran and the Sunnah. He and others like him (Hamza Yusuf and the Zaytuna Institute for example) are pointing out the way that Muslims can retain their faith, and still reside in and participate in the political life of the West. Of course he is critical of many aspects of Western society - but to be honest, many ARRSErs would agree with him, eg. loss of moral values, damage to the family, drugs, alcohol abuse, etc. I don't doubt he is also critical of some parts of Western foreign policy, but he wouldn't exactly be alone on that, would he?
I'm assuming that the aim of the film was for the Musilms to be antagonised by those amongst them who see the flying of planes into buildings as Qur'anically justified rather than jumping on that self same bandwagon and shooting (literally, it would appear) the messenger.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
2 Army Pay, Claims & JPA 15
The_Tara AGC, RAPTC and SASC 15
E The Intelligence Cell 36

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top