Mohammed was a child molesting cunt
2008-05-03 06:57:20 UTC
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870505155&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
If history works out in the end, the high price paid in blood and
suffering can at least be justified as having produced some good. But
what happens when it doesn't?
Clearly, radical Islamism and the region's current political troubles
have parallels with the European history of Christianity and Judaism.
Yet often the nearest equivalents date not from a few decades back but
rather from the 1500s and 1600s. That calendar gap shows why the
region's task is so monumental and lengthy.
In the 1500s and 1600s, Europe and its two main religions struggled
with the impact of modernization, rationalism and scientific thinking;
the challenge of new ideas; and revitalized interest in ancient pagan
Greece and Rome. Despite much bloodshed and repression, a way was
found to manage these contradictions.
Islam and the Arabic-speaking world, not to mention Iran, have still
not done so on a large scale. Before there can be democracy, rapid
development, social progress, equal rights for women and other such
changes, this job has to be done. And the work has barely begun.
How did the West move from a medieval world view into the Renaissance
and Enlightenment, and then on into the modern age? That's a complex
- the confidence that increasing knowledge, even if seemingly
contradicting religious dogma, was a way to understand the deity's
true plan for the world. The church sometimes acted against science or
technology, but not very often;
- accepting pluralism of belief, with Protestantism playing a key role
in establishing a range of alternative interpretations;
- incorporating a pragmatic view in which success was the ultimate
test, and practice trumped ideology;
- adopting reason as the ultimate tool for living in this world;
- a growing separation between religion and state, and room for
secularism in the public sphere.
WHAT DOES this all have to do with the contemporary Middle East? Quite
a lot. Not only do regional Muslim-majority states not accept these
principles but Islamists, with real success, are trying to turn back
Islamists and even mainstream Muslim clergy know how the story turned
out in the West, bringing about a vast decline of religion.
Thus Saudi cleric Muhammad al-Munajid, and many others, sound like
Spanish Inquisition zealots determined to stamp out anything new,
different, original, or individual.
Another parallel with Western history is the use of the Jew as the
demon of modernization, conspiring to subvert traditional society and
change as a way of gaining power.
Those who think the problem stems from a need to make Western policy
more palatable, showing enough empathy or appeasement, have no idea of
the historical processes in play. Consider an interview by Munajid on
Al-Majd television on March 30.
Focusing on the threat within Islam, Munajid warns (translation by
MEMRI) that advocates of change are heretics engaged in "a very
dangerous conspiracy." Why? Because rather than depending on clerics,
they claim the right to interpret Islam, are reopening the gates of
ijtihad - closed among Muslims for almost 1,000 years - and applying
reason to religious doctrine. "This is the prerogative of religious
scholars, not of ignorant people... fools or heretics."
Of course, Islamists as well as liberal reformers threaten the
mainstream (conservative) clerics' monopoly over Islam. Many Islamists
are not qualified theologians.
But moderates are more dangerous, in the mainstream view, since they
may loosen religion's hold altogether. Thus, mainstream clerics are
more sympathetic to radical Islamists - a key factor in the reformers'
weakness and the Islamists' strength. To paraphrase an old Cold War
slogan, they say: "Better green than dead."
Islamists and mainstream clerics carry this idea even into Europe
itself, trying either to keep the Enlightenment out of their own
communities, or even roll back European history. Sometimes they are
helped by befuddled "native" elites who have lost confidence in their
own civilization.
IN CONTRAST, among Jews and Christians, despite reactionary
tendencies, new interpretations were permitted to keep up with the
times. This came gradually to be considered the best way for these
faiths to survive and flourish. Many of their reformers were
themselves highly qualified clerics.
Early Protestants were burned at the stake; others won their rights
only in combat. But Europe changed.
Reformers could call for support on nationalism (Czechs and Dutch
revolting against foreign rulers); on aristocratic rulers seeking
their own interests (Henry the Eighth's divorce, nobles seeking to
loot monasteries' wealth); and on peasants' class resentment. These
factors play little or no such role in the Middle East today. On the
contrary, instead of a way to win more freedom or power, reform is
seen as a destabilizing tool used against Islam by foreign powers and
culture.
Moreover, Munajid and others know something past Europeans didn't: how
far secularism can go. As a result, Muslims are extraordinarily
insecure. Munajid warns that reformers "want to open up everything for
debate," so that "anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he
wants... If you want to become an apostate - go ahead. You like
Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem...."
Today, new interpretations; tomorrow, rampant alcoholism, short
skirts, empty houses of worship, and punk rock. It begins with freedom
of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with
freedom of belief.
In England, even when William Shakespeare was young, British
universities highlighted teaching about ancient pagan cultures. The
first modernist biography of Christianity's founder was published by
1830. Their equivalents are impossible in the Arab world in 2008.
Most clerics and their supporters simply don't believe they can win a
fair fight in the battle of ideas. Therefore, only repression will do.
Conflict is far "safer" than peace.
This is the real, underlying critique of the West and Israel: that
these places are bad role models, against whom windows and doors must
be barred. They must be made to seem so horrible as to close the eyes
and ears of the faithful to the temptations they offer. An iron
curtain must be lowered, behind which the isolated enthusiastically
embrace their isolation.
One sees this process at work even in "liberated" Iraq and
Afghanistan. The radicals want to roll back the West and destroy
Israel, which, they argue, wants to subordinate the Middle East
politically and transform it culturally. Most of the relative
moderates - regimes and mainstream clerics - want, at a minimum, to
hold Israel at bay and avoid a formal peace with it.
Remember, Sayyid Qutb of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood was driven to
extremism by his horror at life in 1950s' small-town Kansas. What
effect must 21st-century Western life, with its far greater excesses,
have?
Today the advocates of "medievalism" in the Middle East have mass
communications, modern organizational techniques - and, soon, even
nuclear weapons.
HOW TO BECOME A SHITSKIN MOSLEM - this is how: fuck goats, fuck yourIf history works out in the end, the high price paid in blood and
suffering can at least be justified as having produced some good. But
what happens when it doesn't?
Clearly, radical Islamism and the region's current political troubles
have parallels with the European history of Christianity and Judaism.
Yet often the nearest equivalents date not from a few decades back but
rather from the 1500s and 1600s. That calendar gap shows why the
region's task is so monumental and lengthy.
In the 1500s and 1600s, Europe and its two main religions struggled
with the impact of modernization, rationalism and scientific thinking;
the challenge of new ideas; and revitalized interest in ancient pagan
Greece and Rome. Despite much bloodshed and repression, a way was
found to manage these contradictions.
Islam and the Arabic-speaking world, not to mention Iran, have still
not done so on a large scale. Before there can be democracy, rapid
development, social progress, equal rights for women and other such
changes, this job has to be done. And the work has barely begun.
How did the West move from a medieval world view into the Renaissance
and Enlightenment, and then on into the modern age? That's a complex
- the confidence that increasing knowledge, even if seemingly
contradicting religious dogma, was a way to understand the deity's
true plan for the world. The church sometimes acted against science or
technology, but not very often;
- accepting pluralism of belief, with Protestantism playing a key role
in establishing a range of alternative interpretations;
- incorporating a pragmatic view in which success was the ultimate
test, and practice trumped ideology;
- adopting reason as the ultimate tool for living in this world;
- a growing separation between religion and state, and room for
secularism in the public sphere.
WHAT DOES this all have to do with the contemporary Middle East? Quite
a lot. Not only do regional Muslim-majority states not accept these
principles but Islamists, with real success, are trying to turn back
Islamists and even mainstream Muslim clergy know how the story turned
out in the West, bringing about a vast decline of religion.
Thus Saudi cleric Muhammad al-Munajid, and many others, sound like
Spanish Inquisition zealots determined to stamp out anything new,
different, original, or individual.
Another parallel with Western history is the use of the Jew as the
demon of modernization, conspiring to subvert traditional society and
change as a way of gaining power.
Those who think the problem stems from a need to make Western policy
more palatable, showing enough empathy or appeasement, have no idea of
the historical processes in play. Consider an interview by Munajid on
Al-Majd television on March 30.
Focusing on the threat within Islam, Munajid warns (translation by
MEMRI) that advocates of change are heretics engaged in "a very
dangerous conspiracy." Why? Because rather than depending on clerics,
they claim the right to interpret Islam, are reopening the gates of
ijtihad - closed among Muslims for almost 1,000 years - and applying
reason to religious doctrine. "This is the prerogative of religious
scholars, not of ignorant people... fools or heretics."
Of course, Islamists as well as liberal reformers threaten the
mainstream (conservative) clerics' monopoly over Islam. Many Islamists
are not qualified theologians.
But moderates are more dangerous, in the mainstream view, since they
may loosen religion's hold altogether. Thus, mainstream clerics are
more sympathetic to radical Islamists - a key factor in the reformers'
weakness and the Islamists' strength. To paraphrase an old Cold War
slogan, they say: "Better green than dead."
Islamists and mainstream clerics carry this idea even into Europe
itself, trying either to keep the Enlightenment out of their own
communities, or even roll back European history. Sometimes they are
helped by befuddled "native" elites who have lost confidence in their
own civilization.
IN CONTRAST, among Jews and Christians, despite reactionary
tendencies, new interpretations were permitted to keep up with the
times. This came gradually to be considered the best way for these
faiths to survive and flourish. Many of their reformers were
themselves highly qualified clerics.
Early Protestants were burned at the stake; others won their rights
only in combat. But Europe changed.
Reformers could call for support on nationalism (Czechs and Dutch
revolting against foreign rulers); on aristocratic rulers seeking
their own interests (Henry the Eighth's divorce, nobles seeking to
loot monasteries' wealth); and on peasants' class resentment. These
factors play little or no such role in the Middle East today. On the
contrary, instead of a way to win more freedom or power, reform is
seen as a destabilizing tool used against Islam by foreign powers and
culture.
Moreover, Munajid and others know something past Europeans didn't: how
far secularism can go. As a result, Muslims are extraordinarily
insecure. Munajid warns that reformers "want to open up everything for
debate," so that "anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he
wants... If you want to become an apostate - go ahead. You like
Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem...."
Today, new interpretations; tomorrow, rampant alcoholism, short
skirts, empty houses of worship, and punk rock. It begins with freedom
of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with
freedom of belief.
In England, even when William Shakespeare was young, British
universities highlighted teaching about ancient pagan cultures. The
first modernist biography of Christianity's founder was published by
1830. Their equivalents are impossible in the Arab world in 2008.
Most clerics and their supporters simply don't believe they can win a
fair fight in the battle of ideas. Therefore, only repression will do.
Conflict is far "safer" than peace.
This is the real, underlying critique of the West and Israel: that
these places are bad role models, against whom windows and doors must
be barred. They must be made to seem so horrible as to close the eyes
and ears of the faithful to the temptations they offer. An iron
curtain must be lowered, behind which the isolated enthusiastically
embrace their isolation.
One sees this process at work even in "liberated" Iraq and
Afghanistan. The radicals want to roll back the West and destroy
Israel, which, they argue, wants to subordinate the Middle East
politically and transform it culturally. Most of the relative
moderates - regimes and mainstream clerics - want, at a minimum, to
hold Israel at bay and avoid a formal peace with it.
Remember, Sayyid Qutb of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood was driven to
extremism by his horror at life in 1950s' small-town Kansas. What
effect must 21st-century Western life, with its far greater excesses,
have?
Today the advocates of "medievalism" in the Middle East have mass
communications, modern organizational techniques - and, soon, even
nuclear weapons.
mother (nikomak), molest children, wear a beekeepers outfit all the
time, never shower or bath, beat your wives, learn terrorist activities
at a maddrassa, wipe your ass with stones, sell the donkey you fucked to
a nearby village, marry a nine year-old , send your child off to an
indoctrination camp, practice thighing with little kids, ............
Practice all those and you too could become a prophet !!
Elif air ab tizak mohammad !!!!
mother (nikomak), molest children, wear a beekeepers outfit all the
time, never shower or bath, beat your wives, learn terrorist activities
at a maddrassa, wipe your ass with stones, sell the donkey you fucked to
a nearby village, marry a nine year-old , send your child off to an
indoctrination camp, practice thighing with little kids, ............
Practice all those and you too could become a prophet !!
Elif air ab tizak mohammad !!!!
***@muslimmatch.com or ***@muslimmatch.com or
***@googlegroups.com
***@islamsa.org.za
***@mweb.co.za
***@lantic.co.za
sanha-***@sanha.org.za
sanha-***@sanha.org.za
sanha-***@sanha.org.za
***@sanha.org.za