Islam truly is The Religion of Peace... but not in the way you think it is. In Arabic, Islam is synonomous with peace. Salaam (or 'slm' as there are no vowels in Arabic) is the drawn out pronunciation of 'Islam.' They are basically the same word. But that is just one of three words in Arabic for 'peace.' The other two translate to 'cease fire' and 'reconciliation.' The word for 'reconciliation' however, also implies 'reconciliation among muslims.' The only word for peace that is applicable to those outside the Muslim faith is 'cease fire.' That is because if outsiders are to be converted to 'peace,' its only fair to allow them the chance to do so by temporarily ceasing hostilities. Without Islam, there is no salaam, no peace. They are the same. Salaam is essentially the state of peace brought about by Islam. The concept of peace, or salaam, is further complicated by its meaning- salaam is the peace of *submission to Islam.* It is not a peace that is void of violence, as we typically think of peace. Salaam is a peace void of *disobedience.* Obey Allah and the teachings of Mohamed to attain salaam, to attain peace. There is no other peace, because Islam is *the* (only) religion of peace. This concept is not an uncommon one. Its just an ancient one. Most of the worlds major religions justified violent spread and forced conversion by manipulating the concept of peace in this way. Christisnity and Judaism are notable in their history of 'convert or die (because *our* religion is the only path to peace.)' But Christianity and Judaism have undergone what we call 'reformation,' aka- a re-interpretation of orthodox (established or mainstream) doctrine away from forceful and violent conversion. Islam has undergone no such reformation- its orthodoxy still mandates that peace = *only* Islam. Given the true nature of this dynamic that Islam is still operating on such an ancient orthodoxy, there is no cooperative or coexistant relationship with Islam to be had without conversion to Islam or, at least, submission to its rule without a reformation within the orthodoxy of the beleif system. So, the question is- how can we make a reformation of Islam happen? The only other alternatives are convert, submit, fight, or wipe them out, and I think reformation is the prefferred course.
What exactly do we mean by reformation? What is called the reformation in the Christian world isn't exactly what we're looking for, it lead to 30 years of war and in the end, a lot of people stuck with Catholicism. We're looking more for what Christianity went through during the enlightenment. The problem is that you can't just instigate huge philosophical movements from nothing. The enlightenment was a reaction to the 30 year war (so maybe that would be necessary), it started with a scientific revolution (which would be hard to copy, given that science kind of already exists), it had a political part (which relied on governmental experiments like the French and American revolutions, things that would probably play out differently today). In the end, I think the pendulum always swings. I don't know how, and maybe we can take steps to make it less gruesome. Maybe not.
Ya, I certainly dont have all the answers. But at the rate we're going (especially in europe) there is fast approaching a singularity where large numbers of people will be forced to submit or convert to a very barbaric ideology, or face bloodshed on a massive scale. ...unless we come up with a third option (because I dont think the muslims are going to come up with a third option on their own).
Some religions have deep traditions and vast written Scriptures, all of which exhibit contradictions and inconsistent meta ethics, morals, history and theology. The actual evidence reveals it is quite easy to cherry pick from that material and invent all sorts of different interpretations, edicts and theocracies, many of which contain, not surprisingly, contradictions and inconsistent meta ethics, morals, history and theology. Thus, one group will profess "X" and another group will profess "Y".
Well, the thing is if they don't come up with it on their own, then it will just be seen as self-interested hand-me-downs from the west. ISIS didn't rise in the Middle East because democracy is such a terrible thing, it's just that it was brought by the west, so it's very hard to convince people that it's not just a ruse to benefit America. I'm not convinced the current track will inevitably lead to the kind of invasion you seem to elude to, but even if it is, I doubt that shouting our best solution at them and expecting them to adopt it will be a practical solution.
That's correct. We can softly encourage more liberal Western-friendly interpretations of Islam, like that followed by American Muslims, but ultimately our lecturing is liable to do more harm than good. Our best shot is to support some kind of political stability in the Islamic world while pushing nondemocratic but friendly governments to slowly democratize. Not easy tasks, either of them. We also need to temper anti-Islamic sentiment in the West, and the left really needs to start being more reasonable in their rhetoric on the topic. Saying things like "ISIS isn't Islamic" is blatantly obscurantist and ultimately counter-productive.
Im not so sure democratizing is a good idea in muslim high-density regions. Virtually all the places where muslims were getting along with the infidels and not so brutally subjugating their women were in autocratic dictatorships (Syria, Iraq, Libya...) that forced a degree of tolerance and moderation with iron fist. Toppling those regimes has universally led to total enslavement of women and barbaric slaughter of gays and minority religions. Perhaps after a reformation representative govt would be more of an option.
It depends, these tactics have to be particularly heavy-handed in places without great oil wealth, like Syria and Libya. Iraq has it's problems, but the ruling government is relatively liberal compared to say, Hussein or even Assad. Western support for dictators is one of the things that Middle Easterners find most hypocritical of our position in the Middle East. We should make it clear that we're perfectly happy to support democracies when they pop up, even if those democracies take forms that we're not fully comfortable with. I don't like Morsi, but he's better than Qaddafi.
Reformation and The Religion of Peace- what will it take? ※→ et al, First off, I'm questioning whether the basic premise that -- "Islam truly is The Religion of Peace..." -- is even correct. I'm not an expert on the subject "The Reformation," but as I understand it, The Reformation (Martin Luther comes into his own 1517 --- The Westphalia Peace Sovereignty and Treaties 1648,) had four main tripwires that eventually brought on the upheaval: • Certainly the element of Religion played a part; but it was anything other than in the service of the Supreme Being. • Economic is always in the mix of any conflict, as to be just assumed. The element of the class struggle between the Ruling Elite and the Working Class which were the engines behind the economy. • Politics is everywhere and all the time; never absent from any conflict. Rome as an established power (controlled science, education, philosophy, morals, and art), sanctioning coronations of Kings and Queens, above the taxation yet the church was the invisible hand that exploited the people and filled the Papal Treasury; extorting the moneies from the poor in exchange for Indulgences and absolution (not based on any Divine intervention) and the ever increasing need for Sin Eaters (another form of absolution and alternative to church justice) as a means for heavenly assent. • The differences in cultures: Well, in the Middle Ages, cultural range was almost village to village, and certainly fiefdom to fiefdom. But the spread of new ideas and the exposure to new things as travel increased, was also a contributing factor. So much so that the church had to take action retard the replication of publications to avoid controversy. I do not believe that these are the principle cause (prime mover) to radicalization of Islam; and the need for a reformation. There are generally four types of leaders in culture of Islamic followings: • The weak and silent. • The content with the status quo. • The hungry for power, wealth, and glory. • Self Righteous Zealots and Radical Religious Fundamentalist that believe it is divine inspiration. When we go to a conventional war, we attack Command & Control Centers. We call this "cutting the head off the snake." Do this often enough and the snake population drops to the point it looses all its capacity. If you eliminate the Power Hungry and the Zealots (supra), you are cutting the "head off the snake." *Why fight Islam?* The short answer is because Islam fights us and since it knows no borders and it knows no mercy, it will keep fighting us until we are defeated or we – hopefully – stop them forever. News.dk - 27 April 2017 Nicolai Sennels Islam has been allowed to run amuck simply because the predominant representation of the Islamic Population is weak, silent and seriously afraid. Those that are a little more successful are experiencing a better life and greater prospects than that which was their point of origin. The are content and are attempting to distance themselves from the troubles of a corralled ethnic neighborhood or region from which they came. Whether it is genetic (and there are a several different theories on that), or whether it is generational induction, we may not ever know. But then again, what do I know about it. Most Respectfully, R
How did you become an expert on Islam? Are you doing a cut and paste here or did you live in the Arab world for a period of years? What?
Syria has no oil.. never was a big producer, and by 2006 production was down to 30,000 bpd.. Not even enough to meet domestic needs. God knows what it is now since the RAF bombed the Omar field. Plus, its the crappiest petroleum in the whole region.... only fit for asphalt. Libya has fabulous oil reserves.. That's why there were 7 companies holding oil concessions before 2011.
Reformation and The Religion of Peace- what will it take? ※→ Margot2, et al, OH no... I'm not an expert in any subject. Certainly not Islam or its followers. With the exception of the quote (which I attributed), there are no cut 'n' pastes in that post (you can tell by my spelling). But again, I don't think I ever had an original thought in my life. My youngest daughter is the genius in my family; with an IQ of 165 (30 points higher than mine). In my house, I have to be careful about what I say, or I'll be corrected by one of the females in residence (all a bit more intelligent than myself). (COMMENT) I only have about five or six years in the Middle East. All the usual places (Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq --- and Afghanistan and Yemen) some business and some pleasure. My favorite place (when I was much younger) was the beach of Lebanon (before they shot-up all the resort hotels). But if you want to see the culture up close, and you're in NYC, stop by "Little Syria." It has been there since before my father was born and it really has a little touch of everyone (Palestinian, Lebanese, and Jordanian - to name a few) and great food and cafe'. But then, you can stroll down the streets of any major city in those Arab League Nations and see an a cast of those four faces as I have described. Even hear in the US, those that are opposed to radical Islam are relatively quiet. The loud ones will spare no effort in criticizing America. If we don't bomb DAESH, we contributing the onslaught. If we do bomb DAESH, we are the external interference and cause of every civilian casualty of the conflict and guilty of war crimes under the Rome Statues. There are no followers of Islam that will come to our defense. Now to be fair, there is an organization in the US called "Muslims for America." But is is all about domestic politics and the political process. And the divide is made even wider by the Muslim community cultural activity that are inconstant with America. By Cheryl K. Chumley - The Washington Times - Tuesday, April 18, 2017 ANALYSIS/OPINION: The arrest and charge of an Indian woman, Jumana Fakhruddin Nagarwala, for performing female genital mutilation on two young girls in Michigan, brings front and center the question of whether certain religions are compatible with America’s Constitution. Certain religions — ha. Let’s not dance around the room here. Islam, at least when it’s practiced — when it’s not approached as a menu of options, which believers will call an infidel’s way or worship, anyway — is incompatible with our country’s spirit of freedom, Founding Father principles and constitutionally based concepts of equality and justice. If the two, are someday to be amalgamate successfully, it will eventually happen in the US, but not overseas in my lifetime. Well I better cut this short. I probably said to much already. Most Respectfully, R
I know. That's what I was saying. I actually had no idea, which is embarrassing. My argument revolved around the idea that Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been able to use their oil wealth to maintain domestic stability. The fact that Libya failed to do so with such a fantastic oil-export to population ratio is a terrible reflection of the Qaddafi regime. I assumed that Libyan oil exports were insignificant. Libya should be as rich as Norway. I guess you learn something new every day.
