What is Digg?531 Comments
- RadiantBeing, on 01/16/2008, -12/+55I'll believe it when it's as easy to build churches in Muslim countries as it is to build mosques in Western ones. I'd also be less skeptical of a "civilized" peace if they'd stop hanging gays, forcing their women to cover up, preventing women from driving, stoning women as a punishment for rape, issuing death threats to novelists and cartoonists, etc, etc, etc.
- sherrife, on 01/16/2008, -15/+56I deeply disagree with the dichotomy between 'Islam' and the West, even though the sentiment is fine in this case. In what sense is Islam monolithic? None, just take a look at Iraq. In what sense is Islam a coherent political system? Not in any real sense at all (compare Saudi Arabia with Malaysia, _Iran with Turkey_). How then does the Malaysian PM and anyone else seek to unite these disparate forces into one broad stereotype? Nobody with any academic credibility (sorry Huntington, Fukyama etc.) talks about a Christian civilisation, so how is it acceptable/useful to describe there being an Islamic one?
And why do they ignore the "peace between civilisations" that already exists within our nations? There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims here in Oz, and millions in Europe and the US. _We are already living in harmony_.
The reason for all the wars from our side and all the 'terrorism' (it's a term used fairly in many cases, but totally unfairly in others) from the other side is purely material: resources. Terrorists don't hate our freedom, they hate seeing their family and friends with totally disempowered and living in ***** conditions as a result of the US propping up disgusting states. - inactive, on 01/16/2008, -13/+51Can't we all just... get a bong?
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -28/+61Sorry Albion, I don't buy it. 800 years of Moorish dominance tells a different story.
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -9/+32FTA - "In many cases, Muslim countries have fallen behind because they have rejected the pursuit of knowledge, a fundamental injunction of Islam. Some Muslims have closed their minds and allowed the weight of tradition and narrow religious interpretation to stifle inquiry and innovation. Limiting knowledge to religious matters and an overemphasis on rote learning extinguishes the spirit of discovery. This is a disservice to Islam."
I couldn't agree with this more. The majority of Muslims in the world today follow their own cultures rather than the teachings of Islam. It is a fact, that over 80% of Muslims have virtually no understanding of the Quran. The "Enlightenment" phase of the Islamic civilisation was when Muslims adhered to the rulings of the Quran in all spheres of life, especially the economic sphere. The Gold and Silver standard of currency, coupled with a zero tolerance of interest/usury allowed the masses to flourish economically which allowed the Muslims to excel in education, research and innovation. It was in these times that some of the most fundamental principles of science, that we take for granted today, were discovered, such as Algebra (Al-Jabr), the concept of zero in mathematics, advances in Alchemy and more.
See www.muslimheritage.com for more on Muslim achievements during this phase.
In order for Muslims to return to this glorious state of economic justice, peace, innovation, and tolerance of other religions, it is undoubtedly necessary for Muslims to strive to understand their holy book. www.quranexplorer.com - zappa717, on 01/16/2008, -2/+22"But in doing so we need to ensure that the voice of the weak and marginalised is heard. " - That would be a nice change.
- sherrife, on 01/16/2008, -10/+26Really, all we can do is laugh at your... whatever it is you suffer from. Capitulate to whom? Surrender to whom? And what are we redeploying exactly?
Also, half of us aren't even liberals, we're revolutionaries. Massive difference. - Albionshores, on 01/16/2008, -9/+23I actually thought that too and that the Malaysian Prime Minister was being a tad 'harsh'. If viewed from a more contemporary point I do think it resonates more fairly but I know where you're coming from. I think prime minister Badawi was trying to strike a balance. The first half diplomatically addressing erroneous Western perceptions; the latter is more Islamic self-inspection which, being Muslim himself, he probably feels more at liberty to comment on constructively.
That said, I nearly went with a EuroNews report on the launching of the Alliance of Civilisation. I decided not to as it is just one paragraph and a short video clip, perhaps that would have been Digg friendlier but not as Digg worthy, but there was a snide jab at the end which said because France and Germany weren't keen on Turkey joining the EU. In, my opinion, is neither here nor there: countries can disagree on EU membership and still have an understanding and civilised appreciation of one another but there are economic considerations to take into account.
So I decided to go with the Financial Times and a muslim prime minister's take. I did however go with EuroNew's headline.
http://tinyurl.com/yukn5k - JazzFlight, on 01/16/2008, -1/+15I believe you mean "The Moops". That's what it says on the card, anyway.
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -10/+23Sherrife, all that is necessary is to read the history of Islam's relationships with the west. I would like you to show me an example of a pluralistic Islamic country, kingdom or Caliphate that has given equal rights to non-muslims. I would like to hear about the Muslim state that allowed the real and free exchange of ideas that veered from Koranic orthodoxy.
Islam is NOT like Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism. It is a system that demands submission and conformity. It is a system that demands the adherents to keep separate from the "unclean". It demands that they advance the Dar al Islam by converting the heathens through faith or by eliminating them with the sword.
The West will embrace the cultural acceptance of Islam among us at our peril. That is not politically acceptable, but it is like Global Warming. If we wait to see whether they are really dangerous among us, it will be too late to stop their advance. - inactive, on 01/16/2008, -4/+16Allow me to attempt to "Enlighten" you Liam76. I feel sorry for your ignorance.
"I am sure that was a great time for women, who had no rights (could be beaten by husbands, killed for infidelity, etc)"
Actually, women had more rights under Islam than anywhere else in the world. Women were entitled to vote (yes, vote, as early as in the time of Umar b. Al Khattab caliphate), were looked after by their families and highly honoured and venerated, and had the right to their own wealth. They were in some cases better off than men as they were not obligated to provide for their family from their wealth as men had to. It is an article of faith for a Muslim to love and respect his mother more than any other person in the world. If a father and a mother were to instruct 2 different things to a child, it is obligatory for the child to listen to the mother.
Please see one of my favourite talks on the topic to help with your enlightenment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1irxNIDrxwo
"Even the Jews and christians had to pay special tax."
It is true that non-muslims had to pay a special tax under the caliphate. But did you know that they were exempt from the obligatory zakat tax that Muslims have to pay? Didnt think so. This "special" tax for non-Muslims was approximately the same amount as the zakat tax and was used to provide for the non-muslims in terms of protection, healthcare, infrastructure etc.
"For its time in the world they were more accepting than most other single religion "empires", however they were far from celebrating fairness, freedom, and equality by todays standards in the west."
With virtually every single email being intercepted and our calls being tapped, are you sure about that?
"I don't know what 80% you are spaeking about because in all the muslim countries I have been in every muslim has read the Koran (which is mre than most christians)."
Virtually every Muslims can READ the Qur'an but few can actually understand the classical Arabic language. In Pakistan for example, everyone can read the Quran because the urdu language uses the same letters as Arabic, but few understand it. - Tangaroa, on 01/16/2008, -7/+19>how me an example of a pluralistic Islamic country, kingdom or Caliphate that has given equal rights to non-muslims
Lebanon before the PLO invaded. You could also consider Baathist Iraq and Iran under the Shah, but hardly anyone had any rights in those countries.
>I would like to hear about the Muslim state that allowed the real and free exchange of ideas that veered from Koranic orthodoxy.
That would be most of them before the fall of the Caliphate and the 20th century's rise of right-wing extremism. A lot of science in the middle ages came out of Islamic countries precicely because they allowed and encouraged the free exchange of ideas. - istreamo, on 01/16/2008, -8/+20"the proof is in the pudding" that 19 Islamic nations on this planet and NONE, ZERO, NIL, ZILCH have any resemblance of modern democracy, woman's right, modern justice, gay (in case of Iran).
- Delphium226, on 01/16/2008, -2/+12Thanks for taking the time to write a comment here between your patrols in Iraq. I assume you're in Iraq or else you'd just be another chicken trying to squawk like a hawk.
- megaloid, on 01/16/2008, -0/+10True, to an extent. The Moors were much more just and rational rulers than the sociopathic Ferdinand and Isabella. That pair laid the groundwork for Spain's future decline by expelling or murdering the mercantile classes, that is, the Jews and the Muslims. After 1492, instead of banking that stolen New World gold and silver, the Spanish nobility blew it all on the usual wars and palaces.
- longchamp, on 01/16/2008, -4/+14I would support this if they'd assure just as many workers in the USA educating our own fundamentalist nutballs.
- sherrife, on 01/16/2008, -5/+14I disagree that he's only attacking erroneous western perceptions. Like the thing about Islam being necessarily political. There is no universal reason why Islam has to be political at all. The only reason he was saying that is because in Malaysia they rulers are using 'Islamic law' (read: politically convenient laws) to clamp down on civil liberties of the fringe (read: progressive/non-conformist/rebellious) elements of society. That part of his argument is totally self-interested as a member of the ruling elite.
- Cayfox, on 01/16/2008, -1/+10Agreed. Out of interest, are you familiar with Edward Said or Homi K. Bhabba? What you're describing sounds a lot like what Said terms 'orientalism'. It's amazing how much power these cultural myths exert.
- noahhoward, on 01/16/2008, -5/+14Oh yeah all those Christians that have been beheading Muslims on camera in the name of God are a real menace. Then there was that time when those Christians put a Muslim teacher on trial because she let her Christian students name a teddybear Iahova.
Please... get a clue. - jbur816, on 01/16/2008, -21/+30Great find. Beautiful idea, wish more people would read this and truly take it to heart and understand it. I will pass it on to my Muslim friends. Thank you.
- froggy000, on 01/16/2008, -1/+10"You be optimistic, I'll be realistic."
This article makes a few good points but, as you see with even the most progressive Muslims, he is entirely unwilling - more appropriately, unable - to address the role of the Quran and Sunnah in all of this.
"For Muslims, then, religion can never be a purely private matter for, unlike other prophets, Mohammed steered a state and established principles of governance that embody these values.
This does not mean that Muslims are driven to create Taliban-like states everywhere."
Well, actually it would seem as though it does, far too often. From Afghanistan, to Thailand's "restive" South, to Malaysia, to Indonesia, to the Phillipenes, we see more and more Muslims attempting to do exactly that, by force, by "the sword." A whopping 40% percent of Muslims in the UK would prefer to live under Sharia law. Mohammed is "an excellent model of conduct," to be emulated all the way down to facial hair grooming. And Mohammed spread Islam, quietly when necessary and then by the sword when he was able. Likewise, the Quran, to Muslims, is the literal, unchanged word of god. It cannot be changed, it cannot be watered down. We'd all much prefer to believe that the menace comes not from those who understand Islam, but who “misunderstand” it, or who take an “extreme” rather than perfectly orthodox view of its teachings. This is simply not the case. - misfit410, on 01/16/2008, -14/+23I'm sick of these morons
1) when the Quran clearly states it is demanded in many places in the book to seek out Christians and Jews and kill them, where do you get off saying these people don't follow it by seeking out Christians and Jews and killing them? I would say it's the moderate muslims who have ignored the more harsh realities of the religion. Let's not forgot that Muhammod the Prophet became Muhammod the warlord, the man went insane and the writings show how it progressed.
2) Stop feeding up crap about what Islam created, Algebra was not invented by Muslims, it was invented around 1700BC, Islam did not exist until around 620ish AD.
Algebra originanted from the Babylonians around 1800BC which is over 100 years before any traces of it were found being used in any middle eastern regions. - Metman, on 01/16/2008, -0/+97?
Wake up. This is not a Liberal/Neo-con issue. This government, regardless of political persuasion has been trying to manipulate affairs in that region of the world since (and in some cases prior) to WWII. But hey let's pretend that we were oblivious to this fact and blame it all on the current administration. For those who want to argue we have done more damage in the past 7 years then prior - you many want to consider what sparked the 7 day war and why Iran held hostages for more then a year. I do not stand here and argue that Czar Bush has not done more then his share of damage, but stop trying to act as if everything was fine before this administration. - MeatBiProduct, on 01/16/2008, -12/+21So are we going to take the fundamentalism out of the Muslim religion? You'll have to rewrite their book in order to change how they perceive everyone else around them.
- Liam76, on 01/16/2008, -4/+12"In what sense is Islam monolithic?"
Try living in a few Islamic countries. Learn the language or at least start to read papers from muslim countries that are translated into english. From Egypt to Maylaysia and indonesia there is a movement for a pan islamic state. There is a strong push for Islamic laws.
Now you can draw some parallels from the "christian right" who want more religious based laws, but how much support do they have? Do people who speak out against them in the west have to fear for their lives? have you ever heard of a serious movement that wants to unite north America, Western Europe, and all christian countries into a single state? - p4r1tyb1t, on 01/16/2008, -3/+11What story it tells, you? Watch the movie 'When Moors ruled Europe' on Google video.
Only way peace can be achieved is to remove your forces from our lands, withdraw your backing of tyrants, and lets us deal with our own way of life, distinct and different from your. and only then there can be a dialog! - Wholekernalcorn, on 01/16/2008, -4/+12Ok...some Muslims come to the West to "escape" the oppression of some Islamic countries. They worship Allah without hatred. But the facts are that some Muslims come to the West to do just the opposite. They preach hatred, racism, intolerance and no matter how hard you talk to them...they don't listen and want nothing to do with Western freedoms of speech, religion, press other than to spread their lies. Conversion to Islam through violence is their goal. IMO a good judge of a society is how well they treat their peoples. An example are Gays and Rights for Women. When I see a Gay Day or Women burning their hijabs and burkas in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on...then I'll believe that Islam has seen the light.
- source1984, on 01/16/2008, -8/+16umm... Please speak IN CONTEXT. You can't compare yesterday's civilizations by today's standards. You judge them based on their historical standards. The Moors were GREAT, producing many scholars (Jewish, Muslim and Christian) and were RELATIVELY tolerant of other faiths. If only Muslims in Christian lands (very few anyway) were living like Christians lived in Moorish territory. But if you want to take things all out of context then I would say that the greeks were SAVAGE barbarians (compared to today's standards) but that would put a damper on your world view wouldn't it?
- noahhoward, on 01/16/2008, -3/+11It isn't so much the individuals but the ideals and those who support them. Mutilating a woman because she dared to speak? Killing your daughter because she had sex before marriage? There are vast populations of Muslims who at the very least are complicit in all this. I can welcome anyone who can live peacefully in a modern moral society, but the Islamist ***** needs to be checked at the door. My religious tolerance does not extend to savagery in the name of a god.
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -2/+9That's because most Christians know that these were the commands given to the Jewish people in Old Testament Israel and are not commands to Gentile nations.
Wait...you did know this, right? - Liam76, on 01/16/2008, -2/+9"Lebanon before the PLO invaded. You could also consider Baathist Iraq and Iran under the Shah, but hardly anyone had any rights in those countries."
How long did that last? - nirav72, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8I'm an indian, so I can probably speak about this better than you can. The majority might be hindu in india, but doesn't mean we are or have been living in peace. India has been dealing with muslim fundamentalist since its independence. Muslims would've been the majority if it weren't for the arrival of the Brits. Also, Islam in india did spread by the sword. Go read indian history. One of the moghul rulers even had a special tax for "non-muslims" in india.
- GoatRoper, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8Thats why religion needs to stay out of government
- Albionshores, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7I think you might be misjudging him. I feel that he was being genuine. The article defends both Western and Islamic culture. It takes time to point out how they wrongly perceive others too and criticises both sides.
- stanleyford, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7"Why do they need to recognise Israel?" -- They need to recognize Israel because Israelis deserve to live in peace just as much as Muslims do.
- OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 01/16/2008, -0/+7it takes media campaigns and dialogues like this one to end violent extremism and ignorance. We have a great example of that in America. 100 years ago, we had christian fundamentalism in the ku klux klan (who were terrorists) and 1000 lynchings a year. Then we had a huge media campaign against them, ended segregation, and now we're better off for it. don't hate, educate
- thepeacemaker, on 01/16/2008, -6/+13So many here are talking about Muslim fundamentalism and intolerance. Wonder how many of these knights of democracy are currently out on the streets protesting their president selling 20 billion dollars of deadly weapons to Saudi Arabia - the source of intolerance and radicalism in the Muslim world. While mainstream Muslims, both Shia and Sunni, are struggling to counter the petro-dollar backed radicalism of the Saudis in their countries, American public (yes, in a democracy it's the public really isn't it) is supporting this brutal women and minority hating regime.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 01/16/2008, -3/+10You are fooling youself if you think it is the US that ruined countries like Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan. Look in a mirror if you want to see the monster that is destroying Islam.
- CptAmerica, on 01/16/2008, -9/+169-11 never happened I guess? ISLAM kills people every day. I don't know why you can't see that. Look at the numbers for Gods sake. Car bombs, beheadings, suicide burners. How many more have to die before you realize that they are a problem to this world. Get your head out of your ass.
- OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8great post zechetti, but I want to disagree on one point. The tax for jews and christians was actually much much lower than the typical tax payment that a Muslim pays (I read a few places that jizya was actually as low as 10 dirhams a year on every able-bodied male, no women children or elderly). Also, in some cases, the tax on jews and christians was actually refunded when social services provided by the state were not up to snuff. can you imagine the American government cutting us a check for not getting the health care situation straight?
- sumGIRL, on 01/16/2008, -5/+11"Reported." Like a good little nazi brownshirt...
- source1984, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6I'm not even going to reply to every single thing, as Zeecchetti got most of it, but I encourage you to expand your knowledge on Islam from different sources than the ones your using now. I take it your current sources involve a Spencer, a Pipe, or a Weiner?
- Waiting2awake, on 01/16/2008, -8/+14Ohh how cute, the neo-con spews.
I was going to comment more, but why bother? If you haven't learned in the last 7 years - you are far to obtuse to bother with. - GMorgan, on 01/16/2008, -2/+8It's not a matter of religion. The land is owned by the people who live there. All religious considerations should be considered entirely irrelevant. The Islamic people own that land because they have been there for about as long as there are strong historical records.
- directrix13, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6Whoever is there, right now, owns that land. I'm sorry, that's the only way anything can be resolved. If we keep digging back into the depths of history there will never be a CLEAR "owner". You talk like its so simple. What did war cease to exist in our ancient history? Oh and we shouldn't accept religious delineation. That would only breed more hatred. Separate but equal does not work.
- Albionshores, on 01/16/2008, -3/+9From an Islamic perspective it is essential that Islam is political, if one who believes in the Qu'ran is expected to follow it. Unlike other religious texts the Qu'ran is actually about setting up and the running of an actual state. In that sense it is a political work as well as a religious one. Too often brief references are made of the Qu'ran (I'm not accusing you of doing this - you do not) by those wishing to demonise it falsely (again as the prime minister argues) without forwarding the context or the whole. For example if only short quotations are read then it can be made to look like Islam encourages slavery - but on the contrary if the whole Qu-ran much of it is actually a political system to bleed slavery dry (Muslims were told they could buy only pre-existing slaves and then had to provide them with a way out of slavery).
Large swathes of the Qu'ran are about an individual's stately responsibility. That is the point the Malaysian prime minister was making. Where culturally a division of church and state is talked about in the west - culturally it is not the same from another perspective. That is not to say, as the prime minister argues, that Islamic states must therefore be retrospective thinking as sometimes seen in some states, or migrate to Taliban-esq rule of law. Much of what the West perceives as a reluctance to embrace is a 20th century interpretation made in the face of the Western cultural expansion in the same period.
One does not need to be Muslim to read a translation of the Qu'ran, which is essentially a short book. Once one has it opens the eyes to why Islam is political but not necessarily in a bad way - it also goes some way to explain frostiness in embracing Western culture.
Simply put there are two cultures: one does not have to be right at the expense of the other being wrong. To falsely demonise one is also an unneccessary expense and some interpretations are not indicative of the whole. - facewarts, on 01/16/2008, -3/+9"Each one hopes that if it feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last"
Winston Churchill - mahdaeng, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7I am certainly not pro-Islam, but you stated your point very well and earned a digg from me.
- Lackey10, on 01/16/2008, -0/+6I appreciate your view, but, honestly, with beliefs being what they are, Atheists have them too. What would really happen if there was no religion? People, craving resources, land, power, what have you, would simply find some other belief and/or cause to organize around and would find something else to fight about. I am only saying that it's more likely human nature, rather than a tool (such as religion), that causes violence and war. In case some of you believe in evolution, do you believe that primitive humans, before the invention of 'organized religion', did not fight? I doubt it. *Goes back to playing Civilization IV*
- funklor, on 01/16/2008, -15/+20The Moors were saints compared to their Spanish contemporaries. Read a history book.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 517 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is