NEW REPORT ON SAUDI GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS IN U.S. (http://freedomhouse.org/religion/news/bn2005/bn-2005-01-28.htm)

This is an article that goes into some detail on publications that are allegedly sponsored by the Saudi gov't.

Some quotes from the article:

it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews when Muslims are in the lands of the unbelievers, they must behave as if on a mission behind enemy lines. Either they are there to acquire new knowledge and make money to be later employed in the jihad against the infidels, or they are there to proselytize the infidels until at least some convert to Islam. other Muslims, especially those who advocate tolerance, are condemned as infidels For a Muslim who fails to uphold the Saudi Wahhabi sect’s sexual mores (i.e. through homosexual activity or heterosexual activity outside of marriage), the edicts published by the Saudi government’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs, and found in American mosques advise, “it would be lawful for Muslims to spill his blood and to take his money;” Regarding those who convert out of Islam, the Saudi Ministry of Islamic Affairs explicitly asserts, they “should be killed;”I heard about this on the radio, and couldn't believe it was true. I found this story on the web, and still have a hard time with it. But given the circumstances of the murder of Hossam Armanious (http://http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004660.php) and his family, I am beginning to wonder. :confused:

I know that not all Muslims believe in this, perhaps not even a majority, but this stuff is Gov't sponsored! :mad:

Maybe you all are right about the ties between Bush and the Saudi Royal family. Why are we supposedly allied with this crew? :confused:

[ February 03, 2005, 22:22: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

bash Bush
bash Saudi king

O I L is the thick black thread which binds US to 'them'

and I get ****ing bashed on this forum by every last person for my negative feelings about Muslims.

...wow. I do wonder what the US is going to do. Well, Freedom of Speech says it's okay, but I think there might be trouble from, err, everyone who doesn't want to be killed by maniacal terrorists.

Well in Finland doing such a thing would be illegal. I do not know how it's said in English but if you are arrousing someone to kill/hurt someone else you are committing a crime. I don't know how it is in the US though but personally I feel that this kind of activity definently should be illegal.

The US ties to the Saudis is an interesting one. I wonder what would happen if a large scale revolution would brake out against the Saudi royals to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia. On the one hand the US has said that it will spread democracy in middle east so supporting the rebels would be doing exactly that but on the other hand the Saudi royals and the current government of Saudi Arabia have very close ties to the US and braking those would not be in the intrests of US.

I have to agree with Morgoroth, and kick the guy I have defended and indirectly voted for. We will not do anything to pressure the Saudis to hold elections. That does make Bush a hypocrite in this issue.

Prediction, if they aren't really already an enemy (just pretending to be our friends), they will be in the next couple of decades.

You can hold me to that one. :p

Sevorak, I never bashed you. Well at least not for anthing you have said about Muslims. :p :o

It's a lunatic fringe, to be sure, but you've got every right to be concerned and angry about this kind of thing. Anyone who indoctrinates people to see others as enemies not to be trusted on the basis of non-membership is a real problem and should be dealt with. Taking action is only a problem because it's not as simple as that, for a variety of economic and political reasons.

We lefties don't like to admit it, but we're aware and concerned about it as well (which explains some of what you cop, Sarevok). We just enjoy taking the moral high ground too much, which means having to be "more civilised" than that - which means "not stooping to their level" and trying to convince them otherwise. Fanaticism and evil often go hand-in-hand, regardless of motives, and we'd be fools to think ourselves different, but those inciting violence against everyone who's not "one of you" must be fought against, by whatever means are necessary (social, political, military or otherwise).

And sadly, all it takes for evil like this to triumph is for those of us who want a better future to do nothing. Apologies for the mangled quote... I think "good" and "evil" are a little too relative for this post.

I like the new term "islamists" as applied to lunatic fringe Muslims. It properly identifies those who espouse hatred and violence over the majority of Muslims who wish to live in peace. I'm not making any claims as to what the core values of the Quran are in terms of violence toward infidels...but heck...there are 200,000 denominations of Christianity with one Bible.

To so carelessly use the word "Muslim" to identify lunatic hatred held by a few only threatens to stir a mutual hatred in the oposite direction. Know your enemy. The enemy in this case is the islamist...even the enemy of non-crazy muslims.

"islamist" is the best new word since "byte". I think Fox News made it up.

and I get ****ing bashed on this forum by every last person for my negative feelings about Muslims.Nah, that's just because you are a racist.

Hey, don't look at me, he said it himself in an earlier thread.

[ Leave it be, or use PM if you have to. ] - Beren

[ February 03, 2005, 17:29: Message edited by: Beren ]

I like the new term "islamists" as applied to lunatic fringe Muslims. It properly identifies those who espouse hatred and violence over the majority of Muslims who wish to live in peace. Well islamists are no more lunatics than Christian Conservatives. Even the Turkish regime is currently controlled by islamists and they sure are not spreading violence or hate towards christianity in there. Islamists in general just promote islamic values just like Bush very much promotes christian values. The more fanatic islamists may be preaching for violence and terror but generalizing islamists as fanatics is wrong. Unless you consider the christian right as fanatics of course.

Unless you consider the christian right as fanatics of course. Not unless they start promoting murder and terrorism.

The difference here is that you don't see the western world out celebrating in the streets whenever a bunch of Muslims die. I realize that a lot of this has nothing to do with religion, and that it is a more a function of a group that has been bullied and feels downtrodden seeing those that they feel are oppressing them hurt. Such behavior natural. However it cannot go undressed. The Gov'ts that endorse this type of behavior have to be either convinced to change their policies, or removed. The President said something very astute last night.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/sotu2005/sotu_text2_2005.html

If whole regions of the world remain in despair and grow in hatred, they will be the recruiting grounds for terror, and that terror will stalk America and other free nations for decades. The only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom.
I wish he had expanded upon this with some type of plan to bring economic development to this region of the world. This is a difficult challenge as the Middle East really only has one natural resource, and is not really in a good geographical position for sea trade. We need to find an industry that the Middle East can develop much as Pac Rim has taken advantage of its abilities to provide industrial and manufactured goods.

IMO the fastest way to end this terrorism is to provide a taste of progress and capitalism to the people of this region.

Hopefully Iraq can be this example. Of course we (the US) will have to make sure we don’t mess this one up the way we did the Shaw and Iran a few decades ago.

Nah, that's just because you are a racist.

Hey, don't look at me, he said it himself in an earlier thread.:lol: Well technically I am not really racist at all, Muslims are not a "race". I'll go along with the tag anyway, I couldn't give a left hand wank about what you think man. You know screw all :wave:

Woo, a fight.

Nah...no fight...

Like Beren already said, they can take it to pm...not the point of this thread, nor in adherence to AODA/AOLS rules.

Not unless they start promoting murder and terrorism. Indeed, but all islamists do not promote terrorists or murder.
The difference here is that you don't see the western world out celebrating in the streets whenever a bunch of Muslims die. True, but you don't see this in all Muslim countries either. I'm not sure if I've seen pictures from Turkey with people burning American flags on the streets and celebrating the WTC terrorist attacks. Claiming that islamists in general do this kind of thing is just a plain crude and false generalization.

[ February 03, 2005, 21:39: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

OK, help me out here, define Islamist for me, and then give me a term I can use that is defined as those of the Islamic faith who follow and extreme doctrine of faith that directs them to kill and intimidate those to do not follow their beliefs. Because if I have to call them those of the Islamic faith who follow and extreme doctrine of faith that directs them to kill and intimidate those to do not follow their beliefs, every time I wish to speak of those of the Islamic faith who follow and extreme doctrine of faith that directs them to kill and intimidate those to do not follow their beliefs in order to keep from offending you by generalizing, no one is going to want to read my comments about those of the Islamic faith who follow and extreme doctrine of faith that directs them to kill and intimidate those to do not follow their beliefs because the are so long and filled with descriptions of a group that we should be able to name without having to generalize all Islamics as those of the Islamic faith who follow and extreme doctrine of faith that directs them to kill and intimidate those to do not follow their beliefs.

I am out of breath! :banana:

[ February 03, 2005, 22:20: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

Wikipedia has a nice article of islamism which I think is fairly good description of islamism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamists

As for what you should call muslims who promote terrorism I do not know. Perhaps just fanatical islamists or fanatical muslims?

I definitely learned a little there. I would say a lot, but somehow I think that this issue is too complex to be addressed in a single article.

Morgoroth, please do not take this as an affront to you. You found an excellent article, but I feel like I just barely scratched the surface with it. I wish I had time to follow all the links in the article, I feel I could learn a lot more. Perhaps as time allows I will be able to go through more of them.

Thank you.

Funny thing is that an "Islamist(a)" in Polish is an accredited researcher into the history of Islam, Islamic countries, religion, culture, and generally civilisation. Words take different meanings, so...


And it's not just the case with Islamic extremists/fanatics. I find it is the case with fanatism in every and any religion all over the world, including Christianity, Buddhism (as a religion, not a philosophical system), Hinduism, neo-Paganism (in any form, including Satanism), or Atheism. I find that each and every fanatical incarnation of any religion is simply evil.

Morgoroth, please do not take this as an affront to you. You found an excellent article, but I feel like I just barely scratched the surface with it. I can understand that. Wikipeadia is not allways a very realiable source allthough there are plenty of good articles there. I fully understand if you wish to read about the subject in various sources before making judgement, that's usually what I do too. Glad to be of service though. :)

Plus, the article [about Islamism] gives a number of references to study further (Darkwolf inquired about that possibility). I find it great that in my student years, whilst commuting, I can actually find time to read books.

Unless you consider the christian right as fanatics of course.

Not unless they start promoting murder and terrorism.Without meaning to sound like a smartarse, Christians learned the hard way in the Crusades. And there are still some who take the "convert or be destroyed" perspective, though thankfully they seem to be losing influence. The marriage of conservative Christianity and economic power, however, lends itself to a more insidious form of repression than insurgency or terrorism.

No-one's hands are clean in this - some of the blood is a little older or harder to see, but that's all. That doesn't mean anyone is justified in killing, terrorising or inciting hatred and violence, though, and as I said earlier, people like that should be stopped.

@ Darkwolf: Would "megalomaniacal Islamists" be a useful term to describe the people you want to single out? "Fundamentalists" is a bit too general, and you can usually negotiate with them a little better.

@ toughluck: People bastardise words all the time. My father's an organic and physical chemist, and he's sick to death of hearing about "organic spring water" or some such nonsense.

I'm sure that there is some law somewhere by which you can lock these jackasses up. Isn't solicitation of a criminal action (like murder or vandalism) a crime in and of itself?

NonSequitur -- you've opened a can of worms with the Crusades:
-- Muslims have captured 2/3 of the entire Christendom (Iberia, North Africa* and Middle East -- all were Christian and part of either the Roman or the Byzantine Empires);
-- Muslims were advancing towards Constantinople.
In that case, the Byzantine Emperor has pleaded the Pope for succour, and the response was the Crusades. It worked, but not to full success -- Crusades were expensive, and still unable to reclaim much more than the Holy Land. Then, after four major crusades, Europeans had to fall back, which led to the fall of the Byzantium.

So if you're saying "convert or be destroyed" approach, as in conversion at the tip of the sword, in relation to Christians, they experienced it on the receiving end of the sword in the era of the Crusades. 2/3 of the entire Christian population, in fact.

*) N Africa had been captured as early as by Alexander the Great, and Greek colonies succeeded in hellenising the population so that Romans were able to then take over. Subsequently, Christianity started spreading over them. In fact, North Africa was in many ways better developed and christianised than Northern Europe. Many early Christian saints come from North Africa, including St. Augustine, which only proves that point (early European saints were mostly kings, which went to prove a political point, as opposed to hellenic cultures).

Just in case someone is missing this point, North Africa and parts of Levantine were conquered on the break of the 7th and 8th century, which now looks like ages ago, but it surely didn't in 1095 when the crusades started. Bear in mind also that the Byzantine empire had been struggling for survival since 1024 when they lost the great battle with the Seljuks at Manzikert, which was already after a period of heavy fighting, including Constantinople being besieged. No matter how you put it, that wasn't a friendly entry on the part of the Muslim world. Plus, I doubt the West would have taken such a great effort if there had been safe access to holy places for the Christians. Imagine if someone conquered Mekka and blocked Muslim pilgrims from entering.

it is a religious obligation for Muslims to hate Christians and Jews Really? I thought Muhammad said:

This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/charter1.html

other Muslims, especially those who advocate tolerance, are condemned as infidelsIncluding Muhammad?

From the Qoran:

And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him do we submit.(Qur'an 29:46)However, another verse says:

O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. (Qur'an 5:51)Contradiction? Who knows. But the whole is surely ambiguous enough to warrant different positions.

One of such positions is:

Islam does not permit discrimination in the treatment of other human beings on the basis of religion or any other criteria... it emphasises neighborliness and respect for the ties of relationship with non-Muslims ...within this human family, Jews and Christians, who share many beliefs and values with Muslims, constitute what Islam terms Ahl al-Kitab, that is, People of the Scripture, and hence Muslim have a special relationship to them as fellow "Scriptuaries". (Suzanne Haneef, What everyone should know about Islam and Muslims, Kazi Publications, Lahore, 1979, p. 173.)In fact, it's extremists who want a holy war with Christians or Jews, and their interpretation of the Muslim scripture is somewhat dented.

[ February 05, 2005, 12:56: Message edited by: chevalier ]

Sounds about right. The Palestinians do the same thing about the Jews. I have no doubt the East Indians and the Pakistanis play this game with each other.

Not sure about China and Japan. I know some of the more...prominent Japanese men celebrate their domination over China, each year. In October, I think. But most of the Asian nations are still pissed at each other, for various attrocities.

Brainwashing is an artform. There are people working on the scientific "precision" aspect.

Sounds about right. The Palestinians do the same thing about the Jews. I have no doubt the East Indians and the Pakistanis play this game with each other.It's just standard tactics if you want to mobilise a population against something. It's a lot easier to get people to fight if they don't see the average enemy as remotely "human" or redeemable. The Devil is a lot easier to shoot than another human being who does almost exactly the same things you do every day.

@ toughluck: Touche - I must admit that I don't know a great deal about that topic, only that the Crusaders went in after the Holy Land fell with the express intention of driving back "the infidel invader".

However, my point was that both sides have grievances, have been invaded and have fought wars initiated at least in part by religious differences and the concept of the "infidel", and the question of who has been worse is moot. The actual history is irrelevant when a selective slice is enough to fire old hatreds fuelled by current policies and perceived injustices.

the Byzantine Emperor has pleaded the Pope for succour, and the response was the Crusades. It worked, but not to full success -- Crusades were expensive, and still unable to reclaim much more than the Holy Land. Then, after four major crusades, Europeans had to fall back, which led to the fall of the Byzantium.
It was the Crusaders themselves who attacked Byzantium. I don't know if I would call that a success. What do you mean by: "Still unable to reclaim more than the Holy Land?" What else was there? World conquest?

Muslims have captured 2/3 of the entire Christendom (Iberia, North Africa* and Middle East -- all were Christian and part of either the Roman or the Byzantine Empires);
True but you forgot to mention that the christians of North Africa, who were considered heretics by the byzantine church, welcomed muslims as liberators.

In that case, the Byzantine Emperor has pleaded the Pope for succour, and the response was the Crusades. It worked, but not to full success -- Crusades were expensive, and still unable to reclaim much more than the Holy Land. Then, after four major crusades, Europeans had to fall back, which led to the fall of the Byzantium.
The emperor Alexios Komnenos did not pleaded the pope for succour , he sent a letter to the count of Flanders where he asking to help him in recruiting mercenaries. The medieval western historians in order to justify the problems of the first crusade blamed Alexios for them and created the theory of perdifia Graecorum, which supports that the Byzantine emperor asked for the crusade and when the Crusaders denied to help him to achieve his aims, he tried to cause them as much harm as he could.

Also, I would say that the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 by the fourth crusade and the continuous military and economic attacks by Genova and Venice and other franks are more responsible for the fall of the empire than the failure of the crusaders in Holy Land.

It was the Crusaders themselves who attacked Byzantium. I don't know if I would call that a success. What do you mean by: "Still unable to reclaim more than the Holy Land?" What else was there? World conquest? Actually, no, the Turks attacked Byzantine. The Turks were Muslims.

@Warrior

Chandos means the conquer of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204, which has as result the division of the empire in many small greek and latin states. Byzantines took the city back in 1261 and managed to restore the empire but of course it was much weaker than before.

Somewhere out of all this there has got to be an original topic. Right?

Nah, its dead!

Just realized that we need a :rip: (rest in peace) graemlin to go with that :nuke: one that Tal is working on. ;) :p :lol: :banana:

Seriously,

We have probably pretty much exhausted discussion on the topic, but if we want to discuss the history and historical impact of the various campaigns of the region, we should probably start a new thread, but lets not, that is just a little too involved for a forum!

Then again, this is a lot more than just a normal forum, so if someone thinks they can give us a micro Cliffs notes version, I would read it. :thumb: