MANIFESTO: against extremism in Islam

[Finder]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...686&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

I think the Manifesto sum's up what I believe which needs to happen in the Islamic world. The last line sum's it up nicely in the nature of what was happening in Western Europe during the enlightenment. Hopefully this catches on. But the religous conservative forces are very strong right now.

"We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of enlightenment, not of obscurantism."

 

[Finder]

Sorry I should post it shouldn't I

MANIFESTO: Together facing the `new totalitarianism'
Mar. 2, 2006. 01:00 AM

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammad in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilizations or an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world.

But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject "cultural relativism," which consists of accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia," an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatization of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

 

[jeckgo]

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

I sympathize with them, but how many people are willing to
risk their lives for "secular values"? That's a weak ideology
to die for. In fact, secularism is a negation, and you don't build
a civilization upon a negation. In the west, secularism is
a form of pragmatism, a method, a critique of Christianity.

Christianity has always had secularism as a counterbalance
to pietism, but those calling us to rise to the defense of
"secular values" will find their words falling on deaf ears.
Secularists have built their careers attacking Christianity.
Now that they have belatedly discovered the threat of
radical Islam, they sound like the boy who cried 'wolf'.
:wink:

 

[Finder]

hmmmm, almost all the western world is seculer. Liberal values, the values of enlightenment in europe were seculer, the values which we have today on liberal democracy, the american constitution, the canadian constitution, the French republic, the german republic, and most other european, latin aman and asian political parties are seculer or have to follow the seculer line once elected.

True seculerism is not the end all nor the answer to all the problems. But it helps fight religousd fantasism and helps with scintific reason.

I'm surprised there's not more interest in this. Just shows me how many people here will post thousands of posts when you just show off a Danish flag and say f you to "Islamofacsism" compaired to the intellectual responce to the extremes of Islam there is not a beep.

 

[sanch]

I'm surprised there's not more interest in this. Just shows me how many people here will post thousands of posts when you just show off a Danish flag and say f you to "Islamofacsism" compaired to the intellectual responce to the extremes of Islam there is not a beep.

If you look back you will see this point articulated in quite a number of threads but it was usually drowned out by a couple of shrills proclaiming that any association of extremism with Islam was a de facto attack on all Muslims. Orientalism or Islamaphobia has a long history and the prejudice against it stretches back to the middle ages. An attack on one is an attack on all. If you go to the Islamic Council website you will see that they even attack the notion of radical Islam. It’s a fabrication, another meta-narrative spun from an imagination that has always spurned Islam.

So as we are being told what and what not to say horsemen have entered Chad from the Sudan slaughtering all in their path under a banner that does not exist.

 

[Machjo]

Gecko has a point. No Muslim will become a secularist any more than a Christian will. Now, if we can convinse them that secularity (a more neutral term than -ism) is part of their faith, that might work.

To take an example. The Qur'an states:

"No compulsion is there in religion."

Now if we can convince a Muslim to believe this (all we need to do here is to get the scholars out fo the way and tell the Muslim to get that Qur'an off his shelf, blow the dust off of it, crack it open and start reading!), we might get somewhere. Then we can tell him that he ought not oppress freedom of religion, not for the sake of secularism, but because that's what the Prophet (pbuh) said! Nothing to do with secularism. He won't go to Hell for recognising freedom of religion (on the contrary, God will judge him if he refuses to allow freedom of religion, as God Himself shall have made it law in the Qur'an), because that's what the Qur'an wants him to do; it's part of the true Shari'a!

In that case, Muslims will not become secularists, but will at least accept the secular sciences and be willing to live in a secular state. Muslim naitons might remain officially Muslim, but again, might end up recognising secular values by pulling out those veres of the Qur'an which have long been neglected.

You see, now we're talking their language!

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: MANIFESTO: against ex

Islamism a totalitarian global threat, I don,t buy into Uncle Sams invention.American Militarism a totalitarian global threat , now thats a far more real thing to fear.

 

[Jersay]

:cheers:

Finally someone else gets that point.

Also on another note, how's my afro?

:rr:

 

[Finder]

nice afro!

Well I guess I'm just pissed off at both the right wing responce from the west and the Islamic right wing responce.

Also the problem is this "Now, if we can convinse them that secularity "

Do I have to say anything more? You can't force feed this type of thing. It only enboldens the conservatives in Islam and the fanatics. It has to be a movement from the inside. I know for the past 100 years there has been a movement to move towards a seculer module but it has for lack of better words been retarded from within and from the outside. We've been tryig to spread the enlightenment in the middle east even before it hit all of Europe, since Napoleon as General of the Republic invaded Eygpt. I think the menafesto above won't do much but it is a start and the RIGHT responce!

I may get flamed for this but it was the responce I expected from the admin of this forum but I was let down, even though I know most of the admin would most likely agree with the Menafesto and most likely believed there responce had the heart of what was said in the menafesto....

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: MANIFESTO: against ex

Love the afro Jersay, Finder I know what your saying, but if it wern,t for western intervention in the first place we would not have driven them to radicalism, if it were not for our intervention they would already be far along the secular road, radicalislam is a product of desperation. Fundamentalism is most often a reaction. At least that,s what most beavers think. If there were no great Satan would
the fanatics exist? Islamicfundamentalism is Uncle Sams pry bar for the big oil barrel, remember the crusade babble of the christian fundys.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: MANIFESTO: against ex

Love the afro Jersay, Finder I know what your saying, but if it wern,t for western intervention in the first place we would not have driven them to radicalism, if it were not for our intervention they would already be far along the secular road, radicalislam is a product of desperation. Fundamentalism is most often a reaction. At least that,s what most beavers think. If there were no great Satan would
the fanatics exist?

Hmmm I totally agree with you. I don't know what I said to make you think otherwise. But I still say we can't force them to become seculer. As you said it was happening already by itself until we messed things up. Though at the same time it is not all the wests fault. The conservative forces there have been mixing nationalism and islam together to make both a dangourse force and one which the working class are attracted too. Until conditions change with the working class and they become more attracted to social democracy and socialism things won't change. I'd argue the middle class as it was in europe have accepted liberalism, but even that is under attack.

 

[Jersay]

Good point Darkbeaver.

 

[jimmoyer]

So Darkbeaver and Jersay both think Islamic
extremist fundamentalism was caused by Western
intervention ???

Now that's clever.

I wonder how those two do on multiple choice questions.

a) It's always only because of the sins of the West.

b) It's because of the isolation of the grassroots population of the Islamic World in which the elite
did not pass down what they learned of the West.

c) It's only because of the American support of
the zionists in Israel.

d) It's not due to the cynical manipulation of the
Islamic elite's bargain with the devil to send their
own sons and daughters to western education but
finance wahhabi fundamentalists to placate the
lower classes.

e) It is some of all of the above.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: MANIFESTO: against extremism in Islam

So Darkbeaver and Jersay both think Islamic
extremist fundamentalism was caused by Western
intervention ???

Now that's clever.

I wonder how those two do on multiple choice questions.

a) It's always only because of the sins of the West.

b) It's because of the isolation of the grassroots population of the Islamic World in which the elite
did not pass down what they learned of the West.

c) It's only because of the American support of
the zionists in Israel.

d) It's not due to the cynical manipulation of the
Islamic elite's bargain with the devil to send their
own sons and daughters to western education but
finance wahhabi fundamentalists to placate the
lower classes.

e) It is some of all of the above.

Jimmoyer, I would hazerd to say you are right but I think what beaver is getting too is that the west is agitating the situation, which you have pretty much said. Of course the west is not the sole blame as I have said many times but we are not helping at all right now.

 

[jimmoyer]

Of course the west is not the sole blame as I have said many times but we are not helping at all right now.
--------------------------------finder-----------------------

You know, Finder, if you think about it, we're not
helping either way, whether we do something or not.

If Saddam was still there, according to the west there
would be less misery, but that depends who you were
under his regime.

Or with Saddam NOT gone, you'd see what is happening
now happen anyway 10 years from as the festering
nature of learning how to get along wasn't getting
accomplished all those years under him.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: MANIFESTO: against extremism in Islam

Now that's clever.

Everything they say is clever.

 

[jimmoyer]

I'm not sure the Middle East is better off without
or with interference. The Middle East just is what it
is, organically and integrally what it has evolved to be
with or without the external sin of western powers.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: MANIFESTO: against extremism in Islam

I'm not sure the Middle East is better off without
or with interference. The Middle East just is what it
is, organically and integrally what it has evolved to be
with or without the external sin of western powers.

Your forgetting that they have the oil and Bush has finally admitted to this addication. That doesn't mean the addication will just stop and go away. I think the USA is convinced the only way to solve the problem is by there hand. Even if the Democrats were in power I wouldn't expect them to be any different. Perhaps they would be more diplomatic but they'd still meddle in the middle east.

I personally think that Everyone has to get out of this situation. Russia, China, EU and the USA. Support the UN, have a strong UN move in and have all the above nations plus arab nations support the un with blue helmet troops too to but a force behind any dessions made by the UN between the groups.

This might sound "communist" as in using the "world government" but really a democratic "world government" has a better face then what the Arab world preserves as american imperalism.

My buck fifty.

 

[darkbeaver]

RE: MANIFESTO: against ex

Yes Saddam was a rotten poisonous son of a sea pig, but things have not gotten better and they won,t for a long time, I don,t think we,re doing them any service if we keep trying to impose our will on them. Best Regards Jimmoyer

 

[Finder]

Yeah but we are now in a catch 22. If we leave then with the destruction of the seculer order and radicalization of the populice to the extrems of islam and the poverity created and the lose of infrastucture, if the americans leave tomorrow the nation will fall into a complicated civil war, on multiply fronts! Of course if the Americans stay it's just going to galvanize to moderates into extremists.

The only way to solve this is to bring in the UN in force to replace the USA. Not saying the USA shouldn't supply troops as they should have blue helmits there too! But this is unlikely because of two things. The USA and the Republicans have a negitive view of the UN and the UN doesn't want to become the orginization which fixes the messes of the USA, xp when the USA ignores international law in this matter and others.

So yeah no matter what right now I think we are screwed.