Is it fair to insinuate about Islam?

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the post.

i would agree that Saudi Arabia does not represent Islam as a whole it represents a particular school of jurisprudence within Islam and, in that respect, is an accurate representation.

by and large, however, i think this is an issue of which is somewhat related to the explosion of readily accessible media and news stories which leads to somewhat of an information overload. people have so many more choices regarding the sorts of news and media which they consume that they often cannot or will not take the time to actually investigate what is being told to them.

i'm sure there are myriad reasons not just the one which i've outlined.

metta,

~v

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

How about Darfur in the Sudan, here we see no effort to evangelise but to exterminate. Here as in any other such tyrannical operation religion is but a tool.

I have never heard of any religious justification for the genocide in Darfur. The only explanations I have seen pertain to economics and politics.

Considering the conditions that now characterize a region devastated by climate change, these people can be seen as having been reduced to plunder. The Sudanese Government claims to have no control over the Janjawid who are perpetrating these crimes. However, there is reason to believe that the government is not only actively involved in persecuting Darfur's black Muslims rebels, but also recruits people with the cover story that these black Muslims are a threat to the community.

Islam is a rallying call to to legal robbery, rape, murder and genocide.

This is the first time I have heard the expression "rallying cry" applied to the situation in Darfur. I might add that it makes no sense to me because the victims are themselves Muslims. The Koran calls for religious tolerance. Wouldn't that this extend to Muslim brothers and sisters?

It does not matter that it is Islam or any other religion, what matters is that anybody accepts the diversion. ]

On the contrary, I would say it does matter. It matters a great deal if you consider that West has now embarked on a new Cold War against the Middle East. As I have suggested at the outset of this thread, the right wing proponents of such a war effort are trying to pass it off as self defense in a religious conflict. They consistently portray Islam as intolerant and intent on a full-scale, militaristic global Jihad that must be stopped pre-emptively. The invasion of Iraq was, I believe, the first step toward as more systematic policy of pre-emptive war in a predominantly Muslim region. A larger effort will require re-instatement of the draft. Additional terrorist attacks on the US will be a prelude.

For all of these reasons, it's vitally important to keep sight of Islam as the focal point - i.e., as a target for propaganda, including but not limited to insinuation and characterization, especially among nationalistic, right wing Americans who are attached to the delusion that the US is the world's only superpower.

[Tao_Equus]

I agree that religion is far from the only reason for the conflict in Darfur but its historical roots are in the conflicts created by the Islamic legion. The Sudan Liberation Front, based in Darfur, was set up in response to Government neglect of the people during the 83/84 famine. Between the SLF and JEM they account for the majority of the tribes in Darfur that though have many Muslims are not considered the pure "arab" variety by the leadership in Khartoum. The Janjaweed are Arab Muslims and there is now a substantial body of evidence to show they are directly funded by the ruling party. The propaganda of the Arab Muslims is to not consider the western blacks as being true Muslims. The cry is to pure Arab Islam as defined by Ghadaffi and his Islamic Legion. In truth its all bull. Its about a few corrupt politicians wanting control over the oil reserves that lay there.

Tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Constantine himself was a pagan and built many temples to pagan gods.

I have not been able to confirm this. It may well be true since he converted to Christianity at a relatively late age. However, we do know that Constantine imposed a ban on the construction of new pagan temples in Constantinople. He also plundered existing ones to subsidize new churches. Further:

.... Constantine ordered persecutions against Pagans in Didyma. Violence escalated against unbelievers. In Asia Minor, the Oracle of the Apollo was sacked and it's priests were tortured and executed. He also drove pagans from Mount Athos, a holy place for pagans, and destroyed all the Hellenic the temples in the region. Mt Athos was be taken over by Christians and eventually become a major monastic center and holy place for Eastern Christians.

http://community-2.webtv.net/Tales_of_the_Western_World/RLCONSTANTINE/

It was he that later in life and as he expanded his domain incorporated many pagan beliefs into Christianity including changing the Sabbath to a Sunday, (which is a story in itself). But to keep it brief, Constantine merged the idea of the Roman Emperor being a living God with monotheism purely as a tool to help control his vast empire and was clever enough to incorporate pagan beliefs and holy dates wherever he could.

Based on the fact that Constantine combined the sun and the cross (pagan and Christian symbols), he was in favor of some kind of syncretic adaptation. Maybe he was a politician at heart who wanted to have it both ways. However, as is often the case for new converts, it apears he was quite fervent in his commitment to his new religion, to the spread of Christianity, and the eradication of paganism. It seems he held back mainly because of political pressures from members of his government. Also, since pagans were the majority at the time, it would have been hard for him to enjoy popular support if he had undertaken a more aggressive campaign point of actively stamping out paganism.

My original point was that the spread of Christianity was marked by the perspective that tribal culture was satanic and, as such, that it should be wiped out. The facts are clear in this regard. Historically many of the popes were unabashedly militaristic in their positions on evangelism. Constantine's son ushered in anm era of intolerance. He had a very aggressive agenda with respect to paganism, as did other emperors who followed for almost 200 years later. There was an official ban on paganism that was legislated in the forms of various decrees and laws which were enforced by means of the demolition of pagan temples and prohibitions against pagan practices. These policies would be practiced on a large scale a thousand years later when Europeans settled in the New World. Killing the heathen natives was considered a form of ministry.

[seattlegal]

We don't really see Christian witch hunters today, but witch hunting seems to be alive and well in Saudi Arabia, as the article from the opening post shows.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

We don't really see Christian witch hunters today, but witch hunting seems to be alive and well in Saudi Arabia...

Are you saying there have been other witch hunts in Saudi Arabia besides the one that was recently publicized?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

We don't really see Christian witch hunters today, but witch hunting seems to be alive and well in Saudi Arabia, as the article from the opening post shows.

You could call McCarthyism witch hunting...just substitute religion for politics. And that was not so long ago.

Tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You could call McCarthyism witch hunting...just substitute religion for politics. And that was not so long ago.

Rather than there being a clash of civilization between Islam and Christianity, I see it as more a clash of propaganda in the service of ideological warfare. Witch-hunting and burning heretics used to be more common forms of it. Nowadays, we have extreme and polarized worldviews. Consider the ideological ramifications of the Bush administration branding war protesters as unpatriotic. This is recent history.

In this context, I was interested to see a definition of nationalism as "terroristic ideology." True, opposition to the war has not been criminalized. But the intended polarizing reaction to dissidents strikes me as being what you would expect for a primitive doctrinal world view combined with an ongoing attempt to capitalize on people's insecurities and fears. Expectancies of conflict and fear of the unknown have become the dominant aspects of American culture. Some of us want to have a part in creating such a culture. Some of us don't.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Are you saying there have been other witch hunts in Saudi Arabia besides the one that was recently publicized?

Yes, Muslimwoman mentioned it in post 29 of this thread.

Here's a Reuters article about it. It happened last November.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Yes, Muslimwoman mentioned it in post 29 of this thread.

Here's a Reuters article about it. It happened last November.

Thanks for your reply, SG.

I wonder what is going on in Saudi Arabia that is giving rise to a focus on some "undefined crime." What's the unemployment rate there now? The Saudi's dependence on US petro dollars has made it unnecessary for them to diversify industries. Their oil export business simply does not create enough jobs for Saudis. It is essentially a welfare state that is being funded by petro dollars. If I may borrow Tao's terminology, maybe this witch hunt is just a "diversion" from pressing issues like unemployment. This would explain why they have let the witch hunt case drag on for so long. They're getting as much mileage out of it as they can.

Maybe I'm overanalyzing. It seems so far there has been only one other case. Based on all of two witch trials, one could say that witch hunts are "alive and well" in Saudi Arabia. One the other hand, one might say that the "alive and well" language suggests an ongoing pattern over time which is not in evidence.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Thanks for your reply, SG.

I wonder what is going on in Saudi Arabia that is giving rise to a focus on some "undefined crime." What's the unemployment rate there now? The Saudi's dependence on US petro dollars has made it unnecessary for them to diversify industries. Their oil export business simply does not create enough jobs for Saudis. It is essentially a welfare state that is being funded by petro dollars. If I may borrow Tao's terminology, maybe this witch hunt is just a "diversion" from pressing issues like unemployment. This would explain why they have let the witch hunt case drag on for so long. They're getting as much mileage out of it as they can.

Maybe I'm overanalyzing. It seems so far there has been only one other case. Based on all of two witch trials, one could say that witch hunts are "alive and well" in Saudi Arabia. One the other hand, one might say that the "alive and well" language suggests an ongoing pattern over time which is not in evidence.

It's quite possible they want to make a spectacle to draw attention away from other things. Executions are public, and are therefore a spectacle. Here's a BBC article about a Saudi executioner telling his story.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Here's a BBC article about a Saudi executioner telling his story.

What does the BBC article add to the analysis?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

What does the BBC article add to the analysis?

You were the one who brought up diversionary tactics.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

You were the one who brought up diversionary tactics.

What does the BBC article say about diversionary tactics?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I agree that religion is far from the only reason for the conflict in Darfur but its historical roots are in the conflicts created by the Islamic legion.

I see the formation of the Islamic legion as an expression of a pre-existing conflict. Sudan has been in the throes of civil war and its aftermath for many years. The conflict dates back to Sudan's first prime minister of Sudan, Ismail al-Azhari. The Qoreishi ideology that accounts for how things have been evolving of late had been in the works long before things reached critical mass in the late 90's when the situation was exacerbated by drought and famine and the displacement of hundreds of thousands.

The propaganda of the Arab Muslims is to not consider the western blacks as being true Muslims. The cry is to pure Arab Islam as defined by Ghadaffi and his Islamic Legion. In truth its all bull. Its about a few corrupt politicians wanting control over the oil reserves that lay there.

Qoreishi ideology does not appear to be purely religious. Rather, it appears to be a combination of racism and pan-Arabic power politics that was later packaged with a veneer of religious supremacy. In fact, it seems the religious elements were added as an afterthought and did not form the core of the ideology. Apparently some people started to assert their alleged lineage to the Prophet Muhammad, something that presumably gives them some superior stature to qualify them them as meant-to-be rulers.

As is often the case, the conflict in Sudan appears to have been fuelled by economic privation and political isolation. It should be noted here that recruits for Gaddafi’s Islamic Legion included disenfranchised Arabs, including Mahdist Ansar members who had been exile for years after a failed attempt to overthrow the government in the 70s. As you point out, competition for resources - especially oil - has raised the stakes and hightened tensions.