[BartSimpson]

Seriously, the question has vexed me for a long time and it was the Muslim guy I work with in my office who explained it to me.

(Yes, I actually can converse with a Muslim!)

(Disclaimer; "Left-liberals" and "leftists" in the following post applies only to those people who think it applies to them. If you are not one of them then kindly don't be offended.)

In the opinion of Abdulmalik the left-liberals don't understand Muslims because they don't actually believe in anything. In not having a devout faith they are unable to grasp the motivations that drive people of faith.

The question came up recently because someone posited that Islamic fundamentalism was rooted in an unequal distribution of wealth. Abdulmalik sighed when I told him this and he says that while he is not a jihadi he shares the same dreams that the jihadis do. Basically, he dreams of a world united under Islam. He thinks it is inevitable and will be accomplished without violence but he also allows that isolated acts of violence could be justified to propel the movement. Abdulmalik, I should point out, is not poor by a long stretch.

But he firmly stated that both he and the people he knows are not motivated by money, but by their devotion to Mohammed and Allah.

Curiously, this underlines to me why I often get along with jihadis and Muslim fundamentlists and that's because we are very similar in our defense of our beliefs. I recall two of the fundamentalists on here, Abbas and Saladin, and how both of them (same guy maybe?) got along with me fine online even though we swore we'd kill each other if we met in person. It was kind of funny sometimes how we'd come together on certain points against the leftists.

In my own observation, it seems that leftists have a (politically correct?) need to exclude the religious belief of Muslims when discussion Islamic motivations for their acts. I'm curious, is it 'bigotry' to consider a Muslims' faith when considering what motivates him/her? Why? Especially given that Muslims themselves are the first to say that being Muslim is an intrinsic part of who they are.

Further, isn't it a kind of cultural imperialism to deny the devout beliefs of other people when contemplating their actions? Isn't it wrong to apply a Western class-warafe lens to the understandings of Muslims who have no such views? Truly, Muslims are neither left nor right and they are neither capitalist or communist or socialist. They are just Muslim. Their economics are ruled by their beliefs and by the Koran and Sharia. Not by Marx or Ayn Rand.

This was posted in 'Rants & Raves' as that is exactly what it is. I just wanted to get this off my chest and put it out there. Ignore it if you want, that's fine with me.

[Zipperfish]

I've thought about this myself on several occassions, not necessarily in the Muslim context but more in the religious versus secular context.

I guess I'd take issue with the faith business. I have faith and lots of it. However, I am not religious. I'd argue that faith is not the sole purview of religion.

The Muslims want to take over the world. Well so does the UN. So do the Americans. Basically any entity that attains a certain degree of power tends to set its sights on global hegemony at a certain point. It seems to be a natural progression of things. So Muslims--or, more speficially jihadis--may calaim to create some heavenly Caliphate here on Earth, but stripped of the ideology, at the heart of it is the age-old human imperative to attain power.

So, you ask why, as a secular humanist, I "deny the devout beliefs of other people when contemplating their actions." The answer is because the jihadis say this:

Quote:

"We must create a spread our influence and attain more power in order to better serve Allah."

And this is what I hear:

Quote:

"We must spread our influence and attain more power."

That is the common message be it the UN, the US or the UAE. It is the common message in power struggles from condominium strats, to town halls, to national goevrnments to the affairs of the world.

One of the reasons I'm not religious is because my faith--my relationship with spirituality--is personal. I don't really see a religious institution adding to it. And when I see powerful religious people making pronouncements to conquer or influence I see the naked ambition of man, not God.

I live next to a church and I cut their lawn and shovel their snow, so even if I'm wrong, I'm hoping St. Peter will at least let me cut the front lawn in front of the Pearly Gates.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson wrote:

In my own observation, it seems that leftists have a (politically correct?) need to exclude the religious belief of Muslims when discussion Islamic motivations for their acts. I'm curious, is it 'bigotry' to consider a Muslims' faith when considering what motivates him/her? Why? Especially given that Muslims themselves are the first to say that being Muslim is an intrinsic part of who they are.

Firstly, let me say I share most of your views on Muslims. But I think you got it wrong on some points. I think 'lefties' even if they aren't 'believers' do have an overwhelming sense of compassion. They want to believe in forgiveness, and want to believe that the actions of one in a group do not reflect that of all. And I don't think it's racism or bigotry to say that a person derives their belief system from the religion that they follow. Christian, Muslim, Hindu or any other.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb wrote:

Firstly, let me say I share most of your views on Muslims. But I think you got it wrong on some points. I think 'lefties' even if they aren't 'believers' do have an overwhelming sense of compassion. They want to believe in forgiveness, and want to believe that the actions of one in a group do not reflect that of all.

Except when the topic is of fundamentalist Christians.

DrCaleb wrote:

And I don't think it's racism or bigotry to say that a person derives their belief system from the religion that they follow. Christian, Muslim, Hindu or any other.

You have no problem saying this, yet our current governments and media utterly refuse to acknowledge that the actions of jihadis could be religiously motivated and that these people are not acting individually, but as part of an ideology.

For instance, this last jihadi who tried to blow up an airliner, Obama went on the air and immediately said that this was one man acting alone and he mentioned almost nothing about the man being Muslim. Then the FBI came out and Obama had to eat crow when it was revealed the guy was a publicly avowed fundmentalist who was known both to his family and to the FBI to be associated with Al Qaeda.

But here we are with the man's religious faith being dismissed out of hand as an almost knee-jerk reaction well before all the facts were in. And it seems we see this same pattern all the time. The Fort Hood terrorist was an example of the same thing. The media and the government initially denied that the guy was motivated by his faith and they had any number of explanations as to what happened and then the truth came out: the guy was a publicly avowed fundamentalist and the FBI knew he had ties to Al Qaeda.

What's ironic is that in denying the faith of these guys the government and media insult and provoke them all the more.

But my point is that the people who explain away the acts of the terrorists seem to be purposefully ignoring the religious motivations behind the acts. Is it that they simply don't understand religious motivations?

[martin14]

BartSimpson wrote:

The question came up recently because someone posited that Islamic fundamentalism was rooted in an unequal distribution of wealth. ...

... Abdulmalik, I should point out, is not poor by a long stretch.

Neither was our Christmas panty bomber.
Nor the Fort Hood guy.

The argument of radical
Muslims being radical because they are poor is starting to lose its luster.


And yes Bart I'll agree the left doesnt understand because they don't
understand strong motivations.. of faith and other things.
Or they choose not to understand.

[Brenda]

Quote:

In the opinion of Abdulmalik the left-liberals don't understand Muslims because they don't actually believe in anything. In not having a devout faith they are unable to grasp the motivations that drive people of faith.

Does he consider Atheism as a form of faith? I do. Its a choice. And I would like to see all people being Atheists. Like he wants to see everyone being Muslims.

The drive is the same.

Quote:

Abdulmalik sighed when I told him this and he says that while he is not a jihadi he shares the same dreams that the jihadis do.

I can't help but wonder if you personally distrust this man, and are sure he will become one, like EVERY Muslim can, and in the name of Allah, will blow up a plane soon? (or so I was told, because I don't believe that will happen )

Quote:

Especially given that Muslims themselves are the first to say that being Muslim is an intrinsic part of who they are.

IMO, everyone of religion are the first to say their religion is a huge part of their being, of who they are. Doesn't make them necessarily bad people. My atheism is a big part of my being too. Doesn't mean I want to blow up Muslim countries. I would like to see all religion banned, just as every religion would like to see atheism gone...

[sandorski]

I had Faith, then smartened up. Your friend could be correct about some "liberals", not all. It also assumes that Secularism/Lack of Faith only occurs with "liberals", this is quite untrue. Hell, I doubt that many(perhaps even Most) self described Religious people even have "Faith".

It's fun to generalize, but ultimately it is full of Fail.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson wrote:

But my point is that the people who explain away the acts of the terrorists seem to be purposefully ignoring the religious motivations behind the acts. Is it that they simply don't understand religious motivations?

In Obama's case, I'd say it has more to do with his "apologetic" stance than anything.
I know in Canada the problem is definitely political correctness and the very loose definition of racism these days. Muslim isn't a race so that card is just the most ridiculous one that gets used.

And I think Abdulmalik is talkin out of his ass when he speaks about left-liberals.
But I guess I should ask first, does he mean ultra-lefties as in the polar opposite of ultra righties who tend to be fundamentalist Christians?
The reason I ask is because I'm certainly a liberal, although it can be hard to tell by some of my posts and I'm definitely a Christian, although it can be hard to tell by some of my posts But I'm definitely NOT a fundamentalist and I sure as hell ain't afraid to point out the religious motivation for those that kill in the name of Allah. BUT, being a Christian, I'm also quite willing to give the same WTF??? to a few of the various "Christian" sects.

[CanadianJeff]

I wound consider the fact that he wants to see one world united under a god a symbol of oppression and a blunder against the beauty of diversity of mankind.

I think it's a far loftier but better goal to simply aim for one world united but free to have differing ideas and opinions. In other words to have the entire world become democratic.

I see the goal of Islam and honestly of Christianity to be a direct counter to that goal because they seek to have us all think the same thought of there being one god and that the purpose of life is god without any physical evidence to support that claim.

The moment you have some physical evidence I will gladly convert but until then consider me more of a follower of the celebration of human diversity over blind obedience to a deity.

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

In Obama's case, I'd say it has more to do with his "apologetic" stance than anything.
I know in Canada the problem is definitely political correctness and the very loose definition of racism these days. Muslim isn't a race so that card is just the most ridiculous one that gets used.

Agreed.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

And I think Abdulmalik is talkin out of his ass when he speaks about left-liberals.

He's speaking from his perspective and he's also speaking as someone who works in a workplace that's 100% unionized (me, too ), about 98% Democrat, and easily 95% left-liberal. And you want to know something funny? He was the very first person in my workplace to wish me a Merry Christmas. It was 'Happy Holidays' from everyone else.

In any case, he's used to people walking on eggshells around him for fear they'll offend him and he's sick of it.

In a strange way, you're also validating my contention that liberals don't understand Muslims. No offense, okay? Just sayin.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

But I guess I should ask first, does he mean ultra-lefties as in the polar opposite of ultra righties who tend to be fundamentalist Christians?

Hate to burst your bubble, but more than a few fundies run socialist.

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

The reason I ask is because I'm certainly a liberal, although it can be hard to tell by some of my posts and I'm definitely a Christian, although it can be hard to tell by some of my posts But I'm definitely NOT a fundamentalist and I sure as hell ain't afraid to point out the religious motivation for those that kill in the name of Allah. BUT, being a Christian, I'm also quite willing to give the same WTF??? to a few of the various "Christian" sects.

He means the politically-correct, leftie-liberals whose deepest fear is that someone might think them 'insensitive' yet in their ardor to appear 'enlightened' they've become exactly that which they supposedly detest.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BartSimpson wrote:

In a strange way, you're also validating my contention that liberals don't understand Muslims. No offense, okay? Just sayin.

No offense taken. I've never claimed to understand how they think

BartSimpson wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble, but more than a few fundies run socialist.

No bubble to burst there. I'm aware of that, that's why I used the qualifier 'tend'.

BartSimpson wrote:

He means the politically-correct, leftie-liberals whose deepest fear is that someone might think them 'insensitive' yet in their ardor to appear 'enlightened' they've become exactly that which they supposedly detest.

Well I can't argue with that point of view, they can't understand muslims cuz they barely, if it all, understand themselves.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish wrote:

The Muslims want to take over the world.

You finally said something on this topic that I agree with.

Zipperfish wrote:

Well so does the UN. So do the Americans.

And now you say something that just isn't true. The UN may want to take over the world but they want most everyone to come along willingly to join whatever utopia they have in mind. Considering the UN is incapable of clearing the rats from their headquarters I'm not so concerned about them taking over the world.

As to the USA? Please. If we wanted to take over the world we would have done it back in 1945 when we were the only country in the world with the bomb. We didn't do that and we have never tried to take over the world. You're confusing us with the UK and the USSR.

Zipperfish wrote:

Basically any entity that attains a certain degree of power tends to set its sights on global hegemony at a certain point. It seems to be a natural progression of things. So Muslims--or, more speficially jihadis--may calaim to create some heavenly Caliphate here on Earth, but stripped of the ideology, at the heart of it is the age-old human imperative to attain power.

And in equating Islam to any other movement you ignore the religious aspects of it that render it unique.

Zipperfish wrote:

So, you ask why, as a secular humanist, I "deny the devout beliefs of other people when contemplating their actions." The answer is because the jihadis say this:

Quote:

"We must create a spread our influence and attain more power in order to better serve Allah."

And this is what I hear:

Quote:

"We must spread our influence and attain more power."

That is the common message be it the UN, the US or the UAE. It is the common message in power struggles from condominium strats, to town halls, to national goevrnments to the affairs of the world.

One of the reasons I'm not religious is because my faith--my relationship with spirituality--is personal. I don't really see a religious institution adding to it. And when I see powerful religious people making pronouncements to conquer or influence I see the naked ambition of man, not God.

I live next to a church and I cut their lawn and shovel their snow, so even if I'm wrong, I'm hoping St. Peter will at least let me cut the front lawn in front of the Pearly Gates.

You're still not grasping the Islamic imperative. What makes them unique is that they are commanded to convert, conquer, or kill and it's okay for them to lie through their teeth while they do it.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson wrote:

And now you say something that just isn't true. The UN may want to take over the world but they want most everyone to come along willingly to join whatever utopia they have in mind. Considering the UN is incapable of clearing the rats from their headquarters I'm not so concerned about them taking over the world.

And I agree with this. So the question is not "Do they want to take over the world?" but "Are they in a position to do it?" In the case of the Muslims, they want to take over the world, but they aren't in much of a position to do it. Muslims can't run a country, never mind the world.

Quote:

As to the USA? Please. If we wanted to take over the world we would have done it back in 1945 when we were the only country in the world with the bomb. We didn't do that and we have never tried to take over the world. You're confusing us with the UK and the USSR.

Well, in the case of the US, it's the same thing as the UN--they'd prefer that everyone come along willingly, but if they don't they will use force. If you listen to virtually any recent US president--they constantly refer the US "global leadership." Newt Gingrich sounds remarkably Muslim in these lines:

Quote:

We have to lead the world. . . . If we don't lead the world I think that we have a continuing decay into anarchy...

Bart wrote:

And in equating Islam to any other movement you ignore the religious aspects of it that render it unique.

Yes.

Bart wrote:

You're still not grasping the Islamic imperative. What makes them unique is that they are commanded to convert, conquer, or kill and it's okay for them to lie through their teeth while they do it.

They carry out their mission with zeal. That's hardly a unique characteristic among those wishing to conquer.

[andyt]

I don't care about Muslims trying to take over the world from their own countries - ie by acts of war or threats of such. The US has had a long successful history of same. Let the Muslims countries have their best shot.

I do care about Muslims coming here as immigrants or refugees, supposedly because they want a better life, and see that we've managed to organize ourselves to offer that. (At least we did at one time). I find it despicable that they then turn around to bite the hand that helped them up. And I find us despicable for allowing it, just so we won't be called racist.

[2Cdo]

sandorski wrote:

I Fail.

I just sorted your post out for you, no thanks necessary. Why don't you just cut and past those two words anytime you feel like dumbing down a thread, it'll save you the colossal effort of attempting to think.