Saturday, September 23, 2006


Anonymous UT said...

What is islamic fundamentalism?

Here is my own version after I read on counterpunch the position of Jonathan Cook about How Israel is Engineering the "Clash of Civilizations"

The third goal, however, had not seen before. It tied the rise of a new anti-Semitism with the increase of Islamic fundamentalism in the West, implying that Muslim extremists were asserting an ideological control over Western thinking. It chimed well with the post 9-11 atmosphere.

I'm not pro Israel at all but Jonathan Cook used to do better thinking in the past. I think it is too simple to classify and point out the fingers on Israel or in the West for the rebirth of "Islamic fundamentalism" without defining what Islamic fundamentalism is, otherwise people are going to be confused. It cannot be described in 2 lines. There are many variants inside "islamic fundamentalism". I've been thinking alot about this term in the past, and there are different historical periods to understand the global changes that are linked to variants of "islamic fundamentalism". Each period in the Middle-East has had its own issues, nevertheless the Middle-East and its people, because of the invasion in Afghanistan, because of the invasion in Iraq, because of the attacks on Lebanon, and because of the attacks on Palestinians gave a new geopolitical dimension inside and outside the Middle-East. I call it the new world disorder because strategic alliances prior to WWII changed rapidly since the war in Iraq and it is going to be very hard to come back to the post WWII situation either with the UN or with the traditional alliances (Europe + USA + NATO) because of this interpretation of "islamic fundamentalism". Unlike what Jonathan Cook wrote, it is not the control over "islamic fundamentalist" from Israel that plays in her favor for this state, it is our views on islamic fundamentalism that are the causes of differences in opinions inside the West. Until this day the Human Being never found a better way to control geopolitical goals without the help of their respective God, because God is the common element for the masses and because freedom is different from one God to another one.

So what is islamic fundamentalism? First of all it is not all about religion, and not all about politics, it is about theopolitics, and it is a common base from some people in the Middle-East and in the West with a difference though: some people from Islam use their God for political aim because they are dominated, and a part of the West uses their politics for the oil and to reward later on their God in history books (dominators). For the case of Israel, this problem is internal with Palestine and its occupation, and external with Iran. Palestine, Iran, and now Lebanon are aligned against Israel. For the case of the West, theopolitics are associated with terrorism exclusively inside their governmental authority representing their reason and their laws, for the US they associate it with moral authority/responsibility to justify invasions in the Middle-East. This is why Islamic fundamentalism should not be associated with terrorism stricto senso inside the essence of its religious interpretation. Rather than that it is the synergy of the political impact through the legitimate interpretation of different societies for their own survivals that enters in conflict with the legal frame pillars (usually secularism but other things too) and is therefore considered dangerous inside the definition of another cultural national entity. "islamic fundamentalism" was not born like that out of the blue from one day to the next but it represents a right of existence, it depends only on what people want to do with this right of existence. Declaring a war on "islamic fundamentalism" won't change the bottom of the problem, it is partially linked with the western invasions as well. I don't think people are aware of that; I reached this conclusion after reading and studying some cases. That said each cases are different from each other:

So here is a practical example with the Hamas: people do not join the Hamas, it is the Hamas that usually recruits people and not the other way around, and we can say there is a recruiting profile inside the Hamas. One of the reasons why the sons join the Hamas comes from the fact that their father had been beaten by Israelis. It is humiliation that draws people to violence. Hamas represents to some of these people the role model of protecting their wives and children because they were unable to do that as they were young: God is their father and it cannot be humiliated, because it is thought that God cannot be defeated. This is what makes it dangerous in the eyes of Israel. Inside the original founders of the Hamas, there are different points of view though. There is the trend from the Muslim Brotherhood whose idea emerged in Palestine because they wanted to create a movement against Israel (it is the idea from Khaled Mashal). There is also this theory where people feel deeply committed with Islam (Al-Zahar). There is also this idea that without Israel occupation in 1967, then Hamas would have never been born, and Hamas plays the role as a blowback against Israel occupation. It is later on that some Palestinians from the Hamas thought about spreading Islam without or with the sword. Hamas is therefore not homogeneous with their views, although their views aim at Israel for this case only. The problem between Hamas and Israel is very hard to be solved: Israel only targets in Gaza these people that contain this ideology, although the ideology of the Hamas was partially born after Israel occupation.

Sun Sep 24, 12:55:00 AM  
Anonymous UT said...

Makes sense?

Sun Sep 24, 12:58:00 AM  
Anonymous UT said...

Here is the definition on the Wiki:

slamic views

Main article: Islamic fundamentalism

Muslims believe that their religion was revealed by God (Allah in Arabic) to Muhammad,the prophet of Islam, the final prophet delivered by God. However, the Muslims brand of conservatism which is generally termed Islamic fundamentalism encompasses all the following:

* It describes the beliefs of traditional Muslims that they should restrict themselves to literal interpretations of their sacred texts, the Qur'an and Hadith. This may describe the private religious attitudes of individuals and have no relationship with larger social groups.

* It describes a variety of religious movements and political parties in Muslim communities.

* As opposed to the above two usages, in the West "Islamic fundamentalism" is most often used to describe Muslim individuals and groups which advocate Islamism, a political ideology calling for the replacement of state secular laws with Islamic law. The more radical of these Islamists may advocate violent overthrow of secular states, or even Islamist terrorism.

In all the above cases, Islamic fundamentalism represents a conservative religious belief, as opposed to liberal movements within Islam.


For the Hamas, there is no doubt that their theopolitics would have never existed without the beatings of Palestinians and their occupation. It also means that the amount of Faith they placed for there geopolitical goals is therefore questionable.

God and Faith

God is part of the cultural aspect that encompasses the whole American civilization. It is a cultural aspect because people mechanized these words in their language to overcome their fears or whenever reality cannot be explained rationally. The shift started since 1957 and it is normal for them, it belongs to their culture, it only depends on the amount of Faith* believed in God. The problem happens when they use these words on other different societies: for the hardliners such as the rapture, these people believe to the coming of God as a savior, because they think they are the chosen ones, and in other muslim societies, it has the same thing too (mahadism in Suddan): Mahdi means liberator or the chosen. I think it is typical to Suddan and not the Talebans from Afghanistan (Ben Laden spent some time in Suddan).

A Muslim is a Muslim right? So if a Muslim is a Muslim, then a Christian is a Christian too? But we allow intellectual classification. Allowing intellectual classification through different interpretations is legitimate, because we need to reason, but it is in the West the opened path of politicians waging wars. In the Q'ran it is said "a Muslim should not denounce a Muslim". In the Bible it is the same thing, except the schism in the Christian religion happened since the XXth century. Can we say a schism happened in the Muslim religion too? I always wondered about this question. People usually tend to say it did not happen, I am not quiet sure but I would be more apt to balance "reason" on the same platter in the name of universal values.

*Faith is irrational so we can’t weigh it but there are correlations to understand their place inside the mind of a Human Being and statistics are part of the correlation to understand Faith. It has been proven that older people do not have the same amount of Faith then younger people. I had read a mindblowing report about that, … and I’ve been trying to find the link but I can’t find it ahem. In the meantime you can check out this article that will show you that Faith is stronger in the US than in any countries, therefore we are coming back to my little introduction, God is part of the American cultural society (under God we trust). I think that religion should be a personal matter and nothing else.

They chose to do it this way in their society, let’s not bother other people to do what they want for their own society.


Sun Sep 24, 01:07:00 AM  
Anonymous Nemo said...

No wonder US troops are now so maniacally pathological at times; they're indoctrinated via a credo of Total War! "Leave your humanity at the door, boys and girls -- you're in the ARMY now!": US Army's Kill-Kill Ethos Under Fire [Sunday Times of London] ==== The American army should scrap the Warrior Ethos, a martial creed that urges soldiers to demonstrate their fighting spirit by destroying the enemies of the United States at close quarter rather than winning the trust of local populations, according to senior US officers and counter-insurgency experts. ==== Soldiers are instructed to live by the creed, which evokes the warrior spirit of the modern US army. It begins with the stirring vow, "I am an American soldier", and goes on to affirm that "I will never accept defeat. I will never quit . . . I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat". ==== Admirable though this may be in the heat of battle, the Warrior Ethos's emphasis on annihilating the enemy is inimical to the type of patient, confidence-building counter-insurgency warfare in which America is engaged in the Middle East, according to Lieutenant-General Gregory Newbold, former director of operations to the joint chiefs of staff at the Pentagon. ==== "The future crises that relate to Iraq and Afghanistan will be a struggle for hearts and minds," Newbold said. "We're in a different environment now and that requires different techniques." ==== The Warrior Ethos replaced the Soldier's Creed drawn up in the post-Vietnam era which stated: "I am an American soldier . . . No matter what situation I am in, I will never do anything for pleasure, profit or personal safety, which will disgrace my uniform. I will use every means I have, even beyond the line of duty, to restrain my army comrades from actions disgraceful to themselves and the uniform." ... ==== [I'll take the OLD, remotely civilized version, thank you.]

Sun Sep 24, 04:05:00 PM  
Blogger Again said...

they're indoctrinated via a credo of Total War!

"This so-called “long war,” which Bush’s followers hail as “World War III,” would mean fighting large portions of a religious movement that has the allegiance of about one-sixth of the planet’s population...
“America will not bow down to tyrants,” he declared to applause." Election 2006 & World War III

Nation, Rise Up, and Let the Storm Break Loose

just copy & paste...


"There's no reason why someone who's been out there day after day shooting civilians shouldn't be held accountable... These people don't deserve any sympathy ...You can't bring back any of the victims, but you can destroy some of the evil in a small way -- but the only way to do that is by prosecuting the guilty." The Twilight of the Nazi Hunter this time he's going after the lower-level criminals -- the men who pulled the trigger on their commanders' orders"

(you know, "the men", who only raped some girls and killed and tortured only a few enemies..., not the real bad guys...., just some tens or hundreds or thousands, not millions!!)

Mon Sep 25, 12:44:00 AM  
Blogger Again said...

sorry, OT, Robert...

sometime ago i stumbled across OpenDemocracy - it's really different, you suddenly see it when you look at the subjects: it's not all about America, it's how Brits, Europeans, Indians, Arabians... look at the world

it might be interesting to watch through other eyes...

A prayer and a poem

The Girl / The Scream

There is a girl on a sea shore
And the girl has a family
And the family has a house
And the house has two windows and a door.
And at sea there's a warship playing a game
of targeting those taking a stroll on the shore
And the girl becomes the eternal scream of a breaking news event
made obsolete by the planes return to bomb
a house with two windows and a door.

Tue Sep 26, 06:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Nemo said...

In a word, "WOW!": "You Did Your Nice Little Conservative Hit Job On Me." by John Nichols [The Nation]. ==== (You'll just have to read it to see why.)

Tue Sep 26, 02:54:00 PM  
Anonymous Nemo said...

Again: The note you struck with that Bush / Goebbels analogy (in links) is remarkably elegant. From the instant I encountered the Calvin site's introductory statement, 'delivered to a carefully selected audience', and read of the arguably exaggerated transcription (regarding applause), a flood of memories from Fuehrer Dubya's own carefully stage-managed appearances rushed into mind. Oh, how the Republikan Reich does emulate its predecessors! ==== And it's astounding how often this Regime's words actually convey a modicum of truth, though it's not at ALL what they intended to fancifully depict: " ...the only way to do that is by prosecuting the guilty ..." I've been waiting a long time now to see the earnestly guilty prosecuted in this country -- "the pretenders to the throne" who still illicitly occupy the halls of power. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum!

Wed Sep 27, 03:27:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home