"Islam must rule the world

September 20, 2001 6:31 AM

"Islam must rule the world and until Islam does rule the world we will continue to sacrifice our lives." There isn't any way to compromise with that; no way to "live and let live".
posted by Steven Den Beste (43 comments total)

Of course, the vast majority of Muslims don't feel this way. But for those who do, there isn't any neutral ground. They've decided that either they're going to die or we are. I vote them.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 6:32 AM on September 20, 2001

Goes to show why philosophies which encourage people to sacrifice themselves for "the cause" are scary. Thanks for the link, Den Beste. I vote them too.
posted by dagny at 6:37 AM on September 20, 2001

I've been hearing, and I have no idea if it's true, that for every one radical Muslim killed by America two more are radicalized. (my exact numbers are fuzzy)

Is this true? Do we face an infinitely multiplying enemy?
posted by luser at 6:54 AM on September 20, 2001

Where's some math for you luser:
6,000 killed by terrorist = 1 pissed off country with 270,000,000 citizens. (notice I didn't say 270,000,000 people were pissed off)
posted by david1016 at 6:57 AM on September 20, 2001

i vote for the two pronged approach (carrot/stick). get rid of them and make sure no one takes their place. i'd go for the tried and true method of deradicalization, marshall plan-type aid, no more bone headed foreign policy, etc...
posted by kliuless at 7:06 AM on September 20, 2001

One dream I have come upo0n repeatedly on Arab web sites is that the Arabs/Muslims will put aside differences and unite to get back to the "good old days" . A "glorious'; past that is not wrought asunder into many states at each other's throats. I have a dream sort of thing.
posted by Postroad at 7:10 AM on September 20, 2001

basically, i guess you have to make people believe that civilization is worth it. cuz if it's not then why play nice?
posted by kliuless at 7:11 AM on September 20, 2001

We again run into the problem of who "they" are, exactly. "They" mingle among a largely innocent populace. "They" are parasites on the infrastructure of larger hosts and so have no large-value targets to hit (should we bomb our own flight schools?). "They" are human cruise-missiles; destroying them doesn't solve the strategic problem. We must destroy the base that launches "them".
posted by mrmanley at 7:13 AM on September 20, 2001

i think there's also a symptom/disease type dynamic that needs to be addressed. like if terrorism were AIDS or something. what would be the epidemiological approach?
posted by kliuless at 7:19 AM on September 20, 2001

If it were like AIDs, we'd act to try and get rid of the HIV first and control it so it doesn't get to AIDs.. Which could be an analogy for us ensuring these people don't feel strongly enough to believe they will go to heaven if they become a human bomb. Hmm.. Problem is, so many people are angry for so many reasons - the world is a screwed up place.. And amongst 6 billion odd people, you'll always get a few thousands complete maniacs at least. 120 camps x 100 people in each camp max = 12,000 people = 1/500,000th of the ppl in the world. It only takes a few idiots..

btw is that a guy standing on a tree branch on that bottom pic of the three in the article?
posted by Mossy at 7:26 AM on September 20, 2001

Why doesn't India handle its own problems first and let the Kashmiri people decide who they want to side with ? Foe every 1 Kashmiri, there are 3 barbaric Indian soldiers. Killing civilians and raping young girls. Want a link ? Search for Kashmir on google. What about the Sikh insurgency within India. The Tamils ? and the other freedom movements within India. India does not have a border with Afghanistan. In the worlds of Pervez Musharraf, "LAY OFF".
posted by adnanbwp at 7:30 AM on September 20, 2001

[get rid of them and make sure no one takes their place. i'd go for the tried and true method of deradicalization, marshall plan-type aid, no more bone headed foreign policy, etc...]

This is exactly what I think we should do. Weed out the bad apples, help those left make something better out of their country.

If it is our plan to eradicate "radical islam" we have to replace it with something, no? Who get's to decide what that is? Does Islam need a reformation much like christianity did?
posted by revbrian at 7:37 AM on September 20, 2001

"until Islam does rule the world we will continue to sacrifice our lives."

Now if we could teach them to queue up nicely I'm quite certain "they" could be accomodated. :) Their fellow countrymen might even be appreciative. Obviously human life holds no value for "them." I hear Russian soldiers learned to answer the cries of "Allah akbar!" (sp?) with "Jesus Saves" or something to that effect just before dispatching "them" to "their" heaven.
Overuse of quotation marks, Arg! Imagine SNL and using two fingers from each hand beside my face, yuk!
posted by nofundy at 7:44 AM on September 20, 2001

If it is our plan to eradicate "radical islam" we have to replace it with something, no? Who get's to decide what that is? Does Islam need a reformation much like christianity did?

Why not eradicate "radical Christianity" while you're at it, revbrian? What makes you think Christianity doesn't still need a reformation itself?
posted by lia at 7:48 AM on September 20, 2001

luser: Isn't the entire Cult of the Martyr based on the glory and financial reward that a dead terrorist's receives family after the terrorist's death?

As of yet, "martyred" families have felt nothing but positive repercussion for the actions of their dead sons. This positive effect is largely responsible for the attractiveness of sending ones children into jihad.

I suspect these people are much more rational than we give them credit for. Once the surviving members of a "martyr's family realize that there is a real price they will have to pay for this glory, the social attractiveness of martyrdom will greatly diminish.

Their a lot to be said for social pressure, and unfortunately, because of Clinton's weak US response to things like Cole bombing, we have seen it work entirely on the side of more martyrdom.
posted by justkurt at 7:51 AM on September 20, 2001

lia: uh, maybe because "radical christians" don’t appear to be flying planes into large buildings filled with innocent strangers. they mostly just hurt themselves , ala Jim Jones, and the folks down in Waco.
posted by justkurt at 7:56 AM on September 20, 2001

of course, christianity didn't have a reformation. roman catholicism did. my point is that it isn't so easy to "reform" anything, because the chances are the religion is already divided. even if you do reform one denomination of it, all you end up doing is splintering off one group of people from another within that collective via schism.
posted by moz at 8:02 AM on September 20, 2001

If you want to read one of the most interesting ethical/religious/political debates on WTC, go to Douglas Rushkoff's Media-Squatters Mail-list. Doug's last book, Coercion, was already heading away from "cyberia" and into the dirty real world. Now, coughing up the dust, he sounds like a New Model American and much more interesting for it. Try this, or this, or this. And looks like his next book on "open source religion" may be just as useful: here's the thinking behind it.
posted by theplayethic at 8:04 AM on September 20, 2001

[Why not eradicate "radical Christianity" while you're at it, revbrian? What makes you think Christianity doesn't still need a reformation itself?]

The minute "radical Chrtiatianity" starts killing people I'm all for it. I preach against fundamentalism in christianity, and have for as long as I've preached.
posted by revbrian at 8:06 AM on September 20, 2001

...and kill doctors and injure women and instill hate.

They seem kinda ripe to me.

Funny, I've met more radical Christians than I have met radical Muslims, yet I've met more devout Muslims than I've met devout Christians.

I should point out that I was raised a Christian and have also spent a lot of time in mosques.

But you can't reform people against their will. Certainly not on matter of faith. Doesn't anyone remember the Spanish Inquisistion round here? (and please, no Monty Pything refs)
posted by jackiemcghee at 8:06 AM on September 20, 2001

If it is our plan to eradicate "radical islam" we have to replace it with something, no?

The only element of radical Islam the U.S. cares about is the one dedicated to killing us. If the Taliban handed over Osama bin Laden and the location of all terrorist camps in the country, the U.S. has already said it would not attempt to remove them from power.
posted by rcade at 8:06 AM on September 20, 2001

WTF happened to my typing there?
posted by jackiemcghee at 8:07 AM on September 20, 2001

Let's just eradicate all organized religion and do the world a tremendous favor.
posted by fusinski at 8:33 AM on September 20, 2001

"To prevent kite-flying." Intriguing article from the CSM about life under Taliban rule, and some of their rather bizarre edicts, including banning kite-flying and beard-trimming. I don't think I'm quite ready for fundamentalist Islamic rule.
posted by vraxoin at 8:55 AM on September 20, 2001

A query. When you hear the word "terrorist" what vision does that bring into your mind? Be honest.
posted by bjgeiger at 9:07 AM on September 20, 2001

Why doesn't India handle its own problems first and let the Kashmiri people decide who they want to side with ?

And of course since India is not letting the Kashmiri people decide, the Pakistani people (in a coordinated effort with terrorists like OBL/Taliban govt) decide to do it for them (the Indian govt) by terrorizing Kashmir. That ought to get the point across.

Foe every 1 Kashmiri, there are 3 barbaric Indian soldiers. Killing civilians and raping young girls.

The killing/raping is being done by the terrorists backed by Pakistan and the Taliban. Not the Indian soldiers.


Want a link?

Don't need to.

What about the Sikh insurgency within India. The Tamils ? and the other freedom movements within India.

What about it? If you care to look beneath headlines, you will see that majority of Sikhs DO NOT support a separate homeland -- Khalistan -- from India. Like the terrorists who attacked NYC/Pentagon, they are very small in numbers, and do NOT represent the Sikhs-at-large. Talk to them. I have, and I know. For a fact. (By the way, majority of the Sikhs -- although disapproving of the Golden Temple raid -- did NOT approve/want to assassinate Indira Gandhi.) And what about the Tamils? Are you perhaps referring to the situation in Sri Lanka? Perhaps you should elaborate what the problem is instead of making vague statements/questions.

India does not have a border with Afghanistan. In the worlds of Pervez Musharraf, "LAY OFF".

No idea what this means. Is Mushartaf saying that to India? And by the way: what exactly is Pakistan? Is it a democracy? If they elect their political leaders, why isn't there one now? Will there be any elections? Is it a theocracy? Why don't you talk about how Pakistan has supported and probably continues to support Bin Laden and people like him; and how majority of the Pakistanis hate the US and India and want nothing to with taking down OBL?
posted by Rastafari at 9:10 AM on September 20, 2001

Let's just eradicate all organized religion and do the world a tremendous favor.

Amen to that!
posted by Rastafari at 9:11 AM on September 20, 2001

I'm giving you a virtual high-five, Rastafari, for your devastating takedown of adnanbwp.
Let's not forget that India is a democracy. As such, it occupies the moral high ground in comparison with Pakistan and Afghanistan.
posted by Holden at 9:27 AM on September 20, 2001

An old but interesting article An American Terrorist. "The question now becomes obvious: How is it that a religion whose very name means peace, is so troubled by violence? The answer is not clear at first. It lies buried under several layers of misnomers. The biggest of which is that all Muslims are terrorists."
posted by bjgeiger at 9:39 AM on September 20, 2001

From a British perspective I've always felt that at some time the reckoning would have to take place - if the fundamentalists begin to assume any type of influence they would have to be faced - and the time appears to have arrived. War may not be an answer but sometimes it's all you've got. Oh. . . by the way . . . does this mean that Noraid donations now dry up - c'mon guys, a war against terrorism aint a war against terrorism unless you target them all.
posted by riverstreet at 10:04 AM on September 20, 2001

fusinki: please take a good look at life in China. Or the former USSR for that matter. Atheism was fine for Stalin, Mao, etc.
posted by argybarg at 10:28 AM on September 20, 2001

That is one weak argument. Stalin and Mao did away with religion not because it was the "opiate of the masses" but because it was ideological competition.
posted by jackiemcghee at 10:46 AM on September 20, 2001

"because of Clinton's weak US response to things like Cole bombing"

I can't let that pass. Does this mean it's all Clinton's fault now? Here's a virtual quarter, buy yourself a clue!

Looks like someone has been reading the RNC blast faxes or NewsMax or listening to Rush perhaps? How's about it's all Poppy Bush's fault, eh? Or all Raygun's fault? Or all dubya's isolationist asses fault? Sounds a bit more realistic to me.

As I recall it the Repugs were screaming "Wag the Dog" when Clinton tried to hit bin Laden instead of saying "hit 'em harder!" Appears they didn't want attention distracted from Clinton's zipper to focus on terrorism. Just wasn't as important as getting a hummer.

Yeah, Clinton's fault, right. Be gone, demon!
posted by nofundy at 10:53 AM on September 20, 2001

"Let's not forget that India is a democracy. As such, it occupies the moral high ground in comparison with Pakistan and Afghanistan."

Is the moral high ground India occupies as high as the ground the US occupied during the Vietnam conflict? I don't think one can justify a country's actions solely on its choice of government. Shoot, even the US is a democracy that has sponsored terrorism in the past. Isn't the whole problem the fact that EVERYONE believes they hold the moral high ground?
posted by LabTroglodyte at 11:07 AM on September 20, 2001

Please. The hypocrisy and dichotomous thinking marches right on with nary a pause.

"It's them or us." Compelling argument. Our ethical posture is certainly light years above that of the "terrorist".

Funny how these "fundamentalists" have been saying the same thing for years. Funny how we didn't care what they were saying when they were doing our own bidding, e.g. fighting those damned filthy commies. No, back then it was skoal! good hunting! and could you use another brace of Stingers, boys?

And I can't help but note the glee of my Christian friends who chortle that recent events may herald Armageddon, after which Christianity will rule the earth. Exactly how many of them (and you) use that special phrase "soldiers for Christ", happily prepared to sacrifice your lives and others so that Christ can "reign upon the earth for eternity?"

Then there's this annoying similarity between "terrorists" guiding an airliner into an enemy's commerce, and our own hired killers launching missiles into cities, shooting down civilian jetliners, choking the delivery of food and medicine to children, and supplying arms for all sorts of greedy nastiness. Gotta make the world safe for Exxon, Coca-Cola and the almighty dollar, the gods many of our fellow citizens worship on bended knee.

And would like to see rule the world.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:18 AM on September 20, 2001

Indeed, jackiemcghee. And argybarg, i didn't say do away with religion. I said organized religion.
posted by fusinski at 11:32 AM on September 20, 2001

of course, christianity didn't have a reformation. roman catholicism did.

Okay, I have to respond to that. My era of my phd disseration so rarely comes up on mefi.

I would say that it is indeed safe to say that Christianity has been reformed. In fact, Christianity has had many reformations, in all its parts. You can split them up into many, many, many different subcategories. For example, the Protestant Reformation, with Luther ("Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.") and Calvin and all their cronies; there was the Radical Reformation, with Zwingli and the anabaptists, among other interesting groups of folk, like those who believe that lust was the voice of God, or that they should just strip down and lie in a field and wait for Jesus to come back; and then there was the Spanish Inquisition, earlier that the others and determining ritual practice and even policy on prayer as well as conquering Muslim Spain and converting or exiling all the Muslims and Jews; and then we have the the Iconoclastic Controversy in the Eastern church, when they went through and destroyed icons because they were evil, and then backtracked on that policy; the the Reformation of Ritual, the the Reformation of the Magistrates (yes, that's a plug for my adviser's dissertation); and, of course, last but not least, the Catholic Counter-Reformation, which some people like to just call the Catholic Reformation, which lasts really about 600 years. Well, not last at all, actually, this goes on and on, but I find that after 1700 things fall under the category of 'current events' and don't merit the attention of a historian. :)
posted by Hildegarde at 12:11 PM on September 20, 2001

lia: uh, maybe because "radical christians" don’t appear to be flying planes into large buildings filled with innocent strangers. they mostly just hurt themselves , ala Jim Jones, and the folks down in Waco.

I cannot for one second believe that everyone simply let this slip through.

revbrian and others: Have you heard of abortion clinic bombings or attacks on the clinic workers themselves?

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are, to me, radical christians. They do not preach tolerance. They do not love unconditionally. They definitely do cast the first stone... Sorry. Nope.
posted by fooljay at 12:41 PM on September 20, 2001

phew, lots of opinions flying around up there.. Looks like everyone is in agreement that 1) religion should not be forced on anyone, 2) killing for religion is a no no, 3) most religions are not that bad per se, its just the nutters and the power mad that do that spin thing on them, tch..

What constitutes a religion btw? Is it a way of life? Thats how it should be, right? Something which guides you in your morals and how you should act. Thats kinda confusing though, cos it would also make capitalism a kinda religion, right? God=the aforementioned almighty buck. Down with capitalist extremists too, its not right that people should be made to suffer for profits..
posted by Mossy at 2:51 PM on September 20, 2001

phew, lots of opinions flying around up there.. Looks like everyone is in agreement that 1) religion should not be forced on anyone, 2) killing for religion is a no no, 3) most religions are not that bad per se, its just the nutters and the power mad that do that spin thing on them, tch..

Well not everyone's in agreement there. The extreme fundamentalists in at least the Islam and Christian (Jewish? Buddhist? etc) religions expressly disagree.

They think that the church and the state should be one (or effectively so) and that the only God's laws are the only true authority. Other religions are heresy and threats to themselves and they are not above killing for their religions.

Outside of those groups, I think we're all in agreement.

Thanks God for our separation of church and state and freedom of religion, eh?
posted by fooljay at 4:33 PM on September 20, 2001

by everyone I meant Mefis around here.. Actually, that may not be the case looking closely... Oops. And you can have states run by religion that don't terrorize others, its just not all that common.. Or easy...

btw, from waaaay up there, I'd like to give my 2 cents on Kashmir and the disagreement between adnanwp and rastafarai.. Most of my sources are muslim and therefore likely to be biased, but the people in Kashmir seem to be getting pretty harsh treatment from the Indian forces there in general - they have 'shoot on sight' powers as of last month I believe, and exercise them in retaliation whenever the terrorists blow something up (tit for tat sux.. kinda like Israel, eh?). Please give evidence that Pakistan is sponsering the rapes and killings to contradict the information being fed to me. Thanx.

Well, that is if you read this, damn connection, getting late on the draw...
posted by Mossy at 5:58 PM on September 20, 2001

fold_and_mutilate "It's them or us." Compelling argument. Our ethical posture is certainly light years above that of the "terrorist".

Well, that`s a fine call to think about things on more "civilized" terms, but

"Islam must rule the world and until Islam does rule the world we will continue to sacrifice our lives."

sort of forces our hand on the issue. It doesn`t pay to tell the angry man with the gun at your head that you plan to engage in some serious dialogue about how to handle the situation.
posted by chiheisen at 9:44 PM on September 20, 2001

nofundy : wag the dog indeed. Clinton didn’t want to respond to terrorism, he wanted to distract the press from his personal shenanigans. As a result, his responses to the attacks that occured on his watch were merely symbolic (WTC I, Cole, etc), and the terrorists could see that. They knew if they just lay low for awhile, they’d live to bomb another day. And they were right.
posted by justkurt at 7:47 AM on September 22, 2001