Religion of exploding females:
Suicide bombings target Shi’ite pilgrims in Iraq
Sunni-Shi’ite Jihad Update.
“Spate of suicide attacks kill more than 50 in Iraq,”
from Agence France-Presse, July 28:
Three women bombers blew themselves up on Monday in a crowd of Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad, one of a string of attacks in Iraq that killed at least 51 people, undermining hopes of a drop in violence.
Scores of people were also wounded in the attacks, which follow a relative lull in the sectarian violence that has ravaged the country since February 2006, when insurgents blew up a Shiite mosque in the central city of Samarra.
The triple attack in Baghdad killed at least 25 pilgrims as they headed to a holy shrine for a major religious ceremony on the Shiite Muslim calendar that has been marred by bloodshed in the past, security officials said.
Another 22 people were killed in a suicide bombing during a protest rally in the northern oil city of Kirkuk, and gunfire in a panicked stampede that followed, local officials said.
Among the dead in the Baghdad bombings were women and children, security and hospital officials told AFP, adding that about 70 other people were wounded.
* Not that anybody in the ummah Islamiyah gives a shiite. Its only when infidels roast a few terrorists that the Koranimals have hissy fits…
The bombers struck in the Karrada district of central Baghdad as pilgrims were making their way on foot towards Kadhimiyah in the north of the Iraqi capital, site of a Shiite festival on Tuesday.
“At least 25 people were killed and more than 70 were wounded in three suicide attacks, probably by females suicide bombers,” a police official said.
On Sunday, gunmen shot dead seven pilgrims in Madin, a town south of Baghdad, despite tight security for Tuesday’s ceremony honouring revered imam Mussa Kadhim that is expected to attract up to one million worshippers.
Pilgrims from around the country are flocking to the Iraqi capital to mourn the revered imam who died 12 centuries ago, prompting authorities to step up security amid concerns over attacks.
Systematic violence — suicide bombings and sectarian killings — have dropped sharply in the capital since a peak in 2006, but Iraqi police are worried about a wave of attacks in the city of six million people.
Major General Kassam Atta, spokesman for city security, told reporters that his force had information regarding the possibility of attacks targeting pilgrims during this year’s festival.
“We ask people to help in all ways with our security forces,” Atta said, adding that up to one million people were expected.
Checks have been particularly stringent amid what appears to be [a] growing trend of using women in insurgent bombings, which have claimed hundreds of lives across the volatile country….
Iraq: from slayings to parliamentary quarrels, Sunnis and Shias continue demonstrating their antipathy for one another
Though the two stories relayed here seem to have nothing in common — Shia pilgrims being slain and the Iraqi parliament quarreling over laws — they are in fact related: just as Sunnis and Shias have been at each other’s throats since the Battle of the Camel to this recent slaying, so too will Sunnis and Shias in a Western style democracy never see eye to eye — that is, as long as they take their religious tenets seriously. “Gunmen Kill 7 Iraqi Pilgrims Near Baghdad,” from VOA News, July 27:
Iraqi security officials say unidentified gunmen have killed seven Shi’ite pilgrims who were walking to a shrine in the capital for a major religious commemoration.
Gee, wonder which Islamic sect these mysterious “gunmen” belong to — Sunni maybe?
Officials say the gunmen ambushed the pilgrims Sunday in the town of Madain, south of the capital, as they traveled to a revered mosque in the northern Baghdad neighborhood of Kadhimiyah.Â
The pilgrims were among the tens of thousands of people expected to converge in Kadhimiyah this week to commemorate the death, 12 centuries ago, of one of the 12 Imams of Shi’ite Islam who is believed buried there.
Iraqi military spokesman General Qassim Moussawi says his forces have tightened security around the area.
In other news, Iraqi politicians have been given two days to offer changes to a draft provincial elections law that was rejected last week.
A deputy speaker of parliament, Sheikh Khalid al-Attiyah, on Saturday said committees are trying to determine why the law was rejected and are working to submit a final report to parliament within 48 hours.
Iraq’s Presidential Council rejected the draft law Wednesday, sending it back to parliament and most likely delaying U.S.-backed elections that were scheduled for October.
The United States has urged Iraq’s government to hold elections by the end of the year, saying the vote would help to further reconcile Iraq’s different ethnic groups.
But that’s just it, and why there is a delay: the different “ethnic” groups (read: Shias and Sunnis) have a long way to go before they can be “reconciled,” as evinced by the Shia slayings.
Â
Herein lies a significant problem in the Islamic faith – any fool can pronounce a fatwa and any fool can interpret the Quran in a manner that suits their purpose, and they do … regularly. There is no central authority, and to my knowledge there never has been. Thus when you hear someone speaking on behalf of the Islamic faith . well .. you can take it or leave it … it doesn´t mean too much.
Kaw:
Actually not: the Koran is not subject to interpretation. Since it is the direct word of Allah it has to be taken literally. Interpretation (Itjihad) is no longer permitted.
Cheers!
Thanks Sheik,
I think that you are right (in a sense), but the question is how does one interpret an opaque document with many conflicting surahs … etc. Having read the offending book I think that there are many possible interpretations and, I think, that subtle differences between the various flavours of Islam do exist which can only be explained in terms of a slightly different interpretation. However I have only read english translations – I would have to learn Arabic to see what is really intended by this book. This would be a useful task as by learning the language of an enemy one understand the enemy better :-). I would honestly say that Islam seems to me to be in a state of development in the same way that the christian religions were about 500 – 300 years ago. I think the similarities are remarkable, and what I find really curious in an academic way is that there is this 500 year gap – in other words the Christian religions have matured and are more stable – Islam is at present the nasty kid on the block. Although the muslim record of violence is far worse than the Christian record, we still were behaving in similar ways about 300 years ago.
However, we have a problem with these folks at the moment and it needs to be resolved.
We cant really afford to wait two centuries for the Muslims to grow into the modern age.
kaw,
Interesting that you should mention the Christian faith. The teachings of Jesus have not changed one bit, and the Bible is consistent. It is only when the teachings from Jesus have been ignored, (when so-called adherents have not actually followed Christian principals) that the ugly side of mankind in the name of ‘the church’ have surfaced.
This is what sets islam apart from Christianity. When Christians closely follow scripture, then enemies are forgiven, strangers are helped, neighbours are treated fairly, hospitals are built, orphans are cared for, etc etc.
When muslims closely follow the koran, enemies are found everywhere and killed, strangers are raped and murdered, neighbours are blown up, hospitals are destroyed, orphans are made et etc…
Kaw,
You don’t need to speak Arabic. 80 to 90% of Muslims don’t speak Arabic. All the texts are there, from Muslims themselves or from ‘reverts’ to Islam, like here, online, http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/012.qmt.html from the most respected: Yusufali, Picktal and Shakir.
Muslims for the most part rely on their clerics to explain the Islamic rulings for them. Rest assured, however, that these clerics have quite a good understanding of Koran, sira and hadith and would rarely differ when it comes to scripture.
Islam is not in a state of ‘development’ because it can’t be changed. Every Muslim will tell you that the Koran is unchanged since 1400 years, that it is the absolute truth and that the Christian and Jewish scriptures are ‘corrupted’. There are no similarities because the Christian and Jewish faith’s do not have a mandate for world conquest, do not incite to kill disbelievers, do not instruct the believers to lie (taqiyya) to hide their intentions, no. Islam is different, diametrically opposed.
Keep in mind that historically speaking, when Christians have acted out of greed or with the intend to conquer foreign lands, they did so ignoring their religious scriptures, whereas Muslim have spread Islam with the sword and the Koran, which is not only a religious duty for every Muslim, but the jihad is the essence of it. In fact killing and dying in the way of Allah is the only way to get to the 72 virgins, and believe it or not, Muslims do take this madness seriously.
The best sources outside of Koran and hadith are the apostates of islam, the ex-muslims who, in fear of their lives do a wonderful job in telling the truth: http://www.muhammadanism.org/government/government_sharia_ideology.htm
Hope that helps..
I will disagree with you folks cordially.
Firstly John, it is clear that the teachings of Jesus have not changed. However, their interpretation has. For Europe the dark ages were lifted when the separation of church and state was effected. It took about four hundred years after the death of Christ for Christian religion (eg the papal body) to become strongly intertwined with domenstic politics in what we now know as Europe – it took another 1500 years to get them out again (although they still hold party cards in Italy). Issues of doctrine are always open to interpretation at one level – be it the Bible or the Quran – An historical case – the Cathars in SW France – year ca. 1209 AD. The Cathars were Christians, but their doctrinal belief differed from that of the Church in Rome on the fine point of the poverty of Christ. The Church in Rome contended that this description was, in some sense, an allegory. The Cathars saw Christ’s poverty as real. Two interpretations at some level of the holy bible – the understanding of the Cathars was more appealing to the poor masses and the Cathars started making converts at the expense of the church in Rome. The consequences are startling – the first crusade was made to exterminate the Cathars – this was done and the Cathars dissappeared because the church in Rome sensed a threat to their position. The high point of this Crusade – the destruction of Beziers and the massacre of its population of 15,000 (ratio of population density of Europe circa 1209 to today will
gives a feeling of the relative number of casualties – it is very high). This is a consequence of what to me is a minor doctrinal difference of opinion but with significant political implications. The only amusing think about this little romp thru history of religion is the name of the pope involved, Innocent III. Who say that the church doesn’t have a sense of humour. The persecution of women, under charges of withchcraft etc were all supported by the church using subtle variations of Doctrinal understanding. Even today, the church in Rome uses its interpretation of Christian doctrine to suppress various groups in society. Now I don’t particularly care if you agree with this or not – the point I am trying to make is that humans interpret the word of some “holy text” and their interpretation forms a doctrine. This changes over time even though the original document remains unchanged. The source of the doctrinal change is human and this evolves as a response to dynamical changes in society, politics, famines, natural disasters etc. The original document does not change. I therefore contend, and there is evidence to support it, that some muslims are in fact capable of reinterpreting the Quran in a way that is constructive for the modern era. To class all muslims as one unform belief is, in my opinion, quite wrong (however it is the point of view of the Islamists but it is NOT the point of view of the moderate muslim majoritiy) and a point of view that will not be of assistance in the conflict to come. This problem comes in many shades of grey – not all is black and white – and we need to support the good guys from the muslim communities. The bad guys, as said before, should be exterminated for the good of all. However separating good from bad is non-trivial without the assistance of the good guys – here I believe that one should separate the good from the bad, but this may not be the opinion of the majority.
The point of view that Islam cannot be changed depends from whose perpective you are viewing. I agree that most of the idiots who make the news see it precisely as the sheik has noted but I content that there are muslims who are trying to make their people see that different interpretations are possible. I would also contend that those muslims who deny that change is possible are simply seeking an effective tool through which they can control the politics of their people eg shades of Innocent III. This is also bound into cultural identity.
Finally, I speak a few languages. You can understand many subtle things about a person through their langauge. In a war it is very useful to know your enemy – it enables you to anticipate and also prepare little surprises, to be able to negiotate knowing full well what the enemy means. From my point of view the advantage of understanding arabic is that one will understand the speech of the enemy, one will understand how it thinks, and one can interpet this troublesome book thru ones own eyes – not the eyes of another – which will give one additional tactical information for the battle that is coming (again in terms of arab psychology). On a personal note I think it is an ugly language, as ugly as arab culture – the wonderful architecture attribed to them was stolen from others as were a good many other things – but as a tool to assist in defeating the enemy it has potential. There is a war coming, it is based on cultural difference not primarily religion, and I do not intend to lose.
Now time to fight some equations and a computer so wishing you all a pleasant day.
kaw:
” some muslims are in fact capable of reinterpreting the Quran in a way that is constructive for the modern era.”
a.) ‘Some Muslims’ is just not good enough. Not all Germans were Nazis, but the radicals always have the upper hand.
b.) Christian crimes in the past and more recently were never committed in the spirit of the scriptures. Islamic crimes are deeply rooted in the Koran and the hadith and are therefore justified in the eyes of muslims.
c.) I speak several languages myself and I’m fully aware that a language gives you insight in the mentality of a people. It is however not necessary to speak Arabic to understand Islamic doctrine and the Islamic rulings.
d.) Islam has not evolved over 1400 years, it is static, it stifles mental growth.
e.) your quote:
to class all muslims as one unform belief is, in my opinion, quite wrong (however it is the point of view of the Islamists but it is NOT the point of view of the moderate muslim majoritiy)
This old chestnut about ‘Islam is not a monolith’ and we ‘can’t tar all muslims with one brush’ is just that: a way to deflect away from the problem. All muslims, like all dogs, share certain characteristics. And if you never came accross a muslim mob who tells you that you will have all 5 gazillion muslims coming to get you if you draw a muhammad cartoon then you haven’t seen Islam in action yet.
Finally, the idea that there is a ‘moderate muslim majority’ is a fallacy. The ‘moderate Muslim’ is something that our dimwitted leaders and the misguided media has cooked up, there is no evidence that such a thing exists. While there might be some moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam. Neither of it will do us any good. There are of course, nominal Muslims, those in name only, who have been born into the faith and show no interest other than a filial piety, but who is to say that their children will not take the faith seriously and become ‘radicals?’
Peace!
Well – we have some disagreement but that is life. I agree with a) disagree with b) wrt to actions commited on behalf of scripture, partially agree with c) partly agree with d) and I still hold that my quote in e) is correct from my personal experience. I am not going to fill up bandwidth with a difficult discussion that really needs a conversation to fully explain all points of view (for us both) so I am not going to continue this thread. This isnt a cop-out … just practicality. We both recognise a common danger, and our methods of solution are possibly quite different. Unfortunately I have seen the muslim mob in action … and some friends/people I knew have passed away as a consequence of muslim activities in a few countries, Although I detest the braindead muslim terrorist I am equally pissed off with the idiots who have let these thugs into our countries – I really find the little reminders that they are here such as the stabbbing in Sydney today disturbing. However I respect your point of view and I expect that you respect mine.
Best wishes
The Cathars were no more Christian than Obama or Wright are.
There was no “Dark Ages”.
There was never any inhuman abomination in “The Dark Ages” comparable to Communism or Nazism, both off-shoots of socialism, which is Christianity without Christ, which is an “enlightenment” ideal.
All “protestants” are crypto-papists, deriving their Christology and Dogmas from schismatic Rome.
I hope this has cleared up any confusion regarding these matters.
This is ahistorical foolishness:
“Islam seems to me to be in a state of development in the same way that the christian religions were about 500 – 300 years ago. I think the similarities are remarkable, and what I find really curious in an academic way is that there is this 500 year gap – in other words the Christian religions have matured and are more stable”
According to this morally relativistic timelime, in 700 Islam would have been repressed and practiced mostly in secret, with thousands of peaceful forgiving martyrs; by 1000, Islam would have peacefully converted an empire by its high moral standards and obvious humanity; by 1100, Muslims from across the world would have gathered to debate their teachings and beliefs and would have come up with a concise creed making the Church’s teaching clear.
Of course, no such thing occurred, because Muslims, following the example and teachings of Mohammad [Piss be Upon Him] and his followers invaded, conquered, killed, raped, pillaged, stole, etc. from India to Portugal. And of course Islam is not The Church, but is rather a theocratic tyranny.
“kaw” is free to believe whatever nonsense he likes. Freedom of thought is one of the blessings of the superior Greco-Judeo-Romano-Christian culture that I guess he lives in, unless he’s unfortunate enough to live in Islamia.
Respecting a person’s right to express a point-of-view is not the same as respecting it, and how can one respect a point-of-view that is based on ignorance and that leads to destruction. The moral equivalency and uninformed bigotry expressed above is exactly the sort of nonsense that has bred a political class that is ashamed and ignorant of its past and has no reason or desire to defend itself against Islamic infiltration and aggression.
Re: “You can understand many subtle things about a person through their langauge. In a war it is very useful to know your enemy – it enables you to anticipate and also prepare little surprises, to be able to negiotate knowing full well what the enemy means. From my point of view the advantage of understanding arabic is that one will understand the speech of the enemy, one will understand how it thinks, and one can interpet this troublesome book thru ones own eyes – not the eyes of another – which will give one additional tactical information for the battle that is coming (again in terms of arab psychology). On a personal note I think it is an ugly language, as ugly as arab culture”
Many Arabs, in Mesapotamia, the Levant, and Arabia, were Christian before Mohammad [Piss Be Upon Him] was even born. Many still are today.
Many non-Arab Christians use Arabic today [e.g. Copts in Egypt and Nubians in S. Sudan].
Most Arabs and Arabic-speakers in N. America are Christian.
Most Muslims don’t speak Arabic. Most speak Indo-European [Iranian, Urdu, Bengali, Pashtun, Kurdish, Kashmiri], Malayo-Polynesian [Indonesian, Javanese, Tagalog, Malay], and Turkic [Turkish, Azeri, Uzbek, Turkmen, Kazakh, Kyrgyz] languages.
Have fun learning them all.
Even the majority of non-Arab Muslims who learn to recite Koranic passages in Arabic can’t speak or read it.
And Arabic is no more or less “ugly” than Basque, Hebrew, Mongolian, Ke-jia or English. Next you’ll be saying that French is the most perfect and beautiful language ever invented?
You seem to be a typical product of a modern liberal education system.
* * * * *
I realize it may take years for you to overcome your liberal brainwashing, but for your edification:
http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/egypts-rubbish-people/
http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/06/25/ignored-africa-abandoned-holy-land/
http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/ethiopian-manuscript-icons/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Orthodox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maronites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melkites
http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=134
“The public idea of the Middle Ages as a supposed “Dark Age” is also reflected in misconceptions regarding the study of nature during this period. The contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald Numbers discuss the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a “time of ignorance and superstition”, the blame for which is to be laid on the Christian Church for allegedly “placing the word of religious authorities over personal experience and rational activity”, and emphasize that this view is essentially a caricature.
“For instance, a claim that was first propagated in the 19th century and is still very common in popular culture is the supposition that the people from the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat. According to Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, this claim was mistaken, as “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth’s] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference.”
“Ronald Numbers states that misconceptions such as “the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages”, “the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science”, and “the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy”, are examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though he says that they are not supported by current historical research.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages#Modern_popular_use
* * * * *
And a free history book for you at the bottom of this page:
http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/06/21/the-holy-land/
Akira,
you just got lucky: your post was just fished out of the spam. If you post long articles with more than 2 links the system won’t let it through. This time I checked (by chance) but please understand that normally there is no time for us to do that, we get over 1000 spam messages a day!