Jihadists and anarchists?

[Brother None]

That's why one should be a Bokononist.

Did you know "Phoma" or "Foma" is the Russian name of the apostel Thomas, my namesake and thus my name in Russian, as well as one of the nicknames of a crowbar?

 

[Murdoch]

I thought Bokononist was the Russian word for Bukkake.

-shrugs-

 

[Wooz]

@ Phil: You ARE stupid and illiterate. And you ride a bicycle. Gay. Eheh.

@Kharn: Bunch of lies. Lies, I say. Foma!
Seriously, IIRC, you were complaining about your nick, at least, uh, a year ago. Maybe you can change it into a secksay crowbar name?

Or maybe not.

@Murdoch: Вы любите баккэйкк!

 

[Brother None]

@Kharn: Bunch of lies. Lies, I say. Foma!
Seriously, IIRC, you were complaining about your nick, at least, uh, a year ago. Maybe you can change it into a secksay crowbar name?

Or maybe not.

I still dislike the nick Kharn, but hell, I'm stuck with it.

Foma is not much better. Though crowbars are damned useful tools

баккэйкк!

That can not be an actual word.

 

[Wooz]

You don't just walk into Mordor!

Yes you do, you totally do.

 

[John Uskglass]

What are the motherfucking odds?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/29/news/edtibi.php#

Jihadism's roots in political Islam
By Bassam Tibi International Herald Tribune

TUESDAY, AUGUST 30, 2005
GÖTTINGEN, Germany After any terrorist attack by jihadists - from the Sept. 11 attacks to those in Bali in 2002, Madrid in 2004 and London in July - two contradictory views are usually heard. Some people claim that such religiously legitimated terror has its roots in Islam; others, principally Muslims and politically correct Westerners, say such terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.

The truth can only be reached by putting aside both extreme views and by recognizing the difference between Islam, the religion, and Islamism, the religious-political ideology. Although jihadism may not be Islamic, it is based on the ideology of Islamism, which has emerged from the politicization of Islam in the current war of ideas.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of recognizing this truth. Jihadism will continue to be with us for decades to come, as long as the movement related to it within Islamic civilization continues to thrive and to disseminate its deadly ideas.

Jihadists see themselves as non-state actors waging an irregular war against "kafirun," or unbelievers. They see their struggle as a just war legitimated by a religious, political and military interpretation of the Islamic concept of jihad.

Jihadism's relation to Islamism can be stated in a nutshell: Jihadists read the classical doctrine of jihad in a new mind while reinventing Islamic tradition.

Although the Koran allows Muslims to resort to "qital" (physical fighting) for the benefit of Islam, this is clearly for reasons other than terrorism, because the Koran allows qital only under strict rules, while terrorism, by definition, is a war without rules. The new interpretation of jihad adds an "ism" to it, jihad becoming jihadism (jihadiyya), an irregular war that is a variety of modern terrorism.

It is wrong and even deceitful to argue that jihadism has nothing to do with Islam, because the jihadists believe that they are acting as "true Islamic believers" and learn the Islamist mind-set in mosques and Islamic schools, including those of the Islamic diaspora in Europe.

It follows that the debate over whether these terrorists are "Islamic" or "un-Islamic" is meaningless. The fact is that jihadism is a new direction in Islamic civilization, an expression of the contemporary "revolt against the West" that enjoys tremendous popularity in the ongoing war of ideas. In order to combat the deadly idea of jihadism successfully, it is necessary to seek Muslim cooperation to determine who the jihadists are, rather than engaging in empty arguments.

The jihadists are followers of the ideas of Hasan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb, who laid the foundations of Islamism as a political and military interpretation of Islam. Islamism aims not only to purify Islam but also to establish the "Nizam Islami," or Islamic order.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, some commentators said that jihadists were now targeting the West because they were "fighting somebody else's war." This is utterly wrong. The intellectual father of jihadist Islamism, Sayyid Qutb, who was executed in Cairo in 1966, made the message crystal clear: Jihadism is a "permanent Islamic world revolution" aimed at decentering the West in order to establish "Hakimiyyat Allah," or God's rule, on a global scale.

Early Islamists honored Qutb's distinction between two steps, the local and the global, in the jihadist strategy: First topple secular regimes at home, and then move on to global jihad. What Al Qaeda has done is not to fight somebody else's war, but rather to confuse the two steps in the jihadist strategy. This confusion continued to manifest itself in the terrorist attacks in Madrid and in London, because of the existence of a Muslim diaspora in Europe that has its own problems.

What can be done to counter jihadism? As a Muslim immigrant living in Europe, I wholeheartedly reject the idea of a "clash of civilizations." But it would be naïve to overlook the reality of an ongoing "war of ideas" - a struggle between global jihad and democratic peace as competing directions for the 21st century.

Instead of giving in to talk of a "clash of civilizations," what is needed is an alliance between Western supporters of democracy and enlightened Muslims against jihadist Islamists.

It is important to realize, however, that democracy is a political culture and not simply a procedure. Shiite clerics in Iraq, for example, have failed to recognize this - and as a result they are unable to provide an alternative to Sunni jihadism.

(Bassam Tibi is a professor at the University of Göttingen, Germany, and a professor-at-large at Cornell University. He is the author of "Islam between Culture and Politics." )

 

[Brother None]

You kind of posted that article twice, dude

Good read, though, the guy's dead on the money in my eyes

 

[welsh]

Editted to avoid double post-

I agree, but that doesn't mean that a modern notion of Jihad couldn't be incorporated into Islam by Islamic societies. Religions, like all human institutions, change with time and social pressure.

One would think that a useful goal would be to minimize the extremist beliefs and attitudes of many who might pick up the sword.

 

[Brother None]

I agree, but that doesn't mean that a modern notion of Jihad couldn't be incorporated into Islam by Islamic societies. Religions, like all human institutions, change with time and social pressure.

Yes, and all Christians might turn into violent extremists too. Those kind of might-be's, while relevant, should not influence one's judgement.

One would think that a useful goal would be to minimize the extremist beliefs and attitudes of many who might pick up the sword.

A goal not easily obtained when the most powerful nation in the world thinks shooting at them will fix everything.

 

[John Uskglass]

No, I'm not, and your list of definitions is irrelevant.

o rly?

But ok, granted, G.K. Chesterton is not amongst my ordinary list of disliked Christian Apologists.

That's cause G.K.C. was not only a Christian Apologist, he excelled at everything good in this world: Among the best poets of the era, probably the best journalist of the era, an amazing writer, a talented philosopher and was an international sex symbo....okay, maybe he was'nt everything, but he was pretty close.

As a non-believer m'self, you should be able to see why I wouldn't like the man that said "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense and can't see things as they are.", wouldn't you?

I can't find myself disagreeing with the statement, but yar, you have a point. But as non-believers go, you are pretty cool.

Well, if you want to waste your uni years, go ahead. Anthropology as a social science is the dregs of social sciences whole. Internationally its base is worse off than those of sociology and history, as its accepted framework is and seems doomed to be one in which a study is good if its presumption is acceptable, whereas it is bad if this is not so. Anthropology suffers from this a lot more than the other sociosciences, hence why it developed the reputation, much earned, for islamoapologism.

Humph. Anthropology's a wide field, and I think not all of it is quite that Orthodoxy-obsessed. Take, for instance, the Indo-European studies or basically prehistory in general. But you are right, but to be honest I blame that on non-anthropologists like Edward Said as much as anyone.

The idea of anthropology rocks, sure enough, but it kind of farted when put in practice.

Humph. I think at the right school the study can be rewarding, or at least hope so. But congrats, you managed to scare me out of studying Antro while an Undergrad.

 

[Brother None]

That's cause G.K.C. was not only a Christian Apologist, he excelled at everything good in this world: Among the best poets of the era, probably the best journalist of the era, an amazing writer, a talented philosopher and was an international sex symbo....okay, maybe he was'nt everything, but he was pretty close.

Bet he had the largest penis too. Go write a biography about the guy, it can be one of those superlatives-only biographies like AN Wilson's bio of Tolstoy.

I can't find myself disagreeing with the statement, but yar, you have a point. But as non-believers go, you are pretty cool.

Must be residual coolness from the time when I was still a believer.

Humph. Anthropology's a wide field, and I think not all of it is quite that Orthodoxy-obsessed. Take, for instance, the Indo-European studies or basically prehistory in general. But you are right, but to be honest I blame that on non-anthropologists like Edward Said as much as anyone.

(...)

Humph. I think at the right school the study can be rewarding, or at least hope so. But congrats, you managed to scare me out of studying Antro while an Undergrad.

Well, think about it before you go. I have a very personal dislike of anthropology as a study from what I've read, but what I've read belongs mostly to the continental school of anthropology. America might well be different.

 

[John Uskglass]

Bet he had the largest penis too. Go write a biography about the guy, it can be one of those superlatives-only biographies like AN Wilson's bio of Tolstoy.

Only one biography of Tolstoy for me....and guess who did that?

Must be residual coolness from the time when I was still a believer.

And the fact that you've practically admitted that this might not be permanent, and that you still have some respect for Christanity, etc...pretty rare in my expiriance.

Well, think about it before you go. I have a very personal dislike of anthropology as a study from what I've read, but what I've read belongs mostly to the continental school of anthropology. America might well be different.

Humph. I'll ask some people. But the areas of anthropolgy I am interested in are pretty much open to debate as much as possible in any feild...that is, specifically, prehistory and historical linguistics.