Banner Rotate



Logo by Julian Spanos

Antitheistic. Long. Perplexing. Offensive. Whatever.

Warning: This blog does not cater to your whims. If you are offended, then I am not obliged to care. It ain't personal until otherwise stated.

Random Quotes

Monday, August 15, 2005

Perverted interpretation? WHAT?!

Islamic Fundamentalists: Are they a minority following a ‘perverted’ interpretation, or a majority following the ‘purists’ perspective?

“We can add to that an extremist and perverted version of Islam which seeks to shoulder aside or overthrow moderate counsels;” - Excerpt from the speech by the Prime Minister of Britain, Tony Blair, at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, Mansion House, London; Dated 12th November 2001. (The British Embassy, Tel Aviv)

People have stepped forth and questioned the basis of Mr. Blair’s distinction and classification of different ‘versions’ of Islam. However, this was not to stop him from using a similar degrading statement in reference again after the tragic events of 7/7/05.


“An extreme and evil ideology whose roots lie in a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam.” - Excerpt from ‘Understanding London’s Bombings’ by Mohammad Abed (TheBadgerHerald).

It is apparently clear now that Prime Minister Blair, and many moderate representatives of the religion of Islam, seem to be firmly under the impression that they’ve identified the ‘true’ essence of this Islam.

Perhaps we should step back a bit from identifying the root cause of the problem for a moment, and try to verify our own collective identification of the interpretations that drive such problems. Mind you, this has little to do with what the majority of British Muslims feel; but rather, what the true essence and interpretation of Islam. Of course, in the present context, it’s quite a clash of ideologies, which stem from a number of various interpretations; headlined by two primary parties.

On one side, you have the so-called ‘moderates’, who Prime Minister Blair, and most of the west, insist on acnowledging as the true ambassadors of Islam. While on the other side, you have the firm believers, the fundamentalists, or the ones who according to Mr. Blair, seem to be following a ‘perverted’ interpretation of the same ideology as their moderate counterparts. Who gets to wear the label of ‘authenticity’? Clearly not both of them, considering the clear-cut conflict that exists in their respective stance towards current events; one side wants to wage a war against the infidels, while the other wants to take the proverbial chill-pill of living and letting live.

Prime Minister Blair, along with his entourage of supporting moderates, steps in to wave the flag of authenticity in favour the moderate Moslems, which isn’t exactly the best seal of approval to begin with. President of Pakistan, General Pervez Musharraf--an avid ally in the war on terrorism--is also caught wagging his finger at various gatherings and events, while making speeches about ‘enlightened moderation’; a clear-cut condemnation of both Islamic extremism and the global stigma against Islam. In reality, General Musharraf's on an unrealistically idealistic mission to prove that Islam can be moderate, without any real moderation or reform, because his own country still hones the stance of a relatively staunch theocracy with its dark-age theme on religiously sanctioned penalties for exercising the most basic of human rights.

This concept of 'enlightened moderation', introduced by the Pakistan President, aims towards sprouting a tolerant, and enlightened democratic state out of the shell that is the present Islamic republic, and failed state, known as‘Pakistan’. Any of the readers should take note, despite what the ‘official’ line states, by general atmosphere and definition, Pakistan has always remained a struggling Islamic state with a tendency of general regression in recent decades. However, it is apparently clear that Pakistan’s proud president wishes to turn Pakistan into the model state for the ‘moderate’ Islamic ideology, which is both ironic and laughable, given his country's shaky history with the institutions of human rights and democracy.


The subtle answer:
So many fancy terms seem to be coined for the moderates, while very bitter and derogatory names for the fundamentalists. Little do these critics realise that the verb ‘fundamental’ itself, bears a very strong answer to this whole question about who represents the true essence of the ideology. Similarly, very few bother to realize that the verb ‘moderate’, also pretty much completes the answer.


The obviousness:
Very obvious to the literate person, a fundamentalist is exactly what the dictionary states: A fundamentalist. To say that a fundamentalist is following a ‘perverted’ or ‘incorrect’ interpretation of an ideology: is like calling an ‘unrefined’ entity, ‘processed’. Therefore, in simple terms, the fundamentalists, pretty much follow and honour the Koran and Islamic doctrine to their respective cores; though many moderates would argue that extremism would not exist if the Koran were to become the sole source to follow, as most of the savagery stems from the Islamic doctrines as opposed to its holy book. So why are the fundamentalists slammed for actually probing the complete fundamentals of their holy book and doctrine ordinance? Why are they ‘wrong’ for following the text to its fullest? Because in reality, their ideology does conflict with most ‘secular’ norms, and the fundamentalists make no excuses about that. Of course, they have their own argument about attributing most of the recent tragic events over the last decade or so, to most of the manipulations of ‘western capitalism’, which is another issue altogether, because economic philosophies have little to do with the demonisation of a savage ideology, when its own economic policies aren't all that different from modern capitalism.

Moderates on the other hand, get a pat on the back, because they pretty much condemn the events, and the fundamental mentality as a whole. Should this earn them the rights to hoist the flag of authenticity, when clearly slamming those that treat the text very seriously, albeit to degrees of almost blindly following every single word without thought? Answer is simple, and in objective terms, a very straightforward “No!” This is not saying that their ideology or interpretation of an ideology is non-productive, but by fact, and in empirical terms, it is just not fundamentally as ‘Islamic’ as that of the extremists and the fundamentalists. It's preferable... It's better... It's moderate... It's progressive... but by those very virtues, it is a refined ideology, not one that's an authentic re-enactment of the creed's ethos. Sorry, but puritanism isn't the same as perversion.


A pending realisation:
Both the West and the Moderates will have to get their heads out of the sand and acknowledge the bare facts. Authenticity of a religion is not contingent on the general interpretation that a majority of its followers in a given region assign to it; neither is it established by what the west views as globally progressive and better yet, ‘democratic’. It is in fact those that follow without question, the fundamental elements of the text-based concept, who could be considered ‘true’ or ‘complete’ followers. If anything, it is the moderates who’re actually refining and somewhat changing the religion, by emphasising more on a very lax, secularised, abstract interpretation, and less on the text. An interpretation that is always open to expansion; an interpretation that allows every individual to explore and consider the text for themselves rather than having a state of scholars determine it for them - a philosophy that sprouts growth, and thus, potential deviation from key elements and dogmas.

One wouldn’t be disagreeing with the moderates’ ideology, not at all, even though they still inherit some of the bigotry against many ‘modern’ issues, such as homosexuality to name one - to which, frankly, no real ‘humane’ attitude has been offered from a majority of the religious quarters. However, at the very least, they can relatively play nice with the global community, and acknowledge the enlightenment while retaining the ‘healthy’ philosophy in the Koran’s text. Fact remains that the moderates are out there, introducing something ‘new’, which customises a lot of something ‘old’. By fact, it is those that follow the fundamentals of this religion: the fundamental elements of Islam, which could incite extreme reaction, who need to be considered. This is a fact that most of the moderates and the west are evading without giving solid consideration to the additional implications.


Speaking based on the fundamentals of the Koran:
- A true Moslem can never condemn the act of suicide bombings by another Muslim, when committed under the guise of ‘Jihad’. (About Islam)
- A true Moslem will not tolerate those that invade his/her land, and shatter the religious sanctity by occupying it. (Jihad Verses in Koran)
- Jihad will be sanctioned against any force, alien to the Islamic creed, on any level, if Islam is under any kind of ‘threat’ by this force, which unfortunately in modern times, is best articulated through the coalition's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. (Jihad Verses in Koran)

Therefore, considering some of the above-mentioned facts, especially the Koran-based information on Jihad, one would make a sound deduction that the fundamentalists aren’t really all that off when it comes to practicing the concept, as it is preached in the book and doctrines.

On a somewhat related note, the Koran contains a considerable bit of negative references to the Jews as well, which can explain the irrefutable anti-Semitic bias that exists across the Islamic-paradigm; even moderates can often be cited, speaking ill of Jews and ranting in paranoid fits about some Jewish conspiracy for world domination. While it should be noted that by certain interpretations, the scriptural references can be non-discriminatory, the misleading potential for generalisation is still something that cannot be overlooked (Militant Islam Monitor); a trend that we see festering in today's Islamic world. Most Moslems, even the moderates and harmless nominals, seem to harbour a natural grudge against Jews by proxy of the Middle East politics of Israel and Palestine, which often results in the culmination of some of the most absurd conspiracy theories, and a very unsympathetic attitude towards anyone with a Jewish heritage.


Another fact followed by dark clouds of conclusion gathering on the horizon:
We also hear a lot about how the fundamentalists are a small minority, and how a majority of Muslims, especially in Britain are moderates. Well, in global terms, the moderates are in fact, NOT the majority, but rather, a ‘sizeable’ minority. The extreme fundamentalists are also pretty much a sizeable minority in a very similar respect. So where does this leave the majority? The majority are not just a general mish-mash of various values and mild overlaps in the middle, but rather, inactive as well. Quite a few of these individuals are not in direct conflict or active participation per se in the political disagreements. These are dormant individuals, and some of them could very well be bearing a ‘fundamentalist’ seed within themselves. It is often the case that quite a few of these people watch the evening news, just to celebrate any remote chaos taking place in the 'corrupt west', though they themselves wouldn't personally resort to violence. These are a confusing and muddled majority, made of the rather not so well off individuals who are usually overwhelmed and locked away in a dead-end life of economic and social struggle in third world nations. They serve as a potentially ideal demographic for Jihadist recruitment. When the time comes, when the awakening dawns on these dormant individuals, they’re more than likely--due to lack of exposure; lack of enlightenment; and cultural stagnation--to be drawn towards the fundamentalist ideology through very appealing propaganda. After all, it is the rather purist rendition of ‘Islam’, which they’d already be familiar with as opposed to any other alternative. It is only but natural in a time of irrational chaos, struggle and fear, to run for the side that one could be most familiar with and relate to in very direct terms. Thus, the natural inclination harboured by a large sub-section of these so-called neutral Moslems, would be some degree of sympathy or agreement for the extremist agenda.

To add to that, this so called War on Terror is more than likely going to serve as a catalyst in any transition processes for the young and impressionable minds at risk of Jihadist propaganda; sending them on a fast track from dormancy towards ignorance of all options and head-on into fundamental extremism. With the vision and dreams of eternal reward keeping them under spell and check, there is little chance of a complete turn-around. After all, is it not interesting, how most of the latest ‘soldiers’ so-to-speak, are youngsters, some even in their early teens? If they can emerged as dismayed and misguided youths from the first-world privilege of nations like England, ready to unleash chaos on their own fellow citizens, then one should be mindful of the chaotic potential within an unenlightened, linear-minded youngster from third-world Islamic conditions. This is a rather important point considering the massive population of ‘raw’ and impressionable minds available. In addition to this cascading and somewhat daunting potential, one should also consider the fact that there's a general lack of counteracting agents that could dissuade these young minds in these developing nations. After all, even the moderates strongly disagree on this whole debacle that we know as “War On Terrorism”. Whose terrorism, exactly? When it's in the name of their God or their King, it's a noble endeavour, even when carried out with terrorist tactics.

"Fuck gods and fuck kings! I only answer to my fellow humans!"




Link(s)/Source(s):

- Prime Minister Blair’s speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet; on 12th of November 2001.
URL: http://www.britemb.org.il/News/blair121101.html

- Editorial: Understanding London’s bombings, by Mohammad Abed; published by THE BADGERHERALD; on the 8th of August 2005.
URL: http://badgerherald.com/oped/2005/08/08/understanding_london.php

- Jihad Verses in Koran, by Yoel Natan
URL: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html#Excerpts

- Answering Islam
URL: http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/

- Militant Islam Monitor: Koran banned from schools for anti semitic hate speech being given away by CAIR and pushed for use in North Carolina courts
URL: http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/722


Personal Notes:
This particular note will have to go to any of the potential moderates who maybe reading this entry. Do your selves a favour, spare your aching fingers the additional cramp of posting a response that I am sure many of your are so eagerly itching to voice in the form of a refuting opinion.

I am not making these posts for the sheer and personal gratification of tainting any given faith, no. That is a given prerequisite, so spare me a moment to laugh. These are facts, and one doesn’t need to master theology as an art to decipher the connotation, which builds up like mildew between these facts.

To the moderates:
Get the hell off your high horses; you’re not the true representatives of anything. Again, this would not be implying that your rendition of an ideology is bad in any way. However, claiming rights over truly recognizing that ideology is an excessively bold statement, especially when it comes from people who’re willing to overlook a considerable bit of text, and apply more of their own mind to the matter. Is that a bad thing? Hell no! Just stop claiming to follow the ideology in its authentic form, which clearly: you’re NOT doing. As a matter of fact, distinguish yourselves from the savage culture of Islam, and I might even serenade the courage!

Staying and concluding on the topic, I will still reiterate my true point, which is that besides the fact that you’re trying to soften the Islamic interpretation, you still lack many answers to modern issues. You offer some rather dumbfounded assumptions, which you justify by making links to religion. Fact remains; your ‘version’ of the faith, your ‘ideology’ still lacks a great deal of flexibility to tolerate a number of very harmless, yet socially important issues.

To the fundamentalists:
Please, look the other way. Go open your holy book and find reasons to mutilate my body, and make decorations out of my entrails; I really couldn’t give a shit, so sod off. Fact remains, that you people are still following the true essence of the statements in these barbaric doctrines. Unfortunately, your zeal stems from a dark age, which is now manifesting fourteen-hundred years too late in an era where it isn’t exactly needed in my honest opinion. However, bigotry and disgusting elitist collectivism has been the cultural foundation of this cult-like mentality in the ethos of this faith, so I couldn’t really expect your lot to think like intelligent and enlightened individuals.

Therefore, once again, I ask you, the extreme lot, to just walk the hell away; for there’s no ‘reasoning’ with you and similarly your western counterparts, known as the ‘evangelical neo cons’. There’s no real difference between you lot; you’re merely the same basic mental framework, borne into strategic conflict because you’ve been placed on opposite sides of the conflict spectrum. You’re nothing more than the black and white pieces on the chessboard; your functions, objectives, and mentalities are the same. One would REALLY shudder to image if the two forces would unite. It'd be hell!

To all three groups:
Let’s not overlook a little commonality that both of you share on a general level. Despite acting like virtuous individuals, void of bigotry, you lot seem to be the ones coming up with your endless and absurdly nauseous conspiracy theories on Jews.

- Skid marks? "Because blah! Blah! Blah! Was backed and propagated by the Jews."
- Wild sex-dreams? "Oh you didn't know?!? Succubus and Incubus are Jews!"
- Why do these moronic anti-jew theorists emerge, sinking their twin fangs of bullshit into my rejecting mind? "We were actually cursed to be annoying, monotonous, over cultured bungholes, because of the Jews."
- Why was Daniel Pearl executed in such brutal fashion? Because he was a Jew, and they 'suspect' CIA ties, which meant that a DVD had to be made out of his execution, which is still being sold in the underground video markets of Pakistan - DISGUSTING!
- Why do even the most relaxed, and moderate of the community, constantly point to the star of David everytime something goes wrong? Because there's an undeniable, and irrefutable negative projection of the Jews in the Koran, and that's that. Even if it wasn't the original intention behind the text, one cannot refute the fact that it is that very text that is breeding more of this disgusting discrimination.

"We don't like to discriminate! We're not 'backward'!": MY ASS! Save for a few of 'em, whom I know! A majority of the moderates and of course the fundamentalists are one and the same in this anti-Jew bias! Hell, I even once met a fundamentalist, who knew how to keep a consistent, respectful, and humble opinion! Could the rest of the flock learn from this tradition of being humble and not acting as extensions of some godly entity? Fuck no! That would just pretty much solve half the problems in the world now, which would just be too damn easy!

"GET HELP, DAMN IT! AND FIND YOUR MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL CENTRE AGAIN! YOU RIDICULUS FIENDS! THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH YOU INTELLECTUALLY RETARDED MORONS... ALWAYS HIDING BEHIND AN EXTERNAL MORAL AUTHORITY, WHILE VIOLATING THE MORALS UNDER THE NAME OF THE SAME GIVEN AUTHORITY." - Closure.

To the rest of you lot:
My gratitude as always, and of course, I would not expect you to hold much regard or care for any of this bullshit any way! Hey! That’s how it should be!

Cheers.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

ur wrong!! u have sympathies with foreign invaders! and do not understand the scred jigad!

Anonymous said...

ur wrong!! u have sympathies with foreign invaders! and do not understand the scred jigad!

wind said...

found this place from aitw.. Neo cons and extremists should not be compared.. I am a republican, and we're nothing like them!

Anonymous said...

Hey, you have a awesome blog here! I will certainly bookmark your site ! I have a low cholesterol foods site. It well-nigh encompasses very much that matches low cholesterol foods material. If you make the opportunity, please come and check it out.