Yesterday, in one of the worst attacks to hit India in over 20 years, a group of gunmen opened fired on 10 sites in Mumbai, at this point killing over 100 and wounding over 290. Details continue to trickle in but reports indict that over 200 are being held hostage in the prestigious Taj Hotel in south Mumbai. The attacks have shocked India and the South Asia region to its core.

While India has seen an escalation in attacks - particularly over the past year - the recent attack is unique in how it unfolded. Gunmen, some arriving on boat and others dressed in police uniform, targeted disparate targets and landmarks in south Mumbai including the Oberoi hotel, Cafe Leopold, CST Train station, and a hospital in the Villa Parle area. Many witnesses noted that the assailants were deliberately trying to target foreigners, particularly British and American nationals. Ordinary citizens on the ground in Mumbai have liveblogged the attacks and sent updates via Twitter (#mumbai), bringing the horror of the attacks into the lives of the rest of us in a way that wasn't possible only a few short years ago (the Indian government has pleaded for people not to liveblog military maneuvers).

One eyewitness, a Indian businessman based in Hong Kong named Rakeh Patel, reported two youths - both in their twenties - took a group of 15 to the top of the Taj Hotel and demanded to know if anyone of them carried a US or UK passport. Another witness, Alex Chamberlain, a British national, said that the gunman sequestered a group of around 30 people to a restaurant in the Oberoi and demanded to know their nationality. Chamberlain reported, “They were talking about British and Americans specifically. There was an Italian guy, who, you know, they said, ‘Where are you from?’ and he said he’s from Italy, and they said, ‘Fine,’ and they left him alone.”

Elsewhere in Mumbai, the attacks (though one might call it a siege) shows little sign of abetting. The army has been called into the Taj and Oberoi hotel but little is known about the fate of the hostages or the alleged group behind the attacks, the "Deccan Mujahadeen." For now, most observers are reserving judgement until more is known about the previously unknown group. But given past incidents, laying the blame at Kashmiri separatists - or Pakistan - seems likely. If past events are a guide, tensions will increase with Pakistan whether there is proof of their involvement or not. However, the civilian government of Ali Zardari - itself a product of political violence - does not have the military baggage of his predecessor, which may now make such a charge harder to stick.

One of those killed was Hemant Karkare, the chief of the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad. Karkare was widely admired for his thorough and fair investigations, including a pending investigation into a September 29, 2008 blast in India that was revealed to be the work of Hindutva supporters. Responding to this news, The Hindu wrote in an editorial: "The revelation that a militant section of the Hindutva network was behind the September 29 bomb blasts in Muslim-dominated Malegaon in Maharashtra and Modasa in Gujarat has shattered the myth propagated by the Hindutva campaign that only Islamist fundamentalism breeds terrorism."

Meanwhile condemnations from world leaders poured in, including from US President-elect Barack Obama, and Muslim groups as well have also voiced their opposition to the violence. Based on past events, Muslims within India and elsewhere in the region are sensitive to how tensions can spill over into retaliatory violence, such as the massacres in Gujarat in 2002. But in troubling (and yet unsurprising) pattern, hardliners like Shiv Sena head Bal Thackerary have already exploited the violence to whip followers into a communal rage.

Speaking of the violence, Thackerary said, "(Shiv) Sena can't sit silently when a conspiracy has been plotted against Hindus. The manner in which ATS has been torturing Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and others and the way false cases have been fabricated against them, it is clear that the government is out to crush, insult and humiliate Hindus. Sena is a Hindutva party with the interest of the Hindu community close to its heart. We will lodge our protest loudly and clearly."

While it is tempting to refute Thackerary's comments or to expound on the "saffronization" of parts of India, now is not the time. The analysis and theories about what happened today and what it means for India is secondary to the immediate need to care for the wounded, the familes of those who died, and most importantly the 200 or so hostages that still languish in south Mumbai, in addition to preventing tensions from perpetuating past cycles. Now is the time to pray and care for the people of Mumbai and hope that the coming days do not bring more bloodshed.

One of the hostage takers is quoted as asking "Do you know how many Muslims your army is killing in Kashmir?". The Indian military-machinery is very powerful with known excesses on the Indian social periphery (i.e. Nepal, Golden Temple Gujerat etc.).

If Kashmiris are indeed Indians the free-press has a responsibility to place the violence in the perspective of the governments and Hindutva "excesses" against perceived hostile populations. The "attacks" are in fact reprisals. While we don't have to like the methods of the terrorists and can condemn it in no uncertain terms, its more important that we are honest about the conflict.

>> The "attacks" are in fact reprisals. While we don't have to like the methods of the terrorists and can condemn it in no uncertain terms, its more important that we are honest about the conflict. <<

Well, Professor. What I do not understand is why are the reprisals against innocent bystanders. If these militants have some genuine gripe against the Indian government machinations, why don't they attack the Indian government facilities. No shortage of those.

I mean why could the so-called 9/11 attacks could not have taken place on American Military Installations, or Aircraft Carriers, or foreign-soil bases, or various government buildings across the DC area, or the numerous Saudi palaces or various hundreds of palaces of so-called corrupt Muslim rulers? Why innocent American bystanders. I find this a bit hypocritical.

Now the "local redneck" at the office was today asking again 'why are all Moslems terrorists?' I brushed him off by pointing out its in their genes. Most Muslims have traces of XXS chromosomes they got from the Mongols, which makes most Muslims by nature inherently violent and murderous. While this seemed to satisfy him for now, I myself am quite curious why so much terrorism from Muslims?

Sometimes I feel like blaming the media. Jesus, do they LOVVVVEEEE Moslem Terrorism. Just makes for awesome sensational news. The modern-day media is a monster in its own right. And frankly it feeds on the fringe nut cases of society, providing them with free access to publicity. Not only Moslem terrorists but pretty much the nut case fringe of virtually everybody in every society. One has to wonder if terrorism is really a media invention due to its publicity of it.

Education is the real culprit. Muslim men can be crazy enough, but toss in a radical education agenda that dehumanizes non-Muslims and this is what happens. We need a reform movement, one along the lines of what Reza Aslan described in his book, "No God but God", because otherwise, we are going to be the ones demonized forever.

When people grow up being subjected to extreme violence and repression under conditions of decrepitude, people in turn resort to extreme violence and repression. Its not a Muslim problem, its the human condition. Likening this attack however to 9/11 is in itself a political statement and not honest reporting.

>>> While this seemed to satisfy him for now, I myself am quite curious why so much terrorism from Muslims?

Why would you use racist slurs and lies to describe the problem to him? And why would you lie in this way that misrepresents Muslims? And why is the issue of Kashmir not being discussed? You may think he's a redneck at the queue, but he had the decency and sense to ask you a question instead of assuming your ignorance.

>>> Muslim men can be crazy enough, but toss in a radical education agenda that dehumanizes non-Muslims and this is what happens.

If there is a reform movement, who's to say what needs to be and what mustn't be reformed? If reform is a goal, is it reform of Muslims or reform os Islam and are these two different things? What are legitimate actions for this reform movement? Who get the final say about what must be reformed and what mustn't i.e. what's right and what's wrong?

And who's to say that these Muslims were radicalised by their Islamic education? Maybe they were radicalised the day their father was beaten by a police officer or when they saw the military carry out acts of impunity in their community? There are 150 million Muslims in India, and they are not a coherent group with a differing languages and cultural identities. The issue can't just be brushed aside by the 5million or so American Muslims who want to view the world through a polarised American/first-world lenses.

>> but toss in a radical education agenda that dehumanizes non-Muslims and this is what happens. <<

I am willing to bet that most actual terrorists have not been through a "formal islamic education" of any sorts. Infact, I would bet most terrorists are actually educated in secular schools. Assuming Islamic Education is some sort of 2-3 year course of study comparable to a secular course of study. I would also bet that most spiritual leaders of terrorists outfits are probably raised in households of other mainstream non-violent groups like the ikhwan or tableegh or such.

Somehow, "madrassa education" seems to me to be too limited to allow an individual the ability to plan, formulate, co-ordinate and organize a successful terrorist campaign. Madrassa Muslims are good for rallying on the street corners and shouting slogans or driving in jeeps with AK-47s, forming gangs and harassing the neighbours and that is about it.

2 things to add to this which may be of interest:

1. NY Times Op-Ed written in August which was suggesting that some spectacular terrorist incident was needed to 'internationalize' and bring to the world's attention the situation in Kashmir. Sadly most of what was written here has now transpired:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/opinion/27mishra.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper


2. added to this the festering wound of the institutionalized racism and discrimination against Muslims in India:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1862650,00.html?cnn=yes

and it seems that all that was needed was a spark, to light the dynamite and cause an explosion of violence like this.

Kw

>>>If there is a reform movement, who's to say what needs to be and what mustn't be reformed? If reform is a goal, is it reform of Muslims or reform os Islam and are these two different things?

Well, how am I supposed to know Professor (sorry, you just really sound like one) I didn't write the book, I just read it and agreed with a lot of what Aslan said, you need to research his writings about the topic, his views may be at times unorthodox (especially from a Sunni point of view) but he makes a lot of sense.

>>>>Infact, I would bet most terrorists are actually educated in secular schools. Assuming Islamic Education is some sort of 2-3 year course of study comparable to a secular course of study.

That's true in the case of the leaders, they are the ones who are the most extreme and brutal, but not, I think, when it comes to the young people they recruit. I have absolutely nothing against Islamic education, I went through years of it and benefited immensely. The kind of education I'm talking about is the Wahabbi (not ikhwan) type that completely rejects modernity and wants to recreate the seventh century. This brand of Islam does not allow for Muslims to try and reconcile a Muslim identity and traditions with modernism and tolerance and admirable Western ideals, they want to totally overhaul Muslim identity so that it resists and is hostile to everything that isn't purely Islamic, including other humans.

>> This brand of Islam does not allow for Muslims to try and reconcile a Muslim identity and traditions with modernism and tolerance and admirable Western ideals.... <<

Probably because this "admirable Western tolerance" has resulted in Two World Wars and a Cold War (and related proxy wars) in the past 100 years, not to mention Vietnam, Iraq and numerous smaller conflicts fought by exporting weapons to both sides of conflicts in these conflicts. Not to mention the preceeding two hundred years of Colonialism and Slave Trade.

Unfortunately, most Muslims living outside of the cozy Western economies themselves seem to be at the receiving end of this so-called "admirable tolerance" and I can hardly blame them for wanting to go backward in time. As in way way backward.

Its easy to be tolerant and "cultured" inside your mansion, even to the servants and guests of other races when you have a barbed wire fence surrounding the fields and orchards from which the people living OUTSIDE your mansion are supposed to earn their daily bread. Western ideals are not admirable, they are Barbarian and Racist (nationalist) in practice.

>> and it seems that all that was needed was a spark, to light the dynamite and cause an explosion of violence like this. <<

Yes but kwaleed, why are these so-called "freedom fighters" going around looking for Westerners to shoot at in Mumbai? If indeed they have some legitimate qualms against the Indian Government or even perhaps the apathy of the general Indian population, why are they out looking for foreigners? And more importantly, why not shoot at the police and army where they are being oppressed?

I don't understand islamically how these oppressed people can accumulate all these weapons and bombs and training and then instead of waging a gorilla excursion in the region of their oppression, show up someplace else to shoot down innocent unprotected bystanders. Where do they get this idea that this is islamic or for that matter helpful to their cause??

>Yes but kwaleed, why are these so-called "freedom fighters" going >around looking for Westerners to shoot at in Mumbai? If indeed they >have some legitimate qualms against the Indian Government or even >perhaps the apathy of the general Indian population, why are they out >looking for foreigners? And more importantly, why not shoot at the >police and army where they are being oppressed?

They did shoot at the police. Specifically, one of the main "targets" was an anti terrorism chief, Hemant Karkare, who had worked hard in the past to demonstrate that at least two previous bombing that were blamed on Muslims were the work of extremist Hindus. What is interesting is that the people who attacked and killed him with a police chief have fled! This was one of 8 or 9 "targets".

This paragraph is from NYTimes:

"Mr. Singh’s government had lately hit back at the Bharatiya Janata Party with evidence that its supporters, belonging to a range of radical Hindu organizations, had also been implicated in terrorist attacks. Indeed, in a bizarre twist, the head of the police antiterrorism unit, Hemant Karkare, killed in the Mumbai strikes, had been in the midst of a high-profile investigation of a suspected Hindu terrorist cell. Mr. Karkare’s inquiry had netted nine suspects in connection with a bombing in September of a Muslim-majority area in Malegaon, a small town not far from Mumbai."

Article at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/29/world/asia/29india.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=hemant karkare&st=cse

Clearly more information is needed and needs to be pursued on this.

Kw

http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=39136goto=newpost

It seems that some Muslims consider the violation of Palestinian rights the only legitimate Muslim struggle and the rest of the Muslim world (particularly non-Arab) suffers from different forms of cultural disputes. We have major issues with racism and there is a serious trend towards appropriately arabising Muslims and Muslim conflicts before they can be dealt with.

It seems Muslims are doing the same unprincipled mourning that typified the September 11 attacks and the July bombings. Standing side by side with popular western media in what seems to be to be another middle class muslim public relations campaign. Criticising extremism and ideology, when its the supposed secular establishment that is generating the extremism and practicing ideology.

Again, its not the religious education that determines thes isolated incidents or reprisals, its the very real political and militaristic violence that poor children are being submitted to!

>> Well, how am I supposed to know Professor (sorry, you just really sound like one) I didn't write the book, I just read it and agreed with a lot of what Aslan said, you need to research his writings about the topic, his views may be at times unorthodox (especially from a Sunni point of view) but he makes a lot of sense.

You've said before that there are too many political and ideological differences that cannot be reconciled with American politics. You are being a "realist" by associating with liberal elements of the American political establishment but you don't support certain values because they are either unIslamic or idealistic. Yet you support the reform of Reza Aslan, which is in fact a liberal review of Islamic values and not grounded in our traditional Islamic education. His views aren't just unorthodox, they're completely new values.

>>>We have major issues with racism and there is a serious trend towards appropriately arabising Muslims and Muslim conflicts before they can be dealt with.


What are you talking about? Are you saying that Arabs are racists? I don't know if you've heard, but Nasserite Arab Nationalism is no longer a popular ideology, in fact, I would say it was pronounced dead in June of 1967 when we were humiliated by the Israelis. I don't like descending into jingoistic Arab tribalism, that's largely the domain of old 1960s Socialists, they love getting all worked up about the days of nationalist fervor, but nonetheless I also fully recognize the important role Arabs played in the early period of Islam and take great pride in it. The majority of Muslims have no problem with the fact that God bestowed upon the people of the Arabian peninsula this special role and I advise you to get over your prejudices which blind you to reality and drive you support extremists. And I don't support everything Aslan says, what I actually liked the most about his book were his explanation of the Prophet's marriage to Aisha and the case of the Jewish tribe that was excused of treason and slayed. The most appealing thing about his idea of reform is mainly the need to take the initiative, and his views could be considered mainstream, especially if you watch the debate he had with a woman named Irshad Manji, she actually believes in installing new values and changing everything about the religion. Much like the way reform Jews radically reinterpreted Judaism in order for it to seamlessly meld with American culture. Aslan may have been much more liberal than your average Scholar but I think that's because he's probably a Shiite.


>>>>Not to mention the preceeding two hundred years of Colonialism and Slave Trade.

Oh yes, the favorite Muslim pastime, lamenting age-old grievances. You know, whining can be very effective when done right- but not in politics! Muslims need to buck up and stop indulging in victimization! It's very comforting to sniff about how much they hurt us, but its also self-destructive and drives people to complacency- and this is where good old-fashioned American values come in, in my mind at least, the belief that when you fall you pull yourself together and get right back up, Hillary Clinton echoed this sentiment beautifully in her concession speech.


>>>>Western ideals are not admirable, they are Barbarian and Racist (nationalist) in practice.

How can you dismiss two thousand years of Western civilization as barbaric, true there were plenty of bloody wars, but this civilization also brought about incredible scientific achievements
and the works of Milton and Shakespeare and the entire realm of political philosophy and the list goes on and on. There is nothing in Islam that prohibits co-opting the best of foreign civilizations, and that of the West is a crucial part of humanity... I read once that many critic couldn't read King Lear without crying- and that's only because its a fundamentally human masterpiece and not merely a Western one.

>>>>Not to mention the preceeding two hundred years of Colonialism and Slave Trade.<< Oh yes, the favorite Muslim pastime, lamenting age-old grievances. <<

Yes, like most self-loathing Arabs, you yourself on the other hand seem to have what we call "selective amnesia" when it comes to viewing your adopted Western ideals thru red-rose tinted glasses. Its like being given a nickel by a passer-by whose father murdered your whole family in his lust for greed. Someone like you is going to see only the charitable nickel, others will focus on "the bigger picture," the fellow's mansion and the blood that was spilled to build it.

>> the belief that when you fall you pull yourself together and get right back up, <<

what the hell has this to do with Western tolerance? You are welcome to go on reading Shakespeare or King Lear or whatever, and cry your heart out for all practical purposes, but it would be more useful if you compare the level of violence and "treatment of others" by the Muslims (circa 500 - 1500), the Mongols and the European Civilizations (circa 1500 - to-date). Very helpful to see how people gain power and how they treat the weak and the foreigners when they have the power.

I am sure there are hundreds of thousands of great Western humanists. Naturally when you are well-fed and have all the conveniences of life at your fingertips, you are going to have good thoughts, great insights and lofty ideals. But practically speaking, what do all these ideals have to do with the Western Civilization as it has developed in the last 500 years?? Very little.

Reminds me of the reason Micheal Hart gave for omitting Ghandi from among the 100 most influential people in history. Can u imagine, Ghandi, one of the great figures of the 21st century, not even making the top 100!!! And the reason given was of course that while what Ghandi preached was very "inspiring', but in practice nobody really followed what he proscribed as solutions to societal problems. His ideas are only in people's hearts, nobody actually practices what he preached.

The same applies to all the philosophers and humanists of the Western Civilization. Great to read them, but what does all they say mean. Nothing, its only 'spin' to brainwash impressionable people like yourself into thinking the West has the monopoly on "compassion and tolerance". But in reality, Western Civilization is effectively a mercantile civilization. Closely aligned with the confused pagan Christian religion, it benefited from the marginalization of morality to allow Europe to come out of the dark ages with the help of Jewish financing and Crusader-like wars against neighbors. It is very much the pre-Islamic Mecca described in Karen Armstrong's recent biography of the Prophet. It lacks compassion and civility, quickly descending into barbarism as soon as challenges arise that require patience, humility, and sacrifice from its collective beneficiaries.

Better to enslave and plunder than to live with less, eh? Thats the motto. Nice guys finish last. People who leave their traditions behind to join the party, also leave their souls behind. And they know it. Deep down inside they know it, that they have sold their souls for pittance in this world.

Someone like you is going to see only the charitable nickel, others will focus on "the bigger picture,"

The recipient of charity sees a small picture, but can be sure it is a true one. Those who claim to focus on "the bigger picture" don't have that ability. How can they be sure the picture they see is a true one? What if it turns out they are simply reacting to the self-serving lies of the people they have been listening to all their lives? It took the Soviets three generations to escape from that trap, and I doubt they could have done it if Gorbachev wasn't a regular listener of the BBC.

Before you act, before you judge, don't you think you should be sure of your facts and their context? And if these don't reflect well on you and your past actions, have you decided what to do?

Naturally when you are well-fed and have all the conveniences of life at your fingertips, you are going to have good thoughts, great insights and lofty ideals...

Spinoza had none of these, yet he still lived the life of a saint, and his philosophy and political theory greatly influenced the thinking of subsequent Western philosophers, although hardly anyone reads him today.

in reality, Western Civilization is effectively a mercantile civilization. Closely aligned with the confused pagan Christian religion, it benefited from the marginalization of morality to allow Europe to come out of the dark ages with the help of Jewish financing and Crusader-like wars against neighbors.

The breadth of your vision is admirable, but flawed, or perhaps not presented in a way I can understand. Western Civilization is capitalist, not mercantile, and has been for roughly two hundred years.

Far from being "marginalized" Western morality has been institutionalized in law and the social services society provides to those in need. The downside is the perceived need for personal compassion in the form of charity can suffer. This is recognized by the fact that charitable donations are generally tax-deductible.

"Wars against neighbors" did little to lift Europe out of the Dark Ages, but the enforced contact of the Crusaders with the then-superior culture of Islam and Byzantium did, as increased education and trade were secondary results.

Better to enslave and plunder than to live with less, eh? Thats the motto. Nice guys finish last.

It is true that Western Civilization has failed to ameliorate all human ills, and that justice isn't always done. The advantage of a free society is the power to recognize this and take corrective action, rather than rob the country blind and sweep problems under the carpet, distracting the populace from seeking justice against their rulers by launching wars that enrich the powerful and decimate the powerless under the banner of religion. In the judgment of one Muslim writer, "It is time our political and religious leaders learnt some basic lessons from non-Muslims who practise Islamic teachings better than Muslims."

>>>Yes, like most self-loathing Arabs, you yourself on the other hand seem to have what we call "selective amnesia" when it comes to viewing your adopted Western ideals thru red-rose tinted glasses.

Oh so just because I choose not to be crippled by the past then I'm not proud of my heritage and who I am, that's ridiculous, I coudn't be more proud of being an Arab and Palestinian- but I won't let what happened to us hurt me anymore or make me bitter against all things Western that I was born to. You don't know the first thing about suffering, you don't have cousins who died in Israeli prisons and your grandparents didn't own large swaths of beautiful Jerusalem land only to have it stolen from them in the 1967, you never had to endure the stupid remarks of Druze Israeli soldiers when traveling in what has historically belonged to your ancestors, you don't know what its like to have so many of your own people living in refugee camps and the feelings of guilt and helplessness over the fact that you can't really do anything substantial for them. Don't lecture me about suffering, I know that it won't get us anywhere, what Muslims need is to get over the horrible past because there is nothing more crippling and counterproductive than the feeling that you have been wronged. Even if it's true.


>>>Nothing, its only 'spin' to brainwash impressionable people like yourself into thinking the West has the monopoly on "compassion and tolerance".

Nobody thinks that the West has monopoly over compassion or tolerance, on the contrary, I think we are superior in that respect, the wars that Muslims were involved in throughout history were never, not even slightly closely, as bloody as those twentieth century Europe was ravaged by. We Muslims could never be capable of the kind of mass brutality and savagery that Europeans inflicted on each other. But your problem is that everything you perceive is absolute and utilitarian, there are no gray areas, and ideas and human emotions don't matter because they aren't "useful". That is so cold and heartless, I bet you are indeed a Mongol (you can't be Pakistani, they're too nice). Well, not everything has to be of practical value, in fact the most important things in life are generally of no use.

>> there are no gray areas, and ideas and human emotions don't matter because they aren't "useful". That is so cold and heartless, I bet you are indeed a Mongol <<

Grey, eh? A Grey-haired Mongol. Known as what? GREYBEARD? Cold, menacing, utilitarian. Murderous thug. Brutal you say? Sort of an OmarG without the Islamic pretensions. Hmmmm.

I like it, good one. Greybeard. Nice.

>>It lacks compassion and civility, quickly descending

Be cool about me, Haji, be cool; I actually am tending towards agreeing with the above statement...I think Western culture is quickly loosing its civility by the way I see people act in public. Almost all people are well intentioned with good hearts but get chewed up in the meat grinder of consumerism, trying thier hardest to provide for greedy families, hurriedness and the general malaise that happens to Godless and materialistic cultures.

Nadia86 >> What are you talking about? Are you saying that Arabs are racists? I don't know if you've heard, but Nasserite Arab Nationalism is no longer a popular ideology ...

So its some other type of more acceptable arab nationalism?

I am saying that there is no political reality for these Muslims because they are considered Indians attacking Indians or Muslims who are miseducated. Under this banner of terrorism and a frenzied media circus, the important political struggle of the minority/marginilised Muslim/Sikh/Christian community as well as the political rights of Kashmiris are all being ignored so all the middle class airheads can hold hands and pretend to be caring human beings while every dollar spent keeps in the Devils global political industry in place.

Again, its not the religious education that determines these isolated incidents or reprisals, its the very real political and militaristic violence that poor children are being submitted to! Reaction, reaction, reaction. And unlike Israelis, it is against the actual society that inflicts the oppression. I can't help but laugh at the illegal settlers who were forcefully moved and given such sympathetic coverage when they're off shooting random children and squatting to force a full out war.

Solomon2 >> In the judgment of one Muslim writer, "It is time our political and religious leaders learnt some basic lessons from non-Muslims who practise Islamic teachings better than Muslims."


Actually, Muslims need to be fussy. Exclude Americans and Europeans as role models. Ignore their citizenry because they don't really care when their powerful militaries and corporates kill hundreds of thousands and repress billions. Most of the powerful non-Muslim political and economic establishment is blatantly hypocritical and destructive. The words of the Muslim commentator are the words of blind hypocrite who needs to pledge allegiance to his cushy lifestyle.

The problems western countries have with carbon taxes are actually telling of the problem. They have a problem with developing nations given leeway for carbon taxes, when they contributed a hundred times over to the current crisis due to theire own rampant industrialisation. All that commentators can say is, you can't go back to the recent pasts injustices cos they won't let you. Ridiculous.

>> I think Western culture is quickly loosing its civility by the way I see people act in public. Almost all people are well intentioned with good hearts but get chewed up in the meat grinder of consumerism <<

Well chief. People in the West are still a LOT MORE civil at the micro-economic level then people in the East. Anybody will tell you that. You ve obviously not been to South Africa for instance. God. I was referring more to the macro-economic level where Western States are less civil in resolving conflicts.

My theory is that all Western projects with civil and compassionate motives are almost always doomed to failure down the road due to the Mercantile and Capitalist underpinnings of all things Western. Because somewhere in between 1400s to 1600s, Europeans developed this naked moral-less (or perhaps Godless?) philosophy of shameless pursuit of wealth as a means of social order and social cohesion (like pre-Islamic Makkah). And that this is the source of power in all things Western.

So attempts at moral or civil projects always end up relying and becoming corrupted by this power. Schooling, Nursing, the arts, anything that requires altruism and compassion, ends up commercialized. Its possible that this has always been the case in the history of man, and Western Civilization is only taking things to their logical conclusion rather than being bogged down by wishy washy moralities and other human failings like compassion, chivalry, tolerance.

The other thing I want to explore is this 'Godless.' Maybe Mumbo Jumbo can help untangle this. 'Fear of God' to be precise. The idea that man can be kept in check with such fear. Like a child is kept in check with fear of parental retribution. As such we are afterall mere children in front of God, no matter how smart we may think we are.

This is supposed to work. And one can blame the excesses of the Western Civilization (1500-todate)on their secularization of life and increasing Godlessness, but then how come it did not work on the Spanish component of the same which was more under the direct control of the Catholic Church. Nor did it seem to prevent the Catholic Church itself from behaving badly during its more direct reign during the dark ages (500-1,000). Unless there is no such thing as 'Fear of God' in catholicism.

The idea being that perhaps this 'Fear of God' is the single most important (or atleast effective) restraining force in the human experience. Which would make Muslims the most civil of all peoples? But then you look at "Muslim behavior" of late and you wonder. Gulags and political brutality. Torturing their very own on behalf of kuffar. Sort of like a 'outsourcing service'. Jesus, that does take the cake I must say.