Religion and Politics: Iraqi Crisis

Religion and Politics: Iraqi Crisis

We have Muslims oppressing Christians in central Africa and Mesopotamia. We have Muslims opposed to Jews in Gaza. We have a conflict borne out of an Islamic schism (Sunnis/Shiites) in the Middle East. We have Muslims religiously vituperating and murdering Yazidis in Kurdistan. We have also had a major clash between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland; the unspeakable Jewish pogrom that was the Holocaust; Hindus versus Muslims in post-colonial India and neighbouring Pakistan; and a Buddhist-Muslim tussle in Asia, too. It shouldn’t take a genius to realise that religion is a recipe for disaster.

The Church protects paedophiles from the law and provides them with opportunities to further molest children after the fact all in the name of letting them make things right. Islam is the perfect trump card for paedophilia - what a great example prophet Muhammad sets for his followers! A great number of Hindus support sati: where widows are burned alive on the deceased partner’s funeral pyre. And then we have “honour killings” carried out by some (usually devout) religious families. Muslims are not the only ones but they are certainly the worst. The frequency of Muslim conflict and terrorisation today, compared to the rest of the pietism, is enough to logically tag Islam as one of the worst religious ideologies in the world. Worse still, those of us who see this are not allowed to say, “Guys, it’s not working, just scrap it.”

Du’a Khalil Aswad, killed by her philistine family for going out with a Muslim, was an Iraqi Kurd of the Yazidi faith. The hypocritical Islamic State then used the story as an excuse to massacre Kurds in Mosul. Not every Yazidi supports honour killings but they are generally reticent about mixing with people of other creeds. To Muslims (who closely follow the Quran), all non-Muslims are infidels and if you are thinking about joining Islam just be warned that the price of apostasy is death. The bones Muslims have to pick with Yazidis go beyond the “infidel” label but the overall assessment is still under the influence of Quranic scripture and the tenets of Islam.

Yazidis, who precede Islam in time and in the Persian area, have notions of light and dark representing good and evil derived from ancient Mesopotamian creeds such as Mithraism and Mazdaism. Due to the nature of Islam, Yazidis were bound to be persecuted by Muslims. Even the Ba’athist government of Saddam Hussein would torment them along with the other Kurds who were either more secularly inclined or adhering to the Marxist-Leninist doctrine. The Salafist militant group of the Islamic State, who seeks to establish a vast Muslim empire and the old Caliphate, see Yazidis as devil-worshippers due to a coincidence between their chief angel Melek Taus’s other name and the Quranic name for Satan. (Melek Taus, the peacock angel who is part of their deistic god’s posse of divine beings known as the Heptad, is also known as Shaytan.)

During the Iraq War, Yazidis were constantly looking over their shoulders for suicide bombers and what happened in Qahtaniya at the time just shows that their paranoia was justified. (So much for the stupid word “Islamophobia.”) Again, like in Gaza, Africa, and Ireland, we see two monotheisms in internecine opposition. Time and again religion fails to work out its differences and the pious, who don’t understand the meaning of humanism, appear incapable of behaving in civilised society. I only urge politicians to ask themselves why democracy works in some nations but not others. I urge them to look to the more secular countries, with an interest in science and a growing population of atheists, such as Sweden and the Netherlands, where crime is lower and there is no significant conflict.

If only Muslims, Jews, Christians, and Yazidis focused on humanistic values and balanced altruistic ways. If only all the religious factions focused on what they have in common with one another: Muslims and Yazidis pray five times a day; Muslims and Jews dislike pigs (I’ve just had a delicious pork roast dinner and can’t help but think that those people don’t know what they are missing); Muslims and Christians consider Jesus Christ to be a divine emissary (albeit in different ways).

The problem with Islam is that it comes with Sharia Law and gets too politically involved. Every Muslim holds the concept of jihad (holy war) in their hearts to different degrees. How can Muslims call the United States of America “the Great Satan” when American soldiers saved their lives in Bosnia, during the Balkans War, by foiling the Serbian army in their ethnic cleansing attempt? Americans may now feel a humanitarian responsibility to Kurdistan, and may be partly guilty for having supported the Ba’athist regime in its heyday via the CIA as well as having more recently trained ISIS members in Jordan - but they are certainly the lesser of current evils. Foreign policy changes and mistakes are often made - something that the US government may want to address and tackle in their constitution.

What appears to be of utmost urgency now is the situation in the Middle East. Thousands of Yazidis have been besieged by Islamists in the mountains near Sinjar and the world is watching. Western powers such as America and Britain are being pressed to act. If the White House decided to bomb Northern Iraq in order to destroy the enemy’s artillery, it is only a response to a call for help and a step in precluding genocide. Places like Irbil and Qaraqosh are in the line of fire and in dire need of help. Refugees need to stop praying and focus their energies on fighting back and restoring the country before there is nothing left to run. Iraq needs a secular, truly democratic government. Not an Islamic one where Sharia is imposed on everyone.

Hasni Abidi, an Arabic Affairs expert in Paris, tells us that ISIS is the Islamic State successor in the Levant and Iraq which was created in 2006 by al-Qaeda. When asked about their funding, Abidi said that some of the Islamic State militants’ weapons were recovered from previous wars and millions of dollars were obtained from a bank robbery in Mosul. ISIS also took advantage of the bordering countries, like Syria, to attract support for jihad. Abidi also points out that American intervention was late (Obama never wanted to be a war president) and that Baghdad is using the precarious Iraqi Christian situation to obtain international aid. (Governments like this one, and Nigeria’s with their Boko Haram problem, are often fond of prolonging crises in order to revel in privileged international affairs.) For me, the most moving plea for humanitarian aid came from Vian Dakhil, a Yazidi member of the Iraqi Parliament. The woman was in tears as she gave a very emotional speech highlighting the fact that her people, creed and ancient cultural values were being extirpated by Islamists. Dakhil pointed out that Yazidis were being told to “convert to Islam or die” and her cry for help resonated throughout the parliamentary hall before she collapsed.

Today, on C-Span, Marc Ginsberg (former ambassador to Morocco and once a Mideast advisor to Jimmy Carter) recalled with great clarity the American mistake that was made during the Syrian civil war which appears to repeat itself in Iraq. Redolently, Ginsberg related how Hilary Clinton and the then Defence Secretary Bob Gates had urged President Obama to provide military assistance to the more secular Syrian army - a move that would have received great support from a moderate, non-Islamist oriented organisation. The White House overruled the idea just as the former First Lady was on her way to Istanbul to attend a “friends of Syria” where international aid ensured.

My solution is very simple: the sooner we rid ourselves of religion, starting with Islam, the better off we’ll be. We will then be able to focus on the things that matter most and the world will gain an unprecedented enlightenment and a clarity of thought once superstition is dead.

The only successful way seen so far to reduce religious believers is better education with more science involvement.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Goldkoron. We need more education and more progress in science. I feel too many areas of the globe are still living in the Middle Ages and passing their memes on to the next generation. That is bad for politics and bad for scientific progress.

Freedom of religious expression should be allowed, of course, but like nesgirl said, as long as it's not harmful. Parents shouldn't label their kids "Muslim," "Christian," or "Jew" either because they are simply not old enough to understand what those tags entail and imply. It is a premature affair.

Best of luck to the Yazidis and the Kurds in general in fighting against pious zealots and idiots terrorising people in the name of some imaginary being. I hope they get as much support from the Americans as they can against the hideous totalitarianism that is Islam. Islamists have waged war against Western countries like Britain and the USA ages ago (announced shortly after Independence Day). In fact, they waged a war against the rest of the world when they decided religiously follow what is mandated by the Quran. Tribalism and discrimination with an Islamic face.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

The Iraqi ambassador to the UK wants the British to bomb Iraq against the Islamic State. He says Americans are not doing enough to help. Several people were massacred in a Sunni mosque by Shiites.

The US Government says it won't cooperate with president Assad of Syria even though he is also opposed to the Islamic State. Americans deem Assad to be a genocidal maniac.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

...

Religious people may criticise that quote by labelling it a crude innuendo but, whether they like it or not, it rings true. They have a tendency to proselytise and to assume that the unbeliever is a lost soul in need of "saving." Their chieftains are often found to be child molesters and criminals of other sorts. Their authorities, who claim to be divine emissaries, protect unrepentant monsters prone to reoffending.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Summerlander wrote: Religious people may criticise that quote by labelling it a crude innuendo but, whether they like it or not, it rings true. They have a tendency to proselytise and to assume that the unbeliever is a lost soul in need of "saving." Their chieftains are often found to be child molesters and criminals of other sorts. Their authorities, who claim to be divine emissaries, protect unrepentant monsters prone to reoffending.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

LOL!

My solution is very simple: the sooner we rid ourselves of religion, starting with Islam, the better off we’ll be. We will then be able to focus on the things that matter most and the world will gain an unprecedented enlightenment and a clarity of thought once superstition is dead.

Yazidis, who precede Islam in time and in the Persian area, have notions of light and dark representing good and evil derived from ancient Mesopotamian creeds such as Mithraism and Mazdaism. Due to the nature of Islam, Yazidis were bound to be persecuted by Muslims. Even the Ba’athist government of Saddam Hussein would torment them along with the other Kurds who were either more secularly inclined or adhering to the Marxist-Leninist doctrine. The Salafist militant group of the Islamic State, who seeks to establish a vast Muslim empire and the old Caliphate, see Yazidis as devil-worshippers due to a coincidence between their chief angel Melek Taus’s other name and the Quranic name for Satan. (Melek Taus, the peacock angel who is part of their deistic god’s posse of divine beings known as the Heptad, is also known as Shaytan.)

Yazidism was founded in the 12th century, Persia(AKA Iran) had long been Moslem. Mesopotamia (AKA Iraq) is the the place of orgin for Mazdaism - that was Persia. Mithraism, though using the gods of Iran, was entirely a mystery cult of the Roman empire and was long dead when Yazidism was founded, having no possible influence on Yazidism.

The Nazi holocaust and Saddam's murder of Kurds were entirely secular actions of terrorism based in nationalism not religion - agrues secularism being all conflict free and this is without talking about the worst examples of Atheistic terrorism done by . Ideologist are even worse than the religious moralists.

Snaggle, Snaggle...

Mazdaism precedes Islam by one century and it did influence Yazidism which originally, I grant you that much, started out as a Sufi order. Also, the apparent "death" of a religion does not mean that it cannot be rediscovered and revived even if it is in a different form. Elements of Mithraism can be found in Yazidism. Anyway, whichever came first is besides the point. They are still religion, they are both wrong, and Islamists have no excuse to commit genocide.

Now, as for Saddam Hussein being secular? No chance. He was an advocate of Sunni Islam, and, if you doubt this, just listen to his last words about Allah's justice before his execution. As for the Ba'athist Party, it subscribed to another doctrine: socialism. The same can be said about Stalin, who was indeed an atheist but he did not subdue the masses in the name of atheism. Stalin did it in the name of his twisted Marxism and still allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to remain active and keep the people servile just like they were during the Czarist regime. (The Czar himself was considered to be a demigod.)

Stalin, who influenced Saddam Hussein, by the way, was the "superman" of Russia, to be revered by everyone. He was always right and knew what was best for his "children." So much so that they had to grovel to live. Pseudoscience was employed for his political ends and taught at schools for the purpose of brainwashing. Stalin even appointed Lysenko as director of the Institute of Genetics of the Soviet Union, who caused incalculable damage to Soviet agriculture.

If you don't know Lysenko, he was a second-rate plant breeder who opposed Darwinism, Mendelianism, and subscribed to the fallacious Lamarckism.

Like I said initially, we need Enlightenment and secularism. Saddam Hussein is not an example of either, much less humanism! If you want to have any argument whatsoever against my proposition as a solution, you need to point me to a secular society that adopted the teachings of Lucretius, Newton, Einstein, Paine, Spinoza, Jefferson, Voltaire - and many other enlightened figures of our time - and still fell into war, famine and death. You won't find one. The closest you will get, and they are still not quite there, are the European examples I mentioned above. As for the Holocaust... are you kidding me?

Hitler used a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a canard forged by the Russian Orthodox Church, in order to influence people into thinking that Jews were a threat. Hitler was also a Christian (he never officially renounced Christianity) and made a pact with the Vatican whereby the Church could obtain power over marriage, education, and death. And what did the Nazi party get from the clergy in exchange? That's right. Names of Christians related to Jews and Jewish names. And the disbandment of the Christian political party, too (which included the cessation of anti-Nazism propaganda). I could go on. Hitler spoke of having been sent by Providence (once even referring to it as "God" in one of his speeches). Read Mein Kampf, or read about it, and listen to the Nazi party hymns and tell me they are secular. This is an excerpt from Mein Kampf:

"By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." - Adolf Hitler

Hitler even believed in the effectiveness or Nordic pagan rites and had an affinity for the occult. What a poor example, Snaggle! :-D

Case closed.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

Here is another example of why religion must go: http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4361.htm

Yeah, I’ve heard the story, nesgirl. Many times. I not going to say anything at all about it anymore--you’ll just play the victim card yet again.

Summerlander wrote: Iran has just signed a deal with Russia for two new nuclear reactors. Meanwhile, Putin and a gullible Obama exchange views about Syria and Iraq. I wonder if the Russian president cared to mention the reasons behind intimidating peripheral nations with airforce and why he's already downed a few aircraft carrying innocent civillians. It is a cold war and yet people seem to think that two opposing presidents talking for 20 minutes somehow constitutes progress of some sort. Germany is shitting itself about placing sanctions against the Russian Federation, and given the latter's aggression, so they should. There is no reasoning with such psychopath.

It's also the tenth anniversary of the death of the infamous Yasser Arafat. A Palestinian demonstrator has already been shot dead by Israeli forces in Hebron, West Bank, amid tensions over Jerusalem's holy site. The Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas accused Israel of trying to provoke a religious war. (Can you believe that in this day and age people fight over where to pray and what ideas should be persued without evidence or reason?)

It’s all insanity. History is just one long cluster-fuck. Nothing but disorder, to my mind.

I didn't even say anything and you still got pissed and started insulting me. Haha. Not sure what I should do with you anymore, nesgirl.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

You have got to criticize misinformed, dangerous ideas, nesgirl, no matter who thought them up. With your enlightened reasoning, if a totalitarian regime came into being and started executing innocents en masse, but the person who gave the order was somehow handicapped, there is no reason to criticize or resist him. False. Ideas should stand for themselves, but indeed there are individuals who stand for those ideas. When I attack an idea, I am attacking an idea, not an individual. This is a simple lesson.

I feel that if Russia ever did decide to throw down and nuke the USA, they would quickly find most of their country vaporized to radioactive silt by either the other superpowers of the world or America's own last-minute warhead launches. And we'd have the biggest atrocity of mankind enacted in a tight 24 hours--with all the following generations doomed to live in constant fear of getting poisoned by the global fallout. I'm fairly certain that stumbling upon the Power of the Atom will prove to be the end of mankind. To me it seems inevitable. We're like tense gunslingers in a Mexican standoff; eventually someone's going to start shooting, and after that, everyone's dead.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

nesgirl wrote: I am not saying these handicapped people shouldn't be punished and they have been in fact.

I do not think that handicapped people or any other creature or human on the face of the planet should be punished for anything. I don’t believe in retribution. It’s nonsensical, unscientific, and irrational.

nesgirl wrote: However I was not referring the Islamic state, nor do I believe they are handicapped.

I know. I did not misunderstand you. Neither did I myself reference the Islamic State. I’m not sure where this came from.

nesgirl wrote: I was researching a religious leader from the 1800s after reading an article on yahoo, and because in the 1800s those crimes and actions were NOT exactly ones a criminal would come up with all on their own, and his actions, thoughts, and criminal activity seemed to be very similar many of the severely bipolar patients my father interviewed in prison and in his office, I have huge reason to believe he himself was in fact suffered from a very serious case of bipolar, which is why he seemed so horrible to most people. One of the biggest mistakes that most of these severely bipolar people make is not getting the assistance they need, or the medications they need, however back in the time that religious leader was in, they didn't have that. Also the asylums back then were so severely cruel back then, I do not blame him at all for not wanting to be locked in one. In the end, he did receive Capital Punishment instead, which for a mentally handicapped person who cannot control their actions, is probably the most humane thing, because the Asylums and the prisons are way too cruel to them (fate worse than death). Also I have been studying different religious leaders as well, and I have reasons to believe some of them might have had handicaps of their own as well (If Muhammad married a young girl, obviously there would have had to have been a mental disorder in there, because only a handicapped person would find nothing wrong with that, believe me. I've even heard some stories from some of the handicapped from working with them myself about children getting married. Notice any evidence right in what I am saying?)

I essentially agree with everything you said here. Although, I would like to perhaps elaborate, especially on the point you made about Muhammad being with a young girl. I think all human beings are fundamentally insane. There are also some minor superficial insanities, too. It’s nearly impossible to grow up in and live in this screwed up world without developing a few psychological haywires. It may be a little thing here, a little thing there, but we all have something wrong with us, I posit. Some have bigger problems than others.

Artists and religious leaders share one thing in common, I think: They indulge in and take advantage of that common subconscious insanity we humans have. :D

nesgirl wrote: And by the way, I honestly doubt Islam suffers from being handicapped.

I never said that. And I don’t think that. I do, however, think that Islamists have extremely unhealthy sexual repressions, and it certainly shows in their “holy” books. (72 virgins.)

nesgirl wrote: I think they are just a pure sociopathic community. Only 1-5% of the community even has a disability to begin with (physical or mental). So the odds of a whole country having a disability is very unlikely. As far as Bin Laden, Saddam, or Hitler having any of those, that is highly unlikely as well. Because usually the mentally handicapped have a weakness in the ability to fully reason too well, will not very easily forgive someone who insulted them, and have to rely on scientific and mathematical facts to back them up, they usually would struggle to be able to have a career in politics or commanding anything to begin with. If someone severely mental actually leads a group, they will nearly always have very unusual ideas and rules you will have never imagined before (no caffeine, being drug and alcohol free, and being mostly vegetarian for example), and you may find them getting in serious trouble with the law or severely persecuted.

Interesting observation I made about this: You know that illegalizing caffeine is outrageous and silly, but not illegalizing procreation. Just an interesting observation about yourself.

nesgirl wrote: Maybe my story of me being the last female and there being one last man might very well happen if that happens. And I am one of very few who could live in a basement happily for a very long time in isolation, so that is possible. Because I'll just hide in the basement while it all happens. And if that happens, my choice will be to quickly learn to DNA clone from my DNA and the guy's, or for the human population to face complete extinction. Since I am anti-romantic, he and I would keep our personal space. If he wants to help, fine, but if he doesn't, that's fine too. If he is a pervert, I'll tie him up, and sent him to Antarctica.

Perhaps, with the fate of humanity in your hands, you will be able to overlook your own egocentrism and maybe consider artificial insemination? :D

nesgirl wrote: They do need to be punished or stopped if they killing the innocent.

Stopped, yes. Punished needlessly? No. Retribution is a primitive, illogical fallacy at best, in the absence of free will. And, if I remember, you accept the nonexistence of free will. If you have a convicted serial killer (who murdered tens of innocent people) in chains in front of you, it would be tremendously tempting to stomp his face in. But there is no rational reasoning behind it. Just lock him in a cell disgustedly and throw away the key. Only because he is a danger to society and a public enemy. Do you see my reasoning? It's totally sound, in my opinion. If you disagree, it's only because you don't understand.

nesgirl wrote: Unlike the other designers, I tend to break the 4th wall in my designs too often, letting people know that the fantasy they are in is in fact another reality and isn't real.

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. It's an interesting approach to art, and I generally enjoy it because it's unconventional and intriguing and even humorous.

nesgirl wrote: Going through the bloody process of finding the egg after releasing it from my body is a huge pain and there is more than the egg that is released (ever read about what happens to the female when she releases unfertilized eggs?), so finding it within that mess would be really difficult. If I did find it without damaging it, then fine, you could go on ahead and see what you could do with it within the test tube. However if that didn't work, then good luck (and there wouldn't be that option, since the specimens would be practically destroyed with the Nuclear explosions)!! My body isn't up for disgusting bodily fluids. The guy is not going to touch me. And like I was about to say, if I learned to DNA clone, I could repopulate the earth much faster than I could give birth, and without the risk of death. With cloning, I could probably create 100 people using the guy's and my DNA. Those clones with our knowledge could create 100 more, and the process would continue.

Haha. I just think it's funny how you would be willing to let all of humanity die just because you're a little grossed out about body fluids. Let me say this: if the fate of humanity was in my hands,** there would be absolutely nothing I wouldn't do**. I would eat an entire human being, if that's what it took, disgusting bodily fluids and all.

By the way, I bet you really like "Alien" ;)

Good thing this would never happen anyway. If all of humanity was wiped out via nuclear warfare except you and some other guy, there would be so much high-concentrated radiation that you'd both be dead in sixty seconds. :D

Little anecdote: if a nuclear shoot-out ever went down and we plunged our foolish selves into apocalypse, humanity would not be wiped out. Because there are actually several bunkers around the world (I forget where they all are, but I know that one of them is stationed somewhere in Antarctica) stocked with plenty of energy, supplies, and nearly every seedling for most ecosystemically-important plants. Humans would just hunker down there for a while, tending the station and such. The survivors would probably go crazy eventually though. Or maybe one of them would go crazy one day and shoot all the others. :) It'd be a fun dark science fiction story.

...

"As for as the non-existence..."

Yeah. I'll never reject an idea simply because it makes me uncomfortable. At least we can enjoy the illusion of having free will.

"I never said..."

Wow, I guess I really have to point this out to you because you can't figure it out: No, you wouldn't be able to clone. You wouldn't have the expertise and even if you did you wouldn't be able to make it to a science laboratory that is properly equipped.

Cannibalism: what I said was that if that was what was required, I would do it. There would be nothing I wouldn't do for the perpetuation of humanity. It's pretty shocking and revealing that there are things you wouldn't do.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image

You may say that about cannibalism now, nesgirl, but would that view survive if you were starving? This is where imagination can help. I'm not saying you would commit murder in order to feed but you would probably be tempted to eat someone who had already died...

[ Post made via Android ] Image

The entire world is a nuclear, irradiated winterland, nesgirl. You're missing the point and meaning of a hypothetical.

This calls to mind a scene from one of my favorite novels: "The Stand" by Stephen King. Basically, 99.9% of the population is swiftly wiped out by a superflu nicknamed "Captain Trips." A choice few people have the genetic mutation that makes them totally immune. One of the characters (who is genetically immune) is in a small state penitentiary when the flu comes through. After a week or so, everyone in the prison (wardens and prisoners) is either dead or has fled, leaving the character behind in the jail cell. Weeks pass. There's only the silence. He has tried literally everything he can think of to break out of the cell, but nothing has worked. He slowly starts to starve to death. A dead, rotting body is in the jail cell just adjacent to his, and he thinks that it is easily within reach. As the torturous days lug by, that pallid, melted forearm starts to look extremely delicious... (If I recall, Randall Flagg--the main antagonist of the novel--finds him and liberates him before he actually starts eating people.) But that's the point of the hypothetical. IF there was no other option, WOULD you do it?

I certainly would. The idea sounds repulsive to the utmost degree at the moment, but I know the nature of starvation and human depravity enough to know that that would not be an obstacle for me if I was genuinely starving to death.

Get ready for yet another of my characteristically dark comments...

The salinity of blood plasma and lymph is very high, as the vast majority of sodium is stored in such fluids. If you've ever tasted blood, you would be familiar with its salty, alkaline taste. That is why. So, potentially, that could be an option for you...

Honestly, if I was in the predicament portrayed in that scene, I would try to find a way to kill myself before the pain of starvation set in, tempting me to endure the horrors of consuming a human being. My will to live is not exactly soaring.

[ Post made via iPad ] Image

I think most people nowadays, when they observe what's going on in Middle Eastern countries, see mostly endless ethnic and religious sectarian violence and bloodshed.

Even though ISIS and many other terrorists groups vow to wage war on America, their main destructive efforts seem to be aimed at any group of people, Muslim or otherwise, who are deemed to not be "True Followers" of the alarmingly strict and narrow religious views of the terrorists.

It is tremendously sad that many thousands of people in this region have hardened their hearts to feelings of empathy or common emotional ground regarding others they feel are "too different" from themselves.

However, behind all of this swirling cloud of chaos, there still lives on a remarkable voice of peace - the poems of the poet Rumi, who is much beloved in all Islamic countries, and in many other nations.

From Wikipedia article - "Rumi" - "Rumi ... was a 13th century Persian poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic. Rumi's importance is considered to transcend national and ethnic boundaries ... His poems have been widely translated into many of the world's languages ... He has been described as 'the most popular poet in America' ... "

Coleman Barks is perhaps the best known English translator of Rumi's poems. I recommend the following video -

YouTube - Coleman Barks - "Rumi and The Play Of Poetry" - University of California Television (1:47:31 min.) Coleman Barks reads Rumi's wonderfully gentle, melodious, often numinous poems, which express love for all people, and awareness of deep, sacred connection with all and things in the wider world.

Rumi's poetry will not be enough to sway Islamists just as Omar Khayyam's atheistic verses fail to persuade the pious in general to embrace secularism. Rumi's poetry also contradicts the tenets of Islam - from the Quran to the Hadith - where it is explicitly stated that Muslims must not befriend apostates and unbelievers. The Quran also promotes and ordains Jihad (holy war) against the infidel and glorifies martyrdom as one of the quickest ways to reach their hedonistic heaven. Members of the Islamic State, who wish to restore the old Caliphate, have every right to say that they follow their doctrine to the letter whilst reasonably arguing that moderate, cherry-picking Muslims who befriend the Western infidel are not real Muslims and face hellfire unless they completely embrace the totalitarianism of Islam. Hence the reason why thousands of Muslims from the West continue to travel to Iraq and Syria to aid what they believe to be the right side: the Mujahadeen, Allah's soldiers.

Either Islam completely reforms as Christianity did or people jettison this harmful ideology completely. Getting rid of theocracy would definitely be waking up and smelling the coffee.

[ Post made via Android ] Image

I do not naively think that Rumi's poetry would ever be able to penetrate the stony hearts of any terrorists or other fanatical religious fundamentalists.

However, in the Sufi Islamic tradition, Rumi apparently encountered, and become attuned with, some unusually open-minded Muslim individuals who were able to explore their inner worlds deeply, and therein discovered a source of sacred, loving, universal creativity and inspiration, which was essentially missing in the surface, often rigid and intolerant, religious ideologies prevalent in much of Islamic society.

I think that the great popularity of Rumi's poetry in predominately Muslin countries, and in the U.S.A., as well as many other countries, provides a potential bridge for civilized communication between very different national cultures -- communication about the common needs and aspirations of millions of more moderate-minded people, who value peace and understanding more than endless war.

Rumi's potential cultural bridge is a subject which is never, ever discussed by America's news pundits, perhaps many of whom have never even heard of Rumi. And in the Middle East, many people who admire Rumi's poetry would probably be afraid to ever admit it.

jasmine2 wrote: However, in the Sufi Islamic tradition, Rumi apparently encountered, and become attuned with, some unusually open-minded Muslim individuals who were able to explore their inner worlds deeply, and therein discovered a source of sacred, loving, universal creativity and inspiration, which was essentially missing in the surface, often rigid and intolerant, religious ideologies prevalent in much of Islamic society.

The trouble is that Sufi ideology expresses it own identity which in the minds of ardent Islamists is simply false. If it doesn't directly come from what the prophet espoused it is automatically invalid. They have their idea of peace only amongst themselves as anyone who does not literally adhere to the Quran is simply an infidel unworthy of compassion. Allah already has a place for them: hellfire. And they will always trust Allah's judgement to be right. He is God, the all-knowing Creator of all things. :roll:

Science, reason, and secularism tend to be the usual candidates that refine civilisation and force religions to reform and conform to human values. I believe that a better brand of humanism and philanthropy can be discovered within us if we take our time to reflect and philosophise without the distraction of already existent primitive ideologies which claim to know what is best for us and coerce us into submission with bribery and threats. People should be encouraged to think for themselves and this is very applicable to children (with a little guidance but always emphasising certainties, uncertainties, and, above all, verified truisms). The golden rules should be discovered within (and taught without the aid of mystical BS), not from some ancient text written by sentimental barbarians.

jasmine2 wrote: I think that the great popularity of Rumi's poetry in predominately Muslin countries, and in the U.S.A., as well as many other countries, provides a potential bridge for civilized communication between very different national cultures -- communication about the common needs and aspirations of millions of more moderate-minded people, who value peace and understanding more than endless war.

People who value peace and understanding in this life (not just the purported next) are not the ones we should be worried about. They can preserve their cultures and traditions all they want as long as they are not harmful and as long as their way of living is not forced upon others. But there is no communication or dealing with people who behave psychotically. There is no agreement or understanding to be made between civilised people and barbarians like Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, or ISIS. Nothing to be conceded to these organisations or this type of mentality. Sometimes things are this black and white: we are right; they are wrong. :|

We don't want any bridges with these people because they simply do not value life in this world. They believe the next is what matters and this one is for God's work against perceived evil and insubordination. They believe they are the good guys who will be duly rewarded. The root of the problem is not what is coming from them as individuals for they have been brainwashed. The root of the problem is their religion, which convinces them to do what they do and has proved itself to also dissuade moderate and otherwise good people into committing atrocities. :(

Moderates are being persuaded by ISIS to take their faith more seriously. Many moderates are now learning more about the Quran and paying attention to verses they thought never existed. Meanwhile, moderate (lackadaisical) (pseudo-)Islam is making it harder for us to tackle the real problem (the doctrine of Islam) because they provide fertile ground in which zealots can thrive. I don't believe in the label "extremist": surely, being devout and obsessive in a good thing should not require derogatory terms - and yet, the media and politicians will have you believe that Islam is a good thing, a "religion of peace" founded by, they conveniently forget(!), a barbaric, and most likely schizophrenic, paedophile warrior. :x

They give so-called liberalists the opportunity to speak for (pseudo-)equality as they argue that individuals who hold these dangerous ideas should be respected because they simply believe in them and wish to express them. No, thank you! They invent terms like "Islamophobia" (hello! we should fear Islam when it proliferates suicide-bombing and promotes Taqiyya) and condemn hoodies and balaclavas whilst supporting niqabs - even though the latter has helped terrorists to escape and conceals identities. Even though mosques have harboured fugitives! It seems that religion is too often used as a get-out-of-jail-free trump and secularists do not stand a chance. The insidious creed that religion must be respected no matter what it prescribes is still very much prevalent. Without this moderate nonsense, we would have condemned Islam as something incompatible with human happiness (in the life that matters - the only one we are sure of) just like we combated Communism. (Islam is certainly worse than Trotskyism, that's for sure!) :twisted:

jasmine2 wrote: Rumi's potential cultural bridge is a subject which is never, ever discussed by America's news pundits, perhaps many of whom have never even heard of Rumi. And in the Middle East, many people who admire Rumi's poetry would probably be afraid to ever admit it.

A cultural bridge isn't necessarily a good thing especially when one side isn't ready to regress for the sake of meeting the other in the "middle." Here in the UK we are certainly suffering the effects of multiculturalism. I'm sorry, but, once we all realise that only science has the potential to establish more or less universal human values, and we acknowledged that certain traditions and memes must be abolished, will all of us meet in the middle (or the higher, enlightened utopia). The real "bridge" is a bridge founded on truth, not unsubstantiated tribal beliefs and customs based on fantasies, superstitions, and supernatural fears. 8-)