4 Comments »

1. 1 yonason

   May 13, 2007 @ 7:27 pm CEST

   BARAK HUSSEIN O’CLUSTERBOMBER

   At the rate Obama is bombing in his speeches , it be a wonder how anyone think he speak good.

   Of course that could be a function of belonging to a party that is significantly, eh, ‘truth challenged’ , shal we say?

2. 2 David

   May 13, 2007 @ 10:19 pm CEST

   Regarding “The Islamist” which I referred to earlier, here is a fairly good summary of its contents:

   http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1514

   One point that the book made that is quite interesting is that Islamist tended to not be very religious people, they tended to have highly politicised views of religion that made it solely about taking power and not much to do with any ideas about God or spirituality.

   This is a theme that I have noticed repeatedly in my reading on the subject. It is my view that the type of Islamism that exists in western countries owes more to extreme left wing nihilism than it does to the Koran.

3. 3 Michael van der Galien

   May 14, 2007 @ 8:45 am CEST

   That’s a very interesting statement David, and I can follow your reasoning - I think you might be on to something. Got more links?

4. 4 David

   May 14, 2007 @ 9:56 am CEST

   Can’t remember all the links, but the main ones were the book “The Islamist”, there was also an article I read online somewhere called “The French Road to Jihad” or something like that and there was a newspaper article surveying religious practice that I read a while ago suggesting that Jihadists were no more religious than other Muslims.

   At the moment I have not developed it into a full theory, as i think westerners tend to look to easily for non-religious explanations for religion as the west is quite secular and I don’t want to fall into this trap. The idea is a work in progress.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim) or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.