What's the difference between Islam and Radical Islam?

There were no "Palestinians" in Palestine before the Jews started settling there. There were scattered nomads, some settled Arabs, and some Jews, there were no "Palestinians." When Mark Twain visited the area in the late 19th century he reported it as essentially a wilderness with few living there. It had no national identity under the Ottomans, it had no ethnic population of its own.The Arab support of Hitler has continued to the present. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Propaganda and spin. There were plenty of Arabs living in Palestine, whose families had been there for generations. Just because they weren't formally identified as Palestinians is irrelevant. And don't forget that there was a rush of Jewish settlers into the area.The Hitler stuff is also spin. Anti-Semitism is popular amongst Arabs NOW largely because of the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. It's shocking and wrong - but understandable. And, of course, it is a perfect example of what you call a "Godzilla attack" - all about the moral failures of the target with no regard to the actual point of the argument.

The spin is yours. You've bought the lies. The people living there were few and far between and it was not a national entity, it was wild land with scattered settlements.Hitler was popular at the time and now as well. NOT with all of the Arab or Middle Eastern world, but a lot of it. Wikipedia covers this.Israel hasn't always done the right thing but most of their actions against the "Palestinians" have been defensive. They fire rockets indiscriminately into Israel. Before the wall was built suicide bombers were a common event, destroying busses, cars, businesses, neighborhoods.The Godzilla attack was specifically an idea of David Horowitz who applied it to a Democrat and a Republican arguing, the Democrat using the PC arsenal against his opponent, the way a hellfire and brimstone preacher would use a moralistic denunciation, a form of soul murder (that's my term); against what he called "Bambi" his idea of a Republican who doesn't know how to fight like the Left. This is what Percy did to me in his scathing post. It's hard to recover from that kind of attack. You can hear Horowitz's view of it starting at 8:20 on the video in the OP of the Totalitarian thread.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The spin is yours. You've bought the lies. The people living there were few and far between and it was not a national entity, it was wild land with scattered settlements.

---

There was a substantial Arab population, even when Twain visited. And I have been saying all along that Palestine wasn't a nation so I don't see why you feel the need to raise it as an issue of disagreement.The whole point of raising Hitler is "moralistic denunciation". You don't connect it to the argument at all - let alone consider the reasons for whatever support there is or has been. So why shouldn't it count ?

She is making an issue of Arabs supporting Germany, but forgets that the entire Middle East saw Germany as the enemy of the British Empire - which was splitting the entire Middle East up. It actually happened just after 1920 or 1921. Arabs came to dislike the British and French and like the Germans over the issue of borders not being imposed. Woodrow Wilson was pro- Middle easterner as well. Against the colonial imposed borders.Also, Ephraim Stern was shot by the Brits during World War 2 (and his gang) because they shot "Nazi" collaborators on the spot. The Brits were surrounded by Vichey French forces/"nations" (what became todays Syria and Lebanon) and the predecessor to Benjamin Netanyahu's party were Pro Nazi Germany.Faith is ignorant of the fact that her side (right wing Israelis) were Pro Nazi.(Like she is ignorant of the fact that The Shi'a Caliphate is little more than a metaphysical/eschatological belief in a Hidden Imam)SEE:SHIITE DOCTRINE — Encyclopaedia Iranica

quote:

---

SHIʿITE DOCTRINE
....
One could say that Shiʿism developed around a two-fold vision of the world (weltanshauung). Let us examine how the figure of the imam, in his different dimensions, is omnipresent there and acts as a veritable centre of gravity.

​

(1) Dual vision. All reality possesses at least two levels: one manifest, apparent, exoteric (ẓher), and another non-manifest/inner, secret, esoteric (bṭen), hidden beneath the apparent level and able to consist of other levels still further hidden (bṭen al-bṭen). This dialectic of the apparent and the hidden, the exoteric and esoteric, distinct but nonetheless interdependent, constitutes a fundamental, omnipresent credo. It is at work in the different spheres of faith (Amir-Moezzi, 1997).
....
In turn, the cosmic Imam possesses an apparent level and a hidden dimension. His esoteric, his unrevealed aspect, is precisely his metaphysical aspect, cosmic, in the sky according to an expression from one of the oldest sources (e.g. Ṣaffr, pp. 107-8; Fort, 374; Ebn Bbawayh, 1958, pp. 110-11). His exoteric, his apparent level, his place of manifestation - these are the historical imams of the different cycles in sacred History (Ṣaffr, pp. 61-66; Ebn Bbawayh, 1985, chap. 22). Here we are already dealing with prophetology.

​

Indeed for Shiʿites, each great prophet, each messenger of God, is accompanied in his mission by one or many imams: from Adam, the First Man and prophet, to Moḥammad, the seal of legislative prophethood, having followed Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Solomon, Moses and Jesus among others. Moreover, these different cycles, these great messengers and their imams are interlinked by an uninterrupted chain of minor prophets, imams and saints that together constitute the great family of the Friends of God (wali, pl. awliyʾ Allh), those who bear and transmit Divine Friendship or Alliance (walya), (Pseudo (?) —Masʿudi, passim; Amir-Moezzi, 1993, pp. 319-20), a key term in all of Shiʿite doctrine to which we return shortly. These are the places of manifestation of the archetypal cosmic Imam, his revealed face. In Imami Shiʿism, the awliy par excellence are the group of the Fourteen Impeccable Ones: Moḥammad, his daughter Fṭema and the twelve imams.

---

Also see:ISLAM IN IRAN x. THE ROOTS OF POLITICAL SHII — Encyclopaedia Iranica

quote:

---

ISLAM IN IRAN x. THE ROOTS OF POLITICAL SHIʿISMs

​

ISLAM IN IRAN

​

3. Islamic Political Movements

​

A series of articles on Political Islam in Iran can be viewed in two categories: One, consisting of Roots of Political Shiʿism, Jihad in Islam, and Martyrdom in Islam, examine the historical and theological antecedents of modern Islamic political ideas.

​

The above entries will thus facilitate a deeper understanding of contemporary Islamic political movements, which are then discussed in detail in the following six entries: Islamic Movements in 20th Century Iran, Islam and Democracy, Islam amd Socialism, Islam and Fundamentalism, Islamic Revolution of 1977-79, and Islamic Republic of Iran.

​

x. THE ROOTS OF POLITICAL SHIʿISM

​

By political Shiʿism we mean here the politicization of theological and legal doctrines of Twelver Shiʿism among some thinkers, often motakallem and/or faqih, in certain specific historical contexts, in order to make of these doctrines an ideology of legitimization of religious authority and power

---

AlsoISLAM IN IRAN xiii. ISLAMIC POLITICAL MOVEMENT — Encyclopaedia Iranica

quote:

---

ISLAM IN IRAN xiii. ISLAMIC POLITICAL MOVEMENTS IN 20TH CENTURY IRAN

​

ISLAM IN IRAN

​

xiii. ISLAMIC POLITICAL MOVEMENTS IN 20TH CENTURY IRAN

​

New Islamic political movements first emerged in the Near East, the Indian Subcontinent, and Indonesia in the middle of the 19th century in response to European imperial expansion and encounter with European intellectual currents, social values, political thought, and technological advances. They represented, at least in part, the weakness of Islamic societies in resisting Western encroachment and its accompanying modes of modernity. A variety of religious responses and political ideologies emerged in this context with pro-democracy, fundamentalist, and socialist tendencies each having an elective affinity with the interests of different social classes and strata. These movements paved the way for subsequent Islamic movements that emerged in early 20th century Iran and in other Islamic societies, and have continued to the present time (for earlier Muslim reactions to and engagements with Western political influences, ideologies, and modernity, see Hairi, 1988; see also Hourani, pp. 57-160; for a comparative treatment of these broad categories of Islamic ideologies, see Enayat, pp. 93-159).

---

Also is an article on the 1953 coupCOUP D’ETAT OF 1332 ./1953 — Encyclopaedia Iranica

quote:

---

COUP D’ETAT OF 1332 ./1953

​

COUP D’ETAT OF 1332 ./1953. The appointment of Moḥammad Moṣaddeq (q.v.) as prime minister of Persia on 9 Ordbehet 1330 ./29 April 1951 and the nationalization two days later of Persia’s British-owned oil industry initiated a period of tense confrontation between the Persian and British governments. It lasted until the overthrow of Moṣaddeq in the coup d’etat of 28 Mordd 1332 ./19 August 1953, which was conceived by MI6 [the British Intelligence Service] and delivered by CIA (Wright, p. 259).

---

Context is important but Faith seems just plain ignorant.I recently read in the nation an article, from an expert, saying that Iran is a MODERATE Islamic state. I always thought so. I need to find the author's name (my issue isn't on me right now) but it was the same issue that Jeffrey Sachs talked about our $900 billion military budget and the CIA actions against the world. Like January 17 (?) 2017 or something.Here is an article I found on goggle.How Iran Became the Middle East's Moderate Force | The National InterestIt isn't from the same author tough

Funny then that Muslims themselves talk about reestablishing the Caliphate, preach about it in Europe on one of the videos I linked, threatning tht Europe will become part of it.; Funny how the 1400 year domination of most of Europe and the Middle East is referred to as the Caliphate.

quote:

---

Funny then that Muslims themselves talk about reestablishing the Caliphate, preach about it in Europe on one of the videos I linked, threatning tht Europe will become part of it.; Funny how the 1400 year domination of most of Europe and the Middle East is referred to as the Caliphate.

---

What Muslims?We support the Saudi Arabian bombing in Yemen, and it is brutal.Yemen is 40% Shi'a and we/Saudi Arabia/USA seem to be annoyed by that, so we are bombing (seemingly) based on that.Would the Shi'a in Yemen support this Caliphate you keep b.s.-ing about?Bahrain just became majority Shi'a but we support the brutal crackdown by the Sunni government we love so much.The parts of Saudi Arabia that have all the oil are 80% Shi'a, but we let the Saudi government get all the oil revenue. We (America/British) invented the stinking borders!You support endless political meddling it seems.Look at the context, and see that everything might become clearer as to why there are angry forces in the Middle East.What about the Shi'a Faith?And the Caliphate?

"They're both terrorism" doesn't mean that understanding one will be helpful for the other. What, in particular, about the Irgun is applicable to today's muslim terrorists and how will understanding that help us combat this? I wouldn't say "always", but yeah, it's usually there.Are you saying that islam doesn't have a higher penchant for terrorism?Or that we don't have a particular problem today? Neither me nor the OP are not saying that islam is intrinsically bad. Do you think that if we proverbially "got off their lawn" that everything would then be okay? No more islamic terrorism?What about when Sharia is the goal?

They also supported the Allies How does this relate to American students who want equal rights for Arabs in 2017? Yeah, as I thought - it's innuendo and slander. Thanks for confirming.

I don't see why learning about what causes groups to resort to terrorism won't help us.Irgun were fighting for territorial rights, self-determination, autonomy and so on. The Muslim terrorists say the same thing. Irgun more or less vanished with the formation of Israel - at least one of the terrorist group's leaders became Prime Minister of Israel. So we could consider that giving the Muslims at least some of what their extremists want may be an idea to destroy the motivation to terrorise. We could consider the IRA and how they were given certain compromises with autonomy, sovereignty, amnesty. They essentially got their own parliament, their own executive branch. IRA leaders have (allegedly) become politicians (eg., Gerry Adams).We spent years with soldiers in Ireland, with forces in Israel. That made things worse. Perhaps we might consider what has worked in the past to our solutions for the future? Correct. My comments were directed at neither. Yes, as a simplification, that's right. Not zero terrorism, obviously. There are always going to be terrorist groups of many religious persuasions. Most terrorist recruitment, most martyr videos are primarily focussed on territorial and political concerns. The 'get of our lawn' type justifications. Killing Americans won't result in the institution of Sharia law in America - that's not most terrorist's ambition at all. Obviously there are crazy Christian terrorists and Muslim terrorists that will always think they can achieve their goals through some insane gesture - but finding a political solution, probably one that nobody is happy with but which increases the number of people that can 'live with it' is the first and probably biggest step that will have the most significant impact.The Jews got Israel, Irgun merges into the IDF. The violence against Arabs didn't cease - but it changed character from overt attacks on civillians to at least trying to target military enemies with a rhetoric that seems to rue collateral damage. It isn't fixed, but that's because the solution that solved Irgun pushed the problems elsewhere and created Islamic versions of the same thing.In Ireland, there were still groups who rejected the Good Friday Agreement and violence and tension remained, but it is a thousand times better today than it was twenty years ago. Attacks against England basically stopped pretty quickly.

Is'am's motivations derive completely from their sacred writings. They are not reduceable to any of the usual explanations.

Call the natives of Palestine whatever you like. There were lots of them there. There are photos and everything. There were nearly a million people living there, in towns and everything:

quote:

---

Interim Report on the Civil Administration of Palestine, 1920:

​

Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic.

---

By 1948 - 2/3 of the 1.6 million people living there were Arabs. By 1968, just twenty years later, it was 86% Jewish with the Muslim population being only about 1/5 of the size it once was. 10s of thousands (approx 70,000) homes of Palestinian Arabs were destroyed. 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were force to leave the area (they were expelled). They wanted to return to their homes, they wanted to be allowed to live in the areas agreed upon when Israel was first created. Israel told them they could piss in a fire.The Justice for Palestine group believes the original plan drawn up should be adhered to. That Israel should withdraw to its originally agreed upon borders, and give equal rights to Arabs living within Israel. The Arabs of the time may have rejected the partition. Many of them today would accept it. The Justice for Palestine group is of this opinion.This is not Hitler Youth, even if they disagree with you politically.The area in the 19th Century was of a low population, but then Arabs began to migrate there, and later the Jews. By the time Israel was about to be formed most of the people there were Arabs, living in an area called Palestine. It was not a nation - as it had not been given independence by Britain who had assumed control after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire - a Muslim political entity.This is one of the few times in modern history where a minority migrant group actually succeeded in assuming control of the whole land. It would probably have been used as an example of why we should be afraid of immigrants and the terrorism they bring with them, had it not been so politically incorrect for the right-wing Conservatives to do this. It was less populated in the 19th Century. But by the 1920s things had changed and people were living and breeding there in large numbers. By the 1940s, most of the Arabs that lived there had been born there. Neither did Turkey, or Iraq....they were part of the Ottoman empire, not nation states. The nation states we see today were largely created by the British and French Sykes-Picot agreement. There is still not much of a consensus view of national identity, the borders not agreed upon. See the Kurds for a good example or the Iraq/Kuwait relationship.The Palestinan Arabs wanted independence, a homeland recognized in Palestine. The Palestinian Jews wanted the same. Both groups resorted to violence. The Palestinian Jews got what they wanted, the Palestinian Arabs were pushed out, and have had unequal rights and have been disenfranchised ever since.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Wrong. They even say so themselves.

And that's not being a dupe and a patsy?

It wouldn't help if we are wrongly assuming they are all the same. The Muslim terrorists say other things too. Like bringing Sharia to the whole world. I didn't see anything like that from the Jews. For sure, I'm open to anything, I haven't really dug into it that deep, but you're probably right.Thanks for the info.