Moderate Muslim calls for end to extremism at UN

**Indian Jones** · 29-09-2010, 08:51 AM

I have read many posts here about why moderate Muslims stay quiet about the extremists. Well, many do speak out but for some this is never enough or good enough. Very similar to the Chinese never thinking that any war apology by Japan is good enough.

Well, the Malaysian Prime Minister spoke at his address to the United Nations about curbing extremism on all sides and that would include Islam.

\"Najib commends Obama, says time to galvanise moderates

KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak commended United States President Barack Obama for taking \"a courageous public position\" in dealing with Islamophobia, saying the US president did so \"knowing it might cost him his political terms.\"

The Prime Minister said, however, that it was now time for the US president to galvanise the moderates, bring in the non-governmental organisations and social movements so that more people would see the importance of taking a moderate stance.

\"If you take an extremist or an extreme position, then you are going to aggravate the situation,\" he said in an interview with Bloomberg in New York, late Monday.

Najib was responding to a question on the position taken by Obama in the recent plans by a pastor in Florida to burn copies of the Quran to commemorate the Sept 11 attacks.

The pastor later cancelled the plans amid a flurry of condemnations, including from Obama who said that it would only benefit the al-Qaeda and endanger US troops Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the six-minute interview, Najib was asked on a number of issues, including Islamophobia.

Najib said: \"This is a very important issue that we need to deal with because lately, we\'re seeing a resurgence, if you like, or an upswing in terms of fearing Islam or Islamophobia.

\"There is a danger we are being pressured by the periphery, meaning the extremists and I don\'t mean just extremists among the Muslims.

\"There are extremists among Christians, there are extremists among the Jews. But what is important is for us the majority, the moderates - and in fact I made a clarion call - that there should be a movement of the moderates,\" he said.

He added that it was vital \"to capture the higher ground\" and not allow the extremist to dictate and push their agenda to impress the majority.

Najib is currently in New York to attend the 65th United Nations General Assembly and the Asean-US Summit held on its sidelines.

During his intervention at the Asean-US Summit, Najib conveyed to Obama that Malaysia wanted to help the US to overcome Islamophobia to allow the American society a better understanding of Islam and dispel negative perceptions towards the religion. - Bernama\"

Najib commends Obama, says time to galvanise moderates

I am sure the usual candidates will pick holes in his speech and say it doesn\'t go far enough. Yadda yadda yadda

**good2bhappy** · 29-09-2010, 09:08 AM

there needs to be more voices

**kingwilly** · 29-09-2010, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Indian Jones

Well, many do speak out but for some this is never enough or good enough. Very similar to the Chinese never thinking that any war apology by Japan is good enough.

Excellent analogy.

**kingwilly** · 29-09-2010, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

there needs to be more voices

Happy, there already is loads of moderate muslim voices, the media prefers the extremists. (sells more papers)

**sabang** · 29-09-2010, 11:24 AM

The debate in the public arena has been hijacked by the extremists on all sides. An irresponsible and shallow media is complicit in this. And I'm afraid joe, schmo, or ahmed Average is too frikkin lazy, or set in his views to bother scratching beneath the surface- hence easily spoon fed.

One thing that has become obvious to me is that real reform within the Islamic sphere will come from within- it can not be unilaterally imposed by western foreign powers 'in our image', and we are just kidding ourselves, causing damage, and sending ourselves broke pretending otherwise. They have many role models in the Islamic world of basically decent, secular societies that deliver a reasonable standard of living and opportunity to their citizens.

**Thaihome** · 29-09-2010, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by sabang

.... They have many role models in the Islamic world of basically decent, secular societies that deliver a reasonable standard of living and opportunity to their citizens.

The problem is these models of secular societies are being increasingly radicalized. Indonesia, Malaysia, and Turkey are under increasing pressure to move towards Islamism. I see no sign that the moderates are able or even trying to stop the intrusion of religion into the political systems of these countries.
TH

**Indian Jones** · 29-09-2010, 12:39 PM

Perhaps that is because you tend to look at the negative outcroppings of Islam.

**larvidchr** · 29-09-2010, 01:01 PM

Well so far we do not need Muslim armies nor Muslim Police to come and bring our own houses in order, to claim that Muslim Countries do enough and there are plenty of Muslims fighting extremism is ludicrous, sure there are some and that is very good, but they fail miserably in making any significant impact back home, and extremism and Muslim radicalism is on the rise.

**sabang** · 29-09-2010, 01:40 PM

That there is a struggle happening between secularism and fundamentalism in the Islamic world is true, even though I think it is over dramatised in the western media. That hamfisted- even if well meaning- military interventions by the West have mostly assisted the Fundamentalists is also true, and sad. Then theres the Palestinian Occupation.

Secularism will win, just as it always has, just as it did in our societies. People prefer to live in a Turkey than an Afghanistan. With our 'nation building' fantasies and over hyped rhetoric, if anything we have made ourselves part of the problem. Our foreign aid budgets, and the example provided by our quality of life, and individual freedoms are much more potent weapons than our botched military interventions.

**larvidchr** · 29-09-2010, 02:41 PM

And what "botched military" interventions is that exactly- just because some people from ideologic political reasons wants them to be failures in their own minds, that do not make them so.

Iraq, a resounding succes, complete total military victory, Iraq no longer represent a military or terroist threat to any of it's neighbours or us and our supplies of fossil fuels from the region, democratic elections and power returned to the Iraqi people, conditions starting to improve for the people of Iraq with infrastructure constantly improving, political dissidents do no longer live in fear of their family's life's and their own, it is allowed not to agree with the Government line. Some minor insurgency remains mainly as a part of a struggle between Sunni and Shia muslims, with the odd bomb going off every now and again, much like in southern Thailand, that hardly spells a nation out of control but is purely an internal criminal problem.

Afghanistan an ongoing operation far from over, so impossible to announce a result at the present time, but the fact is that Al Qaeda is definitely seriously pressured, and their capability to orchestra major international terror operations are severely hampered.

So people trying to justify their old opposition to those operations by negatively evaluating the results either prematurely or without recognising the factual results at present, are simply politically unfair.

I agree that war is never a good solution, and I cant be sure similar positive results could not have been achieved less clumsily, but that will always remain after-rationalisations and guesswork at best.

I insist that if Muslims had the same no tolerance for political and religious terrorism as we have in our society's, and with the same effort's from society as a whole to combat it, investigate, prosecute and estrange and isolate fanatics, we would never have had to go there in the first place, because it would never have become a domestic threat in our homes.

The fact is, that a majority of Muslims, either quietly or actively, support the militant and violent acts committed in the name of their God, and the al-encompassing ideology that is Islam, if you do not support Jihad you are simply not a good Muslim.

The Ideology do not leave room for half Muslims, no such thing exists in the minds of those who interpret Islam in their places of worship, and lay's down the rules of their lives privately and publicly. Moderate political leaders (when they speak on the record) in Muslim nations do not have the same impact or control as the Mullah's.

I hope the proven resolve (read military intervention) of the secular world not to accept the threats from religious fanatics at home or abroad, will now be enough so that we no longer have to intervene militarily, every Muslim nation knows it can be the end if they don't heed our warnings, or stay in check and increase their efforts to combat extremism domestically.

**Tunaka** · 29-09-2010, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Thaihome

Originally Posted by sabang

.... They have many role models in the Islamic world of basically decent, secular societies that deliver a reasonable standard of living and opportunity to their citizens.

The problem is these models of secular societies are being increasingly radicalized. Indonesia, Malaysia, and Turkey are under increasing pressure to move towards Islamism. I see no sign that the moderates are able or even trying to stop the intrusion of religion into the political systems of these countries.
TH

Over time, perhaps this is like a swinging pendelum. And I see more pressure to move towards Islamism. Even if secularism is the dominant system, the Islamist elements are always there applying pressure in public or in private - coercion.

**sabang** · 29-09-2010, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by larvidchr

"botched military" interventions is that exactly-

Currently Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq, a trillion dollar mess that has unleashed secular conflict between Sunni's and Shiites, and Islamic radicals of course have seized on it for their anti-western rhetoric. Infrastructure still a mess, life expectancy well under what it was under Saddam, and it's now six months after the elections and they still can't form a government. And under Saddam it was secular.

Afghanistan- what they hell are we wasting our money and lives for in that tribal backwater? The arsehole we are propping up is just as bad as the Taliban. And we're losing anyway.

Both have just made the problem of Islamic radicalism worse, and for what benefit?

**Indian Jones** · 29-09-2010, 06:29 PM

Originally Posted by larvidchr

And what \"botched military\" interventions is that exactly-

Iraq, a resounding succes,

Iraq no longer represent a military or terroist threat

conditions starting to improve for the people of Iraq

the odd bomb going off every now and again

A rather astounding post, I must admit to being surprised.

Ok, of course Iraq is a bitched operation. Oh no, not militarily. Yes, that was a resounding success if the aim was to overthrow Sadaam Hussein. That was the only success.

Do you count yourself to the lot that still believes that Iraq was a terrorist state? Do you also believe that Obama is a Muslim? I ask that because the two opinions are usually held by the same type of person.

You are aware of the fact that Sadaam\'s Iraq was secular in nature and Osama was regarded as an enemy?

You say that \'the odd\' bomb is going off. I would suggest that that is a gross understatement. How many tens of thousands of civilians have died after the great victory? I guess they all died for the right to cast a vote in elections so crooked they make Cuba\'s look clean.

Afghanistan. :-) I would echo Sabang\'s words. What the heck are western soldiers doing there? Rooting out Osama?

The Taleban? Are the Taleban terrorists? Did the Taleban have anything to do with the WTC disaster? I guess if you believe that then you also believe that Sadaam was instrumental in that act as well.

A very curious post from you, larvidchr

**larvidchr** · 29-09-2010, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by larvidchr

"botched military" interventions is that exactly-

Currently Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq, a trillion dollar mess that has unleashed secular conflict between Sunni's and Shiites, and Islamic radicals of course have seized on it for their anti-western rhetoric. Infrastructure still a mess, life expectancy well under what it was under Saddam, and it's now six months after the elections and they still can't form a government. And under Saddam it was secular.

Afghanistan- what they hell are we wasting our money and lives for in that tribal backwater? The arsehole we are propping up is just as bad as the Taliban. And we're losing anyway.

Both have just made the problem of Islamic radicalism worse, and for what benefit?

Originally Posted by Indian Jones

Originally Posted by larvidchr

And what \"botched military\" interventions is that exactly-

Iraq, a resounding succes,

Iraq no longer represent a military or terroist threat

conditions starting to improve for the people of Iraq

the odd bomb going off every now and again

A rather astounding post, I must admit to being surprised.

Ok, of course Iraq is a bitched operation. Oh no, not militarily. Yes, that was a resounding success if the aim was to overthrow Sadaam Hussein. That was the only success.

Do you count yourself to the lot that still believes that Iraq was a terrorist state? Do you also believe that Obama is a Muslim? I ask that because the two opinions are usually held by the same type of person.

You are aware of the fact that Sadaam\'s Iraq was secular in nature and Osama was regarded as an enemy?

You say that \'the odd\' bomb is going off. I would suggest that that is a gross understatement. How many tens of thousands of civilians have died after the great victory? I guess they all died for the right to cast a vote in elections so crooked they make Cuba\'s look clean.

Afghanistan. :-) I would echo Sabang\'s words. What the heck are western soldiers doing there? Rooting out Osama?

The Taleban? Are the Taleban terrorists? Did the Taleban have anything to do with the WTC disaster? I guess if you believe that then you also believe that Sadaam was instrumental in that act as well.

A very curious post from you, larvidchr

We did not go there to solve the Sunni Shia conflict, it is a historic conflict going all the way back to at-least 1920, since then the majority Shias, 80% of the Iraqi people, have been brutally oppressed by the minority Sunni's, Saddam killed hundred of thousands, latest more than 100.000 after the Shia uprising in the wake of the coalition 1991 invasion, I would be fair to say the Coalition operations have freed the vast majority of the Iraqi people from brutal oppression, so add that as a bonus success, now they are all under great international pressure to solve those differences, with as little bloodshed as possible aided by a democratic elected Government, but all beginnings are difficult.

We vent to remove Iraq as a threat to it's neighbours and to us, nobody can deny they where a massive threat to neighbouring countries, and that, they are no more, the facts remain that Saddam fought a long war with Iran and invaded Kuwait acting like a terrorist state.

That threat is now removed completely, operation a success no matter how much you whine, adding your own private new improved impossible success criteria constantly to prove otherwise, has nothing to do with the initial objective, remove the threat and Saddam, and start a new democracy.

Saying Saddam was secular is a strange argument, Saddam was a horrible criminal sadistic dictator, secular when it suited him and Sunni Muslim when that took his fancy, and a mass murderer at all other times.

Money is mentioned "a trillion" but that is you alone that has apparently put a price you think is reasonable/unreasonable on war, not your democratically elected leaders of the coalition, who obviously on your behalf have sanctioned that expenditure to achieve our goals, and again they have been achieved, so success.

Obviously war have costs on other fronts than money alone, we can not and shall not supply every Iraqi family with a BMW and 50 inch flat-screens, or lower their infant mortality rate,- (high because Saddam cruelly chose their suffering over spending less on arms, and allow weapons inspectors to look in his cub-bards, as pr instructed by high and mighty UN you usually support your arguments by). We have now freed them from tyranny and given the Iraqis a good basis to develop and achieve all that, freedom and prosperity through hard work and perseverance, just like we have had to do our-self's.

Afghanistan you say we are loosing, can you name just one major battle lost, what is the causality rate comparatively, are we not killing them at a rate 20 to 1 or more, and is it over? so how can you say with a straight face we are loosing.

And yes the Taliban is terrorists, a foreign element in Afghanistan of fanatic islamists inspired by immigrant Saudi Wahabists with no long historical or cultural connection to Afghans, they are largely hated by the majority of Afghans, but have run such a terror regime that getting the populace to believe their power is broken and can be curbed, is proving difficult, but like everything else give it time, in Kabul the Afghans do not want the coalition to leave and the tide is changing further a-field.

Finally Jones I never mentioned anything about Obama being Muslim, you shoving that in my shoes is as crazy as, me saying that I judge from your posts you are a Sharia supporter with female and homophobic hate, which of-cause you are not.... I hope. Stick to what people post and try not to second guess on the rest of their life's and views.

**kingwilly** · 29-09-2010, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by larvidchr

We vent to remove Iraq as a threat to it's neighbours and to us, nobody can deny they where a massive threat to neighbouring countries, and that, they are no more, the facts remain that Saddam fought a long war with Iran and invaded Kuwait acting like a terrorist state.

Nope, Iraq was not a threat.

So if Iraq was fighting a terrorist war with Iran, tell me why the CIA funded Saddam ?

That threat is now removed completely, operation a success no matter how much you whine, adding your own private new improved impossible success criteria constantly to prove otherwise,

Nope, it was not a success.

has nothing to do with the initial objective, remove the threat and Saddam, and start a new democracy.

Lardy, the initial objective was to remove his weapons of mass destruction, or have you forgotten that ?

we can not and shall not supply every Iraqi family with a BMW and 50 inch flat-screens, or lower their infant mortality rate,-

massive strawman and a rather facetious comparison mate.

.

Afghanistan you say we are loosing, can you name just one major battle lost, what is the causality rate comparatively, are we not killing them at a rate 20 to 1 or more, and is it over? so how can you say with a straight face we are loosing.

Losing. And, HELL YES YOU ARE LOSING.

Surely you do not think otherwise. Surely.

**BillyBobThai** · 29-09-2010, 10:18 PM

I recently read an article where Micheal Hayden, retired Air Force General and former CIA Director, told the White House that Afghanistan could not be won by drones alone, unless we wanted to leave them there forever. I think we should pull 99+% of or guys out and put a thousand drones in the air over there 24/7, for the next 20 years.

**Rural Surin** · 29-09-2010, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

there needs to be more voices

Happy, there already is loads of moderate muslim voices, the media prefers the extremists. (sells more papers)

Selling info is the least of their concerns...what is more valuable is to shape and manipulate a social consciousness. Complicit with the convention towards redundancy dogma. Regardless of one's civil mind-set, if a type of consciousness is brought to your attention and referenced to, time and again....

**pickel** · 30-09-2010, 12:54 AM

Originally Posted by larvidchr

And yes the Taliban is terrorists, a foreign element in Afghanistan of fanatic islamists inspired by immigrant Saudi Wahabists with no long historical or cultural connection to Afghans

The Taliban were not foreigners, they were Afghans. Al Queda were and are comprised of mostly foreigners.

**pickel** · 30-09-2010, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Money is mentioned "a trillion" but that is you alone that has apparently put a price you think is reasonable/unreasonable on war, not your democratically elected leaders of the coalition, who obviously on your behalf have sanctioned that expenditure to achieve our goals, and again they have been achieved, so success.

What goals do you mean exactly? Since most of the money went to Western private contractors, I would say that the instigators of the illegal war in Iraq that was based on lies achieved their goals quite well. Are those the goals you mean?

**pickel** · 30-09-2010, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by larvidchr

We vent to remove Iraq as a threat to it's neighbours and to us, nobody can deny they where a massive threat to neighbouring countries, and that, they are no more, the facts remain that Saddam fought a long war with Iran and invaded Kuwait acting like a terrorist state.

He fought the war with Iran as an ally of the West and was given assurances by April Glaspie, the American ambassador at the time, that the US would not interfere with their pending invasion of Kuwait.

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**Indian Jones** · 30-09-2010, 08:30 AM

It seems you are quite out of touch with reality, larvidchr, on these issues.

Ridding Sadaam of \'weapons of mass destruction\' was the stated aim and reason to invade Iraq, how can you forget that? Continuing the oil supply from Kuwait.

You speak of bringing democracy to a region that doesn\'t know what to do with democracy. You cannot simply wade in with a western mindset and arrogantly tell people that they now have democracy, good luck and live well when there are no bases for this in the society.

Iraq was a long-standing ally of the USA, funded and feted by the governments, supplied with arms and technology.

Where did it all go wrong? Did Iraq suddenly change its ways to become an enemy of the west?

Utter nonsense

**larvidchr** · 30-09-2010, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by pickel

Originally Posted by larvidchr

And yes the Taliban is terrorists, a foreign element in Afghanistan of fanatic islamists inspired by immigrant Saudi Wahabists with no long historical or cultural connection to Afghans

The Taliban were not foreigners, they were Afghans. Al Queda were and are comprised of mostly foreigners.

Originally Posted by pickel

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Money is mentioned "a trillion" but that is you alone that has apparently put a price you think is reasonable/unreasonable on war, not your democratically elected leaders of the coalition, who obviously on your behalf have sanctioned that expenditure to achieve our goals, and again they have been achieved, so success.

What goals do you mean exactly? Since most of the money went to Western private contractors, I would say that the instigators of the illegal war in Iraq that was based on lies achieved their goals quite well. Are those the goals you mean?

Foreign element as in if- 1 million Americans in the Rocky Mountains suddenly converted to Wahhabism or any other strange religious practice with no historical or cultural connection to the US.

Yes, those are the goals and we seem to agree that those are achieved, we disagree on who where the instigators and that it was based on just lies, the WMD thing was one argument to sell the war to the UN and some timid allies, propaganda lies and deceit is part of the build up for war, and by the way Saddam did posses WMD's, poison gas where destructed by the weapons inspectors, among it VX gas that Iraq later admitted to have produced 4 tons of, also Sarin gas, mustard gas and anthrax was produced and used by Saddam in different conflicts.
But the WMD's where not the only reasons, as everybody very well knows, it was to protect the Oil supply's to the west, and that succeeded as-well.

And that Ambassadors message from Baker was hardly a carte Blanc to invade Kuwait and cut of the west from kuwait's Oil and threaten Saudi with a huge Iraqi army right on it's border.

Allegiances shift over time, that is the nature of the different manoeuvres the Superpowers (West against East, Russia versus US and Europe ect.) enact when competing with each-other protecting areas of special interest.

In the end there is nothing philanthropical about the invasions of Iraq, that the Iraqi people have gained a greater freedom is just a big good bonus, but it was mostly about us protecting our own interests, removing a threat and creating the kind of stability we want in the area for now, you can think that less noble, but it is the way the world works, and any threat on our energy supply is a serious threat for western societies, serious enough to go to war over.

This debate came about with me debating a poster, whether the Iraq war and the ongoing Afghan operations is a failure or a success, not whether it was morally right seen from everybody's point of view.

Iraq = Succes
Afghanistan = ongoing

**HermantheGerman** · 30-09-2010, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Originally Posted by Indian Jones

Well, many do speak out but for some this is never enough or good enough. Very similar to the Chinese never thinking that any war apology by Japan is good enough.

Excellent analogy.

Japan got away with murder ! Terrible analogy.

Germany finally pays off WWI debt

Simon Sturdee

September 30, 2010 - 12:39PM

Germany finally pays off WWI debt

**HermantheGerman** · 30-09-2010, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Sir Wilson

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

there needs to be more voices

Happy, there already is loads of moderate muslim voices, the media prefers the extremists. (sells more papers)

Loads of moderate muslim voices ??? What do the so called top muslim clergys (something like the pope, cardinals, bishops etc) say about extremists and sharia ?

Yeah, all week I have to read about these muslims wanting to blow up Europe. I guess they are running out of targets in islamic countries.
Maybe the media should report more about Walt Disney and Co..........to put us back in LaLa Land.

Europeans targeted in terrorism plot

Roundup: Terrorism threats test France's security

Daily brief: Qaeda-linked terrorism plot uncovered

Stop state-sponsored terrorism in Kashmir: India tells Pakistan

Terrorism fears put Paris on high alert

Intelligence says Denmark prime terrorism target

**pickel** · 30-09-2010, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by larvidchr

Yes, those are the goals and we seem to agree that those are achieved

So, you are agreeing that the goals were to line the pockets of Western private contractors with taxpayers money?

Thread: Moderate Muslim calls for end to extremism at UN

Thread Tools

Display

Moderate Muslim calls for end to extremism at UN

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions