|
Post by fazlinho on Dec 7, 2008 13:20:05 GMT -5
Well Fazla we do know he started this org. (mladi muslimani) which put him in jail eventually. From the books he wrote, we can see he has quiet extreme positions in terms of religion and his overall goal was extreme as well. There is no definite proof that he recruited to the nazis during that war, but I think there is enough to say that this guy was an Islamic fundamentalist. He was not the founder, he only eventually joined. My family is a partizan one, I generally like Tito, but that trial, as many others, were simply bs trials, because a good muslim was never seen in a good light (you can see it by many comments from non-bosniak members who even today view it as inferior, backward, alien). I read the book and, as Izetbegovic himself stated, Bosnia was never nominated in the book. But the whole point of the book, hasn't been comprehended by anyone, who simply takes 3-4 quotes from the book and jumps on conclusions. What are his extreme stances? Saying that there should never be an Islamic state imposed on people who don't want it? Saying that anything done in the name of Islam can't and mustn't be obtained by force? If that is fundamentalist, than I am an Islamic fundamentalist. And it's not that there isn't any "definite proof" about it, there's no proof at all. I'm perfectly fine with people sharing different views than his, I just don't understand the need to lie of some.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Dec 7, 2008 13:40:03 GMT -5
Few that bob posted for sure: "...the Islamic order has two fundamental premises: an Islamic society and Islamic authority. The former is the essence, and the latter the form of an Islamic order. An Islamic society without Islamic power is incomplete and weak; Islamic power without an Islamic society is either a utopia or violence. "A Muslim generally does not exist as an individual. If he wishes to live and survive as a Muslim, he must create an environment, a community, an order. He must change the world or be changed himself." "There can be no peace or coexistence between the ‘Islamic faith' and non-Islamic societies and political institutions...Islam clearly excludes the right and possibility of activity of any strange ideology on its own turf." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The one that really worries me is the second quote. In essence, that is the most powerful quote. What I believe he really means is that the ethnic group as we know it, the "Bosniaks", is a powerful creation due to the ideals of Islam. It is that acceptance that has led to such a clear idea of who we are as a group. While I don't think thats necessarily bad, and I appreciate many of those ideals, I think its extreme because its another form of grouping people and saying, "this is the only way we have any power." I just think its an old way of thinking. There are quotes I agree with as well. Ie I agree the Islamic world should look to the west and learn from them because there is a lot they do right. You shouldn't just be angry at them. But the problem I have is that he has this Islamic state as the ideal that can make everything else work. And since I don't believe in a religious state, or religion, I believe its a poor base to start from. But, let's be clear, qualifiers to certain statements does not equate non-fundamentalist writing. What matters is what you state, that is in reality, your intention. Any qualifiers are simply there do unfavorable conditions to enact those principles. It is not dumb, or naive, to assume, if the conditions were there, BIH would be what he was describing. Well Fazla we do know he started this org. (mladi muslimani) which put him in jail eventually. From the books he wrote, we can see he has quiet extreme positions in terms of religion and his overall goal was extreme as well. There is no definite proof that he recruited to the nazis during that war, but I think there is enough to say that this guy was an Islamic fundamentalist. He was not the founder, he only eventually joined. My family is a partizan one, I generally like Tito, but that trial, as many others, were simply bs trials, because a good muslim was never seen in a good light (you can see it by many comments from non-bosniak members who even today view it as inferior, backward, alien). I read the book and, as Izetbegovic himself stated, Bosnia was never nominated in the book. But the whole point of the book, hasn't been comprehended by anyone, who simply takes 3-4 quotes from the book and jumps on conclusions. What are his extreme stances? Saying that there should never be an Islamic state imposed on people who don't want it? Saying that anything done in the name of Islam can't and mustn't be obtained by force? If that is fundamentalist, than I am an Islamic fundamentalist. And it's not that there isn't any "definite proof" about it, there's no proof at all. I'm perfectly fine with people sharing different views than his, I just don't understand the need to lie of some.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Dec 7, 2008 15:26:37 GMT -5
Few that bob posted for sure: "...the Islamic order has two fundamental premises: an Islamic society and Islamic authority. The former is the essence, and the latter the form of an Islamic order. An Islamic society without Islamic power is incomplete and weak; Islamic power without an Islamic society is either a utopia or violence. Apart the immediate feelings people gets of hearing the words "islamic authority" and "islamic society", can you tell me what part of this quote if fundamentalist but most importantly what exactly is wrong in this assertion? I think this is the truth as it is - you can't have an islamic authority without an islamic society because that generates violence. If anything, this is the kind of muslims the west likes. I again repeat the question - what is wrong in this assertion?Or better, what doesn't correspond to reality? As for any book, try to look at the whole context. Serbs will never quote you this (which btw is in the same page I believe): «The Islamic order can be realized only in the nations in which Muslims represent the majority of the population. Without this social premise, the Islamic order fall to be mere power (for the lack of the second element, the Islamic society) and can revert to tyranny. Non-Muslim minorities in an Islamic state should be granted of religious freedom and every protection. Muslim minorities in non-Islamic majority countries should be loyal to every social duty and every norm imposed by the community, on condition that they don’t offend Islam and Muslims, and of being able to dispose of religious freedom and of a normali life» You TOTALLY got it wrong. This isn't about Bosniaks but about muslims, the majority of which live in muslim majority countries. It's not me who says it, it's any non-serb or non-bosniak who read it who said it. If you don't trust me, trust a Croat: Ivo Banac, Bosnian Muslims: From Religious Community to Socialist Nationhood and Postcommunist Statehood, 1918-1992, pp. 147-148 Which is exactly what it is about. He describes how in muslim majority states, where people are real practicing muslims there should be a state that takes the best of Islam, that must be based on democratic principles, that can't resort to violence, that mustn't be a theocracy (in the very beginning of the book he says how he despises sheyks and mullahs who think only them can know what God wants) where the rights of minorities are preserved. Man I never knew until today I too am an Islamic fundamentalist.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Dec 7, 2008 15:41:56 GMT -5
What's wrong with it is that its based on some religious fairy tale. The fact that its based on religion at all. That is what is wrong.
I think you failed to understand my prior point. Qualifying a point with a "BUT", and "ONLY", does not mean someone doesn't hold certain views.
I understand that. I'm just saying, any move he made can be attributed to his fundamentalist attitude because he saw a difference, a different group of people, in terms of Bosniaks.
What do Islamic principles say about fighting and war? He basically followed those even though many times it made no logical sense.
You are.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Dec 7, 2008 15:50:15 GMT -5
What's wrong with it is that its based on some religious fairy tale. The fact that its based on religion at all. That is what is wrong. But when Christian-Democratic parties win elections all around Europe, no one thinks they want to bring the Inquisition back. When a good muslim tries to implement Islam with democracy, he wants an afghanistan like state. I didn't understand this point huh? try to say it in Bosnian, I really didn't get the point of this point aswell. They say fight when attacked, refrain from attacking when the others stop, don't harm innocents and show no mercy to traitors. To me they make perfect sense. Than you must know there are a loooooooot of islamic fundamentalists.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Dec 7, 2008 16:11:58 GMT -5
Any religious party, any party that has support from religious fundamentalist, has always shown to be poor govt. The problem is that these people are driven by AGENDAS, and their main purpose is to move "theory's" and "principles" along.
Same thing happened with the Bush Republicans in the USA. Instead of hiring competent judges, attorney generals, military leaders, they hired people that agreed with their theory's. I don't want judges making decisions based on islamic law, i want them making decisions on progressive law and decisions based on new knowledge.
For me govt is not the moral or religious leaders of a country, they are there to do competent work for the people. They are civic workers. You hire the BEST people. You always look for progress. How can we make our population richer, happier, more free, etc etc etc The people rule, not your theory's.
I was saying, Izetbegovic did state some extreme things. Ie There can be no peace or coexistence between the ‘Islamic faith' and non-Islamic societies and political institutions...Islam clearly excludes the right and possibility of activity of any strange ideology on its own turf.
Now, he went on to "qualify" those words. Meaning he went on to explain, but that doesn't change the main premise of that quote.
So you can't say he isn't a fundamentalist because he qualifies his points.
Very simply, he fought for Bosniaks because he felt those Islamic values were great enough to fight for.
I was talking more about the part where it say stuff about "numbers" not mattering. Something about if you are fighting for your religion, that you fight , no matter how many troops you have, because god will help you and you will be victorious.
That is in essence why he thought war was an option IMO, even though we didn't have the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by bog on Dec 7, 2008 16:17:02 GMT -5
The guy brought in Islamists-militants. So yes, he him self was probably fundamentalist. The SDA as a whole was 90% either in it for the money or nationalists. But who ever accepted to allow political Islam into BiH is an Islamist.
It makes no sense defending a politician just since he belongs to "our" group. He was neither capable, if we look at how poor the preparations for the war were, and he did not have our interests in mind. On the other hand, neither did the leaders of the other two factions.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Dec 7, 2008 16:22:15 GMT -5
He went to war the same reason all religious nuts do. He "saw" something because you damn well know religious people always "see" and "feel" things none of the secular people can see and feel. He believed that you don't have to have the weapons, the military numbers, if you fight for your religion, what you believe, you will be victorious.
That is what makes religious people nuts. Other people look at logic and tactics, and they have their "theory's" because god talks to them.
I mean, enough.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Dec 7, 2008 16:25:52 GMT -5
Any religious party, any party that has support from religious fundamentalist, has always shown to be poor govt. The problem is that these people are driven by AGENDAS, and their main purpose is to move "theory's" and "principles" along. Christian-democracts in europe have many times shown how they were good at governing. So did leftist, and rightist parties. I'm not promoting any, I'm saying how no, not all parties who have partly religion in it's core are bad. This is pure paranoia, not in any single part of the country where SDA was in power did they ever try to set up something like that (sharia tribunals or such). Being competent and a believer aren't 2 opposite things, as aren't being atheist and competent. He was a greater liberal than most of us here. That's exactly what Izetbegovic was talking about. Nowhere does he advocate something the people don't want. Quite the contrary, it's exactly on partial sayings that people make wrong assumptions, it's in the context, hearing the rest, the explanation, that you understand what someone really is. hmmm ok and? Yes. and? well, different opinions.
|
|
|
Post by bog on Dec 7, 2008 16:27:27 GMT -5
He went to war the same reason all religious nuts do. He "saw" something because you damn well know religious people always "see" and "feel" things none of the secular people can see and feel. He believed that you don't have the weapons, the military numbers, if you fight for your religion, what you believe, you will be victorious. That is what makes religious people nuts. Other people look at logic and tactics, and they have their "theory's". Are you trying to say that only an insane person would attempt to get Independence from Serbia[formally still "Yugoslavia"] at a point in time when we had neither logistical capability. a serious armed force, or a realistic war plan, and basically got through the war at the mercy of the Croats and the international community. And that if he had wanted Independence he should have first built up the strength to make this possible? I think, from his actions, that the guy only wanted to make Bosniacs more Muslim, other things I think he did not care about. Such as land, economy, living standards...
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Dec 7, 2008 16:29:45 GMT -5
He went to war the same reason all religious nuts do. He "saw" something because you damn well know religious people always "see" and "feel" things none of the secular people can see and feel. He believed that you don't have the weapons, the military numbers, if you fight for your religion, what you believe, you will be victorious. That is what makes religious people nuts. Other people look at logic and tactics, and they have their "theory's" because god talks to them. I mean, enough. Coming from an atheist, you seem to know much about believers. He even proposed a plan with the macedonian president , the Izetbegovic-Grigorov to be able to save Yugoslavia, something Serbs refused. He gave the weapon of the Territorial defense to the JNA, because he didn't want any war, and you speak of him wanting a war? This is insane. Even he said how Bosnia must be a secular state, anything else would be tyranny. But I guess you know more than him basing on your crazy assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by bog on Dec 7, 2008 16:31:26 GMT -5
I did not know about this. If he gave the weapons of the TO, over to the "JNA" then he was truly incapable of governance, seen as he then held a referendum without even TO weapons to defend.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Dec 7, 2008 16:32:59 GMT -5
Bog
Don't be crazy. You don't need weapons. Praying can kill an enemy, and wishing for it to be so, can as well.
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Dec 7, 2008 16:35:39 GMT -5
I did not know about this. If he gave the weapons of the TO, over to the "JNA" then he was truly incapable of governance, seen as he then held a referendum without even TO weapons to defend. I never said anything about him being capable or incapable. He simply didn't think something like that would have happened. People living with you for 50 years would kill and rape your people because of their inferiority complexes that Turks left them. That's the great mistake he did, believing in peace and that in the 90s a genocide couldn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Dec 7, 2008 16:38:38 GMT -5
Are you acting dumb on purpose?
What were the Serbs going to do, just leave the country?
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Dec 7, 2008 16:40:45 GMT -5
Are you acting dumb on purpose? What were the Serbs going to do, just leave the country? I was about to ask you the same. No, work in a state totally equal as the 2 other peoples. It's like to you is normal committing genocide on those who disagree with you. And than religious people are supposedly the most war mongers.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Dec 7, 2008 16:44:26 GMT -5
Disagree with you?
he called a referendum to decide about the future of the country and the serbs refused to take part because they didn't want to separate. Its a pretty major decision.
you honestly thought nothing was going to happen?
|
|
|
Post by fazlinho on Dec 7, 2008 16:47:07 GMT -5
Disagree with you? he called a referendum to decide about the future of the country and the serbs refused to take part because they didn't want to separate. Its a pretty major decision. you honestly thought nothing was going to happen? Yes I honestly thought in the 90s in Europe they wouldn't start killing innocents just for being of another ethnic group. So didn't ANYONE of my family who voted for independence. I know man that's crazy but usually you don't kill others because you disagree with them.
|
|
|
Post by manijak on Dec 7, 2008 16:48:13 GMT -5
And honestly, its hard to say bad things about him. Because growing up seeing his face, he was "our" guy. But reading about him later on, I can't help but think in terms of leadership and execution, he was very incapable and made tons of dumb decisions.
I'm not saying he wasn't a smart guy but that doesn't always translate into good communication, organization, and execution.
|
|
|
Post by bog on Dec 7, 2008 16:49:09 GMT -5
yeah, Yugoslavia was falling apart, so asking them they they for some reason be part of BiH where they would be outnumbered by us and Croats, is as asking us to be in Milosevices Yugoslavia where we would be dominated by Serbs..
And if you look at history, wars and genocides with people who you do not agree with over land are the norm. And rahmetli Alija failed miserably as the leader of the Bosniac nation.
I actually did not know about this TO disarm thing, I just did not like him seen as he was nationalist and anti secular, and had been in government with ze cetniks = SDS..
But if he gave our TO weapons away to the JNA, and then declared Independence, then any Bosniac who thinks good of him is blind..
It was obvious that if the south Slavic peoples were going to stop with the bratstvo jedinstvo thing it would lead to a brutal ethnic war. And in wars you need loads and loads of weapons. to kill the others...
|
|