The Trouble With Islam Today

[Michael Hardner]

Can you please provide these examples? We can both discuss.

Ok - how about launching wars against other religions because they're unholy ?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Ok - how about launching wars against other religions because they're unholy ?

example?

[Michael Hardner]

How about the crusades ?

[Oleg Bach]

How about the crusades ?

They were great! Send off thousands of children and peasants and knights to keep the trade roots open...and dupe everyone into thinking that Jesus needs swordsmen...as if he did. Then when we get there we get confused and send back a rider to Rome with a message..."The all look the same down here - I can't tell the Muslims from the Christians or the Jews ...what do we do?" - Pope writes back - "Kill them all and then we will be sure the job is done" -

[JerrySeinfeld]

How about the crusades ?

How about something at least within the last century? I'd say decade but that's gonna be tough for you.

[Oleg Bach]

It's Saturday - don't make him do his homework!

[Michael Hardner]

Ok... So you can see why pitting religion against religion is a dumb game ?

I'm always arguing against leftists who are trying to say that Christianity is the worst force ever unleashed in history etc. etc. They want to compare the sheer numbers murdered, even if it was in the past.

You see, Seinfeld, the framing of the argument is entirely subjective.

The factors, as WildBill pointed out in another thread, are entirely cultural.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Ok... So you can see why pitting religion against religion is a dumb game ?

It's not me pitting, MH.

I wouldn't be able to rant on endlessly about religions being pitted against eachother if those in sa certain faith didn't keep giving me so much material to work with.

Got Mumbai?

[Michael Hardner]

It's not me pitting, MH.

I wouldn't be able to rant on endlessly about religions being pitted against eachother if those in sa certain faith didn't keep giving me so much material to work with. wink.gif

Got Mumbai?

Ok, Jerry, well saying one religion is worse than another - or all the others - is pitting religions against each other I think.

And again, posting individual examples is useless. It's as useless as threads I see on other boards that talk about the hundreds of thousands or millions killed by Christianity all through history.

All such arguments are really a way for the poster to rationalize an inherent dislike of certain people, in my opinion.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Ok, Jerry, well saying one religion is worse than another - or all the others - is pitting religions against each other I think.

And again, posting individual examples is useless. It's as useless as threads I see on other boards that talk about the hundreds of thousands or millions killed by Christianity all through history.

All such arguments are really a way for the poster to rationalize an inherent dislike of certain people, in my opinion.

I see nothing wrong with pointing out cretain aspects of a fauth or a culture's behaviors that are objectively bad.

Opression of women is objectively bad. Bashing gays is objectively bad.

If someone wants to point out things that other religions have done wrong in the past, that's fine.

It doesn't make what's going on today around the world with muslim extremists any better does it?

This is a current issue.

And as far as "inherent dislike"- I'd say if you're trying to pin my refusal to accept mysoginy or barbarism as "inherent dislike" - than I guess I'm guilty as charged.

I think this is a dialogue worth having.

And really,what's more preposterous? A guy who wants to talk about the common thread across countless attacks against innocents around the world? or a guy who doesn't?

[Michael Hardner]

Jerry,

I see nothing wrong with pointing out cretain aspects of a fauth or a culture's behaviors that are objectively bad.

Well, what's the point of it ?

Opression of women is objectively bad. Bashing gays is objectively bad.

People don't usually come on here pointing out things that are 'objectively bad'. Littering, double parking, mass murder... these are all 'bad' things that happen. But we don't usually post about them, mostly because there's not much to discuss about them.

If someone wants to point out things that other religions have done wrong in the past, that's fine.

It doesn't make what's going on today around the world with muslim extremists any better does it?

Exactly. So why do it ?

The problem is being fixed by their emigration to the west where church and state can co-exist. I don't see a lot of emigration going the other way.

This is a current issue.

And as far as "inherent dislike"- I'd say if you're trying to pin my refusal to accept mysoginy or barbarism as "inherent dislike" - than I guess I'm guilty as charged.

Did you start out on this quest to rid the world of these evils and happen upon Islam as the cause ? Or was it more likely that you don't like Islam and need some reason to rationalize why ?

I think this is a dialogue worth having.

And really,what's more preposterous? A guy who wants to talk about the common thread across countless attacks against innocents around the world? or a guy who doesn't?

There's your error - there isn't one common thread. If you were interested in the truth, then you'd want to talk about the real causes of ignorance instead of pinning them to a religion that you've prejudged as the cause.

[jbg]

Probably. But the more people like you demonize and generalize about Islam as a whole, the harder it is for reformers to make any progress.

Why would that make it harder? How exactly?

I find that the more people like you try to glaze over every single transgression by a muslim men gunning his way through a jewish community centre, or blowing up a london tube or a madrid train, or a baliu nightclub or an american airplane or a mumbai hotel or a Toronto mosque preaching hatred and extremism or honour killings in England and Canada....etc.... the more you pre

tend there is no common thread and no problem, the more this kind of thinking will fester inside mosques and in our countries.

Pointing out facts and common threads about violence around the world perpetrated by muslims against innocents isn't "demonization"

Calling someone who does so a "racist" is.

BD has a point here. These attackers were apparently peaceful Muslims. Apparently the Mumbai attackers had perfectly legitimate and peaceful intentions (link to article, excerpts below):

MUMBAI, India – The gunman captured in last month's Mumbai attacks had originally intended to seize hostages and outline demands in a series of dramatic calls to the media, according to his confession obtained Saturday by The Associated Press.

Mohammed Ajmal Kasab said he and his partner, who massacred dozens of people in the city's main train station, had planned a rooftop standoff, but abandoned the plans because they couldn't find a suitable building, the statement to police says.

*******************

As a police officer opened fire, the two militants retaliated with grenades before entering another part of the station and randomly shooting more commuters.

The men then searched for a building with a rooftop where they had been told to hold hostages and call a contact named Chacha, whom Kasab identified as Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, the suspected mastermind behind the attacks.

Chacha, which means "uncle" in Hindi, would supply phone numbers for media outlets and specify what demands the two should make.

"This was the general strategy decided by our trainers," Kasab said.

Taking heavy fire from police, the two had trouble finding a "suitable building" and stormed a hospital they mistook for an apartment building. There, they searched for hostages and traded more gunfire with security forces. It's unclear if they ever held hostages.

Edited December 14, 2008 by jbg

[Oleg Bach]

What's funny is that these so-called Muslim terrorists have to ingest Methadrine to stay awake long enough to cause maximum damange - wonder if Mohamid took speed? Losers.

[JB Globe]

Jerry,

To quote an earlier poster who summarized my question - what good does finger-wagging from citizens such as yourself towards Islam in general do in terms of affecting positive change in the Muslim world?

[Oleg Bach]

Jerry,

To quote an earlier poster who summarized my question - what good does finger-wagging from citizens such as yourself towards Islam in general do in terms of affecting positive change in the Muslim world?

The Muslim world is petty huge and it's doubtful that one wagging little finger will be of any consequence. And what makes you think that they need "positive" change..the whole core of the religion is that of no change. I kind of envy their cultural stability.

[JB Globe]

The Muslim world is petty huge and it's doubtful that one wagging little finger will be of any consequence.

Or even a concerted group effort at finger-waving? What will that do?

I'm asking because I don't believe I've ever seen any case of this working, regardless of who's doing it or who the subject of the chastizing is.

And what makes you think that they need "positive" change..the whole core of the religion is that of no change. I kind of envy their cultural stability.

I disagree that Islam hasn't changed since the 6th century, in fact I think it's impossible for it to have not changed simply because no religion is immune from what's going on in the world. Actually, some reformers and scholars have been suggesting that this current period is the equivalent to the Christian reformation.

[moderateamericain]

Asians- Trouble with Muslims in China, Malayasia.

Western society- Europe, Canada, America trouble with Muslims here.

Hispanic society- Trouble in Spain and Portugal

Black society- Trouble with Muslims in Africa

Indian Society- Trouble with Muslims in India

Hmm, common factors... Religions? nope

Color of the skin? nope

Muslims? DING DING DING

The trouble with Islam is today is its an intolerant backwards religion that cannot peacefully coexsist anywhere. Heck they cant even get along with eachother let alone any other part of the world.

[jbg]

I disagree that Islam hasn't changed since the 6th century, in fact I think it's impossible for it to have not changed simply because no religion is immune from what's going on in the world. Actually, some reformers and scholars have been suggesting that this current period is the equivalent to the Christian reformation.

Things have, if anything, gotten worse. Back in the days of the Moors there was some openness to science and progress. Now, the only science that's welcome is how to maxize the amount of aviation fuel in a plane crashing into a building.

[BubberMiley]

Now, the only science that's welcome is how to maxize the amount of aviation fuel in a plane crashing into a building.

What a buffoon!

[ToadBrother]

I disagree that Islam hasn't changed since the 6th century, in fact I think it's impossible for it to have not changed simply because no religion is immune from what's going on in the world. Actually, some reformers and scholars have been suggesting that this current period is the equivalent to the Christian reformation.

If this is the case then there's a problem. The Protestant "founding fathers" had something tangible and recognizable to push against; the Roman Catholic Church. For all but the first years of the history of Islam, there has never been any kind of monolithic entity for reformists to attack. You have major movements within Islam; mainly Sunni and Shiite now, but even within these branches there are a vast array of schools of thought.

I'd say Islam more resembles Protestant factionalism than anything else. Since there are no real ultimate authorities, you get the same sort of heterogenerous theology one finds in the Protestant world, but maybe even moreso than in Protestantism.

Probably the most amazing victory of the Islamists is to convince Muslims of branches of the religion that would normally shut the door on Wahabi-inspired conservatism/reactionarism that they are allies. This, I think, is in large part because of Iran, which while historically and theologically quite different than the Sunni tradition out of which modern Islamic fundamentalism grew, has, at least on the surface, the same sort of reactionary zeal that the Islamists in the Wahabi tradition aspire to. It is allowed a fascinating political and rhetorical bridge to be built between Sunni and Shiite populations.

I think, to my mind, that what's happening is almost the reverse of the Reformation. Instead of splitting into countless factions, there seems to be some movement towards reunification. I think the Islamists and other anti-Western reactionaries want to get in the ground floor to shape Islam in their own image, rather than have it tend towards, say, a more liberal direction.

[eyeball]

I think the Islamists and other anti-Western reactionaries want to get in the ground floor to shape Islam in their own image, rather than have it tend towards, say, a more liberal direction.

Get the god-damn west out of the picture and nothing will cause Islam to recoil in horror towards a more liberal direction faster.

[Argus]

Get the god-damn west out of the picture and nothing will cause Islam to recoil in horror towards a more liberal direction faster.

That's one theory. But as I asked you before, just how far do you go in your retreat from "interference"?

Does it include not doing anything to aid countries they attack?

[DogOnPorch]

Get the god-damn west out of the picture and nothing will cause Islam to recoil in horror towards a more liberal direction faster.

There's absolutely no evidence for this.

[eyeball]

There's absolutely no evidence for this.

Sure there is.

The people of Vietnam regained independence and broke away from China in AD 938 after their victory at the battle of Bạch Đằng River. Successive dynasties flourished along with geographic and political expansion deeper into Southeast Asia, until it was colonized by the French in the mid-19th century. Efforts to resist the French eventually led to their expulsion from the country in the mid-20th century, leaving a nation divided politically into two countries. Fighting between the two sides continued during the Vietnam War, ending with a North Vietnamese victory in 1975.

Emerging from this prolonged military engagement, the war-ravaged nation was politically isolated. The government’s centrally planned economic decisions hindered post-war reconstruction and its treatment of the losing side engendered more resentment than reconciliation. In 1986, it instituted economic and political reforms and began a path towards international reintegration. By 2000, it had established diplomatic relations with most nations. Its economic growth had been among the highest in the world in the past decade. These efforts culminated in Vietnam joining the World Trade Organization in 2007 and its successful bid to become a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council in 2008.

Link

There is every reason to believe that the cessation of outside interference of the exact type and nature we're talking about leads to better times.

[Oleg Bach]

Get the god-damn west out of the picture and nothing will cause Islam to recoil in horror towards a more liberal direction faster.

Once a population has a hate object (the west) >> It can be mobilized to do the bidding of lunitics who pose as religious men. It worked for Hitler....and I am sure it will work for the Islamics who use the religion to fulfil dreams of grand glory and ultimate power. The more the west reacts to the negative concepts instilled into modern Islam..the stronger the Mullahs (masters) will become...If the Bushites had not reacted like primatives after 911 - Terrorism and the troubles with Islam would have decreased..but instead of behaving like Christians..the west behaved like Mohamideans on the war path.