LATimes - Islam gets concessions; infidels get conquered

The problem for me is this: the criticism of what Christians did a century or more ago is compared with what modern radical Islam practices today... and because of that the radical Muslims are "excused."

 

you didn't make any clear points to address "insane" man

 

While I do not often agree with HayesStreet on D&D topics, I do believe his explanation of the author's intended meaning is correct.

Some will agree, some will not.

 

I agree but I'm not sure it's an indictment of the religion itself. I think the problem lies with the leadership of Middle Eastern nations. I suppose this sounds somewhat non-PC but the governments there today are operating like its the 1700s. You have monarchies running these countries and in some cases claiming that they have some connection to God and Islam.

But the problem is, in my opinion, is oil. Oil money has allowed many of these regimes to hold onto power and maintain seemingly backwards ideas and policies. The modern equivalent of the Roman bread and circus is the excessive and almost unreal domestic spending by Middle Eastern governments to cater to the local populace. Oil money has locked the region back in time and has stagnated any social change because as long as there is money, resistance to the status quo will be minimal.

However, we're already starting to see some minimal change. Dubai, (which basically is on the verge of running out of oil altogether) has basically shifted its economy and is now virtually free of oil revenue dependence. And they're reaping the benefits and have liberalized their society. Bahrain is starting to do the same thing now that they're running out of oil. By forcing them to rely on other sources of growth and wealth, it almost forces those countries to open themselves up to western influences and weakens the government's control on money since any new industries would almost surely by privatized. People also become less numb to government policy now that it loses the ability to systematically bribe the country. A battle of fundamentalism v. moderation will become inevitable in many countries (especially places like Saudi Arabia) but for much of the Middle East, I feel like the transition will be much clearer and more stable.

Hopefully things get better..

 

you're right gee.. that's why muslims get a free pass from the west.. because of oil and the west's greed for it..

 

Awwwww - everyone agrees. I guess we all can "just get along"



sometimes. who would have thunk it.

 

I always find it amazing in situations like this when Christian Crusades of hundreds of years ago are brought up to discuss current happenings.

It makes some of you sound like nagging girlfriends/wives who bring up ancient history every time you call them out for something.

Shouldn't there be a statute of limitations on such discussions?

 

Sure but when people diagnose current events as something inherent to Islam, it is fair to point out that the crusades were done under the banner of Christ and that religion is a tool that is manipulated for the sake of the agendas of nation-states and sub-national groups.

 

who brought it up? the posters here or the author of the article?

 

It's not who brought it up but who uses it for an excuse or justification for current behavior.

 

Inherient to Islamic culture in it's current state - which is a function of poverity and backwardness in that part of the world. I think the fact that Muslims living in the U.S. are peaceful is a testament that there isn't anything inheriently wrong with Islam, but again, as those above have stated, that's not what the author is arguing.

 

how am i avoiding the issue? i was simply responding to your assertion that islam spread via conquest. you used that as an example of how muslims today want to spread jihad, did you not?

if you are going to use the fact that "islam spread (past tense) via conquest" as a way to condemn a religion today than i think it should be noted that christianity did similar things.

the article posted went from talking about how some editor from an independent newspaper in turkey is going to get mad if the pope does the sign of the cross infront of an old church, which is now a mosque - than somehow turned into some diatribe against islam and how they all want to commit jihad.

perhaps the protests are against the pope b/c of his comments regarding how violent islam is. but the author takes this one example and uses it to show how intolerant all the muslims are and uses the one example of the mosque in jerusalem to show how tolerant others are towards them. israel lets them go to a mosque that is on territory they siezed 35 years ago - whoopee!

and why is it that it is ok for the article to use past history regarding islam to condemn it today, but one cant bring up the fact that christianity has done similar things? palestine is the only thing the article brings up which didnt happen over 500 years ago. to just write it off as saying "they are trying to reclaim land that was conquered from them - how evil of them!" is at best, oversimplification of the problems there.

 

Can't we just start blowing up mosques?



DD

 

Yeah, Christianity has a violent history. No doubt. But that's the point - it's HISTORY. Islam is CURRENT EVENTS. I'm not saying Islam needs to be banned or is inherently bad - but that it can be interpreted by some to pick up the sword - and that's a fact. You don't see fighting Buddists out there!

Ya know, Israel let's Muslim go to the mosque. They keep intact. But if someone like the Taliban took over a Jewish temple, they'd raze it in a second. Oh yeah, Muslim Shia's in India don't allow American, Brits, or Israelis in.

Right now, the Islamic world is more ready to pick up the fight and be intolerant. Yes, other religions have been there at times in history as well. So what? That doesn't excuse anything.

This is like a murderer killing someone and saying, hey - OJ got away with it, so should I.

 

Yeah, then we'd be so even! heheehe

But seriously...

I'd like to point out that there are people of all different groups that advocate the same things that are criticized as uniquely Islamic transgressions in this article.

In Israel, for example, there is a quite significant and vocal faction that advocates the annexation of signicifant portions of Palestinian territory as well as the forced transfer of all non-Jews living in Israel. This, of course, is not mentioned in the article.

So why pick on the Muslums?

The problem I have with the article is that it misleads its readers into thinking that it proves that there is something unique about Islam that causes this sort of behavior. This is precicely why Christian history IS relevant. It shows us that Islam is not the enemy. Nor was Christianity during the crusades. The enemy is radicalism and intollerance. That's what the author should have focused on.

Instead, he used a sad state of affairs to pontificate (excuse the pun) a transparently biased message.

 

You basically ignored my point, so I'll repeat it:

Islam is not the "problem," just as Christianity is not a "problem" now considering its involvement in many, many atrocities that are much worse than anything ever perpetrated by Islam. It is the exploitation of religion by radical, power-hungry individuals within those groups.

If Islam is so violent by nature, then would you care to explain what specefic teaching of Islam you refer to? If you can't, just admit that you are ignorant and you made statements out of a prejudice you have. The sooner you admit that, the better person you will become.