lol Aux contraire, I beleive you are the one who can't accept opinions. You only accept those who are willing to sell their beleifs to be like you. You are the one who couldn't accept that in the United Arab Emirates, a Muslim city, the police have a problem with the way you interact with women. You couldn't accept that you are in another country, and that our values are different. You couldn't accept that drinking is ok, partying is ok, but when the line is drawn at what we consider public indecency, you're appaulled. You think the whole world should be like you. Afghanistan, Iraq, whatever. You are a cultural neo-nazi and you will stop at nothing till people do what you do, think what you think and eat what you eat. Well tough luck sir. In your little world, you can fantasize that I am a terrorist-lover, but in the real world, there are opinions which are not exatly like yours, and that doesn't constitute righteousness or lack of it. Good day.
Once again, you liberal pukes on this message board makes me want to kick my laptop right in the keyboard.
I had no interaction with any police in the United Arab Emirates. What line? There is hardly any place with more contrasts than Dubai...prostitution all over the place, and then you see these fully veiled people. Umm...what? You can eat whatever the heck you want. I would just like to politely ask you to understand that it would be appreciated if your fellow fundamentalist-leaning Islamists could refrain from bombing and killing people all over the world.
Ehsan -- Thanks for helping me out. I'm more than comfortable with what you've posted so far. I don't expect the Koran to say that Jesus is the Christ. As much as I can, I try to step out of my faith to view other religions. IN THAT ANALYSIS, what concerns me about the Koran, and ultimately about Islam, isn't that it's a book or a religion of hate....but that it can be more easily twisted in that way. For example...the Crusades were built on lies. Literally, you had the Church LYING to people about what the Bible says. Saying that Jesus himself calls us to spill Muslim blood. It took lying and illiteracy of the masses to pull that off. And it ended with the Reformation...with a Christian standing up and saying, "Hey, everyone should be able to read the Bible for himself...and make his own decisions." So when you're left reading the words of Christ or the letters of Paul, it becomes very difficult to justify violence in any form...I'd argue it means making yourself a servant to every other human being in the same way Jesus did. That is the LITERAL reading. What concerns me about the Koran is that one doesn't need to lie about what's in the Koran to reach a conclusion that violence is an answer. I find that frightening, frankly. I recognize that most in the religion don't translate the Koran to read that way...or don't interpret it to read that way...but the literal translation leaves me wondering. I guess my concern is that it seems to me there is a very large group of people in the aggregate who are saying that Koran justifies all kinds of things that I find dehumanizing and absolutely detestable. This is the concern from the western point of view, aside from any Christian point of view. Help me with this....I've never found Allah (as described in the Koran) to be loving. I've read him to be merciful, and that's certainly an aspect of God as I understand Him. But I don't see him described as loving. There is no parallel, for instance, to the metaphor of the father in the story of the prodigal son.....Am I missing something, or is that the case? As a Christian, I see God as love. That shapes my entire worldview. So the independent 3rd party psycho-analyzing me would see how that view has shaped how I view the importance of other human beings and their lives...I would say that's not to my credit, but to God's. But if that concept is missing, I can see how its absence would assist in leading to the sort of things we've seen justified by a "strict reading of the Koran."
Except that your view of being suspicious of even a moderate Muslim, or your doubt that one is even possible since you have said you believe that Islam itself actually drives people to being radical shows that you do believe that all Muslims should be suspect.
How does that explain Hindu terrorists in Sri Lanka, Buddhists terrorists in Japan, the FARC in Columbia, Christian and animist terrorist in Zimbabwe, Basque terrorists in Spain, Timothy McVeigh and so on? There are a lot of terrorism out there and they aren't all being driven by Islam. Terrorists who are muslims or nominally Muslim are getting a lot of coverage now but based on your logic that would mean that Islam is the cause of terrorism when that is anything but the case. The first suicide bombing was carried out not by a Muslim but by a Tamil in Sri Lanka. Car bombs were pioneered by the IRA against UK. During the 1960's and 1970's people weren't talking about Islamic terrorism burt terrorism by secular nationalists and radical communists groups. Since you're in Germany have you heard of the Baader-Meinhoff Gang (sp)? If Islam is the root cause of terrorism than this wouldn't be a problem that has cropped in the last few decades but would be a problem that has been with us for far longer. Instead what we have seen is generally the root cause of terrorism are assymetric conflicts and political radicalism. Al Qaeda in this regard isn't that much different than the Red Army Brigades except that instead of international Marxism it is claiming religion as its motivator. I won't deny though that groups like Al Qaeda use Islam to justify their actions but the problem that I see with your argument is taking that to say that that means that Islam and by extension all Muslims are suspect. For one its a fallacy of inductive reasoning not supported by the facts. The amount of Muslims who actually engage or openly support terrorism is a very small minority of Muslims. It also exacerbates the problem since rather than trying to focus on the radicals you are turning this into a clash of civilizations and making it to be the West vs. Islam. In essence you are agreeing with Osama Bin Ladin who says that it is a clash of civilizations and that you are either on Islam's side or on the West.
I don’t know squat about Islam, but I have a question for you. It seems that you believe that war is too ugly a thing for something God would want to talk about or discuss as part of life. Though we’ve been fighting since the beginning of time, wouldn’t he/she know best what should be done during these times? This concept of peace and happily ever doesn’t seem to be consistent with nature. Look at the food chain; it’s not pretty...AT ALL! I’m assuming you believe we can be above all that?
You make good and reasonable points. I will have to get back to them later as I have to run now. Just realized, is it not a bit ironic that Bin Laden and Bush seem to agree on that last point?
I'm saying if you believe that Jesus is the model, it's very difficult to justify embracing violence.
Jesus didn't exactly run anything, he wasn't a political figure, was he?... didn't he focus on social reform? Once again my lack of knowledge is showing here...What would Jesus have done in a situation where his town/village was attacked and people were being slaughtered?...Would he teach self defence? I’m just saying war appears to be part of our nature and history; you appear to be denying its role...I dont get where you stand on this topic.
Well, it's not really the topic at hand. But I have no problem with self-defense, personally. I'm not pro-war, either. I'm not denying humans fight wars and beat the crap out of one another. They have, they do and they probably will. I don't pretend to know how Jesus comes out on every topic under the sun. But I'm trying real hard, Ringo. Life seems to come out me case by case, so I try to roll with it that way without being too dogmatic.
Thanks for replying, my point was to show you that violence is sometimes forced upon as an option, if I was a religious person I would want to know what the rules of engagement are, wouldn’t you? That’s what I think Sura 9 is about, I've asked someone about it, and he says the chapter is to be taken under the context of “defense under attack” . Anyway I just think it's hard to sugar coat a topic like that...I just felt like you thought this isn't a topic that should be discussed...
It's true that they aren't all driven by Islam. What, then, is the cause of the fact that there have been and are way more terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam than in the name of any of the other religions you mentioned before? It doesn't really matter who carried out the first suicide bombing, but it seems pretty clear that during the past 20 years or so, most of these have been committed in the name of Islam. By the way, what's up with this ridiculous story with the 99 virgins or something these suicide bombers are promised? Where does that come from? Yes, of course. The father of a good friend of mine was killed by the RAF, around the corner from a house in Bonn I spent a lot of time in. I am not sure how that is supposed to relativize any Islamist terrorism, though. I think the extraordinary danger that religious terrorism poses is that those who are instrumentalized for it do not care about their own life, and they do not target specific people in certain functions, but they just want to take as many "non-believer" lives as possible, to achieve some ridiculous benefits in afterlife. That is much harder to fight and to defend. The means have changed (bombs, car bombs, etc.). I am not sure the problem has not been there long before. See above. As those who carry out the terrorist acts are motivated by some imaginary benefit in afterlife that makes them not care about their own life, this is much more dangerous. I believe that this is much different. This is a tough call. There should not be something like guilt by association, and I am sure that most of those who just happened to be born into being members of this religion are just like everyone else - they just want to live a good life, and be left in peace. However, even only the passages of the Quran MadMax posted, as well as this "Taquiya" dogma that you can lie to non-believers to deceive them into thinking you are no threat to them - none of which was really refuted by Ehsan's attempts to do so - are scary. Depending on how literally the followers of the religion interpret these things and are willing to act upon them, they are a potential danger. I am not here to judge the parts of Islam which help people lead a better life and be better people, and who am I to make a judgment on whether their beliefs are "better" or more "right" than, let's say, Christians or Jews. However, it just seems to me that at least in a certain interpretation, there are more seeds for intolerance and violence in Islam itself, and the fact that Islamists commit more violence and acts of terrorism and intolerance against people who do not share their beliefs seems to confirm that. But the share of Muslims among terrorists is way up relative to members of other religions. Also, surveys have uncovered frightening approval rates among Muslims for terrorist acts, especially against the USA, in the past. I think the sad thing is that if one agrees with Bin Laden on this, one accepts his interpretation of what Islam is meant to be. If Islam is Bin Laden's Islam, yes, there should be a clash of civilizations and you can only be on the West's side or on that Islam's side. My only hope is that Islam will cleanse itself from the school of Islam that Bin Laden represents and from any school of Islam that, expressly or in implied fashion, promotes intolerance, violence and terror against people who have other beliefs. I am convinced that Islam needs a reformation, just like Christianity was in dire need of a reformation when it happened.
Look here people. There are a lot of terrorist activities going on in parts of the world and some may be in the act of Islam and some just get labeled as being an act of Islam because the ones partaking in it are muslims. However, their cause may have nothing to do with the religion but something to do with some political agenda that they are trying to show. For someone to say that the ethnic genocide of thousands of Albanians done by Slobadon Milosovic was done in the name of Christianity would be ludicrous to Christians around the world. How about the Crusades where once again the Church killed the Muslims and Jews. How about Hitler and his nazi regime with the holocaust? Were these people not christians? They killed millions of jews but it wasnt in the name of Christianity now was it?
Typical attempts to relativize current Islamist terrorism. Someone posted this in the other thread. This is in 2008 alone, folks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2008
Wouldn't the world be a better and safer place if people accepted religious texts as guidelines written by man, thus making them fallible and maleable to different times? DD
