LATimes - Islam gets concessions; infidels get conquered

Two stories below best describe how I feel about the complaints leveled in this thread:

A man smokes a pack of cigarettes a day for twenty years. One day he finds out that his uncle has just died from lung cancer caused by smoking and so he decides to quit smoking and tries real hard to do so. After about six weeks he hasn't had a cigarette. He still likes a good drink now and then and so he walks into a bar to get a beer, where he sees people smoking. The former smoker gets incredibly mad and goes on a diatribe about how stupid it is for all these people to smoke and how all smokers are stupid idiots because they are killing themselves. He then tells them how he hasn't smoked in six weeks and because he knows better so should they.

The first story is the product of my own imagination. Alas, I can not take credit for the second:

The scribes and Pharisees led forward a woman who had been caught in adultery, and made her stand there in front of everybody. "Teacher," they said to him, "this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery. Now, in the Law Moses ordered such women to be stoned. But you-what do you say about it?" But Jesus simply bent down and started drawing on the ground with his finger. When they persisted with their questioning, he straightened up and said to them, "The man among you who has no sin-let him be the first to cast a stone at her."

I know that there are a number of people on this BBS who can remember when black people used to get hung because they were an affront to good Christian folk. Are we as a culture really in a position where complaining about the practices of Islam is not hypocritical?

 

That's a pretty interesting argument.

"Islam" -- not some Muslims, I guess, but Islam the faith is somehow the actor/perpetrator here -- is being 'violent' today. For the sake of argument, I will accept that premise.

How has the secular West treated "Islam" -- or to be more accurate, Muslims at large -- in modern times? Is it the author's contention that the secular West has been 'tolerant' and 'peaceful' towards Muslims in contemporary times (i.e. since secularism took hold in the West)? Does this 'hostile Islam' exist in a vacuum or is it responding in kind?

Please elaborate on your argument

Way to go picking the actions of the most extreme of extremists to justify your position. That's like saying that Kach and Kahane Chai or Shalhevet Gilad Brigades are representative of Jews, or that the KKK is representative of all Christians.

But let's examine what the Taliban did a little further. If Islam was responsible for the destruction of those historic sites, why didn't earlier Muslims who lived in the area before the Taliban came to power (that's roughly fourteen centuries) destroy these sites?

Moreover, is it your contention that the majority of the Muslim world supported the actions of the Taliban? Here's a link to various reactions from the Muslim leaders/Muslim organizations/Islamic scholars -- including the OIC, which is the largest representative world body of Muslim nations -- that paints a slightly different picture: Muslim reaction to Taliban's destruction of historic Buddhist site

It's a classic example of 'nitpicking' facts to justify your assertions.

Other 'religions' -- including the secular world -- have been and still are susceptible to violence and 'intolerance' towards other nations/ideologies. It's not "behind them" and likely will never be; the same applies to Muslims. There will always be instances of violence in the world, Muslim or otherwise.

 

This is the first time I've read this thread and am not past reading the first page but I presume you're referring to me and not Southern California.

Considering I hadn't posted in the thread I'm not sure why you are mentioning me.

 

[rquoter]

World: Asia-Pacific Buddhist brawl in Seoul





At least four monks are reported to have been injured as rival factions clashed in the streets in the centre of the capital, Seoul.

Several policemen and journalists are also said to have been hurt.

For 30 minutes, grey-robed monks, armed with makeshift weapons and hurling stones, bottles and furniture attacked each other at the temple. Police estimated more than 500 monks of the Chogye order battled alongside hired security men to defend the building - at one point they turned chemical fire extinguishers onto their attackers who were trying to take over the compound.

Hundreds of riot police sealed off the area, stopped traffic and ordered local stores to close.

It was the second major clash between Chogye monks in nine months.


Struggle for control

The fight is not about theology, it is about power and money, BBC Seoul correspondent Andrew Wood says.

They are struggling for control of the temple complex, which is headquarters to the largest order of Buddhist monasticism in South Korea.

The sect claims around 10 million followers.



Big money

The rival factions - the Purification and Reform Committee (PRC) and the Constitution Safeguards Committee (CSC) - have long been involved in an argument over the right to name the heads of hundreds of Buddhist temples across the country and control their budgets.

The annual budget of the order is reported to be $10m, it also owns property worth millions of dollars.

At the moment the larger CSC is in control, but a court has ruled that it took power unfairly and has called for new elections to choose a leader.

When the authorities failed to enforce the ruling the PRC decided to take over the temple by any means necessary.

Violent past

Violence between rival sects of monks can be traced back to the military coup of 1961.

Many who had been involved in the police fled to remote temples and became monks.

In recent years Buddhism, once the dominant religion in South Korea, has come under pressure from Christianity, which now claims around the same number of followers.

The popular image of Buddhism as a peace loving religion suffered in the first half of the century when the country was occupied by Japan.

Many Christians were involved in the resistance to Japanese domination of Korea, while some Buddhists co-operated with the colonial rulers.

[/rquoter]

 

OK I've gotten through this thread and there are a few mistatements of fact that a few posters have made.

A few posters have brought up the example of Bethlehem as being in Muslim control and that Christians are out there trying to recapture it and Muslims aren't letting go of it. Bethlehem the city is within the Palestinian authority control but the Palestinian Authority is a secular organization plus Israel still exerts over riding control of the area so it would be more accurate to say that Bethlehem is in Jewish hands but they are allowing a Muslim majority organization to administer it. Getting to the heart of the issue though what matters isn't Bethlehem the city but the Church of the Nativity which is and continues to remain a Christian Church and even when the area had been controlled by Islamic rulers it and the Church of the Sepulchre in Jerusalem were left as Christian Churches.

Muslims can correct me if I'm wrong on this but my understanding of the Dome of the Rock was that it wasn't built on the Temple Mount as a sign of conquest, as the article implies, but that it was one of the spots that Mohammed stopped at on his ascension to Heaven. Also Muslims didn't destroy the Temple but the Romans did and according to Judaism the Temple cannot be rebuilt until the Messiah is revealed so there is no reason for Jews to rebuild the temple at this time.

Also the example of the the Hagia Sophia is a bad example to argue about Muslims conquering something and not returning it. Officially Muslims don't control the Hagia Sophia anymore. As the article notes Kemal Ataturk made it a museum so it is neither a church or mosque anymore.

As for the Pope behaving like "dhimni" when visiting the Blue Mosque what was the author expecting the Pope to do? Come in and declare the Blue Mosque is now Christian territory. The Pope is a diplomat and it sounds like he was behaving respectfully in the same way as if an Islamic religious leader being invited to St. Peters would behave respectfully. The author makes it sound like the Pope was kowtowing to Islam in his visit to the Blue Mosque.

In regard to the general issue of the article I think its obvious that there is some violent and backward elements in Islam and these elements that said the examples he cites are problematic having to do with trying to compare something that happened 100's of years ago with recent history. Its true the Israelis when they captured the Temple Mount treated the Dome of the Rock better than when Islam sacked Constantinople. Well a lot has changed in 500+ years and if we're going to dredge up what 15th C. Muslim armies did then certainly the Crusades and Conquistadors are fair game.

The argument that there is a double standard regarding the treatment of Islam by the West and how Islam treats other relationships is certainly a valid argument but the examples the author uses are problematic. I think his argument would've been as strong and probably stronger if he had limited his argument to present day examples instead of using the conquest of Istanbul and the status of Hagia Sophia. If that's the example the counter argument of why how Christianity treated conqured Native American cultures in the Americas is valid.

Finally just to clarify a few points. Many posters are arguing that Islam in recent history has been the only religion to be destroying other religious sites. Not true. A few years ago radical Hindus destroyed a mosque a 13th C. Mosque in Ayodha India to build a Hindu temple. There have been several instances of threats and destructive vandalism of mosques here in the US by people who are considered Christian. So while yes radical Muslims should be showing more respect and tolerance towards other religions that doesn't mean that they are alone in their attitudes towards minority religions in their cultures.

 

Sadly yes even Buddhist have and are been known to be violent. In addition to the brawl in Korea in recent years Buddhist Monks and lay people have fought in Taiwan and Japan. Shoko Asahara's group Aum Shinrikyu called themselves Buddhist but that didn't stop them from releasing nerve gas in Tokyo subways. Buddhist history has many fighting monks and one of the great stories of Tibetan Buddhism is the assasination of a non-Buddhist king.

 

I didn't take offense just curious if you were calling me out or if you were referencing something I wasn't aware of.