Ha! Exactly my friend. Exactly. You also cannot have it both ways. As I said before, the conflicts between Islam and the rest of the world are not limited just to the issue of terrorism. There are other issues, issues you have previously agreed should be curbed within the Islamic sphere of influence. So you add terrorism + interstate and intrastate conflicts + other conflicts (like FGM) and you get a bad perception of Islam. Ha! I say. You pick the Dutch no doubt because of their reputation for tolerance! But in reality the Dutch are considering repatriating ANY Muslim that speaks out for the radical fundamentalist! Not even the US nor the UK are going that far. SO, we should expect attacks in the Netherlands soon? I hope not as I am off to Amsterdam this weekend. What about this... if I were to say we should oppose by whatever effective means we can, any religious authority that calls for jihad, or that endorses FGM, as two examples, would you agree to that? It would seem to exclude MOST of the Islamic world if you are indeed correct that those people are only a super small minority.
There have been comments about whether economics plays a significant role in the violent nature of groups like Al-Queda and other muslim extremist groups. Hayes street mentioned that muslims in the west have become "moderate" because of their time in western society, yet I feel it is more the economics of a 1st world nation, that limits extremism in any society. That extremism will use politics, socialism or religion to gain power. The question was also brought up to why Christian societies such as some in Africa and Latin America have not attacked the United States. The Latin American and African financially weak, 3rd world nations are violent and extremism is quite rampant irregardless to religion. Somalia and Ethiopia mimic each other in their warlords fued's for power using food and human life as capital. The violence in Africa's "christian" nations is unprecedented and lives are lost at an unimaginable rate. There is to be another famine, in which thousands if not more will die of starvation and malnutrition. This is not because of a lack of resources, but a struggle for power that would see hordes of people die rather than lose their grip on power. Latin America is no different with its Brazilian squads that's duties were to eliminate the "street children" because of their adverse affect on the tourism market. Colombia, Venezuela and Central America are in a constant civil war and flux for power which encompasses death squads, separatists and the highest % of kidnappings and extortion globally. The reason why we have Al-Queda and these "muslim" groups attacking the United States, when African Nations and Latin American Nations aren't is because of our political relations in those reigons. Suppose we had injected a "white" nation into the heart of Africa or Latin America that was an expansionary state like what we have done with Israel?? If we had made that country a Nuclear Powerhouse and gave them the most sophisticated weapons in the region, then watched them use it on their neighbors. If that was the case we'd be discussing African Groups and their propensity to violence, or Latin American Groups and their propensity to terrorism. All three groups stated the Middle East Muslim World, Latin America and Africa are economically deprived areas of the world; all are violent and full of extremism and religions and political volatility; yet the only one that we take a biased one-sided role with an aggressor with is Israel in the Middle East. This is the reason we see the violence of these Third World Nations first hand.
His example is not what's meant by moral relativism. That was numerical relativism. He was discussing how widespread it was, not how abhorrent it was. Moral relativism is demonstrated by a statement like, "Who are we to judge? America has problems, too." Conservatives tend to believe that there are universal standards of right and wrong by which everyone can and should be judged. Not prior to the bombing. He may have accepted, or tried to accept, Jesus as his savior once he knew he was going to be executed. But he didn't perform the bombing as a Christian or in the name of Christianity. He was an avowed agnostic while serving in the military.
The one big misake that the Muslim Terrorists make and I think its a misuse of Islam!(Please correct me).The Terrorists that kill themselves while killing other people, under the name of Islam,say they are MARTYRS! Strictly they are only Murderers! A Martyr is one who is killed by others because of their religion.Only God( Allah) has the right to end human life.
I said it was because of modernity, which would include the economics of our society. And Mango has posted article after article describing how Islamic scholars and religious figures int he Middle East and Asia reject capitalism and modernity. However, as I have continued to point out, the WTC/Pentagon hijackers were NOT poor. Somlia is not a Christian nation. Ethiopa was left with a power vacuum after the fall of Mengistu's communist regime. Neither of those are examples of Christian driven violence. The number of Muslims nations in conflict within and outside their own borders far outnumbers those of Christian persuasion. First, there is not that much civil war in S and C America anymore. Most those in the past were driven by the Cold War, not religion. Second, there is almost NO interstate conflict in S or Central America. Completely different situation from Muslim countries throughout Africa and Asia. Hmmm, or could it be that it would seem silly for the predominantly Christian nations to declare a 'crusade' on the US? OK, like South Africa. Which was a nuclear power and far more advanced than its neighbors? Don't see any non-Muslim African flying planes into buildings. And it wasn't the US that plopped the Jews down in the Middle East, it was the British. And it was the FRENCH that gave them nuclear technology, and the Russians that gave them weapons to originally fight off the Arabs. Don't see planes going into Big Ben, the Arc de Triumph, nor the Kremlin. Uh, no. As plenty of people point out, we sponsered repressive governments throughout S and Central America. Still don't see terrorists targeting the US, despite the poverty. That's the point. They are Catholic, not Muslim. And the Catholic Church has been a force for peace in most of Latin America in the last 50 years. In many places they have put themselves in the firing line, and paid the ultimate price for peace. Not true of Muslim religious figures in the Middle East.
Liberals tend to believe that there are universal standards of right and wrong by which everyone can and should be judged. (e.g., the "right" to basic health care for all persons, don't kill--by the state either, don't harm your neighbor but you can do what you want to yourself, equal rights for women in all ways, etc., etc.) But often liberals and conservatives have different "rights and wrongs" which they think should be the universals. Hayes, I think most every religion has fought secular influences and modernity--especially in the fringes. Sometimes they were brought to modernity kicking and screaming the whole way (but ultimately they realized they would have no followers if they didn't adapt).
If you review my posts in this thread, you will find I do note the differences in Islam across the world. I posted the pictures of Benazir Bhutto and Megawati Sukarnoputri.......... <b>As both pictures illustrate, neither woman wears the suggested clothing of women in Islamic countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. Would Benazir Bhutto and Megawati Sukarnoputri be in trouble with religious authorities in some Islamic countries for not following the religious dress code? </b> I used this link earlier: <A HREF="http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal2/geasia2.pdf">The Roots and Societal Impact of Islam in Southeast Asia</A> and will quote from a different part of the same article. <i> Q What is the origin of Islam in Southeast Asia? How is it separate from other forms of Islam? The first thing to understand is Islam in Southeast Asia did not come directly from the Middle East; it came from India. The consequence is that the Islam that came into Southeast Asia had already been modified by the experience of Islam in India and had some very strong elements of Sufism in it. Remember that Islam first came to India via the Arabs; that occurred around the 10th century. Then the Turks in Central Asia, along with the Mongols and all the earlier dynasties in India that came from Central Asia modified Islam considerably. It became a “softer” Islam; it was very mystical. So the Islam of India became very different from the Islam of the Middle East. Meanwhile, throughout Southeast Asia, certainly in Indonesia and Malaysia, Thailand, etc., when Islam settles eventually, there was a Hindu Buddhist civilization, which was rooted in the Indian tradition of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, the great Hindu epics. So Islam entered this Hindu Buddhist culture. The result was a Sufi-influenced Islam in India coming into an area where there was already an Indian culture – it was an Indianized Islam coming in on top of an Indianized local culture. The individuals that are historically said to have brought Islam into Indonesia are the Walis, who were all Sufi mystic types. So there was a hybrid culture evolving, </i> I see no problem with Islam as a a <b>religion</b>, but there is a tendency/urge for countries with majority Muslim populations to take things to an extreme and mix religion with the government structure to a much greater extent than is found in other countries. I requested in the HayesStreet thread for somebody to name the equivalent of the OIC in the Christian world and am still waiting for that answer. From <A HREF="http://www.sudmer.com/The%20outcome%20of%20the%20Khartoum%20OIC%20Foreign%20Ministers%20Conference.htm">The outcome of the Khartoum OIC Foreign Ministers Conference. Report by Ain AL- Yaqeen. 05 July 2002.</A> <i>........<b>Concerning the Economy, the latest statistics of the OIC Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation (COMCEC) proved, once again, that the development rate in the majority of our members remained below the overall ratio in the other developing nations. </b>It doesn't need a person to be a highly qualified economic expert to realize that the world today has become a global community where there is no room whatsoever for individual economy, nor is there a single State that can claim to be able to live in a vacuum, away from what happens in the rest of the world, or face up individually to the challenges of our time without sheltering itself under the banner of one of the major groupings just to enjoy minimal economic protection, let its voice be heard and reap some of the benefits of economic integration. The rich countries that now have a strong foothold making them affluent in controlling the Economy came to that conclusion long ago. We have seen them erecting the major economic strongholds or bastions in Europe where the European Union (EU) came into existence, in North America with the emergence of the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA), in Asia where the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established, and elsewhere. <b> Despite the repeated calls, urging the States of the Islamic world to combine their economic efforts and act collectively and in spite of the plans of action adopted by the OIC to strengthen economic and commercial cooperation among member states as well as the numerous Agreements and Statutes worked out under OIC auspices and the preliminary studies produced to create an Islamic Common Market, it is the unilateral outlook that continues to govern the way with which most of the States of the Islamic world are dealing with the economic challenge. </b>The inevitable result is for our countries to be bogged down in their present position. It can still be argued, however, that the free trade agreements concluded between certain Islamic States, do form a nucleous that could grow into an Islamic Common Market if the other Islamic States were to follow suit......... </i> It seems that you are arguing against Iqbal and his vision of a Muslim country. Is that correct? The people of the subcontinent would have been better served to remain a large composite with a Hindu majority rather than the current situation of a Muslim Pakistan and a composite India with a Hindu majority? From <A HREF="http://www.sudmer.com/The%20outcome%20of%20the%20Khartoum%20OIC%20Foreign%20Ministers%20Conference.htm">The outcome of the Khartoum OIC Foreign Ministers Conference. Report by Ain AL- Yaqeen. 05 July 2002.</A> <i>...... Perhaps our greatest challenge today is the ever-growing scientific gap that separates us from the developed, industrialized countries, which is what places these scientifically advanced nations in a position where they can control the world's political and economic destinies and even future prospects. Without a doubt, the modern concept of Knowledge Economybased on the principle that science is the driving force behind the wheels of economy, progress, prosperity, and leadershipprompts us to make of science a basic priority and to channel our efforts into it with all our determination and resolve. We must learn from our heritage and our past. We must remember that when we gave in to ignorance in recent times and when we left our scientific and scholarly renaissance behind, we quickly fell into the so-called era of decadence. That is why today we must keep in mind at all times, as we go through this crisis, that Muslims were the masters of the world when they were the masters of thought and science. </i> Islamic countries as a collective entity, have been fairly stagnant for quite some time and have steadily lost ground to the West for several centuries. The cause of that stagnation and the failure to move forward is a subject for future research.
DS, I agree. But this sounds more like my argument than yours. For instance, if Christian religious authorities were calling for a crusade to convert infidels, I would oppose Christianity, in that example. If Christianity opposed secular governments, I would oppose Christianity. If Christianity opposed capitalism I would opposed Christianity. You say that other religions have gone through the same transition, and I point out I would have opposed them had I lived in the time BEFORE they made that tranisition. As I oppose Islam, as qualified previously: "What about this... if I were to say we should oppose by whatever effective means we can, any religious authority that calls for jihad, or that endorses FGM, as two examples, would you agree to that? It would seem to exclude MOST of the Islamic world if you are indeed correct that those people are only a super small minority."
There isn't a connection. It's a comparison. The way an average, peaceful Muslim feels when he sees these jackasses on TV celebrating American deaths and burning our flag? That's how I feel when David Duke, a former member of the KKK and obvious racist scumbag, claims that my political party is attractive to him and that he's a Republican.
Wow Mango and Hayes, after all this debating back and forth I agree with most your themes stated above. Yes I agree we should do what we can to influence countries away from being Islamic republics (in the sense of integration in the state, furthering only one religion, or denying groups basic rights) as well as opening them up economically, socially, philosophically. In some of these countries this is happening from within (e.g., Iran, Turkey) already, except in Iran's case IMO probably the best thing we can do is leave it alone thus we don't hurt the movements already in place (result in the opposite of what we want because we provide something for the fundamentalists to recharge or galvanize their support). I do think the above doesn’t reflect a war on Islam at all though. In fact I think except in the most extreme cases that involve terrorism (Taliban, Al Queda) or aggression/war (e.g., Iraq—though ya’ll do know Saddam is not so much of a religious fanatic like Bin Laden who wants blood on our soil but rather Saddam has more sought political and ethnic unity for the region right) we shouldn’t even use the “war” metaphor at all. For the vast majority if OIC nations we should use the more subtle tactics of social, political and economic influence and watch them change from within like what happened with the cold war (though hopefully without the weapon build up) and what we hope will happen with China. Let them work towards being like the US, W Europe, Japan, etc., where more or less Muslims, Christians and Jews and peoples of other religions peacefully co-exists quite well.
I happily conceed my 'war' metaphor to be replaced by 'oppose by most effective means,' be it social, economic, political, or (as you said in the most extreme cases) military.
