I don't see that way. If a religion has a lot of history of violence, I would say there are shortcomings in that religion. What is it about that religion that allows such misunderstanding? It's not that it promotes violence, maybe it just doesn't condemn it loudly enough, or maybe it doesn't explain well enough why violence is a wrong way. Personally, I think a religion that dictates morals rather than allowing people to understand for themselves why actions are wrong and right will be more susceptible to problems. And I'm not just talking about Islam.
I'm sure there are elements within the Koran that seems to preach this and extremists take it out of context and say "it's in the Koran" much in the same way some Christians COULD take the term "stoning adulterers to death" and conveniently forgetting the other part taht says stoning is fine, but "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Perhaps we should use the word Arab instead of Muslim. These things such as beheadings, and other actions which we find so revolting has its seeds in the Arab world I'm sure long before Islam came along. I'm sure Arab "Christian" extremists could do the same things and find some passage in the Bible to justify the actions that has its roots in their ancestry, not their religion.
Wasn't modern Turkey founded as a secular state? You can say it's "just politics," but it is life and possibly death for this family. I hope Turkey, if it feels they must be expelled, will send them east, to the EU. And the EU should make a stink about this, imo. You think "Turkey is making a tremendous mistake by joining the EU." That's interesting, because a lot of Europeans think letting Turkey join is a mistake for the rest of Europe. The conventional wisdom is that joining the EU will bind Turkey closer to Europe as a secular society. I don't know if that's realistic or not, but why do you think that would be a bad thing? Keep D&D Civil.
How can you understand that something you did is wrong if noone has ever taught you a moral code? You need to be taught a moral code sometime in your life, either by word of mouth or from some other source. We humans life with inner moral conflict everyday, you need an outside source to help you sort out the mess. You wouldn't tell a 3 year old kid to figure out whats wrong or not, you would tell him what is wrong and what is right. Christianity is simply that, but for older people
I think that's a bit of a stretch considering Turkey has been one of the more secular ARAB states for a while.
There wont be peace because basically I wont bend over and take every accusation thrown at my religion to be true? I never said that I dont value other relgions or such, I respect them, ive been taught by my religion to not insult another religion. Im not gunna sit here and let someone else tell me what it is my religion teaches me, I think I am able to decipher that a little better than an outsider.
See the thing is If i thought or felt my religion had shortcomings, i wouldnt be following it. Obviously I think my religion is perfect, and I doubt having such high faith in one god is soo dangerous. What is dangerous is morons doing illegal actions in the name of a religion. Look the catholic priest child thing wasnt a problem that catholicism could be blamed on, it was a problem with the proper screening of the priests. You dont go around changing the bible coz some freaks decide to rape kids.
The problem is, Meowgi, you're misunderstanding HOW the extremists are arguing their case for violence against the West. So let me explain it to you if I can... Islam has clear-cut "rules of engagement" in regards to war. The first criteria, and the most basic one, is "self-defense" or repelling an attack against fellow countrymen. THIS IS WHAT THE EXTREMISTS (INCLUDING BIN LADEN) ARGUE GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO PERPETUATE VIOLENCE AGAINST THE OPPRESSORS AND THE AGGRESSORS. On that point, most Muslims agree that yes, of course, if your country is attacked (i.e. Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Chechnya, etc.) then you have the right to defend yourself through armed retaliation. However, the point of contention is attacks on civilians. Bin Laden and his cronies argue that "an eye for an eye" means that just as the US armed forces would wipe out 100000 Iraqi civilians in a war of aggression, they have every right (sanctioned religious right that is) to retaliate agains their civilans and hit 'em where it hurts. THAT'S Al-Qaeda's and other likewise groups' mindset. THAT'S where the theological element of 'just war' comes in. To be specific, here is what Islam prescribes, and let me apply it to the 9/11 attacks just to give you a clearer picture: 1) Do not desire an encounter with the enemy; but when you encounter them, be firm. - Muslim Book 019, Number 4313 Al-Qaeda desired, planned and enacted not just an encounter but mass slaughter. 2) "Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone" So, the following dictates the 'rules of engagement' in Islam: Those who are non-combatants should not be killed during or after the war. White the Pentagon is the heart of the American military, the World Trade Center was a civilian site. Even if one argues that the Twin Towers were an economic or symbolic target, they were packed with thousands of innocent non-combatants at the time. Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman There were indeed old people, children and women on the planes and many women in the target buildings. They were deliberately killed. The Prophet also prohibited the killing of anyone who is tied or is in captivity. Those on board the hijacked planes were, in effect, in captivity. And according to reports, an air stewardess, whose body was found at the World Trade Center, had her hands tied behind her back. Hope this somewhat gives you an idea of why I am saying that Islam does NOT condone those acts, and a pretty clear-cut case, not really arguable. The real problem is terrorists target civilians, or non-combatants. I am still waiting for someone to provide proof that Islam is somehow complicit in this. I am not asking for opinions, I am asking for evidence such as that which I provided. IMO, some Muslims around the world have become so blinded by their hatred of what they perceive is continual Western aggression against them that they have concern for one and only one thing: revenge. In this case, rules be damned. IMO, that's the mindset of Bin Laden and others we label as extremists.
And all this time I thought they were Turkish, with a lot of Greek, Kurdish and Armenian blood tossed into the gumbo. Keep D&D Civil.
Turkey is NOT "Arab", and in fact the Ottomans colonized the Arab world more or less. Tukey has secular codes, but their population is anything but, especially when you consider that Turkey is over 99% Muslim and has voted into power a moderate, progressive Islamist party by overwhelming numbers (nearly two-thirds of Turks voted for that party).
Deckard, I am not saying it's necessarily a bad thing. I am merely saying that I believe (long-term) the Turkish people might revolt against attempts by the Europeans to more or less shove their societal norms into Turkey's face, telling them to either love it or forget joining the EU (which is more or less an economic, and somewhat political bloc). Other European states that might have been less qulified to contribute to the EU haven't been required to meet such rigid rules to qualify for EU membership, and some European leaders have publicly said that the EU is not ready for a Muslim-majority country as large as Turkey to join them, and they are doing everything in their power to place 'obstacles' in front of Turkey in its bid for membership. There is already resentment on the part of Turkish leadership/people regarding the 'special treatment' they are getting, but at least for now they are still committed to joining the EU. To our credit, the US has been steadfast in its support of the Turkish bid, but the EU has more or less told the US to 'mind your own business'. Turkey is an extremely important Muslim ally, it's really the most qualified country to play the role of a 'bridge' between the Muslim world and the West. I think the US leadership (President Bush) understands that, and therefore he wants to make sure that Turkey is not excluded, or it could start to 'look East' and distance itself from NATO and the West.
Well all know about the oppression from the West and support for Israel and the quest for oil...that's all been examined. No one is dismissing it - but c'mon, that's not the full story. It's not that the west is not responsible, but it's that there is other players who are responsible as well - and in the current climate - it's not helping. The U.S. is struggling to bring about settlement in Israel. Both Clinton and Bush have failed thus far. Also, as misguided as the Iraq war was, it was an effort to bring democracy to the region in the hopes that would address some of the issues. Now, the west has to do some things -sure. But it's not helping when you have national leaders and so many people already anti-west. You can't expect the west to go all the way, those who represent the Islam faith must come the other half way - and that's what I'm trying to say. You've never once addressed these things in the posts I've read - perhaps you need to articulate your position to me in clear terms. Thanks.
NewYorker, Absolutely there are other factors, I am not dismissing that, and I do believe they need to be addressed as well. I was merely pointing out that this singular factor should not be dismissed, but since you're not dismissing it, then I probably misunderstood your post, so appologize for that. I do think cooperation -- not confrontation -- is the ONLY way out of this headache we are in now (the world collectively that is). Death, destruction, and mayhem is not going to solve anything, it will eradicate the human race from the face of the earth, and it would make WWI and WWII pale in comparison. I think we agree that the underlying issues must be addressed, and I think a respectful, serious engagement is absolute only way to do so. In other words, hard-headedness isn't going to solve anything.
do you have any idea about the youth and their culture in iran? they aren't exactly doing what the mullahs tell them. khatame was elected because he represented the change. of course he was unable to fulfill his promises to there developed an apathy which caused this current fellow to win. but to believe that iran is some closed society run by mullahs is insane. iran is probably more western than any arab country outside of lebanon.
Iran is avery dynamic country, with incredibly rich culture, and some of the most interesting people in the world. I think Iran's future will be bright because of its young people, I think if we leave them alone and don't aggrevate them change will come about sooner or later. And you're right, the young people are pro-Western and have tasted enough democracy to know they want more, and I think the mullahs are in their 'last throes' and that's why they are concerned.
I know this isn't what you were addressing, but while you raised this point: One thing I find lacking in consistency is when people try to associate what is happening today as having root causes in the teachings of Islam itself. It's a safe assumption, because obviously the majority of terrorism acts today are committed by Muslims, right? However, if you are trying to examine the religion itself, not simply the followers in present day, then that extends throughout that specific religion's entire history. Similarly, if one is examining Christianity, they will note a long list of offenses committed in its name throughout its history. Even though the Christians of today are not committing atrocities on a mass scale, if you want to talk about religion itself, the entire history must be examined. Meaning at some point during these religions' vast histories, its followers misinterpreted and misused its teachings. That is why you cannot point the finger at Islam as a flawed religion without simultaneously taking issue with Christianity. Both religions obviously stress good works and forbid wrongdoing. At some point in time of their respective histories, depending on the political climate of the era, each religion's followers manipulated the teachings. Hence, the focus must be shifted off of Islam and onto the world's present day Muslims. What makes them do what they do? Social, economic, and political factors must be taken into consideration in an objective manner when examining the cause of today's violence. If we want to solve this problem this must be done. It seems like whenever this is done, people like NewYorker just dismiss it as "making excuses" or label the other party as sympathizers. There was a thread about this earlier, and in my personal opinion, the Islamic religion is being used as a common banner by all Muslims in the world taking part in some sort of political struggle. The use of the religion as a common fraternity serves to garner worldwide support, recruitment, and sympathy for their cause from fellow Muslims. It doesn't help matters any that religion is very easy to manipulate when so many people use it as the standard for the way they live their lives.
I agree, but it is not all roses in that country, I have been there MANY times, and the governement SUCKS, but the people....well, I love the people of Iran, they were extremely generous to me....good people. DD
