Destruction of Islamic Culture

Great Debates
41

I think some people here are playing Pollyanna for the sake of tolerance.

Sofa King provided data that indicates a connection between terrorist threats to the United States and Islamic nations and/or groups.

I am no expert on Islam. I have read a bit of the Qu’ran, and that’s about the extent of it. It struck me that the Islamic holy text preached love, peace and justice - tenets very similar to that of Christianity’s Holy Bible.

So, then, it becomes apparent that Islam has been perverted by some, maybe many, and it is those perverters who are our threat, our enemy. (For example - please show me in the Qu’ran where it advocates the despicable treatment of women that is practiced in many Islamic countries?)

If it was a radical Christian sect blowing up our buildings and killing thousands of our citizens in the name of Jesus; I’m pretty sure we’d see them as the enemy, too. It’s about what threat these groups and nations pose - how they feel about us, and, more importantly, how they act on those feelings.

I am hearing the same people saying two very different things, “Don’t punish innocent citizens who have nothing to do with these terrorists, except living next to them;” and “If you kill Osama bin Laden and his henchmen, you will just create 10 more Osamas.”

Well, which is it? Wouldn’t we be relieving those poor, oppressed folks from a scourge that they don’t like, either? Or are they complicit with it, and would rise up to take the place of those that we eradicated? If the latter is the case, and they have the means to hurt us, why would we not consider them our enemy?

The efforts of the Palestinian police to censor the press trying to report on the celebrations in the West Bank over Sept. 11 tends to lean me toward the latter opinion.

But there is a ruthless pragmatism to war, that renders a lot of this intellectualizing moot. Did you attack me? Are you a threat to me? If you are, I’m going to kill you, to protect myself.

That’s really what it’s going to come down to. Somebody explain to me why it shouldn’t?

I’m not saying all Muslims are our enemies. I’m saying our enemies are our enemies. And they should be crippled, killed, whatever, so that they can’t hurt us anymore.

And if it so happens that our enemies are a big group of Islamic people, that doesn’t change anything about what we need to do.

And what was said in the OP is exactly right. Once the imminent threat is dealt with, longer term, providing information and Western influence will have a positive effect on lessening the hatred against us. Particularly if it’s done in a way that shows a respect to their existing culture. (Which perhaps it wasn’t with Iran during the Shah era.)

Maybe the message that the less radical Islamic people will eventually receive is, “OK. We’re really different. Accept it. Live and let live.”

Whenever I get hopeful about that, however, it comes back to Israel. And gets all messed up.

42

gobear, you beat me to the punch. You said:

I think this hits it right on the head. Christianity went through 1000 years of barbarism, behaving as badly if not worse than any of today’s terrorist organizations. By the 18th Century (or so) Christianity had largely given up on that sort of thing (with Ireland being a notable exception). Before the Christian era there were other religions doing the same sort of things, including (on occasion) my own Jewish ancestors.

This shared bloody history makes it difficult to cast stones at the various groups in the world who take advantage of the ignorant and desperate to wreak havok. But in this day and age we have unprecedented powers of communication around the globe. Imagine if CNN could have shown the European peasants of the middle ages the terrible human tragedy wrought by the Crusades. This allows us to set a higher standard. Leaders of the Muslim community, who can see for themselves the effects of extremism, have a responsiblility (both moral and practical) to scream to the high heavens against the tactics of terror. Maybe ask Henry Ward Beecher about preaching against hate.

In every age there are people who will breed chaos and dischord. Probably because they think that they are strong enough to weather the storm and take the inheritance of those who cannot. It is a pure worship of self that hides opportunistically in any religion or ideology around. In every age there are heros who stand up to them, putting the Greater Good ahead of the self. In these days, with all the paths open to us there are few excuses for not being a hero.

Anyway, sorry for the rant.
To address the OP: I agree that has a certain visceral appeal but, as I think I implied above, real change would have to come from within. Certainly, I could get behind anything that might help that along without causing a backlash. For example I think that this might be a perfect opportunity to open up relations with Iran. But that’s a whole other rant.

43

Damn you Milossarian and SuaSponte!

Why is it that everytime I think I have a good point to make someone makes it both more eloquantly and faster?

:slight_smile:

44

Practice. :smiley:

45

And you just condemned yourself as one who speaks of what one knows not. You see (actually, you probably don’t), the idea in a “pure Islamic world” is that the State and the Religion (Islam) are one and the same. That’s because the Koran (have you read it or merely heard the word?) is considered by Muslims to be the very word of God and the Koran says how to run a society. Just because the Taliban are abusing the Koran and flat out destroying an Islamic culture themselves does not mean, in any way at all, that the Koran or the religion it espouses must be destroyed.

Gobear has effectively dismissed this comment as worthless. Take the time to re-read his posting in this thread. Islamic culture is a very diverse thing, just as Christian culture (or Western culture, if you will) is. I distinctly remember that South Africa used to abuse all non-Whites and a heck of a lot of people there used the Bible as authority for why that’s the way it should be. The United States of America used to sanction Slavery and the Bible was used as authority for why that’s the way it should be.

Exactly. So the solution is not to destroy the religion, but to alleviate the situation. I seem to remember that there are some poor, ignorant and oppressed people living right smack in Manila in the Republic of the Philippines. Damned if I didn’t notice that the vast majority of the people in that country are Roman Catholic. Heck, they now even have a Muslim Autonomous Region down in Mindanao because the Catholic majority in the country had pretty well abused the daylights out of the Muslim minority for going on 400 years or so. But I don’t hear you sanction destroying the theocracy at the center of the Roman Catholic religion.

“Your way or the highway” just doesn’t work when there’s no highway. There’s only one planet the Human Race currently occupies.

That you consider my comments, and especially my questions to you, irrelevant shows that you are not really aware of the point you are making.

Can’t you see the insanity of the comment, “The Vatican doesn’t need to be assimilated” you posted above. I’ll be sure to fire off a note to the Pope that he now has your blessing–his religion, and most importantly, the manner in which he governs the sovereign country of which he is the Head of State have both passed your muster.