Islam, the religion of peace...

Great Debates
101

Franklin Graham was doing a TV interview (I believe it was one of the religious broadcast channels) where he was defending his stance that Islam was evil.

His point was that if the September 11 attacks were perpetrated by 19 Christians in the name of Jesus, the Christian leadership, across denominations and nationalities, would have condemned the attacks and vigorously argued that the attacks were un-Christian.

On the other hand, the attacks were perpetrated by Muslims. The only Muslim leaders that I have heard criticize the attacks were from American Islamic groups. However, the majority of Muslim clerics abroad, in the Mid-East, and in prestigious posts, have not only not condemned the attacks but have praised them. The marvel of sattelite TV and the Internet makes this accessible to all of us. Watch any Mid-Eastern newscast or newspaper and you can see the religious opinion.

102

No it does not, and your citations have done nothing to substantiate your claim. The calls for violence that are “still-standing” are calls for defensive war, not wars of aggression. In addition, such wars demand that only combatants be targeted, so terrorism is, by Islamic law, explicitly condemned.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. The attacks were condemned by the majority of the Muslim religious leadership. What you see now is standard news hype: it is a lot more fun (and sells more audience) to run sound bites from people foaming at the mouth than to keep going back to the quiet people who say “That is wrong.”

103

“But my point is that if an unbiased observer were to take a detached look at all the religions of the world he/she would see that Islam has a still-standing call to violence against non-believers.”
Which part of Islam? There are many schools of thought in Islam about war ranging from pacifism to defensive war to the extremists who fit this description. Tamerlane is the man for this. Read his excellent posts in the “jihad” thread which IIRC he has linked earlier here.

“However, the majority of Muslim clerics abroad, in the Mid-East, and in prestigious posts, have not only not condemned the attacks but have praised them”
Cite for this? Has anyone actually been systematically been recording and counting what different Muslim clerics have said or this some half-baked assertion you have heard on FoxNews?

104

When a religious text has “nice sounding” generalities and “evil sounding” explicit commands, the explicit commands control.

For example, when a religious text has one line that says “Love everyone and do no evil” and another line that says “kill the infidels with no mercy whatsoever” … they’re not contradictory. Do the general ‘good’ except for when you are commanded to do the explicit ‘bad.’ It’s quit simple.

We non-islamic countries are not only non-islamic, but do not share muslim values. We’re the infidels, and they have a Koranic duty to kill us. Indeed, by not being muslims we are the enemies of the prophet. Any muslim who doesn’t share in the jihad-duty to kill us all is not a real muslim. Sorry, but that’s just the way it goes, and it’s quite unfortunate. Yes, there are indeed a lot of fake muslims in this world, but they don’t live in the middle east. They live in the US.

I don’t care how many nice and wonderful things the Koran says. As long as it says:

And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever you shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way. 9:5

Islam has to go. And don’t give me any crap about how “kill” and “seize” and “besiege” and “ambush” are mistranslated from the original islam text where they really mean “love.” I don’t wanna hear that “mistranslated” bullshit.

105

No, not raping and murdering Christians, but the state-run Egyptian TV is showing, for your holiday Ramadan viewing pleasure, a series based on, get this, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. :rolleyes:

Pray tell, what is up with that?

106

If 19 Christians flew two airliners into two skyscrapers in Beijing in the name of Jesus, Franklin Graham would issue some lukewarm criticism of violence in general with a backhanded reminder of how many Christians are persecuted in China and that their frustration is understandable. The Americentrism in this thread is contemptible and sickening.

107

My own position is close to MEBuckner’s. I would not paint the entirety of Islam with this brush, but it’s clear to me that the radical Islamist subset of the religion is not just an obscure fringe. We can’t ignore the fact that Osama Bin Laden is hugely popular in the Muslim world. We can’t ignore the cheering that went on in the streets of many Muslim countries when the world trade center was attacked.

Clearly, something is wrong in the Islamic world. There are almost no democracies, there is a tremendous amount of violence and intolerance. The Islamic world is lagging behind the rest of the world in science, the arts, and tolerance. These problems must be addressed, and soon.

Because if you think they’re pissed off now, wait 'till their oil runs out.

108

You guys are just **intolerant **of islam. It is their religious belief that they have to kill us. Their religious text commands them to do it. Either sit back and accept islamic murder with a smile, or be an intolerant bastard. Which is worse, being attacked and murdered or not being tolerant of others’ beliefs? Nowadays, it’s a close call.

Me, I’m an intolerant bastard. I’ll happily tolerate the existence of others, but I will not tolerate their actions.

Cuauhtemoc: I don’t recall ever hearing jerry falwell, pat robertson, et al vividly condemning any abortion clinic bombings as un-christian. Just like the muslims, the most they’ll give is the standard lip service “we highly condemn these actions, but…” Why? Because not-so-deep-down inside they agree with the actions, believe the perpetrators were doing “god’s work,” and they capital-K “Know” that the terrorists, err… martyrs have done a good thing for their religion and their god. The “Right” thing. Praise be the lawd.

109

As long as Muslims believe they have the right to “defend” Islam from “blasphemy”–unless you mean meeting speech with more speech, which from the context you clearly do not–then non-Muslims will have second-class status. Is saying that God was incarnated as a man “blasphemy”? Is denying the Incarnation and the divinity of Christ “blasphemy”? Christians and Muslims will likely have different answers to those questions. Any government which attempts to referee that dispute will wind up discriminating on the basis of religious faith. In free societies religious doctrine and sacred scripture are not beyond criticism or debate, and changing enforcement from lynch mob to state prosecution will be, at best, a cosmetic improvement, and quite possibly a worsening of the situation. State power may be less arbitrary, capricious, or driven by personal vendetta (maybe), but then again it may also make official, permanent, and all-pervading what mobs could only enforce sporadically and inconsistently

Laws against “apostasy” are another problem. In free societies, religious conversions may cause family heartache, personal discord, or social ostracism by the members of the old congregation, but they don’t result in lynchings or prosecution by the state. Many Christians believe they have a God-given duty to preach their gospel to the whole world. While Christians certainly should be prohibited from using any coercion or violence in that effort, if they are prohibited from seeking converts, Christians are going to consider themselves discriminated against by the government on the basis of their religion. Islam, like Christianity, is also an ecumenical and proselytizing religion–if Muslims were not allowed to seek converts among Christians, and Christians were prohibted from converting to Islam, I’m sure Muslims would consider their religion discriminated against by the government in question.

Note that it is possible for a government which enforces Islamic blasphemy and apostasy laws to still tolerate limited freedom of religion by Christians and other non-Muslims, just as a Christian theocracy might allow Muslims to say Islamic prayers in the privacy of their own homes, or even in mosques, so long as they said nothing publicly against Christian doctrine and did not accept converts from Christianity. In either such case, one group of people would clearly have a second-class legal status based on their religious beliefs.

110

Anyway, my first post was sort of a joke. I have very mild/few feelings of negativity towards islam - at the back of my mind I say to myself that it is a bit worrying - like I do about religeon in general.

It’s just the fucking insane fundementalists that I have strong feelings about. They inspire hate in me. I want to bury them inside a pig or something. Or I want them to survive and be shown western values for the rest of their lives

111

That Egypt has enough freedom of speech that citizens who have not yet reconciled with the idea of peace with Israel and have the money to do something about it can still put out anti-Jewish propaganda?

I have made no claims that all Muslims are peace-loving people who would never harm a fly. I have only pointed out that the people who happen to be Muslim and who hate are no more prompted by their religion in that hatred than are Christians or Hindus or anyone else who choose to hate prompted to do so by their beliefs. Religions certainly provide a wealth of mythology to which haters can appeal when stirring up the masses (and they certainly do not do a very good job of enforcing peaceful existence upon their adherents), however, the hatred that we see from some people who happen to be of any religious bent is nearly all political, wrapped up in religious cloaks for propaganda purposes.

If Islam is fomenting all this hatred, then we should see a united front that includes Bosnia, Albania, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, all banding together with several more countries in Africa and Oceania and the Caribbean to present a united front in defying (or, at least, denying aid to) the U.S. both in the current war on terror and in the years preceding.

Instead, when we look at those countries, we find people who oppose the U.S., people who actively support the U.S., people who simply want to be left alone, and people who are actively seeking support from the U.S. in a wide range of policies and situations. If they all hate us, they certainly are not doing a very good job of showing their hatred. If, as one simplistic poster has claimed, they are ordered to kill and subdue us, why have so many of those countries not been launching wars of religious conquest throughout modern history? Just last week we had a thread showing that the conversion of Malaysia, Indonesia, parts of Oceania, and the south of the Philippines was accomplished without any warfare, at all. How could that be if Islam is (as is ignorantly claimed) under God’s command to conquer for their faith? It is no more realistic to look on Islam as if it were some great monolithic organization with Borg-like mind control than it is to claim the same thing of Christianity. It is also not realistic to claim that Islam demands conquest when so much of Islam spread without warfare.

112

“Clearly, something is wrong in the Islamic world”
Clearly something is wrong with the whole Third World. You seem to believe that the Islamic world is at the bottom of the world barrel which is simply not true.It has big problems like about 80% of the world. A different portfolio of problems from other developing countries but not systmetically better or worse. For instance India has a genuine democracy,a free press etc unlike most of the Muslim world and in the last two decades has made good economic progress . However when it comes to crucial health and education indicators it still lags behind many Muslim countries. For instance it ranks 115 in the Human Development Index behind both Syria and Egypt. When it comes to violence you have the recent Gujarat riots which not only killed more than a thousand Muslims in a few weeks but were considered so popular that Hindu right-wing politicians thought they would increase the popularity of the Gujarat state government.

The reason that the Islamic extremists get more attention than extremists in other part of the Third World is not that they are necessarily worse but that some of them target Westerners to a much larger degree than extremists in other parts of the world.

113

You cite this as an example of Egyptian freedom of speech?

I take it that you then think that someone in Egypt could air a program defending Israel and criticising Palestinians for the intifada?

It seems to me that using an anti-Israel program being aired in Egypt as an example of free speech is a bit of a stretch.

114

What freedom of speech in Egypt do you refer to? It is being aired on Egyptian state tv, not by citizens, or anything resembling a free market or free exchange of ideas.

IIRC, Egypt is the receipient of the most U.S. foreign aid $ after Israel. Why should the U.S. government be financing, however indirectly, such an Anti-Semitic, Anti-Freedom, hateful message?

Do you support that message personally?

115

But of course “Islam” is not monolithic, as people have said on both sides of the debate. So it may not be “Islam” but a certain sect or school or subdivision of Islam which is prompting people to hate based on their religion.

I do agree that people who would be haters anyway can use religious or ideological beliefs as cover or justification. But I also think that beliefs held for basically idealistic reasons can prompt people who weren’t haters to begin with to support extreme or cruel actions.

116

[small, but worthwhile and IMO funny hijack]

“FBI: Muslim Groups in U.S. May Be Developing Nuclear Families”

(sorry, my IE is misbehaving and won’t let me link directly to the story, but it’s this week’s front page headline)

[/hijack]

117

I’m having a hard time seeing how this proves your point. Are you saying that the prominent Muslims who condemned the terrorist attacks should have “admitted” that the actions were perfectly in line with the tenets of their religion? Should they have said “Hey! Some Muslims committed terrorist acts! Islam must really suck after all! I think I’ll convert to some other religion!”

By the way, Kalt, are you just sputtering and fuming, or do you purport to have a solution in mind to the cultural and religious conflicts that are tearing our world apart right now? If it’s the former, then more power to you, don’t let us stop you from displaying your ignorance. But if it’s the latter, here’s a hint, for free:

You, and people who think and act like you, are not helping anything.

The point of my previous post was that, although there certainly was condemnation of the September 11th attacks from foreign Muslim clerics, it didn’t come in strong enough terms for Americans, who wanted them to be as outraged as we were.

How about this: If democracy activists blew up a building in Pyongyang, I think all of us would be horrified at the carnage. However, we’d understand. We’d say “Our condolences go out to the North Korean people. Still, if they’d give their people more freedom, stuff like this wouldn’t happen. Maybe they’ll learn something from this.”

We’d say it, not because we’re heartless bastards, or because we hate Koreans, but because we believe in the principles of democracy and that they’re worth fighting for. Would it be fair for a North Korean person to think (to the extent that he or she is allowed to think) that there’s something in the American philosophy that condones terrorist acts? That Thomas Jefferson was a terrorist? That any one of us, given the slightest chance, would melt their country as soon as spit on it?

118

No. If there is U.S. money going to fund that broadcast in any way, then Bush and Company are seriously remiss in not stopping it.

On the broader topic of the Egyptian press and broadcasting and freedom of speech: there was a thread around June that addressed the fairly complicated interconnections. I have not yet been able to find it, but the jist of it was that while the broadcasting is set up by the government, the programming is bought and paid for by private interests and that the government does generally avoid interfering directly in those broadcasts. If you have actual information that this is not the case, I’m more than willing to look at it. (And I am aware that Egypt doesnot have U.S. style freedom of speech, but they are closer to that than the sort of “party-line only” speech that is permitted in totalitarian states.)

I seem to have seen rather more people on the anti side claiming that “Islam” is responsible for all the problems and that “Muslims” are doing all the bad things. Clearly, the Wahabbists (from which bin Laden springs) and several other groups are more prone to violence and oppression. However, as an example, I have read works written in the 1950s that condemned the practices and opinions of the group of imams that became the core of the Taliban for having corrupted Islam to specific tribal cultural beliefs.

I would not disagree with your next paragraph and I can find a lot of Christian examples to support it. I just find this constant fixation on “Islam” to be counterproductive. If that language becomes too prevalent, we will wind up driving away potential allies and further alienating neutrals simply because we will continue to condemn allies and neutrals for having the “wrong” religion. It should not be that difficult to condemn those who have done wrong without constantly using labels that will involve innocent parties.

119

*By the way, Kalt, are you just sputtering and fuming, or do you purport to have a solution in mind to the cultural and religious conflicts that are tearing our world apart right now?[/]

I have a simple solution. Rid the world of religion, starting with islam. No no no - no concentration camps. Just take away the children of religious people and raise them to be non-religious. Quite simple. We start with islam, then work our way to christianity and other religions. One day (i think it’ll take at least 80-90 years) we’ll all be humans who respect human life and value the golden rule. There won’t be any more killing the infidel crap.

120

Here’s the link Tom~

http://www.adl.org/special_reports/protocols/protocols_plot.asp

I really don’t care who’s paying for it, whether it’s the Egyptian government, or private groups in Egypt that are merely expressing their opinion.

It’s still vile, and if you want to say it’s acceptable, then, well, I honestly don’t know what to say.