Islam

[Son_of_Caveman]

Well, I've come to the conclusion that Islam's claim to be a peaceful religion is so much crap. It is only peaceful in nations which have a tradition of respect for law. That ain't a whole lot of them out there. Everywhere else I look, it is the source of a whole lotta killing. Palestinians find justification for blowing up innocent people, Saudi's find justification for flying airplanes into buildings, Indonesians find justification for blowing up packed bars, the list is seemingly endless with one thing at the core - a radical version of this religion. Now, a chance remark in Nigeria has led to riots and killing, once again led by Muslims.

 

If Islam were indeed a peaceful religion, you wouldn't see this kind of clear trend. It teaches peace only to those predisposed to peaceful resolution. In other venues, it teaches hatred and envy, violence and conflict. The mindless ferocity of the various terrorist groups around the world is clear evidence of that. You don't see the same type of activity with Christian groups. Or Bhuddists. Or New Age groups, though I think the mushrooms have an influence on this last group.

 

In the US and Europe, I see Muslims with a respect for others, mostly, but even here, there are signs of a radical streak that is only slightly below the surface. I've been reading about some tensions within the Islamic community itself out in the West and how Muslims are quite willing to whip up on their own for deviating from the "true path".

 

Consequently, I have reluctantly concluded Islam can only be said to be a peaceful religion in places like the US and Europe, where some respect for others has rubbed off onto this religion. It is significant to me that this respect for others isn't something internal to the religion, something intrinsic. It is the result of grafting. It comes from the outside and changes the nature of the religion into something other than what it naturally is - violent.

 

Time for a crusade. I don't think that focusing on the other problems in the Mideast or anyplace else this religion is busy killing people who disagree with it is going to be successful until we recognize that radical Islam is the enemy. Not all Islam is radical, but so much of it is that I don't believe that making too many fine distinctions is warranted. If they want to fight the West because of religion, I guess I am happy to oblige. I don't fight FOR Christianity, but to kill those who want to kill me. I think they might find that things have changed a bit since Saladin beat similarly equipped Crusaders. Time to let the folks over there understand what power is all about.

 

Pax Americana. Brought to you by a suppression of radical Islam. By whatever means are necessary.

[Dru]

404 not found error

 

trask this can help you immensely im sure

[iain]

Religion sucks in general.

[greenfork]

unfortunately, much of what you say is true.

[offwidthclimber]

i agree with iain - most 'organized' religion indeed 'sucks'. the more 'organized' religion becomes, the more entrenched it becomes in the triviality of the human race. in this same vein, the more religion becomes entrenched in the whims of humans, the more it strays from absolute purity or divinity. politics, government, society - all these things cloud religion or faith in a higher power, especially in an organized context.

 

i guess the question i pose is whether the intolerance of extermist muslims is historically any different or worse than the intolerance of extermist christians? both have a history of violence/dominance against those who don't agree with their doctrine. intolerance, in my opinion, is wrong regardless of how it is executed.

 

eastern religions, such as buddhism, are the best organized religions in my opinion. they promote tolerance and acceptance of other religions/cultures as long as those religions/cultures obey basic principles of compassion, respect, love, etc... in other words, unlike many christians, buddhists generally don't care if you're not a buddhist. in other word, if you're a not a buddhist, you're not automatically classified a heathen and destined to an eternity in hell.

 

interesting topic, son of caveman.

 

[ 11-23-2002, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: offwidthclimber ]

[Son_of_Caveman]

The Saudis are probably in it up to their eyeballs. http://www.msnbc.com/news/838867.asp?0cv=CA01

[Uncle_Tricky]

Man, we sure know how to pick our allies. Here in the last month, it's been revealed that Pakistan shipped nuclear bomb technology to North Korea in exchange for missile technology as recently as this summer. And this weekend it's been revealed that the Saudi Government was funneling money to the hijackers via the Ambassador's wife right up until September 11.

 

The administration knew about both of these incidents for months, but has tried to keep them secret.

 

15 years ago, Osama, the Taliban and Saddam were our "friends and allies." We supported them with intelligence, weapons and money.

 

So whaddaya you want to bet that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, our two closest muslim "allies" in the "war on terrorism," will be our enemies within a decade?

 

But for now the Bush administration gives them intelligence, weapons and money, and defends these dictatorships like a defense attorney.

 

Hell, a way better case could be made for invading either of our "allies" than can be made for invading Iraq.

[sk]

I think as with all religious or spiritual ideas it is not the origianal thought or truth that brings destruction, but mans/womans interpretation (or lack there of), greed and corruptness that brings about horror, destruction violence and hate. Unfortunately even the spriritual leaders on this planet are in fact human, and though they may believe themselves to be superior to the rest of us they are not, and almost all, threw the history of man kind have fallen from grace.

 

it is not until people are willing to take responsibility for their own connection to "god" that this kind of thing will stop happening. when commen man believes with out a doubt that he has the ear of his god and that he has no more to do than to live as well as he can, when man is willing to face his own consequence and stop asking why, that will be the end of all holy wars.

 

IMHO

[Jake]

Well, Islam isn't necessarily a violent religion. It is the twisted versions of it that prevail in some Mid-East countries that make it appear to be. Much of the terrorism - bin Laden for example, that comes from the mid-east is a result of the governments of those countries. These terrorists are mad at the US and those mid -east governments that are "allies" with the US and allow US soldiers on their soil. The US, however, is an easy target for them to strike. This all probably relates to the fact that in Islam, there is not really much of a hierarchical, institutional structure of church like there is in Christianity. Muhammad was governor in Medina - it was expected for the government to be Islamic. So, Islamic government subsititues for the church institution. Thus, when radical Muslims see the US backing a Muslim government, it creates a problem.

 

I don't much many of the details of this new development about the Saudis financing 9/11 hijackers (as if anyone really does), but it is a fact that the Saudi government has paid bin Laden to leave the country and keep Al Quaida away - the Saudis basically bribed him to go away because he disrupts their regime.

As for the idea that Islam is violent, well yes, it can be. But, Christianity is also violent in areas of the world where there is little rule of law. War in the name of Christ has also resulted in many deaths during the Crusades against Muslims. Other Eastern religions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and Shintoism have also been deadly over the course of history. It just so happens that at this time, Islam is being used as an excuse for violence.

 

As for the way the US picks its allies, the best way to explain this is to say that you pick the best or most useful from a bad lot. Yes, many of these countries, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have serious problems, but they are useful if you want to solve another more serious problem, like the Taliban/Al Qaida or Iraq (both today and during the Gulf War) A similiar situation existed during the cold war - the US became "allies" with crappy countries because they were useful in combatting the Soviets. Iran, under the Shah, for exaple, fits this illustration as the US used Iran to help stop the USSR from expanding farther into the oil rich Persain Gulf. Unfortunately, the US missed numerous signs about the deteriorating situation in that country in the late '80s and as a result, the hostage crisis ensued.

 

Hope this makes some sense.

[sexual_chocolate]

Late seventies, I think you meant to say. I'd personally say they missed (ignored) the signs as soon as they chose to begin work in ousting a democratically elected leader. The Shah was a ruthless dictator, whose creation necessarily entailed the type of blowback we came to see in the revolution of the late seventies. The ends do NOT justify the means, in my humble opinion.

 

Any religion can lend itself to violence. Of this, plenty of current examples exist. To call Islam a violent religion is to call all religions violent, since every religion has, and continues, to be used as justification for said violence.

 

Personally, I tend to see the current Islamic violence in more secular terms. The reaction to the types of injustices we see globally don't need the banner of Islam for violence to occur; the injustices themselves serve as catalysts quite effectively. I think if one furthers the perception of this situation as one of religion, one misses the underlying secular causes, helping to narrow the parameters of analysis, which will distract from the real causes, inevitably promoting misunderstanding and fueling the resultant violence.

 

[ 11-24-2002, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: sexual chocolate ]

[iain]

I have trouble understanding why any religion formed thousands of years ago continues to control our modern life decisions. Christianity, Islam, you name it.

[Dave_Schuldt]

We have plenty of cristain extreamest here. Anti abortionist that shoot doctors. If we of cristain culture had no jobs and no future like the Palistinians there would be preachers stirring us up to do some ultraviolence. Islam acnoleges Moses Abaham and Jesus. Remember Christains and jews lived at peace in Jerusimem and were alowed to practice ther religon before and after the crusades. This was true except for one Muslim ruler whose actions sparked the crusades. The next Muslim ruler rebuilt The Church of the Holy Seplicure after it had been destroyed.

[JGowans]

I'd tend to agree that "religion" is merely a vehicle for leaders to manipulate impoverished / naive / under-educated citizens. I know that it's easy for those of us living in the U.S. to dismiss all muslims as being pro-violence, but with all due respect, I think that the present American government is not much different. Bush and his cohorts are fabricating the need for a war with Iraq as a means to divert attention from his elitist, pro-business, and anti-environmental policies. I think it's despicable that the leader of the free world should abuse his power in such a blatantly imperialist manner. Say what you will about Clinton, but at least he gave diplomacy a chance. Granted, Bush's geo-political landscape is vastly different given the tragedy of last year, but the principles of peace and diplomacy still apply.

 

Sadly, in America, we are treated to a hugely filtered smorgasbord of news with a strong American bias. We hear of Palestinians killing Israelis, we hear of muslims killing folks. We don't hear too much about the current government detaining thousands of young men simply because they are of Arab descent and *may* be potential terrorists. If that were a legitimate line of reasoning then would it also be legitimate to detain all single young white men from Oklahoma? A pre-emptive strike upon a sovereign nation simply cannot be justified because they have weapons of mass destruction and may have a propensity to use them. The only country that's ever dropped a nuke in the name of war was the U.S. Does that give China or any other country the right to invade us because we have weapons of mass destruction and have used them in the past? Of course not.

 

Please don't get me wrong. Even though I'm not American, I choose to live in this country and am thankful for the opportunity because of the founding principles of this country such as freedom to live in peace. However, I think it's wrong to have such a myopic view that all Muslims are violent and our American leaders and allies are left with no choice.

 

Politics is a complex power game played by second rate minds bent on selfish pursuit of power. These games have been played for thousands of years culminating in the point where we are today. To watch CNN Headline News for 20 minutes ans think that we have a grasp of what's going on is wishful thinking.

 

I don't think any of us have an answer except perhaps like in Atlas Shrugged where all of us with a conscience just opt out of life and congregate in a spot in the world where we can be unshackled from the frightening prospect of having elected officials and self-appointed religious leaders talking about war like it were nothing more than a game of checkers. I guess I am naive after all.

[Jake]

Wow, JGowans, that is one helluva a view. I think it misses and smooths over many things though. On Iraq, for example, all the US did was to ask the UN to enforce its already existing resolution that prohibited Iraq from possessing WMD. In effect, this is diplomacy. There is nothing that could have stopped the US from invading and removing Saddam from power if it wished, but instead, the US decided to seek multilateral action. Also,it seems clear that diplomacy has not worked with Iraq on this issue in the past (he kicked out weapons inspectors in '98), but the US seems to be giving Saddam one last chance. At any rate, diplomacy only works if there is at least the threat of some negative consequences or force being used.

The "parallel" between the US having nukes and China invading to destroy them fails to take into account that the US does not even remotely resemble Iraq. Granted, the US used nuclear weapons in WWII, but that use was drastically different from the way Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers during the Iraq-Iran War and also on his own Iraqi Kurds.

As for US "imperialism," it is interesting to note that one of the main reasons that the UN resolution on Iraq did not go through sooner was due to the stalling of France and Russia. France and Russia were not opposed to acting on Iraq due to any sort of concerns for peace, but because they each have significant oil interests in the region and were afraid that war would throw a monkey wrench into their operations.

What needs to be realized is that as the premier economic and military power in the world, it is the US's job to lead. Otherwise, another country, possibly one that is not particulary friedly to the US, may try to take charge in world affairs.

[Uncle_Tricky]

So Jake, how would you feel if Russia announced it's intention to invade Saudi Arabia? Seems they could make a similar case based on national interests, given that the Saudis have been proven of funding "terrorists" in Chechnaya fighting for freedom from Russian rule.

[Fairweather]

JGowans,

 

What's your agenda? Do you plan to become a US citizen so you can vote? This may enable you to promote the change you desire, if only in a small way. Until then, may I suggest you abstain from calling my president an "imperialist". Bush is "pro-business"? God forbid! You sound like one of those goddamned left-wing university professors.

 

Flame away.

 

Some observations:

 

Christianity and Judaism have both gone through reformations. Islam has not.

Christians are not currently trying to convert the world through force/violence. Islam is.

 

Budhists: the only folks who aren't blowing up cars/buildings/people.

 

[ 11-24-2002, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[sexual_chocolate]

Hey Jake, let's not continue to perpetuate myths, ok?

 

Myth #1."he kicked out weapons inspectors in '98".

 

Maybe you really didn't know, but Iraq DIDN'T kick out the weapons inspectors. The US forced a pull-out. Granted, Iraq was less than an amicable host, but it's pretty well accepted as fact that the US had planted spies in the weapons inspection team (both US inspector Ritter has spoken of this, along with Hans Blix, head weapons inspector, among others).

 

Myth #2: "...Saddam used chemical weapons on Iranian soldiers during the Iraq-Iran War and also on his own Iraqi Kurds."

 

Ok, not really a myth, but its manipulation has elevated it to near-myth status.

Iraq used gas on Iranians with full US knowledge. As a matter of fact, I believe it was Rumsfeld who was in Iraq, shaking hands with Saddam during some of the gassings. But in our zeal to contain Iran, US looked the other way, as not to offend Saddam. During this time, we were also supplying him with arms and various other needs. Only once he invaded Kuwait did our song change. And as far as the Kurds go, I'd liken his treatment of them to our treatment of Native Americans, who we attacked with biological weapons.

 

Myth #3: "What needs to be realized is that as the premier economic and military power in the world, it is the US's job to lead. Otherwise, another country, possibly one that is not particulary friedly to the US, may try to take charge in world affairs."

 

Simply because we are the premier economic and military power in the world does not automatically elevate us into a leadership position; leadership positions need to be earned with the qualities of honesty, integrity, just action, openness, and a willingness to acknowledge past sins, none of which the US possesses at this time, at least regarding foreign policy. Remember, bullies were rarely regarded as leaders, at least where I grew up. Maybe the bully had the idea he was a leader, but whoever he intimidated had no respect for him, and would turn on him as soon as was safe.

[JGowans]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fairweather:

JGowans,

 

What's your agenda?

-

- No agenda beyond merely hoping that all sides are considered. It's difficult I think to obtain an objective opinion when our media airs only one side.

Until then, may I suggest you abstain from calling my president an "imperialist". Bush is "pro-business"? God forbid! You sound like one of those goddamned left-wing university professors.

- No professor. When I say that he's pro-business, I'm referring to the fact that Bush's policies simply don't benefit average Americans. For example, the abolition of the inheritance tax benefits only the very rich. By 2010, about one half of his total tax relief package will benefit the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers. Furthermore, his pro-business policies include scaling back funding for the SEC making it more likely that corporate malpractice will continue to go undetected. Slashing support for conservation while promoting drilling in Alaska is yet another example. The whole thing becomes even more distasteful when one considers his proposal for prescription drug benefits for Medicare. Paying subsidies to insurance companies (the same large insurance companies that donated so much $$$ to his campaigns) seems somewhat unethical. Then there's how he's unsing our Social Security to shore up the budget deficits caused by his tax breaks for the wealthy...Need I go on? I just am not quite sure why you think I'm left wing when I'm really just an average citizen dismayed to see so little dissent from a nation when the leader and his gang of cowboys are taking the power that was entrusted to them primarily by average Americans and helping themselves and their donors to further their own interests ahead of the good of the country at large.

 

Using war as a means for averting the eyes of the public and thus having most of us believe that all muslims and communists are violent or part of an "axis of evil" is simply not right. That's my humble opinion mate.

Flame away.

No flame. Just a shrug.

---

 

[ 11-24-2002, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: JGowans ]

[Fairweather]

...By the way. All communist governments ARE violent/evil. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pal Pot, Ho Chi Min, Guevera, murderers all.

 

[ 11-24-2002, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[sexual_chocolate]

Actually, fairweather, most imperialists are quite pro-business.

 

And as far as JGowan's observations of Bush's imperialist agenda goes, he hardly needs a US citizenship to state it. Chretien's assistant didn't need one to quite correctly observe that Bush is a moron, although morons MIGHT be insulted.

 

"Christians are not currently trying to convert the world through force/violence."

 

Abortion clinic bombings in the US? Mosque bombings in Africa and India? Plus, the christians that we get news of generally seem to enjoy a status which negates the need to wage holy wars. We waged them already, and won.

 

And, the Buddhists are hardly guiltless. I know there are other examples, but the imperialist tendencies of Japan had a rather strange relationship to certain aspects of the Buddha's teachings on dhyana; you know- the myth of the Zen warrior?

 

Anyways, no harm. Just continuing a pleasant conversation!

[JGowans]

All Communists are violent / evil? That's a bit simplistic isn't it? That's like saying that all who believe in democracy are murderers for fighting for what believe in. Isn't that why we want a "regime change" in Iraq and are willing to kill for it after all?

 

Whether we believe in the cause or not dictates whether or not we believe they're murderers or revolutionaries / freedom fighters / martyrs. No?

 

Btw, I'm not a communist. I came to America because I do value the merits of capitalism so please don't think that I'm some barmy lefty.

[sexual_chocolate]

But, I do agree that Buddhists tend to be the least aggressive of the religious bunch. I think it may simply be because Buddhism is rather entirely based on the Buddha's teachings, and his teachings are ENTIRELY non-violent. Also, the teachings have passed down through the ages quite intact, escaping distortion, except in just a few cases, such as the Japanese Samurai distortion (where killing was justified).

 

[ 11-24-2002, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: sexual chocolate ]

[sexual_chocolate]

Hey you barmy lefty, Sartre was a Communist!

[Fairweather]

...actually, I said all communist GOVERNMENTS are evil. And I stand by that statement.

 

SC,

I thought Japan practiced Shinto, not Budhism. (???)

 

...and lets not forget the Sikhs of northern India who blew up an Air Canada jetliner over the Atlantic killing over 350 people a few years ago.

[JGowans]

Yes, you're right but I liked his quote. Anyway, better I quote him than Nietsche for fear of being labeled a lefty anarchist