Muslims

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Right; he says that we shouldn't dictate to another culture what is right or wrong

Actually what I said was "Stop trying to attach the rules of YOUR culture to everyone else in the world/universe." I said nothing about "dictating". Thats YOUR modus operendi. Not mine. What I said was meant to be viewed as an internal suggestion and not a warning against overt action. Its a suggestion on how to think so as to avoid these kinds of incidents. As long as you assume everyone should live and think exactly like you then you are bound to have conflict with other cultures. And here you see it.

As Gaffer said:

Just because a person is capable of understanding:
1) another point of view and
2) that different cultures exist
does not mean that he agrees with them.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Spock

Not true.

A main hadith is that non-Muslims are only given three choices: 1) convert to Islam, 2) Pay the jizya or 3) war

Peaceful coexistence as equals in a pluralistic society isn't one of the choices.

So you are telling the Muslims that their own views of their own religion are wrong? My such religious dogmatism...

If a christian tells me that fighting and warring is against christian ideals I wouldnt have the pretentious audacity to tell them "no actually you DONT think that. According to your bible its ok to take an eye for an eye so THATS how you think..."

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

My point was that in western culture in general one doesn't see the type of fervid response to SIGNIFICANT insults and acts of war that we are seeing with these Islamic rioters.

Oh how about burning cars and breaking into shops and rioting in the streets just because your sports team wins something significant? Is that considered "civilized" while protesting over cartooning ones god is not? Youll have to resolve that one for me inked because WE as a culture have a lot to answer to before we can go condemning in whole form entire other cultures as uncivilized and brutal and flawed. EVERY SINGLE YEAR often many times a year we see these kinds of riots after what should be considered a celebratory event (winning a game?). So get off your jingoistic high horse and stop throwing stones. Mind your own glass house instead.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So you are telling the Muslims that their own views of their own religion are wrong? My such religious dogmatism...

Nope, I'm telling you that your statement is incorrect when viewed in the context of this major teaching of Islam.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

According to your bible its ok to take an eye for an eye so THATS how you think..."

a)Not my bible.
b) Christian words: "blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my accoount. Rejoice and be glad for your reward is great in heaven"
Qur'an 2:191 "and slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out for persecution is worse than slaughter"

Now before you say the instances mentioned are different; look at the overall attitude of the teachings; one is more forgiving than the other.

[Lief Erikson]

In my post above, I never said that all of these people have been engaged in violence, though I can easily understand how I came across that way. Sorry about that misunderstanding.

You know that the violence extends beyond the embassy burning and the odd death, however. Denmark has had to pull its citizens out of many countries because of death threats and risk of violence.

I disagree with you about this violence being against he ideals of Islam. I think it was completely in accord with the ideals of Islam, and I also believe Muhammad was essentially a terrorist. He had some good ethical teachings for sure, but looking at the history of his actions and the actions of his immediate followers, that is what appears. In spite of this, I strongly feel that it was very poor of Denmark and the European nations to disrespect Muslims through these cartoons.

Sorry I don't have time to do more with this post.

[The Gaffer]

Yeah, funny how none of the knee-jerk brigade have addressed the issue I raised.

Also funny how many of them are experts in Islam.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Spock

Nope, I'm telling you that your statement is incorrect when viewed in the context of this major teaching of Islam.

Then you are telling MUSLIMS that they don’t understand ISLAM. Point of fact.

a)Not my bible.

Was I addressing you secifically in my example?

b) Christian words: "blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my accoount. Rejoice and be glad for your reward is great in heaven"
Qur'an 2:191 "and slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out for persecution is worse than slaughter"

So you pull one line each out of the bible and the Koran without any context whatsoever as proof that the bible says nothing about harming others or destruction (floods anyone?) and that the Koran says nothing about peace or doing good to others? That’s an incredibly poor way of trying to prove a point. Youll just end up in a war of quotes and as many interpretations.

How bout instead you just ask the muslims what THEY think instead of saying it doesn’t matter what the muslim thinks. They don’t know their own religion.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Then you are telling MUSLIMS that they don’t understand ISLAM. Point of fact.

No I am telling YOU, you don't understand the teachings found in the Qur'an; without that, you can't make such statements and be accurate.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So you pull one line each out of the bible and the Koran without any context whatsoever as proof that the bible says nothing about harming others or destruction (floods anyone?) .....

Actually the Bible has more to say about peace; see the New Testament; then war. Plus the Bible is and has been interpreted over centuries while the Qur'an is an absolute which does not permit interpretation and while some Muslim scholars have tried to have a new interpretation, they have not been 'heard' by the masses.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

How bout instead you just ask the muslims what THEY think instead of saying it doesn’t matter what the muslim thinks. They don’t know their own religion.

I don't need to do that. Just as there are Orthodox Jews, there are Reformed Jews. Just as there are Christians, there are Fundemantal Christians. And just as there are Muslims who adhere to all aspects of the Qur'an (Taliban), there are those who moderate their behavior so as to join and enjoy the society in which they live.

[Spock]

"I will not pass the borders. I have my house to mind and Goldberry is waiting".

see you all on the morrow

[Insidious Rex]

Hey Spock. When did you get your doctorate in Islamic theology exactly? Im curious to know. I find it interesting you can tell me categorically that millions of Muslims are living their religion wrong when you dont even follow it yourself.

Originally Posted by Spock

No I am telling YOU, you don't understand the teachings found in the Qur'an; without that, you can't make such statements and be accurate.

Thats the whole point... I didnt make those statements. Other Muslims did. So YOU are telling them they dont know their own religion and are doing it wrong.

The fact is that its impossible to live to the last letter in either the bible OR the koran. Choices will always need to be made based on interpretation because too many things can be interpreted in too many different ways. To say the Koran is completely rigid and uninterpretable is a joke.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Hey Spock. When did you get your doctorate in Islamic theology exactly? Im curious to know. I find it interesting you can tell me categorically that millions of Muslims are living their religion wrong when you dont even follow it yourself.

Let's just say they're not living as Muhammad and his immediate followers lived. You don't need a doctorate in Muslim theology to know that. All you need is a history book.

[Lief Erikson]

Gaffer, I don't know just who your knee-jerk team is, and would rather not know, but I'll respond to the issue you raised.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Just because a person is capable of understanding:
1) another point of view and
2) that different cultures exist
does not mean that he agrees with them.

I'll say it again: comprehension is not equal to agreement nor approval. Does that make sense? Take a moment to think about it.

Makes sense. No need to think about it.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

OK, now that's sorted, let's consider the "clash of cultures" issue.

It is precisely this sort of line of reasoning that leads to the "us and them" attitude. "They're all the same; attack is the best form of defence".

Attacking them all without acknowledging that they aren't all the same is obviously a poor course of action. A strong offense can certainly be the best defense, though, when used appropriately.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

That in turn leads to bombed villages, embassies on fire and planes flying into skyscrapers.

A good point.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

And guess what? It changes nothing; attacking, whether verbal or physical, just makes the situation worse.

It can. It doesn't always, for sure. World War 2 wouldn't have been nearly as bad if we'd hit Hitler earlier. Attacking Osama Bin Laden has been a good choice. It has stopped at least ten major terror attacks that have been revealed to the public and has frozen terrorist assets in many parts of the world. Fighting terror is necessary, for our only other option is to submit to it.

Attacking Afghanistan also was important to our national security. The Taliban was blatantly supporting Osama Bin Laden. The invasion of Iraq, while incorrect about the WMDs, has toppled a wicked regime and brought unprecedented freedom to the people of Iraq. The situation there has also not spiraled out of control as doom-sayers have been predicting.

Anyhow, I don't see these attacks as worsening the situation. Sure, our attack on Iraq is viewed badly in the Arab world, but this will change when we pull out and leave a stable democracy and a functioning government and state behind. Already, during the Bush Administration, there has been unprecedented democratic reform in the Middle East. Libya has experienced greatly increased freedom, as have the Palestinian territories. Iraq has experienced a great deal of freedom, and Lebanon also has thrown off an oppressor to gain freedom.

Well, I think force is sometimes effective. Other times, verbal or physical attack can be bad. I strongly disapprove of France's threat of using nuclear weapons against any country that supports terrorists that attack it. I also am disgusted with these papers that are publishing these cartoons. The cartoons serve no purpose except to polarize the East and the West more fully against one another.

So I basically agree with your main point, that we would do well to understand that not every Muslim is a terrorist and we shouldn't paint the East in broad brushstrokes, just as they shouldn't paint the West that way. I disagree with you that attack is always wrong, and I approve of some of the uses of force that the West has been using. I can understand how the Muslims would see our actions differently, of course. To them, our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan aren't about self defense but about imperialism and exploitation. They're about a crusade against the Muslim world.

Anyway . . . I think we're for the most part in agreement.

[The Gaffer]

Thanks, Lief; I appreciate your taking the time to address the issue. I think we disagree about the use of force in the case of Iraq, and Afghanistan. The major winner in all of it, politically, has been Iran, and the more fundamentalist brand of Islam. I would also take issue with your interpretation of other events. However, that's not what this thread is about.

Unfortunately, we DO need to think about it, because it is all too obvious that many people find it impossible to tell the difference between comprehension and approval. In fact, it is something I see again and again and again coming from the Right on all manner of issues.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Unfortunately, we DO need to think about it, because it is all too obvious that many people find it impossible to tell the difference between comprehension and approval. In fact, it is something I see again and again and again coming from the Right on all manner of issues.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer
Just because a person is capable of understanding:
1) another point of view and
2) that different cultures exist
does not mean that he agrees with them.

I'll say it again: comprehension is not equal to agreement nor approval. Does that make sense? Take a moment to think about it.

I don't see the big deal here, Gaffer, nor do I see why the problem is limited to "the Right".

As Lief said, it's a no-brainer (or looking back, he said, "Makes sense. No need to think about it." )

Of course comprehension is not equal to agreement or approval. What's your point about it? I would imagine that you comprehend many things about other cultures, and you agree/approve with some aspects and disagree/disapprove with other aspects, just like I do. So? What's the point?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Then you are telling MUSLIMS that they don’t understand ISLAM. Point of fact.

I would say that quite a few Muslims agree with what Spock was saying. And he doesn't need to ask them - he can refer to their suicide notes and videos made before they blew up civilians along with themselves.

(note - I do NOT say ALL Muslims)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

... attacking, whether verbal or physical, just makes the situation worse.

Do you really believe that as a blanket statement? That attacking is NEVER good? Or it is NEVER the lesser of two evils?


(ps - Spock, what happened to YOUR avatar? Is there some avatar yin/yang thing going on that Lief's new avvy disturbed, so yours disappeared? )

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Unfortunately, we DO need to think about it, because it is all too obvious that many people find it impossible to tell the difference between comprehension and approval. In fact, it is something I see again and again and again coming from the Right on all manner of issues.

This is so true, and an excellent point.

"Originally Posted by The Gaffer
Just because a person is capable of understanding:
1) another point of view and
2) that different cultures exist
does not mean that he agrees with them.

I'll say it again: comprehension is not equal to agreement nor approval. Does that make sense? Take a moment to think about it. "

This is NOT a "no brainer;" if it were, we wouldn't have a fraction of the problems that we have in this world, now would we? Although I must say, it isn't limiited to the "Right," it is universal.

[Spock]

We shall continue our discourse on Muslims and Islam here.

[Spock]

I think we have wandered far off topic on this thread. There is a topic "Muslims" where most of these posts belong.

Please, for the 3rd time, post in that thread. This was/is about the Norweigan problem and while connected, the discourse herein contained is far and away from that subject.

Temporarily closing this thread to give everyone time to cool down.

The Muslim topic thread remains open.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Thanks, Lief; I appreciate your taking the time to address the issue. I think we disagree about the use of force in the case of Iraq, and Afghanistan. The major winner in all of it, politically, has been Iran, and the more fundamentalist brand of Islam.

Not really. But I won't debate it in this thread .

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Unfortunately, we DO need to think about it, because it is all too obvious that many people find it impossible to tell the difference between comprehension and approval. In fact, it is something I see again and again and again coming from the Right on all manner of issues.

And the left doesn't tar its political opponents in the US as narrow minded religious bigots? I've seen it all the time. Anyone who disagrees is one of them.

But you're right that unfortunately, what should be a no-brainer is not always a no-brainer. People on both sides attempt to tar the other platform, and we ordinary Americans are guilty of doing the same thing, all too often.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Unfortunately, we DO need to think about it, because it is all too obvious that many people find it impossible to tell the difference between comprehension and approval.

For the sake of Entmoot discussion though at the moment, let's try to overlook this point and assume that we're all among the enlightened . I find little pleasure in dwelling on the stupidity of others .