Muslims

[Lief Erikson]

I definitely agree that CAMP and MPF look like very good organizations, and they are needed. I can't find out how large they are. My impression from the lack of news has been that the Muslims have not been protesting much at all against the violence. I knew there were some Muslim groups that definitely objected to the violence and said so, but I haven't been able to find much.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

On the rest. You can interpret history as you choose, but I don't see any advantage to attempting to classify certain major belief systems as better or worse.

The advantage in it is that you get an accurate perception of reality, in my view. The goal should be to encourage the good, as you say, and fight the evil. But recognizing the nature and history of Islam can make one better equipped to do just this.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

They are all a part of the world and will be long after we are all gone. Even you have to admit that all belief systems can lead to evil, and all can lead to good. So better to encourage the good and fight the evil in each then get caught up in which one is "more good" (or "less evil" ).

I wasn't the one who started that . It's just that when I make my beliefs about the nature of Islam known, people often challenge my claims by raising Christianity's record. I feel the need to respond to them (Shrugs).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

There's no need for you to wash your hands; just say, "Oh, that was the Papists and the State Churches".

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I wasn't the one who started that . It's just that when I make my beliefs about the nature of Islam known, people often challenge my claims by raising Christianity's record. I feel the need to respond to them (Shrugs).

I'm just trying to add perspective. I don't think the muslim or christian faiths are inherently evil, though there are definitely sects of both those religions that have done evil in the past, present and probably will in the future.

But back to perspective. I think you have to look at the whole history of a people. This includes religious beliefs, but it also includes cultural issues and national issues. A history of tyranny and oppression has a huge influence on the masses, not matter what religion they may espose.

While we can look back now at something like the crusades and point to justifications and reasons for what occured, it does lend perspective to the jihad mindset many hold today. Here is an excerpt from Pope Urban II's speech before the first crusade:

"Oh, race of Franks, race from across the mountains, race beloved and chosen by God, - as is clear from many of your works,- set apart from all other nations by the situation of your country as well as by your Catholic faith and the honor which you render to the holy Church: to you our discourse is addressed, and for you our exhortations are intended. We wish you to know what a grievous cause has led us to your country, for it is the imminent peril threatening you and all the faithful which has brought us hither.

From the confines of Jerusalem and from the city of Constantinople a grievous report has gone forth and has -repeatedly been brought to our ears; namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race wholly alienated from God, `a generation that set not their heart aright and whose spirit was not steadfast with God,' violently invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by pillage and fire. They have led away ap art of the captives into their own country, and a part have they have killed by cruel tortures. They have either destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of their own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness....The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and has been deprived of territory so vast in extent that it could be traversed in two months' time.

"On whom, therefore, is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you, you upon whom, above all other nations, God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the heads of those who resist you ? Let the deeds of your ancestors encourage you and incite your minds to manly achievements:-the greatness of King Charlemagne, and of his son Louis, and of your other monarchs, who have destroyed the kingdoms of the Turks and have extended the sway of Church over lands previously possessed by the pagan. Let the holy sepulcher of our Lord and Saviour, which is possessed by unclean nations, especially arouse you, and the holy places which are now treated, with ignominy and irreverently polluted with the filth of the unclean. Oh, most valiant soldiers and descendants of invincible ancestors, do not degenerate; our progenitors., but recall the valor of your progenitors.

"But if you are hindered by love of children, parents, or of wife, remember what the Lord says in the Gospel, `He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me', 'Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.' Let none of your possessions retain you, nor solicitude for you, family affairs. For this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage war, and that very many among you perish in intestine strife.'

It almost sounds like a speech that could be delivered to today's muslim suicide bombers. And sure, you can say, "but this was 1000 years ago". But human nature is human nature. At that time it was the christians who felt threatened, rightly or wrongly, and they responded with violence, much as the muslims do today.

This is not a justification for violence, but more a way of illustrating that violence is not necessarily tied to any one religious belief system.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But back to perspective. I think you have to look at the whole history of a people. This includes religious beliefs, but it also includes cultural issues and national issues. A history of tyranny and oppression has a huge influence on the masses, not matter what religion they may espose.

Absolutely.

Lief, I read the article and I think you may have missed my point. My point was that Hitler did not invent anti-semitism, he just exploited and inflamed it. Jews have been the target of mistrust and/or hatred amongst *some* (perhaps many) Christians for centuries.

Here's what Martin Luther said about Jews:

You are unworthy to look at the Bible, let alone read inside it. You should read only the Bible which is under the sow's tail, and gobble and guzzle the epistles which fall from it [1]

And, it has to be pointed out, that the German Churches' response to the Nazi party's Holocaust has been almost universally described as feeble. Even they themselves acknowledge it:

Both the Catholic and Protestant churches did speak up on behalf of Jews who had converted to Christianity or for Jews married to members of their churches

Whoopee. Just don't persecute us, OK?

I can see many parallels in how Muslims are characterised in the Western media and by Christian commentators with how Jews used to be portrayed. It is as if we are seeing Christian anti-semitism being transferred to Muslims.

Any takers on that thesis?

[1]Webster R. A Brief History of Blasphemy. 1990, p35
[2]Armstrong K. Holy War: The crusades and their impact on today's world. 1988.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

It almost sounds like a speech that could be delivered to today's muslim suicide bombers. And sure, you can say, "but this was 1000 years ago". But human nature is human nature. At that time it was the christians who felt threatened, rightly or wrongly, and they responded with violence, much as the muslims do today.

This is not a justification for violence, but more a way of illustrating that violence is not necessarily tied to any one religious belief system.

Reading that speech makes the Crusades make more sense to me. If the people at that time did believe that they were resisting the rule of the Holy Land by violent, twisted and ruthless invaders, it makes sense they would go out to fight. Though we happen to know Pope Urban had more political motives in mind. The Byzantine Emperor had promised him that the Eastern Church would unite with the West if the West launched this Crusade, and Urban wanted the churches united under the Western Pope. That's what I learned from my history class in college, last semester.

But I probably would be willing to fight also in the Crusades if I felt that it was resisting an evil invading tide . I'm willing to fight al'Qaeda today- the Christians seem to have viewed the Muslims of their time little differently.

I think very little of what Pope Urban accused the Muslims of is true. At least I don't know of any evidence that the horrors he accused them of actually happened. There might be evidence that I don't know about, but I just don't think it was like that. However, Christians at that time would have had a massive predisposition to believe what the Pope was saying, as he was believed to be essentially the mouth of God and the person who could correctly interpret all doctrine. He was the leader of the Church. So to hear such claims of Muslim barbarity from his mouth would quickly inspire a willingness to fight such evil. I might have gone on the Crusades as well . One shouldn't believe everything one hears, but the Pope would have been viewed as a very, very reliable source of information, both about doctrine and about Muslim atrocities. It's all very sad. If I believed what Urban said was true of Muslim atrocities, I would probably have gone on the Crusades too.

But none of this invalidates any of what I was saying earlier. The Christians have launched invasions against specific perceived evils with the intent of destroying that evil. They have never launched an invasion to conquer the world, like the Muslims have. Furthermore, the Crusades were not anywhere near the scale of the early Muslim invasions. They just can't be compared to the invasions Mohammed's earliest successors launched on the rest of the world. The Muslims nearly succeeded in their objective at that time- they nearly conquered the world.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I don't think the muslim or christian faiths are inherently evil, though there are definitely sects of both those religions that have done evil in the past, present and probably will in the future.

I think there is evil inherently in the traditional interpretations of Muslim scripture. More modern interpretations of Muslim scripture, such as the reinterpretation of jihad to mean internal conflict and purifying of the self, are not evil like the original interpretations were. But I do believe there is an evil element in the original interpretation of this religion, and I think history backs me up all the way, unfortunately. It's because of examining history that I came to this conclusion.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

But back to perspective. I think you have to look at the whole history of a people. This includes religious beliefs, but it also includes cultural issues and national issues. A history of tyranny and oppression has a huge influence on the masses, not matter what religion they may espose.

I agree. The culture issue is largely tied to the religion, for in the religion of Islam they have historically always been intertwined. You can see that today too, with the Muslim headscarves . You can see it much more strongly in conservative Muslim countries that are dominated by Sharia law. The culture mindset comes from a conservative interpretation of the religion.

This is true with Christians too. Much of the way a significant number of us influence culture is by acting according to our religious beliefs. Those religious beliefs determine our behavior and our cultural and national impact to a large extent. This is certainly true with me. My religious beliefs totally define my outlook on reality, and everything I see and hear comes through the lens of my views. The same is true of you too, I'll wager. If you have views about reality, you'll see reality through the lens of your beliefs, whether those views are religious or not. If you see there as being no God, you'll see all events in the world as natural events that don't come from God, and perhaps your lens being flawed, you are blinded. The same is true of me. If I see all the events in the world as events that come from God's hand, perhaps my lens is flawed and I am blinded. But we do view the world through the lens of our beliefs, for better or worse.

I agree that the history and somewhat aspects of culture that come about without the influence of religion also are key factors. One does need to look at the whole history rather than just the religion, but the religion is key to how people interact with their culture and with the issues of the day that present themselves. If they are nonreligious people, then their nonreligious outlook is key to how they interact with their culture and the issues of the day.

But I certainly agree that we have to take into account all the factors.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Lief, I read the article and I think you may have missed my point. My point was that Hitler did not invent anti-semitism, he just exploited and inflamed it. Jews have been the target of mistrust and/or hatred amongst *some* (perhaps many) Christians for centuries.

I'm not arguing with that.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Here's what Martin Luther said about Jews:

Yes, Martin Luther had spent a very large amount of time trying to convert the Jews, without success. So he got fed up with them. Not that that's good- I'm just explaining his outlook for you.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

And, it has to be pointed out, that the German Churches' response to the Nazi party's Holocaust has been almost universally described as feeble. Even they themselves acknowledge it:

In that article, it is clear that the Church was being persecuted by the Nazi regime. I don't disagree with the claim that the German Churches' response to the Holocaust was weak- Hitler kept it under wraps. Most of the German people didn't know that the Holocaust was taking place. Those who were trained in Nazi training programs to accept such facts and think them good were sometimes told about it, but most Germans didn't know. They only learned about it around the end of the war.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Whoopee. Just don't persecute us, OK?

People are naturally weak and anti-conflict. This is a major part of human nature. There are other parts of history where you can see such weakness too in the churches and in non-Christian populations, such as during Martin Luther King Jr.'s protests. There, there were a lot of Christians and non-Christians who were weak and tried to just placate both sides without looking to any solution. Weakness is part of human nature and is visible in probably all religious and nonreligious groups at some point in their history. But at least we did protect some people. I'm not saying Christians are perfect . If you look at the Bible, you'll see several of the major Christian heroes who have been used by the Lord also have had times of weakness.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I can see many parallels in how Muslims are characterised in the Western media and by Christian commentators with how Jews used to be portrayed. It is as if we are seeing Christian anti-semitism being transferred to Muslims.

Any takers on that thesis?

[1]Webster R. A Brief History of Blasphemy. 1990, p35
[2]Armstrong K. Holy War: The crusades and their impact on today's world. 1988.

I disagree with this claim. I don't think it's true. I know there are some Christians who say all Muslims are evil haters, but I don't think that number is anywhere near the majority. Anti-semitism in certain Christian countries of history has been nearly universal, and anti-Islam feeling is not the same here and now.

[Rían]

You know, an interesting question to ask in this thread might be this:

If you were given a choice, would you choose to live in an Islamic country? If not, why not? If so, why?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

But none of this invalidates any of what I was saying earlier. The Christians have launched invasions against specific perceived evils with the intent of destroying that evil. They have never launched an invasion to conquer the world, like the Muslims have. Furthermore, the Crusades were not anywhere near the scale of the early Muslim invasions. They just can't be compared to the invasions Mohammed's earliest successors launched on the rest of the world. The Muslims nearly succeeded in their objective at that time- they nearly conquered the world.

Once again it's a matter of perspective. If you were a muslim man or child killed by incoming crusaders, or a woman raped, I think your point of view might be quite different.

All I'm asking is for you to try to put your feet in the other's shoes. From a muslim point of view today, many believe that christians have nearly conquered the world. If not physically, largely in an economic perspective. Their economies are dependent on christian nations (much more so than ours is upon oil). They have had troops from mostly christian nations in and out of their countries for generations. Their dictators are propped up by these very same nations. And they have been labelled as "evil" by the leaders of the most powerful nation in the world.

As I quoted from buddha earlier, "watch the thought and its ways with care".

And if you are right, and the muslim faith is generally a more violent one than others, what would you propose as the best way to remedy that situation? It's destruction?

[Insidious Rex]

Well alienating them with unfair and biased politics isnt a solution. Nor is calling them "small and petty" as a group.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well alienating them with unfair and biased politics isnt a solution. Nor is calling them "small and petty" as a group.

The quote is:

T.E. Lawrence: So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are.

=========================================

General Murray: I can't make out whether you're a bloody madman or just half-witted.
T.E. Lawrence: I have the same problem, sir.

[The Gaffer]

Well, spock, that's just racist, pure and simple.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

You know, an interesting question to ask in this thread might be this:

If you were given a choice, would you choose to live in an Islamic country? If not, why not? If so, why?

It would, if one were interested in working out which is best, Islam or Christendom.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gaffer

It would, if one were interested in working out which is best, Islam or Christendom.

I disagree. I think it would be an interesting question because it would SHOW what one ACTUALLY thinks, regardless of PC-ness or other motives, known or unknown.

Originally Posted by Gaffer

Well, spock, that's just racist, pure and simple.

Hang with me a minute, Gaffer, because I think you're wrong. Here's why - that could be said about ANY group of people that was caught up in in-fighting. Lawrence happened to observe a particular group of people that was actually doing just that, and so he made that comment about the particular group that he saw, and qualified it with a "so long as", which means that IHO, they might stop one day. If he had said something like, "Arabs ALWAYS will do such-and-such merely because they're Arabs", then I think that would qualify as racist. DO you see the subtle but important difference?

[Insidious Rex]

I think its slightly pointless because we are all westerners here (those that post) and you are always going to be biased toward your home (since its all you know). Choosing to not want to leave america says nothing about Islam as a religion.

A much better question would be do the people of Afghanistan want to leave Afghanistan? I think you would find that despite the frightful conditions in Afghanistan (and Iraq for that matter) the vast majority would not rather be living in a America or nation because Afghanistan/Iraq is home. And home is where the heart is no matter how you see their religion.

[brownjenkins]

What IR said. You always have a bias towards your own way of life. What is difficult, and what I constantly try to point out on these kind of threads, is trying to see the other side's point of view.

[Rían]

Good point, IRex - I only have a minute so I'll just add something into the mix instead of commenting (which hopefully I'll get to later) - here's another angle - how many people want to emigrate into the U.S., for example, vs. Afghanistan?

I want to make very clear that I do NOT think any one group of people is better than any other group of people. However, I DO think that systems of government and what they are generally based on are important things to evaluate.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The Christians have launched invasions against specific perceived evils with the intent of destroying that evil. They have never launched an invasion to conquer the world, like the Muslims have. Furthermore, the Crusades were not anywhere near the scale of the early Muslim invasions. They just can't be compared to the invasions Mohammed's earliest successors launched on the rest of the world. The Muslims nearly succeeded in their objective at that time- they nearly conquered the world.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Once again it's a matter of perspective.

No, what I said above is not a matter of perspective. It's in the history books. The data speaks for itself.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If you were a muslim man or child killed by incoming crusaders, or a woman raped, I think your point of view might be quite different.

Of course, because your perspective would be more biased if you were one of those people. You would read the statistics and the history books and discard what they say, because it doesn't jive with your own personal experience, and that personal experience overwhelms your reason.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

All I'm asking is for you to try to put your feet in the other's shoes. From a muslim point of view today, many believe that christians have nearly conquered the world.

I'm not arguing that Muslims don't see it that way. Many do, I'm sure. In fact, when I look at the Islamic radicals, I often see a few similarities between them and me which are very interesting. They take their scriptures literally, just as I take mine literally. Many of them will interpret their religion as Mohammed interpreted his, and getting that correct, literal interpretation is important when trying to be theologically accurate. I can understand their objections to the liberals in their religion too (though I sympathize with the liberals too, for many of them are far more loving and less ruthless than the extremists). I can also see that if I viewed the United States as they do, "the Great Satan," and was brought up with Islamic religious beliefs that say kill your enemy rather than with a Christian upbringing that says love your enemy, I would probably also be gung-ho for killing Americans. I do try to think like they do.

It's harder for me to put myself in the liberals' socks though, actually, as in many ways I'm a fundamentalist myself and fundamentalism makes much more sense to me than liberalism does. I can understand the Muslim outlook that says we're invaders and intensely immoral, though. It's unfortunate that there is certainly some truth in that perspective.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

If not physically, largely in an economic perspective. Their economies are dependent on christian nations (much more so than ours is upon oil). They have had troops from mostly christian nations in and out of their countries for generations. Their dictators are propped up by these very same nations. And they have been labelled as "evil" by the leaders of the most powerful nation in the world.

That last fact you've gotten wrong. They haven't been labeled evil by President Bush or (to my knowledge) any other Western governments. The government of Iran has been termed that way, and from my perspective, for good reason. That isn't saying everyone in Iran is that way, however. President Bush has always made very clear that he is strongly in support of pro-democracy activists and students in Iran.

I also have already raised some points to Gaffer about the European economic "conquest" of Muslim territories that respond to that issue. I disagree about this one, but I know that's not important. What you're thinking is from a Muslim perspective, and from a Muslim perspective I can see you blaming Christians in this way.

I'm not trying to argue against seeing from a Muslim perspective. Trying to see from that perspective is very important and a good activity to practice.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

And if you are right, and the muslim faith is generally a more violent one than others, what would you propose as the best way to remedy that situation? It's destruction?

In the final analysis, I think that's the only solution. There are things that can be done on a more temporary level, though, and the issue of how the religion will be destroyed is critically important. Violence cannot be the answer, here. I say the final and lasting answer must be #1 of the solution resolving East vs. West tensions I present below. My other three points are critically for us to work at also, though. They may not be the final solution that will solve things in the end, but they are very important for slowing down the problem's expansion and set up a stronger base for dealing with the issue.

1# First, work at putting an end to Islam altogether by bringing them to Christ through a loving Christian witness and through prayer.

Purify our church and witness, and use evangelization to reach out to those countries. That I see as the only final solution, since I don't believe that in the final analysis we can change Islam's true and bloody nature through normal methods. Several Christian groups are working at bringing Muslims to Christ and supporting Christian minorities that already live in Muslim lands. I won't underestimate the Holy Spirit's ability to accomplish incredible feats through his church. The real nature of Islam is a violent nature, and it must be destroyed. The only lasting way to do that is to destroy the whole religion, in my view, though again, NOT VIOLENTLY. Violence cannot be the final answer, here. Love and showing God's goodness through our actions, as well as praying in the Spirit is the answer.

2# Second, initiate fair and helpful policies toward Muslim countries so that they can see we are not against them.

This would include some changes in our policy toward Israel, for we are too accepting of everything Israel does, ignoring a history of oppression on Israel's part that has made the politics what they currently are. The Palestinians have not forgotten, and neither has the rest of the Middle East. We cannot keep supporting every action and policy that Israel engages in.

Like Insidious Rex says, not "alienating them with unfair and biased politics," or calling them "small and petty" is important.

I'm also extremely annoyed at the Republican and Democratic Parties' bipartisan rejection of Muslim ownership of the Dubai Ports, also . That just really, really bothers me. It is a strong example of injustice toward Muslims in our government, and will NOT help our national image. Supporting the Muslim ownership of those ports at that time would have been very helpful in a tense time, however. It's a tragic missed opportunity, and I'm just furious at the Republican and Democratic parties for making such a mistake.

Winning the war in Iraq is also a critically important part of national policy, for winning this war may have the result of spreading freedom in the Middle East far beyond Iraq's borders.

I agree with you Brownjenkins that ceasing support for dictatorships and urging the spread of democracies in the Middle East with greater fervor and determination is important, and I think this is true even if it causes groups like Hamas to gain power. I believe this policy will hurt us, but it is ethically important nonetheless.

There are other policy issues. These are just some of those that spring to mind immediately. Keeping a fair and helpful policy toward the Muslims is critically important.

3# Third, show friendship and love to Muslims on a personal level, through our families and theirs interacting.

I'm developing a friendship with one Muslim right now at college, and I think doing this is absolutely essential for us as a nation. I hate the view that all Muslims are evil. Creating and strengthening friendships in this time of tensions is vital, and that can't be stressed strongly enough.

4# Fourth, as a nation encourage and support the strong liberal faction of the Muslim faith, for they are the most peaceful element right now in their religion.

I wouldn't outright condemn all fundamentalists either, personally. I disagree with their views and I think Satan is using them as a terrible weapon against the civilized communities of the world, but I can understand where they're coming from too, and if I were a Muslim, I'd be one of them. This is because I think they're accurately representing the religion Mohammed preached, and if I was a Muslim, that would be a key concern of mine. Strengthening relations with all Muslims on a government level and encouraging the currently strong liberal element in the Muslim faith is essential. The liberal element is the most peaceful, so supporting it the most strongly is important.

And I don't think our government does condemn all Muslims, not even close . I'm very glad about that .



There probably are more pieces to an effective solution that I've missed, but these are the ones I can think of now which I think we should focus on. Though obviously #1 primarily applies to Christians. I think we are working to this strategy already, to a large extent.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Well, spock, that's just racist, pure and simple.

Lawrence was far from a racist.


On the other hand, your remarks are ethnocentric and bigoted.



Have respect for other view points and don't be too quick to label.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Spock

The quote is:

T.E. Lawrence: So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe, so long will they be a little people, a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel, as you are.

This is, in fact, a racist statement.

How can you say that Spock, and then accuse the Gaffer of saying something ethnocentric and bigoted!?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

It would, if one were interested in working out which is best, Islam or Christendom.

RÃ*an replied to disagree, but I quoted the first two comments so the Gaffer's remark is in context.

How in the heck is pointing out that Lawrence's racist "a silly people - greedy, barbarous, and cruel" comment about Arabs an ethnocentric or bigoted statement!?

One might say it's intolerant - intolerant towards racism.

It's not you personally but that statement that I am criticising in this post.


edited:

I forgot to answer RÃ*an's question.

If Canada ceased to exist and I had to move, I would most likely move to England because I have family there. Or maybe Sweden because I have lived there for a year before, and I speak a little Swedish and know people there. Or maybe Finland because I have a very dear friend who lives there and most people speak English. (I'd learn to speak Finnish though.)

But. If I didn't know anyone anywhere, and ignoring the language barrier, I would certainly not be opposed to moving to Malaysia, a predominantly Muslim country. It seems like a very lovely place.

Also the Philippines strikes me as a great place to live. (I almost went there on my exchange but chose Sweden somewhat randomly in the end.) I don't know how many Pilippinos are Muslim though. A lot? A few?

Iraq would be fine if they weren't at war, and did not have someone awful like Saddam Hussein in charge. Neither, I'd like to point out, are the fault of Islam. Saddam Hussein had a brutal secular regime.

edited again: I'm not saying that Saddam is in charge now obviously, I mean I wouldn't want to live there during his regime either.

Of course the "War on Terror" is also not the fault of Islam. It is not any religion's fault if some hateful people use it as an excuse to attack others. Islam is no more responsible for Muslim extremists than Christianity is responsible for the KKK or the IRA.

[Spock]

Rian had it down. Its a quote from history. It's in books and on film. Lawrence was no racist. Arabs didn't even call themselves Arabs back then; they were hasamites, bedou, etc. but not Arabs. Lawrence helped create that identity. They have and continue to fight amongst themselves and so wil always retain the attributes attributed to them (and observations made by Lawrence) until they can act and live as one people.

[Lief Erikson]

Let's all try to avoid putting labels on one another. "Racist" or "ethnocentric and bigoted" are all labels, and very unpleasant ones too. The Lawrence comment is only racist if one views it as saying Arabs by nature are horrible, but Lawrence said that Arabs will be horrible if they keep fighting one another. I don't know enough about those conflicts to say, but it's apparent that whatever racism there was in his comment was conditional. And it's true that the Arabs didn't become greater until they overcame their internal tribal conflicts. But Gaffer is not ethnocentric and bigoted either. Let's just try to keep all such labels out of this and put the best interpretation possible on what one another are saying, for in my view it's much more likely that we're misunderstanding than it is that the other person is being nasty. Because none of us are nasty.