US embassies attacked

Very good point , when I was in China, I had a little experience of this, I was talking about Bo Xilai to a friend in Chinese, and the tea house manager came up and suggested we don't talk about it.

So we spoke in English but it is not a cool thing at all.

Raz
p.s Im not saying thanks in my post this time Mikey ^^
 
Islam existed before the conflicts started, and it's only natural that it remains the dominate religion.

I don't understand your second question. Do you mind elaborating?
 
I think youl find there violence before Islam a religion which is not that old in the run of things, in the areas mentioned.

My second question, was do you blame the religious scholars and Iman's in these area for preaching hatred and protests every time someone/something in the West or even in Pakistan. Possibly insulting Islam.

Also I made another post before the one you just quoted, it contains the bulk of my view.

Raz
 
No, we ought not swing the pendulum aaaallllll the way away from the packaging. We ought not go 100% other causes and 0% religion. That'd be the mirror image of the mistake we both see, and that itself would be a mistake.

80% other, and 20% religion? Or 85/15? 90/10? It just can't be 100/0.
 
Sure, I just think that when these incidents get bundled together as 'muslim extremism' we are setting ourselves up for failure. There are plenty of poor Christian countries with serious violence issues (Central and Southern America anyone?), but they don't get the same level of press.
 
Would it be fair to say because they tend not to "bother" those outside of their country.

As in i cannot think of the last attack on a USA/UK/Euro country by a Brazillian Christian annoyed at our policy with them.
 
Wow. 5 pages of polite, insightful, discussion.

I feel like I just saw Bigfoot riding a unicorn into a UFO.
 
I don't think the USA/UK/Euro countries have a boot on the throat on places like Brazil like we do on countries the middle east, unless I've been missing something.
 
So to cut to the chase, are you saying that there is something inherent within Islam that lends itself more readily to violence than other faiths do?

It would be easy to jump to that conclusion given the current state of world affairs, but I think it would be a knee-jerk reaction.

At different points in their history, adherents of the major world religions have behaved very differently.

Christianity for example has historically been extremely intolerant of other faiths, but nowadays I wouldn't say that that is the case at all with the mainstream Christian churches. (I'm not talking about wacko cults like the Westboro Baptist crew.)

Islam has produced societies which were extremely tolerant of other faiths (e.g. the early Mughal rulers in India, the Cordovan Caliphate in Spain) and yet nowadays we see bigotted regimes such as the Wahhabist shower in Saudi Arabia.

You have to look at the historical context. To suggest that one religion is inherently more peaceful or more tolerant than another just doesn't seem to be supported by any historical analysis. And picking apart the holy books of each religion only seems to result in people cherrypicking the bits which they feel suport their own point of view.
 
See I started thinking about this as soon as I posted it. Wrong order of doing things I know.

However you could look at the Falkland Islands, were Argentina feels its sovereign territory is being owned by another country and they have not resulted in suicide bombing.

Though its quite a fair observation you make, I guess we could say that the West does not meddle in these countries in the same way it does the middle-east.

Raz
 
Can I suggest that anyone who is interested watches this debate between Christopher Hitchens and Tariq Ramadan. I think it is a very well moderated and even handed debate.

I would not say there is a clear winner but it gives some authoritative content to what we are discussing.

Christopher Hitchens vs Tariq Ramadan - Is Islam a Religion of Peace? [2010] - YouTube
 
I was speaking of recent history, but if want to dive into violence throughout history, Islam doesn't have the lion's share by any means.



Yes, there are scholars who twist Islam for their own personal gains. Whether they are paid by the state so they can keep people in check, or are as misguided as those they preach to. Many of those "scholars, or "imams" are given power by the state. There's a steady decline though because people stopped listening to them when they realize how wrong they are. This happened because people started having access to the world through digital media that was otherwise banned before the dictatorships were toppled off.

The only problematic country is Egypt which unfortunately has a president backed the the Brotherhood (an extremist group). Even so, many are revolting against them, and prominent Islamic scholars are debunking them.



I missed it. My bad.




Okay, since you know so much about Islam, tell me what my fundamental beliefs are. Explain to me what Jihad is, and how you came to the conclusion that "mainstream" Islam wants people to either convert or die?



That's straight-up Islamaphobia. Let's lump every Muslim family that has over three kids into the "many" category, and call them deceptive human beings. I am not saying people like that don't exist, but many is a MAJOR overstatement (and even then I am understating it).



No, it's not that hard to tell. I am beginning to wonder if you ever met a Muslim before.
 
I'm sure the border states would disagree. They don't blow stuff up, but South American drug cartels are responsible for far more American deaths than Bin Laden.
 
ooh, I just was able to get on here today. I've gotta go to class...but later I'm going to be all over this like "white on rice on a paper plate in a snow storm". I am a little more than pissed!
 
Back
Top