Serious ? .... is Islam a thorn in the side?
 

Not trying to be a racist flag waving American, but seriously, is anyone else besides me worried about Islam in the 21st century? You have RADICAL Wahabism in Saudi Arabia, taliban loving pushtans in Afganistan/ Pakistan, and major problems in south pacific Indonesia area. Personally I don't believe this is a religion of peace, like Christianity of the past, it seems that many would abuse the muslim/ Arabic (Arabs are the most worrisome these days) masses to keep/ abtain power. I just really don;t know what to think, I try not to buy into stereo types and racial prejudices but by everything I read in books/ everything I hear in the media, I get the feeling that Islam is not looking out for me. Is Islam itself going to be a thorn in the side of Western Civiliazation in this 21st century? Perhaps RADICAL Islam? Or I am completely offbase here?

Thoughts?

Just like in the past with Christianity, it is not the religion which is to blame, it's those who would use it as justification for killing innocent people.

Re: Serious ? .... is Islam a thorn in the side?
 

I would be quite interested in your analysis of how Islam would be a thorn in the side of 'Western Civilization' per se.What about RADICAL Judaism or RADICAL Catholism or is that not part of the equation? Is there a culture better than all others just waiting to save us all?

Would it be fair to call you an Islamaphobe?

Read the Koran and judge for yourself.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/koran.html

I have no more problem with Islam than I do with Christianity or Judaism, but I do have a problem with people who use these faiths as justification for violence, or political control. Islam has the potential to be used for war or peace, and I think in its purist form it is more geared toward peace.

Its hard to describe the religion as a thorn in the side of Western Civilization for a variety of reasons. First, its a religion of a billion people, its hardly just a thorn. Secondly, elements of Islamic civilization and Western civilization frequently overlap, for many, many elements of Western society have their roots in the early Islamic world.

And what do you mean by radical Islam? I know extremely religious Muslims who wouldn't hurt a fly. If you mean politicized Islam, then I can see your point. Too many young Muslims are being taught dangerous concepts by self-declared religious men with a dubious understanding of their own ideology. It's this sort of misguided, radical Islam thats the thorn, a thorn in Islams side. It has done more harm to Islam than it has to Judeo-Christian civilization.

Re: Re: Serious ? .... is Islam a thorn in the side?
 

Radical Judaism and Catholism of the 20/21st century does not account for thousands of American deathes (or International deaths even look at Israel, pan am flights, Indonesian bokmbings). Radical judaism and Catholism does not spir hatred in countries spanning Lebanon, Iran, Palestine, Egypt, Libya, Jordan, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Syria, Indonesia, Yemen, Sudan, afganistan, and pakistan. Radical Judaism/ catholism does not call for the deaths or conversions of all non-believers? Radical catholism/ Judaism does not account for 19 out of 19 hijacks on 911, suicide bombers in Israel, suicide bombers in Saudi Araba, Yemen, Lebanon in 1983, terrorist bombings in German discoteques.

To build of what Ausewagian said, maybe it is politicized Islam, but I trully think that is a problem.

If I am completely out of line call me on it with substanciated proof, not your own opinions. Again I am not trying to start a flame war or be out of line. I am begging you to prove me wrong. Where we Islamic clerics deploring what happened on 9/11? I know the pope spoke out against it. He even called action in Afganistan justified. Prove me wrong please.

I would blame radical Judaism for many deaths going back to 1947, but thats just my opinion and can be discounted. Radical Catholicism has been a bane on Northern Ireland for most of the 20th century. Radical Hinduism has led to the deaths of many innocent Muslims in India. Any religion can be used to justify murder and death.

Many, many Islamic clerics deplored the 9/11 attacks, as did most leaders of Islamic countries (except Saddam, and well, what do you expect?). Hell, even _Qaddafi_ condemned the 9/11 attacks!

Go here for some genuine Muslim reactions to 9/11, from across the Islamic world: http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm]

Very sound post overall but I can't agree with this. the problem with "radical" catholicism spans many many centuries and the whole cycle is not helped any by the protesants. It is almost like Israel both parties regardless of faith are fucking dumbasses and reject peace.

Israel never instigated fight until 1967 when they were provoked by Arab armies amassing on their borders. And as far as "radical" hinduism goes, Kashmir is definetly a two way street, perhaps because I am 18 years old I have never heard of Hindu terrorsim, but I have heard of Islamic terrorism in the region. If you negate the fact that there have been two (maybe even three) wars of the region you are just simply naive.

Oh, indeed, but while for most of Europe Catholic-on-Prostetant violence is as dead as the dodo, only in Ireland have we seen it being a relatively ongoing concern in the 20th century. The difference, I think, is that in Ireland religion is still politicized.

Zionist and Jewish extremist mobs were attacking Arabs in Palestine/Israel in 1947 and before, though they were getting it back just as much in return from Arab mobs. I've always found it difficult to decide which side to blame.

I, too, am 18 years old and I've heard quite a bit about Hindu terrorism. The most recent has been the deaths of almost 2000 people in Gujarut, mostly Muslims attacked by Hindu vigilante mobs. One could say "well, the Muslims started it" but I don't think that that fact excuses the actions by the Hindu extremists. Hindu terrorists have also targeted Christians and Buddhists. Again, the problem is politicization and the 'Hindutva' movement. Had a hard time finding relevant URLs, but here some basic info from the CSM http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/199...p7s1-csm.shtml
and from Channel News Asia
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori.../55214/1/.html
This from the Toronto Star is also quite good: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968350060724

I am aware of the wars between India and Pakistan, but I don't think they are directly related to the current problems, in areas beyond Kashmir. Kashmir strikes me as a nationalistic flashpoint, more than an area of chiefly religious tension. That said, its a multi-faceted problem.

It's interesting to note how extremism on one side breeds extremism on the other, in a sort of endless cycle. Catholic on Protestant, Muslim on Jew, Hindu on Muslim, attack and counterattack as it gets worse and worse.

Thank you very much for the links =)

Am I the only one hearing echoes of pre-WW2 issues?

Then: "Are the Jews a thorn in the side of the western civilization?"

Now: "Are the Muslims a thorn in the side of the western civilization?"

History i repeating faster than ever...

Unlike the day of yore, the threat of Islamic terrorism is very very real... Plus we aren't using it as a justification to systimatically erase an entire enthnicity.

The problem is that you are referring to Islamic terrorism, suggesting that Islam is the source of the terror, and not just a tool used by certain groups. The hatred of America is the reason why you are experiencing terrorism. That hatred is based on many conflicts between the US and ME countries, primarily the Israely terrorism against Palestinians and other ME countries and the attempt to turn Iraq into an American protectorate. Stop spinning this whole thing into something as crude and hopeless as a war based on faith.

Com'on folks. lets quit sugar coating everything here. Religion, all religions are the causes of almost every major conflict ever fought. My God is better that your God I'll show you by killing you because God is on my side, bla, bla bla. The world has to mature beyond religion and the writings of 1000 year old books. Books written when the world was flat, every thing rotated around the world and superstitions abounded.

Is Christianity going to be a thorn in the side of Western Civiliazation ? After all we have two Chrisitian leaders in Bush & Blair who think they have god on their side and war is the answer.

False. Religion may be an underlying cause in many conflicts, but politics and money has more to do with it that anything. The crusades were all about religion right? I mean those trade routes to the far east were neither here nor there. And yes the world has to get past 1000 year old religions that teach you to love your fellow man, they are the problem with the world! I've got an idea lets all create secular states without God, I mean it was countries like that , that gave birth to my great nation of America. Russia and Iraq were pretty good examples of secular states, if you get caught practicing you get sent to the gulags or dropped in an acid bath :thumbsup: !

Secondly Bush doesn't let God or his religion dictate his choices. THere is nothing wrong nor unconstitutional about praying to God.

Are you so sure? I've heard Bush refer to God as on America's side many times. Isn't Jerry Falwell a personal friend of his? Bush and the American military find much justification for the things they do abroad due to their faith in God.

The thing is, I don't think Bush makes any attempt to hide the fact that he is extremely religious and that he finds comfort in it. Where do we draw the line between him simply being religious and having that religion affect what he's doing?


SLM3

Every President has mentioned God in there speeches, does that mean that they were making decisions based upon their faith? The Senate prays before session does that mean that they are a religious entity?

It looks to me that as global modernism gains footholds in cultures, the influence of fundamentalist religiosity wanes.
I'm all for that tendency and I'm thinking it can be looked upon as a form of cultural evolution. To put it baldly, I see us moving away from the negative aspects of religion as part of our advancement as a species. I can see this happening to Islam already.

The religion itself is no more of a problem than Christianity or any other religion - it is those who take it to its extremes - those who use it to justify agression, terror.etc., that makes all religions look bad. It really matters not what a religion is called, they all are based on about the same set pf premises - there is a conflict between good and evil and in the end good will ..... you know the rest.

I think things run in cycles. 1000 years ago, muslim nations let Jews, Christians, and other groups live in relative peace in their borders, after they had taken them over. they did charge these people a tax, which muslims did not have to pay, but at the time the Arabic nations had great libraries and learning. The west(Europe), was an oppressive religious controlled group of squabbling nations. The crusaders did truly believe they were doing God's will (and their beliefs have been documented by many historians), but they caused great damage to both societies with their fighting and religous fervor.
Now, the west is civilized with a fairly peaceful approach that has some flexibility in its laws and beliefs. The muslims, to a large extent are bunch of ignorant zealots who kill for their God, the same as the christians did 1000 years ago. they have lost their culture, while the west has gained culture. They have actually regressed in their treatment of other people, while the west has grown more tolerant. It is time for the muslim nations to take stock of themselves, start real education programs, and grow up. This does not mean they have to abandon their faith, but they need to remove the blinders from their eyes. Islam was once the center of science and learning, but this was lost hundreds of years ago.

Nice joke, I almost spewed coke on my monitor *gets tapped on the shoulder* oh.... you are serious ? Yea um, how about this weather ....

Yes, I think so. Remember, this is the son of ol' Bush the Elder, who said sometime in the late 80's that athiests shouldn't really be counted as American citizens. Now thats a bit scary.

Really, he doesn't. He worships the votes of the religious right, not any kind of christian god. If he was really a good christian he would adhere to that whole "thou shall not kill" thing. It is amazing that, for all the hemming and hawing about posting the ten commandments everywhere there is wallspace, that commandment is always conditional. He would also probably show a little more concern for the sick and the impoverished like his main man jesus christ. Unfortunately, most politicians recognize that many christians will only vote for christians and "put on the sheep's clothing," so to speak.

The above is also an example of how a leader can pretend to act in line with their professed beliefs in a certain religion, when in all actuality, said leader is breaking one of the fundamental laws of said religion. Much like obl, or any other fundamentalist of any other religion.

Which brings me to what i think the real problem is: fundamentalism.

In the past, Radical Catholicism was responsible for the Crusades and The Inquisiton. Islam is still a much younger religion than Catholicism, and considering that it has been round for about 1400 years, it is at the same age (within a few hundred years)that Christianity was at at when the Crusades and The Inquisition came about.

During the Crusades, Christianity dominated Europe and its leaders endorsed wars. Now, Islam dominates the Middle East, and many of its leaders endorse holy wars. The big difference is the methods and outside influences. If there had been a big, non-Christian country with the means to observe and intervene, would they have tried to stop crusades against others? I think they probably would have.

Is it possible that any religion that regards itself as the one true faith will go through a period sometime around 1500 years after its creation when it has become big enough, when its followers will try to force their beliefs onto the world, after which they will settle down and turn to more peaceful ways of trying to spread their faith?

Basically what I'm saying is that it's all a time cycle.

Very interesting idea's MSD. But one thing I would like to point out, in the dark ages when the "radical" catholics were romping about, it was a very different world then what we live in now. Only difference it seems is that the "radical" catholics have simmered down, while the Muslims haven't made it out of the 12th century.

Sniff,sniff, sniffff! I smell plagarism! Mrselfdestruct! Look at my post and read what has come before you. Go and vote on the poll about whether you find that others have posted before you or not. That is all.:D

I think thats largely an accident of history, really. The modern Islamic fundamentalist movement is not a product of the Middle Ages, but is very much a 20th century phenomenon, and can even be argued to be result of the Cold War. Had history gone differently in the Middle East, Islamic fundamentalism would not have the appeal it has today be any degree.

I think you've hit on a salient point there.

Religion has always been a source of comfort for those oppressed and exploited. As it stands today, much of the Muslim world is directly exploited by the West for all kinds of things. Is it so surprising that they turn to religion to find answers in a time like this?

If it were the US, Canada, and Great Britain being used for the political and financial gain of another group, do you think maybe Christianity might be advocating similar acts?


SLM3

Nope, because Christianity doesn't hold war as an acceptable act, except if the premises meet the 5 criteria for a justified war, but even that itself has NOTHING to do with religion. Jihad is allowed by Islamic scripture and law, and it seems that clerics are all to quick to push for it.

If Christianity does not allow war then why do christians past and present fight in and perpetutate wars ?

What you say ? An ancient book doesn't get to pick who interperts it and a religion doesn't get to pick its follower ?

Why does anyone fight? They aren't fighting in the name of Christianity, they are fighting over their own petty disputes. Maybe the fact that half the known world was Christian, so on those grounds on could make the assertation that all wars of the past were instigated/fought by Christians.

I recall Bush calling the war in Afganistan a "Crusade".

Crusade(Jihad) is allowed by Christian (Islamic) scripture and law, and it seems that leaders (clerics) are all to quick to push for it.

Your argument calling Christanity a religion of peace and Islam a religion of war is entirely bunk; furthermore, if you were in a real debate about this you would get crushed from lack of perspective. You need to realize that Islam and Christanity are nearly identical...

Crusade is not allowed by Christian scripture and law. Perhaps you should read up on the religion. That way you wouldn't have such a narrow perspective dictated by the agenda of some extremely corrupt Pope's who lived and died several hundreds of years ago. I don't recall any Catholic pushing for crusades anytime recently, the Pope gave his blessing for action in Afganistan because it was justified whereas he was opposed to America acting in Iraq because it was not.

Why would the currently un-corrupt popes bless an action which is not allowed by Christian scripture and law ?

Or maybe some wars are justified by christanity and some are not, rather a slippery slope for something written by an infalliable diety.

You should read Thomas Aquinas' writing on justified war, then you would actually know what your attempting to speak of. BTW I mispoke when I said the pope "blessed" the Afganistan campaign, but he said it was allowed within the confines of the Just War and in response to what happened with 9/11.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A644672

Mojo, Aquinas's Just War theory is not only ridiculous but it is not an intrigal part of the Christian faith. It is an interpretation by a Catholic monk that has been philosophically and religiously refuted many times over. More importantly you are confusing theory with practice. If you look at the Koran you will see that violence is a big no no for the Islamic faith. However, zealous hate-mongers can always find ways to justify their hate in terms of religion so that it becomes infallible and obligitory. Radical Christians did it in the Crusades, the Holocaust, & the burning of Islamic Temples post 9/11; Radical Jews do it to Palestinians in Israel; and Radical Muslims did it on 9/11 and synagogue bombings in Turkey. You needn't worry about any of the world's major religions or its follows on face. What you are worried about are the fringe loonies that feel that their religion is being destroyed by others or that they can frame their violence as a religious act. You're worried about zealots and I'd say that you need to be careful in framing all follows of any faith as zealots else you head down the road to fanaticism yourself.

In spirit with the digression of this post, Muad could you please humour me as to how the "radical christians did it in the holocaust"? I realize Hitler was born Christian, but GET SERIOUS, that is perhaps one of the most perposterous accusations I have ever heard.

Right, the willingness of the German people to follow Hitler in his plan to eliminate the Jewish race had nothing to do with the all the propaganda material spread by the government and through churches about Jewish conspiracies to take over the world and how they "killed our Lord".

i think maybe the lack of money, more specifally the depression that consumed germeny, played a much lager factor then relgion.

The people saw jews with money and had none themselves. You add that with hilters carsima then no wonder the germen people went along with it