Muslim Over Reaction to...everything

[Litany]

Well then, there are all those mischievous Catholics in Ireland who had that minor bomb hobby a few years back. Not to mention the Protestants who were happy to retaliate, pointing fingers and yelling 'they started it!'

Every religion, every race, every country has its fair share of nutjobs. It's not because they're muslim that they kill it's because they're bonkers. I'm willing to make a bet right now that the vast majority of muslims have never chopped someone's head off. And that most Catholics don't have an arsenal in their cellar. Most Jews don't bomb the heck out of their neighbouring countries. Most Christians don't kill abortionists. Even the Spanish aren't all that inquisitive anymore.

One religion isn't any worse or better than another if you look beyond what the media is telling you right now. With the possible exception of those wacky Buddhists. Mind you, all those kung fu monks I see on the telly suggest otherwise.

 

[SFG75]

I understand what your trying to say Litany. I guess that I'm puzzled with the need to point out the "everyone does it too" part. Does pointing out other unrelated conflicts negate the fact that they have been largely intolerant of western values and economics? Does islamo-fascism not pose an international threat? Do they not seek to have other nations cater to how their view society should be? How could that not be the case considering what happened to Theo Van Gogh and the nun in Somalia? Yes, there was conflict in Ireland, but that is regional, this is global in scope. Should we not stand up for free-speech and tell them to just deal with it if they feel *offended*? Once again, I don't think many of us truly "get" the severity of this conflict and what it portends for most of us in Europe and the U.S.

 

[Justin91]

I realize there have been many thousands killed in the name of God. I do not think christianity teaches to kill anyone. Like I have said before, I am no scholar in any religion...however, is this taken out of context?

"Strike off the heads of the disbelievers"; and after making a "wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives" (Koran 47:4).

"Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers"; "smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them" (Koran 8:12; cp. 8:60).

"slay or crucify or cut the hands and feet of the unbelievers, that they be expelled from the land with disgrace..." (Koran 5:34).

"for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods" (Koran 22:19-22)

The Koran instructs not to make friendship with Jews and Christians (Koran 5:51) but to war against them: "When the Sacred Months are over, kill those who ascribe partners to God wheresoever ye find them; seize them, encompass them, and ambush them; then if they repent and observe prayer and pay the alms, let them go their way (Koran 4:5). "Fight against those who believe not in God nor in the Last Day, who... refuse allegiance to the True Faith from among those who have received the Book, until they humbly pay tribute out of hand." (Koran 9:29) Note: These verses distinguish between warfare against pagans, and against Jews and Christians.

"fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem" (Koran 9:5); "murder them and treat them harshly" (Koran 9:123).

"It is not us who slay them but Allah, in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself." (Koran 8:17; cp. Surah Al-Baqarah 2:190)

Allah "will punish them by our hands..." (Koran 9:14).

Iis violence against non belevers a big teaching of the Koram? I realize the old testament is full of violence, I do not believe the bible teaches violence. By the way I am not defending christianity, I am Agnostic.

 

[Shade]

Does islamo-fascism not pose an international threat? Do they not seek to have other nations cater to how their view society should be?

Yes and no. Although there are plenty of nutjobs who will do the things you talk about, or rather a few who will do it and plenty who will threaten it (the complete destruction of Western civilisation in favour of an Islamic world under Sharia law), that doesn't really seem to be the 'official' line, if such a thing can be said to exist. If Osama bin Laden is the leader of al Qaeda, his pronouncements should be of particular relevance, and usually he restricts his aims at removing Western influence from "our countries," ie Arabic countries in the Middle East. See for example his pre-2004-election broadcast.

I don't really think there's a serious threat from al Qaeda or other organised Islamic extremists to the whole nature of our (Western) way of life. I do think there is a threat to the Middle East.

Justin is right, the nutjobs who do threaten wholesale armageddon are doubtless influenced by the fact that there are undeniably bloodthirsty and repellent passages in the Koran. Not forgetting "Idolatry is worse than carnage." By the way Justin, I don't have a Bible to hand but I'm pretty sure some of the wackier passages of Leviticus etc do demand death for certain groups, eg adulterers.

 

[beer good]

I'm pretty sure some of the wackier passages of Leviticus etc do demand death for certain groups, eg adulterers.

And people who gather firewood on the sabbath. Stone all 7-11 employees!

 

[Justin91]

From the bible...not quoted:

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. EXODUS 21:24-25

"Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." EXODUS 22:19

"He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." EXODUS 22:20

Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed. 31:14

Whoever works, or even kindles a fire, on the Sabbath "shall be put to death." 35:2-3 beer good!

Well there is a lot of violence in the Bible, but most of it in the old testiment. The old testiment's teachings pretty much went away with Jeses did'nt it?

 

[beer good]

The old testiment's teachings pretty much went away with Jeses did'nt it?

True. Which is why no Christian ever brings up the ten commandments, or refers to Leviticus when discussing homosexuality, etc.

Hang on.

 

[abecedarian]

This is about to veer into a a separate topic, but I have to say it anyway. Jesus came to fulfill the law. The Law was to show men that we need a Saviour, because on our own, we can't possibly keep the whole law. The ten commandments are still valid as rules to live by, but without the help of the Holy Spirit, we can't even keep the 10, let alone the Levitical Laws-which Jesus summed up as A. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. and B. Love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[direstraits]

first is the obvious disregard to another's religion - things that are laugh fodder for one is terribly sacred to another

Again: so what? I am offended by the popularity of Dan Brown's novels, but I don't protest against them in the street. (Or not any more.) The works of Martin Amis are terribly sacred to me, but I wouldn't declare a sentence of death on someone who flushed a copy of Money down the toilet.

These may seem like asinine comparisons, but I use them for a purpose. Why should a book be more 'protected' because millions of people have believed in it for one or two thousand years? Why should we be more respectful of the Bible or the Quran than we are of the collected works of L Ron Hubbard?

Essentially, you're not wrong in your sentiments, of course.

But we're not talking about a 'book' here. It's people's faith. What they spend their life believing in, which shape their actions and principles, their rationale and their thinking. Amis, however divine, is not in the same ballpark.

If people don't have something equivalent that has the same driving force in their lives, then they should have the courtesy to realize that it exists in other people.

For this reason and this reason alone, I will never compare the someone's religious artifacts to books of popular fiction (it's not even on the same emotional level).

Muslims shouldn't kill over an insult to their religion. Extremely angry maybe, but not killing. No arguments there.

Ultimately, I think if religious fundamentalists accepted that their hobby is no more important or special than any other one like stamp collecting or gardening, then we would all get along just fine.

Well, that's just it isn't it? "If those freaking Westerners/freethinkers can accept the fact that Allah is almighty and if they'd just leave us alone instead of calling us names and printing insulting cartoons we'd all get along just fine, wouldn't we?" (I'm not Muslim, btw)

Muslims do not have a media arm with the global reach and penetration of say, CNN (we'll call it MCNN). If they had one, and ran a running gag about Christianity, you bet your ass there'd be some furore. The MCNN simply concentrates their reporting on selected people, and there you have it, a completely new worldview.

Litany, I really like the points you're making. Level headed. Love it. However, not all kungfu fellas are buddhists. Though I hear being a buddhist increases your level of fitness. My mother in law is unable to kick above her head, though.

ds

 

[Shade]

I will never compare the someone's religious artifacts to books of popular fiction

Are you calling Martin Amis popular? Now I am offended!

 

[Justin91]

Muslims shouldn't kill over an insult to their religion. Extremely angry maybe, but not killing. No arguments there.

The bad thing is, from what we are told, they go directly to heaven if they kill an unbeliever, it's in their book. Oh yeah, there are a few virgins up there if they die while killing the infidels. I know it sounds like I am slamming all Muslims...I am not, I really want to understand what is going on in even the smallest of islamic factions.

Muslims do not have a media arm with the global reach and penetration of say, CNN (we'll call it MCNN). If they had one, and ran a running gag about Christianity, you bet your ass there'd be some furore. The MCNN simply concentrates their reporting on selected people, and there you have it, a completely new worldview.

True, I check Aljazzera almost daily, because I am very interested in how the global community veiws Westerners and more specifically the USA. I realize Aljazeera is not as far reaching ass CNN, but it is out there...and the veiws often slam the US and Christianity as well. MCNN, I like it!!

 

[direstraits]

Are you calling Martin Amis popular? Now I am offended!

Worse, dude, he's 'critically acclaimed!' And you know how popular *those* tend to be...

ds

 

[SFG75]

Worse, dude, he's 'critically acclaimed!' And you know how popular *those* tend to be...

ds

I heard that he lunches with Dan Brown quite frequently.

 

[SFG75]

An interesting article on Islamo-fascism and western compliance.

A Dissident of Islam.

Holland evidently tolerates everything except skepticism about the sacramental nature of multiculturalism. One million of the country's 16 million residents are Muslims, and the political left has appropriated the European right's traditional celebration of identity grounded in racial and ethnic traditions and culture. But the recoil of many Dutch people from Hirsi Ali suggests that the tolerance about which Holland preens is a compound of intellectual sloth and moral timidity. She was more trouble than the Dutch evidently think free speech is worth.

 

[Shade]

But the recoil of many Dutch people from Hirsi Ali suggests that the tolerance about which Holland preens is a compound of intellectual sloth and moral timidity. She was more trouble than the Dutch evidently think free speech is worth.

I had never heard of Hirsi Ali before reading this link so all I know about her is contained within that article by George Will. But even on its own terms, he doesn't justify the extract above. "The recoil of many Dutch people"? The only evidence he provides is that (some? a few? all?) neighbours in her apartment building petitioned to have her removed as they felt under threat while she lived there. How does that constitute an entire nation's "moral timidity"?

Not that we should be surprised by her neighbours' reaction. No reasoning person would have attacked her for her criticisms of one religion among the world's many. But the point is that religious faith opposes reason by its very nature.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

I'd wager that more people have been killed by "islamo-fascists" than by abortion doctor shooters.

Yes, but when taking the Crusades, the witch burnings and the slaying of 'heretics' throughout the centuries, the death toll would alomst level out, would it not?

 

[lunablu63]

Perhaps religion is right up there with money as being the root of all evil. All faiths have killed in the name of their religion throughout the ages. The Crusades, Jihad, rise of Christianity (i.e. killing "witches" and pagans). Of course, then you have crack-pots like Jim Jones and David Koresh. Some people get so wrapped up in their beliefs, they will kill for it, even if it means killing themselves. There are cases of this in every faith. Except maybe the true Buddists...

 

[SFG75]

Yes, it's been done before, but how does that lessen what is occuring now? In an odd way, it seems to diminish what is going on. Now can we focus criticism on the present and global threat before us?

 

[Shade]

Yes, it's been done before, but how does that lessen what is occuring now?

It doesn't, but it puts it in a broader context, which is always worthwhile. Some people [cough]Bush[/cough] would prefer we have short memories and are unable to put things in context.

Now can we focus criticism on the present and global threat before us?

Well I did try to...

(And as for controlling the direction of the thread, don't forget that the above is your own tangent from the original topic, of "Muslim over-reaction to ... everything." I think the discussion can reasonably meander around the subject as people see fit.)

 

[SFG75]

Shade-I understand and even agree with you about Bush. Iraq was a drastic mistake, something that had nothing to do with 911. Anyone who read any credible internet sources could've figured that out before the invasion and that they tried to slip a fast one by us. We have media people to thank for their lack of criticism and objectivity in that regard.

With that being said, I guess I'm puzzled as to this topic. It's about Muslim over-reaction to everything. Yet, what are we doing? We feel necessary to look at the skeletons in our own historical closet? Is this therapy or something? I ask that not to be disrespectful, but rather, to ask why in any way, we are(or should be) under the microscope here. There are no laws in the U.S. that ban women from driving. There are no laws that say that if a Christian converts to another religion, that the given person is to be executed. We don't have women being burned with acid if they seek to be politically active. I guarantee you that a certain part of the world does and it does so due to religious-fascist tendencies.

What is wrong with pointing out what that over-reaction is and labeling it as such? Why the desire to excoriate ourselves over what happened during the middle ages or to point to some miniscule group within the christian population to minimize what the muslims are doing in a de facto way? Is it too un-P.C. to point out the things that people not of a western Euro. background do? I'm beginning to think so.