The two faces of Islam.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Having debated all through Highschool and college, I can tell you that your nitpickicking assumption is incorrect. Debate is much more than that.

And I participated in Model UN all throughout college, and now I'm in Law School. If the argument sucks, nitpicking is warrented.

There's a very different mindset at work.

A WRONG observation, btw... as GePap stated... if Islam is to blame, then you would expect celebrations in ALL Islamic countries. Turkey, for example, would be dancing after 9/11. It wasn't the case at all. As stated... a new dependant variable is needed.

[Velociryx]

It would be a wrong observation, if not for the fact that these bombers do their thing in the name of Allah...initimately tying their act to their religion.

-=Vel=-

[GePap]

Vel:

The problem is that your statement isn't just an 'observation', any more than if i were to say that fudamentalists Christians are the ones killing abortion doctors, not Jews or Muslim, would anyone take it as just an observation not casting some sort of judgement on fundamentalists Chirstians.

I may also add that your defenition of the Crhistian world is small- are you sure than in Crhistian Africa and Latin America there are no people dancing and celebrating the violent deaths of others- or the same for Hindu India?

I would add that since the attacks you see celebrated are always against westerners (putting Israeli's in that category) obdiously the westen media, which is your source of information, wil report if anyone is celebrating, but this media will also never cover incidents that don't involve any westerners, as either victims or perpetrators, so news from many poarts of the world are rare. In short, you can't validly make the arguemnt that Crhistians don't dance to clebrate the violet deaths of others, since you don't have some crystal ball to look at the entire Chiristian world.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It would be a wrong observation, if not for the fact that these bombers do their thing in the name of Allah...initimately tying their act to their religion.

An people that bomb abortion clinics do their thing in the name of God... intimately tying their act to their religion.

So are all Christians predisposed to kill abortion doctors?

[Velociryx]

It's true, I can only comment on what I can see, and THIS is what I can see.

Is that not the best that each of us can do tho?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Imran....a question for you....when people bomb abortion clinics in the name of god, have you ever seen celebrations and dancing in the streets follow it (which would sugesst a broader undercurrent of support)? Have the leaders of various christian churches EVER FAILED to condemn such actions?

You are looking at each statement in a microcosm and trying to extrapolate positions by me that simply are not there.

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran....a question for you....when people bomb abortion clinics in the name of god, have you ever seen celebrations and dancing in the streets follow it (which would sugesst a broader undercurrent of support)? Have the leaders of various christian churches EVER FAILED to condemn such actions?

It depends on which area you are talking about. Have you really seen dancing in the streets for ANY event in the US? Even for the 4th of the July you don't see dancing in the streets.

And until very recently Christian churches did not bother to condemn those activities. There is a broad undercurrent for support of those actions in some (more religious) parts of the country.

And there are plenty of clerics that have stated terrorism is wrong, you just don't want to see it. When you Holy Book condems suicide, it ain't easy to condone suicide bombings.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
It's true, I can only comment on what I can see, and THIS is what I can see.

Is that not the best that each of us can do tho?

-=Vel=-

Yes, but to that respect your original comment lacks integrity because you were making a comment (that christians don't dance to celbrate violence,as opposed to Muslims) becuase you can't ever claim to both know this is true of all 2.5 billion christians around the world, and b. you can't even prove that all the people you have seen dancing are all Muslims, specialy when it comes to a group as diverse as Palestinians, were many of those dancing coul be Christians, or socialists.

[Velociryx]

I live in the same neck of the wood as you....SC is about as southern as it gets, and nobody bombs abortion clinics here. When they're bombed in other states, the clergy here (mostly southern baptist, as I'm sure you know) are QUICK to condemn it. Unilaterally.

Doesn't matter that they don't like what the doc did, they condemn the method of dealing with him.

That's what I'm talking about.

Funny difference tho, getting back to that cafe and the party atmosphere that followed.

No loud, vocal condemnation for either the bombing or the party after.

And you do see that as a striking difference?

You can't draw any conclusions at all from that?

Don't take a single thing away from that, huh?

Interesting.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

GePap: The (valid) conclusion I draw from the event is this:

A cafe got blown to pieces in the name of Allah, and immediately afterwards, there was a celebration about the event.

Now....this could have been because there was a muchly despised person inside, and these celebrators were genuinely glad he was dead....but with chants like "death to the infidels" "death to the jews" this is unlikely.

No...what is more likely is that these people were a group with an axe to grind vs. the jews. Followers of Islam then...this is hardly a stretch of the imagination.

No condemnation for either the bombing or the celebration that followed was forthcoming by the leadership of Islam. This implies consent. Silent support. That is the message it sends, intended or not. Again, this is not a big stretch of the imagination.

The party atmosphere that followed implies broader support for those kinds of activities.

Does it imply global support for them? No, but I never said it did.

-=Vel=-

[Capt Dizle]

Lacks integrity? Creepers.

My read is very simple. If Christain fundies were in the position that Islamic fundies are they would be capable of the same behavior.

Fundies git riled up.

[our_man]

I'm not too good on early Irish history, but AFAIK England was looking to conquer Ireland long before religion became an issue e.g. "The Pale" around Dublin. The fact that they did not seek to convert the local population indicates a more racial aspect. Religion became an issue too(esp. with the penal laws), but I still think it was mainly motivated by a racial attitude as the Anglo-Saxons saw themselves as superior to the the Celts.

Imran, the fact is that the Israeli's treat the Palestinians with kid gloves compared to what the British did in their occupation to Ireland (and I do sympathize with the Palestinians plight). Yet in all the time of Britains occupation of Ireland, IMHO there was only one incident when a member of the clergy took drastic action in the face of British action. That was Father John Murphy in 1798, who led the rebellion in the South, despite his hatred for violence. The British army had declared an amnesty for all rebels if they handed in their weapons. They did and they were slaughtered like dogs. This was just one incident, and to be fair is more to be worked up about than what some of the Islamic Mullahs got their turbans in a twist over.

Another interesting point about the British occupation of Ireland was that several of Irelands leading revolutionaries were Protestants (Wolfe Tone, Erskine Childers), not to mention the founder of the Gaelic League (and first president of Ireland) Douglas Hyde. I doubt the Palestinians would elect a Jew as their first president.

Also, while the IRA might hate Britain still, they represent a drop in the ocean - I have never met a single British person who said he felt uncomfortable in Ireland because of his nationality.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Velociryx
GePap: The (valid) conclusion I draw from the event is this:

A cafe got blown to pieces in the name of Allah, and immediately afterwards, there was a celebration about the event.

Now....this could have been because there was a muchly despised person inside, and these celebrators were genuinely glad he was dead....but with chants like "death to the infidels" "death to the jews" this is unlikely.

No...what is more likely is that these people were a group with an axe to grind vs. the jews. Followers of Islam then...this is hardly a stretch of the imagination.

No condemnation for either the bombing or the celebration that followed was forthcoming by the leadership of Islam. This implies consent. Silent support. That is the message it sends, intended or not. Again, this is not a big stretch of the imagination.

The party atmosphere that followed implies broader support for those kinds of activities.

Does it imply global support for them? No, but I never said it did.

-=Vel=-

Have you considered that the people dancing were glad to see those people die, or perhaps, were glad to see a strike that caused fear into the other group because they consider this other group their enemy, trying to destroy them? You saw a group of Paslestinians celebrate a bombiong in Israel- wow. Palestinians, Christian, islamic, socialist, feel they have grievences against Israeli Jews, fell they are denying them basic rights. Whether you agree or not, this is why they celebrate. I may add a couple of things: Are you talking about a bombing made by Hamas, or one by Al Aqsa (secularists)? Also, even if it was Hamas, they claim their atatcks were cariried out for all the Palestinian people (nationalist aim, not relegious), even when thiey see themselves as aiming to create an Islamist state.

All of this Vel points to the fundamental problem to your agument: you are trying to simplify a horrificly complex issue into somehting very simple. I doing so you are bound to ignore dozens of equally valid explination for no reason.

[Velociryx]

See!? That's the thing....there are so many, we can sorta pick and choose, can't we!

More later tho...got a Velocigames, Inc. meeting to attend....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

From the top, and just to retain focus.

My original, and ONLY point from the beginning, stemmed from the following facts:

1) On more than one occassion, a fanatical follower of Allah strapped explosives to his body and, in the name of his God, blew (insert type of building here- cafe, restaurant, disco, etc) into lots of little pieces. As a result, lots of innocent people were killed.

2) Immediately after such bombings, radical Islamic fundamentalist groups quickly claimed responsibility. In response to THIS, other followers of Allah took to the streets to celebrate.

3) No condemnation for either the bombing NOR for the party atmosphere that followed was ever issued through public channels.

Those are the facts, folks. You can talk about what Pope Innocent the fourth did several hundred years ago till you're blue in the face, but that WILL NOT change the face of the current events one whit.

It will not change the fact that right now, today, there simply IS no equivalent to this....not even remotely close, in the Christian world.

Now....Imran Clinton ("that depends on what the definition of 'is', is.") would nitpick this to death and attempt to deflect attention away from the fact...THE FACT that in the here and now, nothing like this exists on the side of Christianity by attempting to change the argument into one of looking at sum-total blood-letting, and while history is an important indicator of WHY things are in the state they are currently in, history matters not at all, nor detracts in the least from the basic FACT that there are no extremist Christian groups blowing up civilians that result in general celebration.

If there were, I'm quite sure Imran would have gleefully shoved the link to such photographs down my throat by now. He has not done so simply because he cannot find any.

So....what conclusions can we logically draw from the abovementioned facts?

1) There is broad-based support for the actions of the islamic fundamentalist bombers, indicated by the presence of a general party atmosphere, celebrating the latest bombing. There would be little to celebrate if there was no broad-based support.

2) There is tacit, silent, unspoken approval for the methods employed by these fringe groups from the Islamic religious leadership. We can reach this conclusion by virtue of the fact that there was no public condemnation of either the bombing or the celebrations. In this case, silence is the same thing as unspoken support.

3) Since there is currently nothing like this going on in the Christian world today, the differences between the two groups are extreme and alarming. They are, in fact, fundamentally different mindsets.

You can wring your hands all you want and try to focus attention in other historical eras....eras where, it is certainly true that the shoe was on the other foot, but again, IN THE HERE AND NOW (where we all presumedly live), it doesn't change a thing.

GePap would have you believe that there is nothing we can learn from these incidents. That since we cannot keep an eye on every single Christian and Muslim the world over, there's nothing at all to be gleaned from the abovementioned activities.

This is just plain silly.

Never are decisions and conclusions made with the benefits of complete information, because in the real world, there's no such thing as complete information. We analyze what we see, form conclusions, and move on.

In day-to-day life this would be akin to walking in the forest and getting a snake bite. In alarmed response, you kill the snake, and make haste with it to the local hospital for treatment.

It turns out that the snake was poisonous, and with prompt treatment, your life was saved.

GePap would likely scold you for killing the snake tho, and would most certainly scold you for killing any snakes in the future. After all, how do you KNOW that the snake is poisonous? Just because the first one was, doesn't mean the next one will be.

And that's certainly true, but in matters of your own safety, that's hardly the point.

And it's hardly the point here.

The fact....the FACT is that there is a different mindset at work here. A different way of thinking.

If you want to reduce it to bare-bones religious principles, then simply say that Islam rewards those who commit suicide if they kill enemies of the faith in the same breath, while the other condemns it. If that makes you sleep better at night, then by all means, look at it in that light.

But the central fact remains unchanged.

There's a different mindset at work here, and we would do well to take note of that, and act accordingly.
To say that Islam is a kinder gentler religion flies in the face of the facts as they are being presented to us in the here and now.

-=Vel=-

[MrFun]

Ok, some questions:

There are many, many whites who have joined violent militia groups.
Does this mean that all whites should be held as potential suspects of supporting such militia groups?

And why was it that not all white men were racially profiled after the Oklahmoma City bombing several years ago?


Just as not all Muslims should be suspected of supporting terrorism, not all whites should be suspected of supporting violent militia groups.

[Drake Tungsten]

There are many, many whites who have joined violent militia groups.
Does this mean that all whites should be held as potential suspects of supporting such militia groups?

And why was it that not all white men were racially profiled after the Oklahmoma City bombing several years ago?

White militia groups don't enjoy widespread popular support in the white community; Islamic fundamentalist groups do enjoy widespread support in the Islamic community. I'm not saying that I support the profiling of Muslims (I'm still torn on that issue), but the vast differences betwwen Islamic terrorist groups and American white militias makes any sort of comparison between the two worthless.

[MrFun]

Actually, they are good parallels -- they're both examples of extremist groups within a much larger, majority group of moderates.

[Drake Tungsten]

Actually, they are good parallels -- they're both examples of extremist groups within a much larger, majority group of moderates.

If you believe this is true, then you need to do more research on the subject. It is unknown how much of the population supports Islamic fundamentalism in Arab Islamic countries, but it is certainly a large segment of the population. In some countries, fundamentalists may be the majority, not the much balleyhooed Islamic moderates.

Meanwhile, militias in America are without a doubt a fringe group, despised by the vast majority of the American population. Don't you see the glaring differences here?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Mr Fun, don't bother. Velo has already shown himself to be a moron that really can't comprehend complex issues and tries to make them as simple as possible so his small brain can handle them. It's useless to argue. It is like arguing with Giancarlo.

Let it go.

Though I think jimmytrick said it best of anyone here:

If Christain fundies were in the position that Islamic fundies are they would be capable of the same behavior.

I bet there will be plenty of dancing in the streets when OBL is killed, even if we take out thousands of civilians in the process.

[Drake Tungsten]

It is like arguing with Giancarlo.

Come on, that's hitting below the belt, isn't it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well it's kinda true.

I mean you can't say there is a fundamental difference in mindsets of two religions by simply taking a small amount of time in the history of both religions and a small sample size of people following the religion.

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh, I completely agree with you. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with Islam that is causing the current violence. You could possibly make a case like that in regards to Arab culture, but not Islam. Islam is such a huge and diverse religion that it is impossible to determine what its "mindset" really is, let alone how that mindset might differ from an equally unknowable Christian mindset.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think there might be something with Arab Culture, but I don't think it is inherant in that culture, but rather the problems that arose with colonialism and the whole Israel thing.

Hell, I don't care who you are, if you are poor and uneducated, you listen to the first guy that says he can help you... and you are much more likely to scapegoat someone else.

[Ned]

Imran, Listening to talk radio last night, I heard that Islam decided to be "tolerant" in the eighth century and to co-exist with its neighbors. If you know, could you give us more on the circumstances for this "change?"

[Drake Tungsten]

I think there might be something with Arab Culture, but I don't think it is inherant in that culture, but rather the problems that arose with colonialism and the whole Israel thing.

I don't think that it is inherent either; it's just the way Arab culture happens to be at this time.

Similarly, European culture during the Crusades had a distinct militarist and violent bent to it. This culture led to a lot of violence at the time, but European culture eventually changed into something different. I think that Arab culture is going through a similar period right now, for whatever reasons. It certainly isn't the fault of Islam, at any rate, any more than the Crusades were caused by Christianity.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It happens when you go from top dog to third world.

If you've ever been to a 3rd World country, no matter what the religion, you won't find much tolerance for the culture of the 1st World.

[Drake Tungsten]

It happens when you go from top dog to third world.

If you've ever been to a 3rd World country, no matter what the religion, you won't find much tolerance for the culture of the 1st World.

I don't think it really has much to do with living in a 3rd World country. If that were true, Africans would be the most violent people on earth.

I think it has more to do with these things:

- The massive population boom in Arab states. Large numbers of young males almost always leads to broad-based social movements and (usually) violence. Sticking with the Crusades analogy, Europe was experiencing a explosion of population around that time, IIRC.

- Anger at the sad state of the Arab world. Like you said, they used to be the world's more enlightened civilization, but now they are one of the least advanced areas on Earth. The fact that the West, the longtime opponent of Islam, is on top right now only exacerbates the anger and jealousy.

Poverty definitely plays some role in the current rise of fundamentalism, but I think that it has a relatively small contribution. As bad as things are in the Middle East, there are people who live in far worse conditions and haven't turned to violence.

[Faeelin]

Fundamentalism has been setting in in the arab world since the 16th, to 18th, century. The Ottomans banned printing presses in their empire, for fear of the consequences. After their defeat at lepanto, they blamed muslims for impiety, and hence God's disfavor. When the Sultan tried to modernize the army, the ulema supported the janissaries in launching a coup against him.

Paiktis is wrong about a hell of a lot of things, but the ottomans deserve a fair bit of the blame. Although they were the most advanced islamic nation, after grenada was conquered.

BTW, I'm curious. One person blamed the lack of banking in the islamic world, which he blamed on a verse in the qu'ran which said muslims couldn't loan money, with interest. Yet christians in the middle ages believed this as well. What changed in the christian world, but didn't in dar-islam?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If that were true, Africans would be the most violent people on earth.

*Points to the massive warfare in Africa, including Rwanda, Congo, Angola, Sudan... etc, etc.*

Though your ideas are very good. The younger population and they are angry at their position in the world and lack of power they hold.

BTW, I'm curious. One person blamed the lack of banking in the islamic world, which he blamed on a verse in the qu'ran which said muslims couldn't loan money, with interest. Yet christians in the middle ages believed this as well. What changed in the christian world, but didn't in dar-islam?

Because the Christians turned away from religion . Remember for a long time only Jews could lend money. In the Renaissance the Christians decided that maybe they could violate that part of the Bible.