Posted on 11/14/2002 5:36:24 AM PST by Damocles
To which country would you have them deported and why? And what would you do if no other country would take them?
How would you make the determination of who is a Muslim and who not?
And keep in mind- I've already stated I think the world would be a better place without Islam. I'm basically on your side. I just want to hear if you have any ideas past "round 'em up, put 'em on a boat and ship 'em off!". How would you implement this? How would you tell who a Muslim was? Who would do all this and under what authority?
The Roman empire was Christianized. Besides, which civilization was better, the Holy Roman Empire or barbarian "civilization"?
In fact, almost all of human history has been a succession of various empires and peoples trying to expand. Islam isn't unique in that regard.
It's unique as far as religions go. The head of state is the caliph/ the caliph is the head of state. It's the very essence of Mohammedan society.
On the other hand, it is equally true that moslem leaders such as Saladin were far more tolerant of people of other faiths than were Christians. Jews and Christians were generally treated very well and tolerated within those moslem empires. Do you dispute that?
One leader in 1300 years of history otherwise typified by brutal repression or extermination of minority religions.
In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the "Infidel". Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.
Christians, on the other hand, were busy engaging in pograms against each other, and were horribly intolerant of other religions. Try reading up on the sack of Jerusalem by the Crusaders, or the Albigensian crusade, or the Inquisition.
That's it. In 2000 years of history. You judge Christianity by the sack of Jerusalem (who overran Jerusalem to begin with?), the Inquisition (which was a tool used in driving Mohammedans out of Europe resulting in the deaths of 3000 people over several hundred years) and the Albigensian crusade. I'll even throw in the Catharist Inquisition and the sack of Constantinople.
Yet you accept the tolerance of Saladin as typifying Mohammedan rule, 1300 years of aggression and repression notwithstanding.
And before you laugh off the Inquisition, let me remind you of the importance of religious belief. The glories of Nazism and communism would never have occurred in a Catholic country, would they? Nor would this country slaughter 1.5 million unborn children if this were a Catholic country.
Heck, Christians were burning each other at the stake. The history of Christendom is a pretty bloody one. But does that mean that Christianity as a religion was fundamentally violent and evil, or just that there were some violent and evil people who claimed to be acting in the name of Christianity?
Significant intra-Christian war began after the Protestant revolution. Regardless, is the history of Christianity typified by violence or peace? Besides, the justification for war was wholly different in principle. The Catholic Church developed "Just War" theory. It is a duty for Mohammedans to engage in aggression against non-Mohammedans whenever they have a chance of success.
The fact is that there are more than a billion moslems in the world. The overwhelming majority are peaceful people who live their own lives, worship their god, and are no more violent than the average Christian.
Bull. Do you hear any Mohammedans here or abroad speaking out against terrorism? I've heard only a handful. What I've mostly heard is excuses for the inexcusable.
So there's no way in hell you're going to ever convince me that all moslems are evil.
The religion is false and evil. People are not the religion. The majority of people living under Nazi rule were pretty peaceful too.
I'd agree that there is a malignant subculture within islam that needs to be eradicated. But the blanket condemnation you issue can only be due to either ignorance or irrational bigotry.
Subculture? The caliph of Egypt is on the record supporting suicide bombings. His attitude isn't abnormal. Explain to me the ecclesiastical structure of Mohammedanism. Should the state be secular or theocratic? Should a Mohammedan state be ruled by sharia law? Do Mohammedans describe the world as the "world of peace" and the "world of war"? Where are all of the world's trouble spots? The perimeter of the Mohammedan world is ringed with war. Is this a coincidence?
I understand that now. However, since the President referred to millions of AMERICAN Muslims, I think my misunderstanding was justified.
From what I have observed, the minorities are treated poorly. Where they are the minority, they behave similar to the way they do in our country. On the whole, Muslims in the minority, like many others, are not very vocal. There are, of course, the exceptions, which, I believe, are the ones we observe through the media.
You and I observe differently. In India and Israel, the Muslims form a large and violent minority, but not because they are treated differently. In both countries the Muslims have rights, and I know for a fact that in Israel, Muslims are members of the government. Despite that, poll after poll shows that the Muslims citizens support violence against Jews. I believe the situation is similar in India with the local Muslims slaughtering Hindus who happen to wander into their areas. I am curious as to how you come to your conclusions since, as you claim, your main source of perception is the media which is leftist and rather protective of Muslims. For example, in the wake of 9/11, Israeli media showed Muslims celebrating in the streets. This was surpressed by American media.
I am not familiar with the Goldstein incident. Yes, it is evidently part of their culture NOT to denounce violence committed by Muslims against others, theirs is obviously a different culture.
Thank you.
It would appear that you do feel it is 'necessary'.
I would say it is only necessary if they (or you) would like me to consider complaints by Muslims about prejudice against them to be valid.
I also would like to see murders everywhere end. The fact that you would stand up, and others, obviously wouldn't, should be proof enough that there are different cultures involved here.
Yes. Are these different cultures morally equivalent or are they different? Or would you prefer not to make conclusions concerning them? Part of the "problem" I have with Muslim cultures is their apparent necessity to destroy other cultures. Muslim treatment of minorities when they are the dominant culture is a matter of historical record.
What I feel is bigoted and narrow-minded, are those that would condemn an entire belief system, based on the actions of some.
Perhaps the belief system is the reason why "some" commit acts of violence. An unbiased reading of the Koran or study of Muslim history might be valuable in coming to a conclusion. And it might change your perception of those who aren't as committed as you or President Bush to the idea that Muslims are "peace-loving".
My assumption is based on the actions of those not committing violent acts, not on silence.
Tell me, do you support the dictum that all it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing? If so, how "good" would you say those bystanders are?
yes, I would give the benefit of the doubt to the majority.
You can have that luxury. I am a Jew. And since many Jews have suffered at the hands of Muslims, I am less inclined to give them that benefit. I want some positive information before I endorse the belief that the majority are "peace-loving".
Apparently, Muslims aren't the same as the Germans of that era.
Well, some, perhaps most, are the same as some of the Germans of that era...specifically the Nazis and their supporters.
OK, you are the first person that has said any of my statements were politically correct, I didn't realize we were becoming less polite. We obviously have different perspectives of the same thing, that is why, unlike many, I do not find it hard to believe that you do not think the best of people. You may classify me as you wish.
I apologize if you feel I've become less polite. I do not classify you at all. It is just that I could understand your perspective if you were a liberal or Democrat. Since you are a conservative, I have to assume that our value systems are somewhat similar. Which is why the difference in our perspectives is puzzling.
As I said, my reason for not thinking the best of people is based on history. Mankind has tried to destroy itself so often, it is hard for me to believe that, by nature, people are basically good.
I do see those that want to wipe out entire cultures, as bigots.
Muslim leaders have frequently said that they wanted to wipe out the Jews and Israel. Now, I have no doubt you would classify them as bigots. But how would you classify those who would stand by and watch it happen?
This will be my last post for awhile. I will try and get back to this next week. In the meantime, thanks for the exchange and have a nice weekend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.