The Islamic Civilization And The Western Civilization

[WeeWilly]

Thanks, E-W.  I still have some of Warrior_Saladin's arguments to address, but it takes time and effort - not to mention lotsa' words - to do this.  Warrior_Saladin - hats off to him! - has taken the time and trouble to put his viewpoints to virtual paper, a matter that I much appreciate and honor, and so, he deserves answers - or, at least, some sort of considered response to each of them.  I shall get around to completing this in the fullness of time. 

Like WEM, WS is far down inside the cocoon of religious ecstasy, and is so much a part "of the body" that it is virtually impossible to argue in a way free of the clinging, glutinous litany of the church and its implacable prejudices.  For him it is obvious that homosexuality is a bad thing, and that women are second-class citizens and dirty at certain times of the month, and he is puzzled that one can think any differently!  WS is certainly no idiot, and he has sent me a link to an excellent video on the historical contributions of the people of the Middle East to the modern world, and, in my opinion, it cannot be gainsaid. I have enjoyed it very much indeed.  So, yes indeed, I do owe him responses to the rest of his comments.

None of us is free of prejudices, and I have plenty of work to recognize my own.  The difference between the atheist and the religious zealot is that the former does not object to his castle being assailed and even breached, where the latter can neither contemplate nor bear such an outcome.  Therefore, no argument between the two is ever on neutral ground. 

[Muz]

There aren't many who post here with such conviction Willy, and I dont mean to alienate my good friends, but alas, some of us do not have the time to script/think our thoughts as eloquently, much as we would like to, and I include my self in that vein   I appreciate your posts as ever  

For one.. I had a post made and deleted about 3 times .. damned interruptions   broken concentration   .. I'll get it together eventually

*edit* yes  .. (laughing) it was about Scottish Presbyterianism

[Warrior_Saladin]

Like WEM, WS is far down inside the cocoon of religious ecstasy, and is so much a part "of the body" that it is virtually impossible to argue in a way free of the clinging, glutinous litany of the church and its implacable prejudices. For him it is obvious that homosexuality is a bad thing, and that women are second-class citizens and dirty at certain times of the month, and he is puzzled that one can think any differently!

Woh hold on a sec there.. What have i got todo with him? I didn't post on these threads in his defence nor do i pretend to speak for anyone apart from myself. You've generalised a bit there m8.

My reasons for posting here is to challange perceptions. I find your accusations against me unjustified and hurtful. I have a mother and a sister, i wouldn't like them to be dressed in a veil and having said that i wouldn't like them to be dressed half-naked either. And having said that i (as a man) have no right to force any woman to do either!!

(And i find this position of defending myself like this a little bit demeaning.) 

None of us is free of prejudices, and I have plenty of work to recognize my own.

Me too m8

The difference between the atheist and the religious zealot is that the former does not object to his castle being assailed and even breached, where the latter can neither contemplate nor bear such an outcome.  Therefore, no argument between the two is ever on neutral ground.

The former also is usually drenched with scientific absolutism and to even suggest the existence of a god would automatically mean you are an idiot.


Once ive finished reading/digesting your other lengthy points, i'll come back to them.

[WeeWilly]

Woh hold on a sec there.. What have i got todo with him? I didn't post on these threads in his defence nor do i pretend to speak for anyone apart from myself. You've generalised a bit there m8.

You and WEM have much in common, but, most obviously, you both support Islam, and put it forward as a great truth.  You both argue from "inside the cocoon of faith", and it would appear to be the same faith.  I have not claimed that you speak for him (and I have never thought that you do, either).  WEM has no arguments, but only posts religious litany that is not directed anywhere, whereas you roll up your sleeves and wade in with a willingness that is admirable, and which makes it both fun and interesting to exchange views! I intend no obsequious flattery here; this is simply the way I see it.

My reasons for posting here is to challange perceptions. I find your accusations against me unjustified and hurtful.

We all post here to exchange opinions, to challenge one another's points of view, and to offer new or different perspectives on the topics in front of us.  Sometimes this can be quite hot.  There are always risks that an argument offends, or that a mode of expression causes hurt, and this risk is hardly least when we are dealing with or touching on explosive matters like religion, homosexuality, marriage, and so on.  This is the nature of the beast!  Ask EW if he has not had a nerve touched now and again, or Goo, or WEM, or I, and so on.  Of course, we all have, and no doubt this will occur again in the "heat of battle".  The sincerest honor I can offer you is to take time to consider your arguments, and to consider my "take" on them, and then to formulate responses.  Sometimes I intend these responses to challenge your perspectives.  I expect to be challenged in turn, particularly where I stand on weak ground; if a view cannot be supported, then maybe I should re-think it.

I have a mother and a sister, i wouldn't like them to be dressed in a veil and having said that i wouldn't like them to be dressed half-naked either. And having said that i (as a man) have no right to force any woman to do either!

Here is a potentially hot topic indeed.  I have children and a wife, and I can, with truth, write exactly what you have done here, and it would reflect my view to a tee.  Where we might disagree is in the notion of "half-naked".  What I challenge is a systematic and institutionalized value system on dress that - with the full weight of society and the law behind it - imposes one code of conduct on one half of society, and another on the other half, where gender alone is the factor that determines which half is which.  This looks like repression, and I don't like it!

By the way, I have the same comment with respect to other issues.  Let me illustrate, using wording that parallels that above....  "What I challenge is a systematic and institutionalized value system on marriage that - with the full weight of society and the law behind it - permits one set of rights to one part of society, and another on the balance, where sexual orientation alone is the factor that determines which part is which. This looks like repression, and I don't like it!"  

People do not choose their gender, or their sexual orientation.  Each, in belonging to one gender or another, or in having one sexual orientation or another, is an innocent.  To the extent that the collateral damage is small or non-existent, I see no reason to discriminate between and accord differing rights to groups defined by these factors.

In Hong Kong I watched a TV special on the Irani women's soccer team.  Iran does have a women's soccer team, and these poor women must, by law, be covered from head to toe in what the law deems to be appropriate garb.   The woman who has organized this team, and the people on the team, have serious issues with this law, but they adhere to it  because they do not want to run afoul of the law.  Running afoul of the law in Iran is not for the faint of heart!   So, these women run around in these heavy clothes and head scarves trying to play soccer.  To me (and to some of these women as well) this represents a level of silliness that extends into absurdity.  Of course, I don't know what you, WS, think of this...

Anyway, I still have more of your previous post to respond to....  If I hurt from time to time, please forgive me, and remember, my focus is on your arguments and how I perceive them. Anything hurt is collateral damage!  

Lastly I do not suggest that anyone who believes in a creator God is an idiot. After all, I have a friend of over 35 years who is a baptist minister, an actuary, and an obvious genius by virtually any measure one might choose to use - and an avid believer.  But I do claim that such a belief is irrational, as is anyone who holds such a belief.  As a sidebar to this, I see science and religion as implacable enemies, and, for me, a scientist who is religious is a sham.  For what it's worth, this very matter was debated in a symposium in Oxford some years ago, and the debate arrived at this selfsame conclusion - to wit, that science and religion were irreconcilable enemies! 

[WeeWilly]

A

nd what makes the Hijab demeaning? No disrespect but would you rather wish Muslim women to be more revealing? WeeWilly I respect you for your personal views but I can’t help but think you could use some insight into other religions

I hope it is now clear why I see the hijab as demeaning - to wit, that wearing it is required only of one half of society (ie, women).  In Iran, the need to wear it is actually imposed on that half of society (even for the women's soccer team!); it is not a matter of choice.  Even where it is not imposed (and I spent some time in Djakarta, Indonesia), the fact that society expects it or honors it in respect of one half of society is demeaning to that half. Muslim men are not obligated to cover their heads for religious reasons although some do as part of their traditional dress, but, as you well know, this is really only an imposition on women.  In Indonesia, the fact that many women do not wear Islamic headgear is still a matter that irritates Islamic traditionalists, and sometimes, seriously.

[Warrior_Saladin]

you both support Islam

I'll support my interpretation and he can support his. I'd also support the other faiths so long as it's not forced on others. One of the most celebrated text in the Quran, which many muslims conviniently forget, states literally "Let there be no compultion in religion". So really adhering to this - the iranian women should not be forced to do anything.

As a sidebar to this, I see science and religion as implacable enemies, and, for me, a scientist who is religious is a sham. For what it's worth, this very matter was debated in a symposium in Oxford some years ago, and the debate arrived at this selfsame conclusion - to wit, that science and religion were irreconcilable enemies!

Science can only examin what is and to a very large extent what was. That is to say how things are and how they work. But it cannot explain why things are and why do they work. Some religions explain the 'why' but fall foul of explaining how. In that vid i linked you, faith was the driving force behind the explosion of scientific advancement. During that time in human history there was no religion vs science 'cos religion was the science. And it was mainly used for advanting society. Where we begin to see the digression is when religion starts to be used as a tool for not such noble causes i.e. for political advantages.

If you'd like i could link you a simliar video tracking the main events from the Prophets birth to the fall of the Ottoman empire. The documentary is 3 hours long Superbly made. I'll have to search the net for this one if your interested.

Its 7am now.. the sun is up.. and time for me to go to sleep.

[WeeWilly]

WS, you responded as follows to my assertion that there is some reason for the Western hatred of Islam:

I still maintain it is without foundation. I will argue the average man living in the west is satisfied with the equation Islam = Al-Q or Taleban. He/she is comfortable with that and sees no reason to change their minds.

Here, you may well have a point that many do identify Islam with Al-Qaeda.  I am not one of them.  But I have no difficulty in understanding why there is hatred of Islam. The reasons are as follows:

• Islam is the crucible for some of the most extreme, fanatic and heinous terrorism the world knows.  Act after act of terrorism and suicide bombing has originated with this religion, and so, there is clearly something insidious at work with this religion.
  
• The perception is that when the Islamic fighter wages war, he does so by attacking the weak, the unarmed, the innocent, the unready, the unsuspecting, and the women and children of society. Unable to face the strong of our society, he hides behind and among his own women and children, using them as shields, while he fires at you - or even better - at your unprotected wee children, women and innocents.  The Westerner sees such a mode of conduct as weak, pathetic, despicable, and far from anything strong, praiseworthy, admirable or honorable. (By the way, when and if sects within his own society have behaved this way, the Westerner has a similar disgust of it, and will take hard and quick action against it!).  To the Westerner, this is a strong comment on Islam.   
  
• The motivation for Islamic terrorists is simply not understood by the Westerner.  If effect, the reaction from the Westerner is "Hey, Mac, what are you on about?"
  
• The madness, rioting and killing over the silly little Danish cartoons was quite widespread.  Reasonable people do not react this way to something that should give little or no offense.  The fact that such silliness could be and was used successfully as a tool by Islamic extremists to foment such widespread overreaction is a comment on the religion, and a severe one.
  
• Islamic states cannot separate religion and state, even in principle.  Hence, Islamic countries are places where unjust discrimination is institutionalized. To the western eye, a country like Iran or Afghanistan, enforcing gothic and extreme Sharia laws on everyone, look like places that are barking mad.  As represented by some of the Islamic states and bodies, Islam seems to ask a tolerance of itself that it is unable to reciprocate.
  
• The fact that the leader of Iran can issue a death warrant for someone who was guilty of nothing more than writing a book that was critical of Islam, sends a signal to most observers that something crazy is going on there, and this is a comment on Islam!
  
• Islamic countries seem to do little to pursue and run down terrorism, and so, by such apparent inaction, manage to give the impression that terrorism is acceptable to them.  This hardly endears Islam to westerners.
  
• Islamic systematic discrimination against women and gays is irrational, hurtful and damaging – in some cases this gets extreme - and housing, spreading and enforcing these views is a comment on the religion generally.
  

Surely one can and should judge any body (or individual) on what it does and says.  For example, I certainly judge Christianity by the stupid, hateful, or dangerous acts of its adherents.  Thus it is a comment on Christianity that it serves as the birthplace or “feeding grounds” of the KKK, The Spanish Inquisition, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, and so on.  It is a comment that it serves as the launching pad for the pope and his dangerous dictates, or that it harbors and feeds enumerable ministers, priests, reverends, and so on -  preaching foolish, dangerous and  irrational beliefs to all and sundry, and especially to innocent children.

So, then, is Islam judged, and many do not like their innocent friends and acquaintances being blown up by a suicide bomber, or their buildings razed to the ground, or their trains attacked.  Of recent years, the people who do these things are inevitably Muslim, with their beliefs directly answerable for their actions.  Pretty well everyone sees Islamic terrorists as being the motivator for an attack on the whole freedoms of our Western society - in effect, on our very way of life, and the actions of these terrorists spread a heavy taint on Islam, and one that is hard to get past.  So, when this is combined with its very unpopular discrimination against females (and gays), some hatred of this religion is surely easy to understand.
   

--------------

You expressed some disbelief at my assertion that “atheists in general have a kind of tolerance of other beliefs.”

Let me, then, reword this, for you may be correct. Increasingly, the atheist see religions and religious thinking as an affront on rationality, with severe, far-reaching, limiting, and suffocating collateral damage, and they have begun to fight back against this systematic religious oppression.  However, in stark contrast to the religious, the atheists’ weapons are reason and rationality.
 
If these are the weapons of the atheist, they are also the means of challenging him, and the atheist invites such challenge (and this is the origin of my remark about atheists and their tolerance).  In other words, in the most salient contrast to the religious, the atheist is open and ready to have his mind changed, but this will never be done through ranting, holy ecstasy, mad assertions (ie, assertions with no grounding), or assertions that only hold if you already have made "the leap of faith" (these will be assertions without grounding, to the atheist).  Thus, in confronting the atheist, the religious zealot is not fighting hatred; he is fighting reason, and this is the rub!

So... I think that I have now addressed all the arguments in your earlier post, and I leave you to question or to grill me further as needed. 

[WeeWilly]

Hi WS. 

In your last posting, with respect to science, you suggested:

“ ..  it cannot explain why things are and why do they work.”

Egad!  This is the very raison d’être of science.  Science can very often not only explain why, but can also actually pass the ultimate test of understanding – to wit, it can predict what will occur in given circumstances, and it can quantify it.  For example, consider the formula:  F = ma, where F = force, m = mass, and a = acceleration.  This says that a mass m will undergo an acceleration a while a force F is applied to it.  Our ability to answer the following two questions illustrates my point.  The first answers a why.  The second makes a prediction, and quantifies it.   The questions:
 
Question: Why does the mass accelerate?  Answer: because a force is applied to it.

Question: How can I get a mass m to experience an acceleration a?  Answer:  Subject it to a force F.

This is a law of dynamics, and it states what we have discovered about the basic nature of the interaction of mass, acceleration and force.  All things around us have some basic qualities, and the object of scientific inquiry is to uncover those basic qualities, whatever they are, and how they interact with one another.  Science is, in fact, very impressive at explaining the why.

Of course, you know all this!  So, what do you mean by a “why” that science cannot explain - but which, presumably, religion can?  After all, anything that exists must have some nature, and science seeks to root out what it is, and to take it from there!  Are you asking “why does any thing have the nature it does?”

-----------------------

I loved your quote "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (only the typo has been corrected).   I loved it because, while I entirely concur, from my standpoint there are very few things in this world that rely on, exploit, and make central to its modus operandi than does religion.  I suspect that there is little need to expound on this, for you are, surely, merely quoting this as a sad comment on the [lamentable] way of the world!

[WeeWilly]

Wow!  I sure garbled the last paragraph in my previous posting, even if it might be obvious what was meant.  At any rate, what was intended was something along the following lines ...

I loved your quote "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (only the typo has been corrected).   I loved it because, while I entirely concur with the sentiment, from my standpoint there are very few things that surpass religion in relying on and exploiting compulsion and in making it central to the modus operandi.  I suspect that there is little need to expound on this, for you are, surely, merely offering this quote as a sad comment on the [lamentable] way of the world! - and of Iran in particular, perhaps?

Alas, I have some real work to do, and a wee bit of travel over the next while, and so, I shall probably not get much of a chance to write up lengthy responses to any comments, although reading and enjoying them (and cogitating on them) will still be possible, I think. 

[Warrior_Saladin]

•   Islam is the crucible for some of the most extreme, fanatic and heinous terrorism the world knows.

 
Yea right.. Have you forgotten the Crusades? The slave trade? The holocaust? British Empire & colonial past? State terrorism as perpetrated by the ‘advanced’ nations and their allies, Not to mention Britain’s real role in the world today.

•   Act after act of terrorism and suicide bombing has originated with this religion, and so, there is clearly something insidious at work with this religion.

How about suicide bombings that does not include muslims.. namely LTTE, Kamikaze’s. And infact wasn’t it the PFLP, a secular marxist group that first introduced the concept of suicide bombings in the middle east?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine

•   The perception is that when the Islamic fighter wages war, he does so by attacking the weak, the unarmed, the innocent, the unready, the unsuspecting, and the women and children of society. Unable to face the strong of our society, he hides behind and among his own women and children, using them as shields, while he fires at you - or even better - at your unprotected wee children, women and innocents.  

This is the rapist mentality that I would have expected from some neo-con to spin out, to blame the victim after mass murder is perpetrated. How can anyone justify the wiping out of entire villages cos a ‘suspected terrorist’ is believed to be in that area? And when the appalling figures of civilians casualties are released, spin is used to cover it up. He was “hiding behind and among his own women and children”? Oh please…

To the Westerner, this is a strong comment on Islam.

How about listening to a muslim who at least has an education, lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3khGGklFGHw

•   The motivation for Islamic terrorists is simply not understood by the Westerner.  If effect, the reaction from the Westerner is "Hey, Mac, what are you on about?"

Yup, simply ignored.

•   The madness, rioting and killing over the silly little Danish cartoons was quite widespread.  Reasonable people do not react this way to something that should give little or no offense.  The fact that such silliness could be and was used successfully as a tool by Islamic extremists to foment such widespread overreaction is a comment on the religion, and a severe one.

Protests that are emotionally driven do tent to go overboard. Wern’t there a few fatalities during the anti-capticalist demonstrations in London? Im sure I heard about something about it on the news when RBS, McD, Starbuck chains were smashed in.
Now take that to a much bigger scale in countries that are not developed. With regards to a reaction - the muslims are in every right to react to the defiling of someone they love. Would you not at least react verbally of obscene drawings of your loved ones?

•   Islamic states cannot separate religion and state, even in principle.  Hence, Islamic countries are places where unjust discrimination is institutionalized. To the western eye, a country like Iran or Afghanistan, enforcing gothic and extreme Sharia laws on everyone, look like places that are barking mad.  As represented by some of the Islamic states and bodies, Islam seems to ask a tolerance of itself that it is unable to reciprocate.

Well in the muslim circles, the view is there hasn’t been an Islamic state since the fall of the Caliphate - when muslim countries were taken apart and redrawn by their colonial masters.

•   The fact that the leader of Iran can issue a death warrant for someone who was guilty of nothing more than writing a book that was critical of Islam, sends a signal to most observers that something crazy is going on there, and this is a comment on Islam!

I couldnt care less for empty threats. I was very small (or was i even even born?) at the time of the anti-rushdie protests in UK. But from what i have read - the anger towards BNP, NF etc had boiled over and minorities were angry at them being consistanly villified.

•   Islamic countries seem to do little to pursue and run down terrorism, and so, by such apparent inaction, manage to give the impression that terrorism is acceptable to them.  This hardly endears Islam to westerners.

Says who? Fox news? Fact is Muslim countries are run by dictators supported by UK, USA, EU. Sadam was prime example, until there was no need for him. The Iranians arguably had a better democracy than practised in the west today, the US came along and installed ‘The Shah’. Egypt is ruled by western backed dictator, as are the kingdoms of Jordon, and Saudi-Arabia.

[Alqaeda was actually mutated and inspired by the hanging of Sayed Qutab - Refer to documentary 'power of nightmares']

Moreover Pakistan has done more against the “terrorists” (by way of arrests & proper intel gathering) and has had to endure the type of backlash the UK, US cant even imagine to stomach. Not to mention the 3rd world country seems to have weakened the Taliban more than US & UK put togther at this time. [not sure how the latest troop surge is Afghanistan is going – time will tell]

•   Islamic systematic discrimination against women and gays is irrational, hurtful and damaging – in some cases this gets extreme - and housing, spreading and enforcing these views is a comment on the religion generally.

Huge difference between the culture and the religion. Did you know that the veil has nothing todo with the religion and that the covering of the head isn't specifically mentioned in the Quran. I didnt know either up untill a few months ago, lol.

Women in Islam is a big topic, and cos I’m not a woman, I can’t really say – and you wouldn’t believe me even if i did say something.

Surely one can and should judge any body (or individual) on what it does and says.  For example, I certainly judge Christianity by the stupid, hateful, or dangerous acts of its adherents.  Thus it is a comment on Christianity that it serves as the birthplace or “feeding grounds” of the KKK, The Spanish Inquisition, Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, and so on.  It is a comment that it serves as the launching pad for the pope and his dangerous dictates, or that it harbors and feeds enumerable ministers, priests, reverends, and so on -  preaching foolish, dangerous and  irrational beliefs to all and sundry, and especially to innocent children.

So, then, is Islam judged, and many do not like their innocent friends and acquaintances being blown up by a suicide bomber, or their buildings razed to the ground, or their trains attacked.  Of recent years, the people who do these things are inevitably Muslim, with their beliefs directly answerable for their actions.  Pretty well everyone sees Islamic terrorists as being the motivator for an attack on the whole freedoms of our Western society - in effect, on our very way of life, and the actions of these terrorists spread a heavy taint on Islam, and one that is hard to get past.  So, when this is combined with its very unpopular discrimination against females (and gays), some hatred of this religion is surely easy to understand.

Time and again people take the actions of those in the 000’s as representative of a billion.
But what is so representing?
Did they win some sort of election?

Should I take the actions of the worst thousand people in England as representative of everyone here?

Point is whoever you call a terrorist is not representative of any other muslim (or the religion for that matter - if u dare to readup). And I, as a muslim am disgusted by those that choose to take innocent life. On the flip-side are you too appalled by the actions of english soilders? I mean but they are representative of England as the government of England was elected. Or are you proud that one of the richest nations of the world is out there slaughtering two of the world’s poorest nations. (And please remember – in all of afghan history there wasn’t one single suicide bomber before the yank led invasion. Not even during the Soviet days – where UBL was in his prime).

To continue, by the same yardstick, then should England (and its "values" & "way of life") not then too be judged by the millions murdered in iraq? (including childrape/ torture/ human sportkilling and the rest of it)

[WeeWilly]

Hi WS;

I have no idea how to reply to your last posting, as it has apparently completely abandoned the argument or has lost sight of it. I merely maintained that we should be able to understand why there is some Western hatred of Islam, but your putative rebuttal is a rant rather than a rebuttal.  If anything, it tends to reinforce my arguments beyond wildest expectation!

For example, to refute my comment “Islam is the crucible for some of the most extreme, fanatic and heinous terrorism the world knows.  Act after act of terrorism and suicide bombing has originated with this religion, and so, there is clearly something insidious at work with this religion.”  You actually responded as follows:

Yea right.. Have you forgotten the Crusades? The slave trade? The holocaust? British Empire & colonial past? State terrorism as perpetrated by the ‘advanced’ nations and their allies, Not to mention Britain’s real role in the world today.

NO I HAVEN’T FORGOTTEN these things, and therefore, I understand that there is reason for hatred – or, at least, ill feeling for the perpetrators!  This is my very point!  [Perceived] perpetrators of atrocities will be hated for them!

But, generally, it is a ridiculous method of arguing to justify wrongs in one place by pointing to another place where wrongs have also occurred.  Your posting does this over and over again, and I don’t know what you are trying to achieve with this, for I am in constant agreement with your comments, but I cannot see your target.  For example, what are you trying to refute, support with your following comment? --

How about suicide bombings that does not include muslims.. namely LTTE, Kamikaze’s. And infact wasn’t it the PFLP, a secular marxist group that first introduced the concept of suicide bombings in the middle east?  

- No argument from me, for suicide bombings were generally hated and treated with contempt, whenever they occurred.  

You also went on an aimless tirade with

This is the rapist mentality that I would have expected from some neo-con to spin out, to blame the victim after mass murder is perpetrated. How can anyone justify the wiping out of entire villages cos a ‘suspected terrorist’ is believed to be in that area? And when the appalling figures of civilians casualties are released, spin is used to cover it up. He was “hiding behind and among his own women and children”? Oh please…

This is simple ranting, and has nothing to do with anything.  No reasonable person would attempt to justify wiping out an entire village of innocents for any reason – including the reason that a suspected terrorist is in that area.  Are you maintaining that I – or anyone else, for that matter  - am attempting such justification?   Or, indeed, for any sort of spin to cover it up?  

So, drop the “Oh please”, and address the perception (the actuality?) itself “when the Islamic fighter wages war, he does so by attacking the weak, the unarmed, the innocent, the unready, the unsuspecting, and the women and children of society ... etc” – and save the tirade about putative atrocities committed in how this disgusting method of warfare is countered.  This is a Western perception of the Islam fighter of today.  Is this perception completely ungrounded?  The Westerner despises stabbing a sleeping man, and we see someone who does it as disgusting!

[By the way, although this is not on topic, I do not see the Western reaction to this type of warfare as anything like what you describe (even if such reactions have sometimes occurred).  Moreover, the Westerner tends not to conduct his warfare in such a way, and vilifies this even if he finds it occurring in his own society.  Not even the hated British do this!  In fact, their whole historic method of conducting battle was to dress themselves in the brightest red that could be found, and then to stand four-square to the enemy, and take their licks while delivering their kicks! Just look at the trouble the Westerner takes to avoid collateral damage to non-combatants - even if he sometimes makes errors.  And, do you think that we of a Western Society will sit doing nothing if we learn of an instance where a village of innocents was wiped out, even if this was committed by our own people?]

So, as I say, your posting is more a rant than a rebuttal, where you address each of my arguments about the Westerner’s perception of Islam by pointing out somewhere else there is reason to hate (have a similar perception of, etc) something.  This is my point!

Moreover, you have come perilously close to giving your blessing to the uprisings over the silly cartoons when you say

With regards to a reaction - the muslims are in every right to react to the defiling of someone they love.

- NO, THEY DO NOT HAVE THIS RIGHT!  No-one does, especially so when it involves rioting and killing of innocents (on so little provocation)!  At any rate, what are you doing berating someone who see this as a comment on the rioters and killers!  Moreover, the cartoons were milksop and should not have offended anything!  And indeed they didn’t – until they were used as a fuel to whip up the ridiculous reaction that has now become part of that silly history!

[Aside: You ask “Would you not at least react verbally of obscene drawings of your loved ones?”  - actually, I would not, for I see such actions as revealing much more about the speaker than the thing spoken of.  Moreover, these silly cartoons were not on a par with your example, and if you feel that they were, then I refer you to my comment on the lack of Islamic tolerance]  

To my comment that Islamic states cannot separate religion and state, even in principle, you replied:

Well in the muslim circles, the view is there hasn’t been an Islamic state since the fall of the Caliphate - when muslim countries were taken apart and redrawn by their colonial masters.

 

Again, this inside reasoning is completely irrelevant to the argument – which, after all, was all about Western perception of Islam.  So, what “muslim circles” are you talking about?  Does the leader of Iran consider himself a Muslim, and does he not belong to such a circle?
 
To my comment “The fact that the leader of Iran can issue a death warrant for someone who was guilty of nothing more than writing a book that was critical of Islam, sends a signal to most observers that something crazy is going on there, and this is a comment on Islam!”, your reply “I couldnt care less for empty threats.” is irrelevant, and does not rebut my remark in any way.   What is absolutely remarkable (to the Westerner – and I hope to any reasonable person) that it was possible for a leader of a significant country to issued such a death order - and for what should not have been an offense at all - without receiving universal condemnation!

With regard to Islam and women you said:

Women in Islam is a big topic, and cos I’m not a woman, I can’t really say – and you wouldn’t believe me even if i did say something.

Now it's my turn for the "Oh, please!".  Why would you think that I would not believe you?  Just because you’re a Muslim?  I would need more reason that this.  Moreover, you do not have to be a woman to have some ideas and some knowledge on this subject.  For example, are women seen as dirty at certain times of the month, or not?   Are they excluded from areas, rituals, etc during these times?  Your view won’t be a woman’s one, but it will surely have some validity!

Your comment that there is a “Huge difference between the culture and the religion.” is simply not true, for the culture is everything!   BTW, The Westerner cannot discern the niceties of a society's moralistic sources that are obvious to "those of the body" (and I suspect that they are debated even there. See your "in Muslim Circles" mentioned earlier).  To ascribe the hated thing to its proper cultural source is not particularly interesting or edifying - except, perhaps, to a philosopher.  Do you know how much of Christian society is not specifically established by the bible?  Neither do I, but you almost certainly know that even Christians interpret the word of God very differently, and this produces a patchwork of sectarian beliefs (sometimes at war with one another) that we vaguely define as "Christian".  But this gets us closer to another posting I made earlier. And, yes, I did know that covering the head isn't mentioned in the Koran.

When I said that a group should be judged by what they say and do, you replied

Should I take the actions of the worst thousand people in England as representative of everyone here?

No, and I did not say this (I said nothing of "as representatives"), and it has little to do with how the Westerner sees Islam.  But you should "stir such actions into your wine".  As for me, I hope that I shall form my opinions about a society by whatever actions and words I see of them.  A part of this will be what sort of extremes it gives birth to, and how widespread these extremes are.  But I also judge the culture by other things; for example, I stayed in the biggest Muslim country on earth, Indonesia, and I was struck by the extraordinary charm and openness of the people, and this is also a comment on the culture.  You'll probably be able to infer that I do this for Christianity and its various sects.  I shall also do this for atheists (as a group), and so on.  If one cannot be recognized for what one says and does, then how in blazes should one be recognized?

By the way, I note that you apparently chose to live in England  rather than elsewhere, and so, apparently you see something positive about it.  For one thing, you are free to express unpopular opinions.  Try that in Iran!

[Warrior_Saladin]

- My last para is pointing to the generalisation that occurs.

- More of a rant? Ok maybe it is.

- Yes, i've pointed out far worse attrocities than what muslims have commited. By saying there is "something insidious at work with this religion" and making linkages like that & without taking into account their motivations does not make for a balanced judgement.

- Today there are muslim terrorists in this "war on terror" (such stupid labelling imo) and yesterday there were irish terrorists - but where was the linkage to their religion or sect. Moreover i havn't of any carpet bombs falling on belfast. And were they not far more dangerous than Al-Q?

Act after act of terrorism and suicide bombing has originated with this religion

- Im merely trying to refute this opinion that suicide bombings has originated with this religion. Im Not being very sucessfull though.

The Westerner despises stabbing a sleeping man, and we see someone who does it as disgusting!

This is what i mean, judgement is clouded.
If a criminal does that, is the religion is at fault? i dont think so.
But if a solly does that, is the country at fault? i DO think so.

- I've chosen england on purpose to make my examples, but ofcourse i couldve chosen any other country.

- Culture and religion vary, alot in some places. eg. Islam in Africa is not the same as Islam in east asia is not the same as Islam in europe. The interpretation of religion has been influenced by culture.

it is a ridiculous method of arguing to justify wrongs in one place by pointing to another place where wrongs have also occurred. Your posting does this over and over again

My meaning is to show the double standards applied.

Are you maintaining that I – or anyone else, for that matter  - am attempting such justification?   Or, indeed, for any sort of spin to cover it up?

Done by israel all the time - supported by America - weapons shiped by EU/UK - Propagated by FOX/BBC - believed by the viewer.

And israel was motivation enough for Al-Q to do 9/11. Are you aware that in 1998 the afghans were discussing extraditing UBL to the U.S. Only after two cruise missles were launched at the country they called off the talks. Also again, contrary to what you are led to believe, the afghan taleban voted unanimously to arrest usama bin laden and bring him in literally "dead or alive" after 9/11. All they asked for was time from the americans. NATO invaded so they sided with him instead. [i too did not know about this and only came accross this fact at an LSE lecture]

By the way, I note that you apparently chose to live in England  rather than elsewhere, and so, apparently you see something positive about it.  For one thing, you are free to express unpopular opinions.  Try that in Iran!

Hehe what made you think i had a choice? 4th Gen here. Don't get me wrong i could've easily chosen a different country to rant on. I chose england cos it would stir similar conflicting emotions and ideas about loyalty/ right & wrong etc

But it amazes me to find (generally) that whosoever has anything negative to say about england, and if then is preceived of being from coloured/mixed/different background, they're imediately told to 'GTFO'.

RE: Iran, it is more tolerant than you think. Im guessing ur refering to the mass arrests following the widespread protests. But would you not expect to get arrested and locked up in this country if you were caught (or complicit in) firebombing buses/shops/businesses.. moreover 'suspected' of having links with terrorists?
So why is Iran seen differently in this?

Besides if any country knows how to overthrow its government - its iran. Shame we can't do that here.

Moreover, the Westerner tends not to conduct his warfare in such a way, and vilifies this even if he finds it occurring in his own society. Not even the hated British do this!  In fact, their whole historic method of conducting battle was to dress themselves in the brightest red that could be found, and then to stand four-square to the enemy, and take their licks while delivering their kicks! Just look at the trouble the Westerner takes to avoid collateral damage to non-combatants - even if he sometimes makes errors. And, do you think that we of a Western Society will sit doing nothing if we learn of an instance where a village of innocents was wiped out, even if this was committed by our own people?]

I look every other day.. i could spend alot of hours linking you evidence showing exactly how the westerner conducts his warefare (this would include america right?).. but it could turn ugly with claims and counter claims. Readers of this forum are probably already incensed by my last posting.

[Electric Warrior]

Readers of this forum are probably already incensed by my last posting.

I wouldn't worry too much about that.  The discussions you two are having, is one of the very few things keeping this forum alive recently.

[Warrior_Saladin]

Moreover, you have come perilously close to giving your blessing to the uprisings over the silly cartoons

Yes, every right to protest / boycott / and make their voices heard *. These are the democratic rights which the supporters of these drawing would not like minorities to have it seems. Also seems to me europe is willing and promoting racial abuse of minoities. And in the same breath they talk of tollerence? Something amiss here.

They are just silly cartoons to you but the perception is that this kind of derogatory abuse is not new in europe. Afterall the road to holocaust in nazi germany (old europe) started with similar widespread "cartoons". European hearts began to lack any sympathy to what was happening to the jews, and therefore silence and inaction in nazi germany is viewed today as being complicit in the attrocity.

2 million iraqis died in the first gulf war, 1.5 million children died due to crippling sanctions follwing it (these are UN figures by the way), 1 million estimated to have died following the new 2003 american led invation.. countless in afghanistan (nobody bothers to count and having villages carpet bombed early on in the campaign - there wouldnt be anything left to count) 2 million muslims estimated to have died in western backed jihad against the USSR. So looking at casualty figures in just these two countries (nevermind the ethnic cleansing elsewhere) is it no wonder muslims world over already believe there is a global holocaust underway?

With concern for freedom of speech.. this is not freedom of speech. It is a freedom to insult/ degrade/ harass a rather small section of the european population. The hypocracy on display when it does come to freedom of speech is overwhelming. In the UK the BNP are allowed to stand, their teachers are allowed to teach their idiology to kids in schools, nothing is said of EDL (even after violent clashes and several arrests up and down the country) but non-violent muslim protests in the UK against war or racial abuse are frowned upon?

Note: Im no supporter of a certain mr anjum choudry and view him as an nasty agent provocateur.


= = =


* I've previously stated, but i will repeat that i absolutley condem the taking of an innocent life. I'm not of suporter of capital punishment either. The deaththreats imo are stupid. **offtopic** But i do agree with Malcolm X when he said during the american civil rights movement:-

I don't even call it violence when it's self-defense, I call it intelligence.

[Warrior_Saladin]

from my standpoint there are very few things in this world that rely on, exploit, and make central to its modus operandi than does religion

I believe capitalism takes that crown.

I suspect that there is little need to expound on this, for you are, surely, merely quoting this as a sad comment on the [lamentable] way of the world!

Yup.

As for science vs religion - i'll come back to that after ive collected my thoughts.

And sorry for responding to ur comments in random fashion.. ive no excuse for it