I'm confused on the forums these days. I see Islamic extremists as a non-debatable argument - they are bad for the world. But I see arguments which could indirectly rationalize their behavior. So I offer the following polarized view:
Specifically, Islam is not evil. I do have a problem with a few aspects that I present for debate and clarification:
1) Once a Muslim, always a Muslim: The extreme wings of Sunni and Shi'a muslims specifically state that once you are a muslim, changing religion or criticism of Islam is punishable by death. The Islamic leaders (mullahs?) are in charge of issuing the charges. More moderate muslims allow for a lesser punishment in these cases. So my question is really that of a more modern society - is it really necessary to kill someone for changing relilgion? Is there freedom of choice? Is allowing for this choice something that will undermine the Islamic society? Is it right to have a punishment...any at all...for choosing a religion? Is it right to put the mullahs in charge of monitoring and dishing out punishment since they are attempting to control their power base?
2) Non-muslim critcisms of Islam: Recently the Pope cited a text from someone who was black listed because of Rule #1 above. He's attempting to reconcile with those that he offended but I not sure if they want to. In addition, any outside influences or comments are used inappropriately. In my opinion, if used respectfully a debate of Islamic views and topics would benefit both Muslims and non-Muslims in general. So why isn't it welcomed? Wouldn't it help spread Islam? It would greatly improve the knowledge base on each side, but frankly, it's a two-way minefield.
3) Helping Muslims: I don't remember where exactly this happened or when - but some muslim women and children were loaded onto US troop carriers to protect them from artillery shelling. The troops were left with parting remarks like "I hope you all die"...from the kids they entertained/played with during their stay. A tyrant was removed from Iraq which now resulted in even more anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. Attempt brokerage of peace in the region have failed for the same reasons. Why can't help from the West just be what it is - something to be thankful for? (The point here is that ANY help is not appreciated).
4) Foreign Policy: Diplomacy has been an utter disaster. Support of Israel is sometimes questionable but why can't the Muslims reconcile with Israel? Yeah, blah blah blah Israel's at fault...but why can't both sides compromise? It's stupid. Even looking beyond dealings with Israel the US and other nations have failed to make headway with fundamentalistic hardliners. Why can't a middle ground be found? A good example is the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically, the Islamic version is one that is incompatible with democratic tenets. But essentially, the moral emphasis is the same. Setting religion aside, we're supposed to be working together and work through the differences between nations. Why can't both sides work diplomatically toward the same goal that is shared? It seems to me that the extremist views are incompatible with working with others - not the other way around.
5) Captain Jihad: The mullahs call for a jihad. I understand the need to fight with purpose - whether its correct or not, there's always a justification for violence. Jihad is used to promote the supremecy of Islam and destroy persecution. The jihad calls for no killing of innocents and no wanton destruction. It prohibits the killing of non-combatants and prisoners of war. Other directives include: 1) a display of pride should be avoided when an army sets out for battle, 2) people who want to remain neutral should be left alone, 3) people who neither take part in a battle should not be killed, 4) dead bodies should not be mutilated, 5) no torture, 6) do not touch children, women or eldery, 7) respect all religious persons and their buildings. Now, I can cite a few instances (current buring of churches, public televised demostrations, kidnappings) where these have been broken, but I'm not sure if its a systemic problem or they are isolated incidents...but it happens. Why do the muslims have laws restricting declaring jihad also not require following the rules for jihad as well?
6) Power Mullahs: It's a theocracy over there. Religious education starts with intolerance and helps grow more extremists. Why can't the muslim society evolve? Or why can't we be sensitive to them in our dealings to prevent friction? Is progressiveness eliminating any hope of reconcilation? I believe that the West and Western ideology does not need to be adopted in the Middle East, but why is even dealing with the West an affront to their religious beliefs? Everything is an underminding of their society. They are incredibly intolerant...why?
I'm having trouble reading posts where people are telling me they believe the churches in the Middle East should be burned because of what the Pope said ("It's just a critique"). A great opportunity for increasing understanding between cultures in Turkey will now turn into one big demostration, and that sucks.
I'm having trouble with people blaming the West for Islamic intolerance - like it's a badge we've earned - when its a two-way street. I'm having trouble understanding why people can be intolerant of Islamic extremists while condemming US actions to suppress the same extremists. There's also the "violence solves everything", "it's America's fault", and "its' best to do nothing" issues which bother me as well.
I also having trouble with people extending the entire problem to ALL muslims...including those who are against being a racist, but will not hesitate to call someone a racist to further their own argument.
Comment if you wish.
Specifically, Islam is not evil. I do have a problem with a few aspects that I present for debate and clarification:
1) Once a Muslim, always a Muslim: The extreme wings of Sunni and Shi'a muslims specifically state that once you are a muslim, changing religion or criticism of Islam is punishable by death. The Islamic leaders (mullahs?) are in charge of issuing the charges. More moderate muslims allow for a lesser punishment in these cases. So my question is really that of a more modern society - is it really necessary to kill someone for changing relilgion? Is there freedom of choice? Is allowing for this choice something that will undermine the Islamic society? Is it right to have a punishment...any at all...for choosing a religion? Is it right to put the mullahs in charge of monitoring and dishing out punishment since they are attempting to control their power base?
2) Non-muslim critcisms of Islam: Recently the Pope cited a text from someone who was black listed because of Rule #1 above. He's attempting to reconcile with those that he offended but I not sure if they want to. In addition, any outside influences or comments are used inappropriately. In my opinion, if used respectfully a debate of Islamic views and topics would benefit both Muslims and non-Muslims in general. So why isn't it welcomed? Wouldn't it help spread Islam? It would greatly improve the knowledge base on each side, but frankly, it's a two-way minefield.
3) Helping Muslims: I don't remember where exactly this happened or when - but some muslim women and children were loaded onto US troop carriers to protect them from artillery shelling. The troops were left with parting remarks like "I hope you all die"...from the kids they entertained/played with during their stay. A tyrant was removed from Iraq which now resulted in even more anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. Attempt brokerage of peace in the region have failed for the same reasons. Why can't help from the West just be what it is - something to be thankful for? (The point here is that ANY help is not appreciated).
4) Foreign Policy: Diplomacy has been an utter disaster. Support of Israel is sometimes questionable but why can't the Muslims reconcile with Israel? Yeah, blah blah blah Israel's at fault...but why can't both sides compromise? It's stupid. Even looking beyond dealings with Israel the US and other nations have failed to make headway with fundamentalistic hardliners. Why can't a middle ground be found? A good example is the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Specifically, the Islamic version is one that is incompatible with democratic tenets. But essentially, the moral emphasis is the same. Setting religion aside, we're supposed to be working together and work through the differences between nations. Why can't both sides work diplomatically toward the same goal that is shared? It seems to me that the extremist views are incompatible with working with others - not the other way around.
5) Captain Jihad: The mullahs call for a jihad. I understand the need to fight with purpose - whether its correct or not, there's always a justification for violence. Jihad is used to promote the supremecy of Islam and destroy persecution. The jihad calls for no killing of innocents and no wanton destruction. It prohibits the killing of non-combatants and prisoners of war. Other directives include: 1) a display of pride should be avoided when an army sets out for battle, 2) people who want to remain neutral should be left alone, 3) people who neither take part in a battle should not be killed, 4) dead bodies should not be mutilated, 5) no torture, 6) do not touch children, women or eldery, 7) respect all religious persons and their buildings. Now, I can cite a few instances (current buring of churches, public televised demostrations, kidnappings) where these have been broken, but I'm not sure if its a systemic problem or they are isolated incidents...but it happens. Why do the muslims have laws restricting declaring jihad also not require following the rules for jihad as well?
6) Power Mullahs: It's a theocracy over there. Religious education starts with intolerance and helps grow more extremists. Why can't the muslim society evolve? Or why can't we be sensitive to them in our dealings to prevent friction? Is progressiveness eliminating any hope of reconcilation? I believe that the West and Western ideology does not need to be adopted in the Middle East, but why is even dealing with the West an affront to their religious beliefs? Everything is an underminding of their society. They are incredibly intolerant...why?
I'm having trouble reading posts where people are telling me they believe the churches in the Middle East should be burned because of what the Pope said ("It's just a critique"). A great opportunity for increasing understanding between cultures in Turkey will now turn into one big demostration, and that sucks.
I'm having trouble with people blaming the West for Islamic intolerance - like it's a badge we've earned - when its a two-way street. I'm having trouble understanding why people can be intolerant of Islamic extremists while condemming US actions to suppress the same extremists. There's also the "violence solves everything", "it's America's fault", and "its' best to do nothing" issues which bother me as well.
I also having trouble with people extending the entire problem to ALL muslims...including those who are against being a racist, but will not hesitate to call someone a racist to further their own argument.
Comment if you wish.
