multiculturalism at fault for terrorism?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

This argument has popped up a lot in light of the London bombings. I'm a bit torn on it, but i think this dude makes some good points, and it's certainly just as valid an argument as "terrorism is a bi-product of American/British foreign policy."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/09/opinion/09manji.html?pagewanted=print

August 9, 2005
Why Tolerate the Hate?
By IRSHAD MANJI
Toronto

FOR a European leader, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain has done something daring. He has given notice not just to the theocrats of Islam, but also to the theocracy of tolerance.

"Staying here carries with it a duty," Mr. Blair said in referring to foreign-born Muslim clerics who glorify terror on British soil. "That duty is to share and support the values that sustain the British way of life. Those who break that duty and try to incite hatred or engage in violence against our country and its people have no place here."

With that, his government proposed new laws to deport extremist religious leaders, to shut down the mosques that house them and to ban groups with a history of supporting terrorism. The reaction was swift: a prominent human rights advocate described Mr. Blair's measures as "neo-McCarthyite hectoring," warning that they would make the British "less distinguishable from the violent, hateful and unforgiving theocrats, our democracy undermined from within in ways that the suicide bombers could only have dreamed of."

But if these anti-terror measures feel like an overreaction to the London bombings, that's only because Britons, like so many in the West, have been avoiding a vigorous debate about what values are most worth defending in our societies.

As Westerners bow down before multiculturalism, we anesthetize ourselves into believing that anything goes. We see our readiness to accommodate as a strength - even a form of cultural superiority (though few will admit that). Radical Muslims, on the other hand, see our inclusive instincts as a form of corruption that makes us soft and rudderless. They believe the weak deserve to be vanquished.

Paradoxically, then, the more we accommodate to placate, the more their contempt for our "weakness" grows. And ultimate paradox may be that in order to defend our diversity, we'll need to be less tolerant. Or, at the very least, more vigilant. And this vigilance demands more than new antiterror laws. It requires asking: What guiding values can most of us live with? Given the panoply of ideologies and faiths out there, what filter will distill almost everybody's right to free expression?

Neither the watery word "tolerance" nor the slippery phrase "mutual respect" will cut it as a guiding value. Why tolerate violent bigotry? Where's the "mutual" in that version of mutual respect? Amin Maalouf, a French-Arab novelist, nailed this point when he wrote that "traditions deserve respect only insofar as they are respectable - that is, exactly insofar as they themselves respect the fundamental rights of men and women."

Allow me to invoke a real-life example of what can't be tolerated if we're going to maintain freedom of expression for as many people as possible. In 1999, an uproar surrounded the play "Corpus Christi" by Terrence McNally, in which Jesus was depicted as a gay man. Christians protested the show and picketed its European debut in Edinburgh, a reasonable exercise in free expression. But Omar Bakri Muhammad, a Muslim preacher and a judge on the self-appointed Sharia Court of the United Kingdom, went further: he signed a fatwa calling for Mr. McNally to be killed, on the grounds that Jesus is considered a prophet by Muslims. (Compassion overflowed in the clause that stated Mr. McNally "could be buried in a Muslim graveyard" if he repented.) Mr. Bakri then had the fatwa distributed throughout London.

Since then, Mr. Bakri has promoted violent struggle from various London meeting halls. He has even lionized the July 7 bombers as the "fantastic four." He is a counselor of death, and should not have been allowed to remain in Britain. And thanks to Mr. Blair's newfound fortitude, he has reportedly fled England for Lebanon.

The Muslim Council of Britain, a mainstream lobbying group that assailed Mr. Blair's proposed measures, has long claimed that men like Mr. Bakri represent only a slim fraction of the country's nearly two million Muslims. Assuming that's true, British Muslims - indeed, Muslims throughout the West - should rejoice at their departures or deportations, because all forms of Islam that respect the freedom to disbelieve, to go one's own way, will be strengthened.

Which brings me to my vote for a value that could guide Western societies: individuality. When we celebrate individuality, we let people choose who they are, be they members of a religion, free spirits, or something else entirely. I realize that for many Europeans, "individuality" might sound too much like the American ideal of individualism. It doesn't have to. Individualism - "I'm out for myself" - differs from individuality - "I'm myself, and my society benefits from my uniqueness."

Of course, there may be better values than individuality for Muslims and non-Muslims to embrace. Let's have that debate - without fear of being deemed self-haters or racists by those who twist multiculturalism into an orthodoxy. We know the dangers of taking Islam literally. By now we should understand the peril of taking tolerance literally.

Irshad Manji is the author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith."

[ziggytrix]

Columbia Univeristy Press calls multiculturalism or cultural pluralism: a term describing the coexistence of many cultures in a locality, without any one culture dominating the region. By making the broadest range of human differences acceptable to the largest number of people, multiculturalism seeks to overcome racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination.

I don't think Blair's statement, if taken purely at face value goes against multiculturalism one bit, unless one means to say violence is some sort of culture, or unless one is arguing that Islamic culture is inherently violent.

This isn't entirely new ground though. Anybody think Bobby Seale or Malcom X should have been deported from the US in the early 70s? Would that have solved the problem of black violence in the civil rights era?

[Zero Signal]

Islam is spread by the sword. If you will not convert, then you will be destroyed. The Qu'ran makes that emphatically clear.

The West presents a problem to Islam because it is corrupt in it's eyes.

Interestingly, we can really blame the British, if we wanted. They brought the sect of Islam called Wahhabi (from Saudi Arabia) to the forefront in their quest to take control of the area. They were a very small group of Muslims until this time, and now their ideals are what is the engine for the terrorists hate.

[ziggytrix]

Islam is spread by the sword. If you will not convert, then you will be destroyed. The Qu'ran makes that emphatically clear.

Only if you take specific passages out of context. Same as the Christian Bible, it can be misrepresented to back a plethora of ludicrous (and sometimes violent) positions. Imagine if the KKK had the numbers that radical Islamic extremists had, we'd hear a lot more about "Christian" terrorists.


"Repel (evil) with what is better. Then will he, between whom and thee was hatred, become as it were thy friend and intimate. And no one will be granted such goodness except those who exercise patience and self-restraint." Chapter 41, Verse 34 and 35

"Say ye: 'We believe in God and the revelation given to us and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord. We make no difference between one and another of them, and we bow to God.' " Chapter 2, Verse 136


In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (s) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war.

An English translation of that document is presented below.





This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them.
Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.
No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.
The Muslims are to fight for them.
If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.
Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).



In Islamic Law the punichment for killing an innocent (whether or not the victim is Muslim) is supposed to be death.

[Zero Signal]

In Islamic Law the punichment for killing an innocent (whether or not the victim is Muslim) is supposed to be death.

From the Hadith:

"No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir" (infidel). Vol. 9:50

[ziggytrix]

According to some scholars in Islam, the correct use of the word kafir in Islamic theology does not include either Christians, Samaritans, Jews, and all "Sabians" who are covered by the term Ahl-al-Kitab, or "People of the Book," because they are considered recipients of divine revelation from Allah. However, other scholars, such as those backing militant Islamists, often do not make the distinction in their rhetoric and do often use it to include these religious communities, or any enemy.

Do Christians have a religous carte blanche to kill pagans (or anyone they feel like labeling as "witch") after reading Exodus 22:18?

BTW the Hadith is not the Quran. Different sects of Islam take different Hadiths to be official, or whatever. If I'm not mistaken, the quote you are reciting is not even from Mohammed, but from his successor Ali.

Of course, it's all rubbish in my opinion, and it really bothers me that more and more Christians and westerners are starting to talk like religious extremists themselves. The sheer number of anti-Islamic propaganda sites that came up when I googled "Hadith 9:50" was a bit disturbing.[/quote]

[Zero Signal]

Do Christians have a religous carte blanche to kill pagans (or anyone they feel like labeling as "witch") after reading Exodus 22:18?
Maybe you could read down a few verses...

"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt."

"Do not allow a sorceress to live." is stated to keep their people uncorrupt from within, as such a person would no doubt spread their beliefs to others within. It is not saying that you should go out and murder infidels in the name of propogating God's Word.

There are fanatics on both sides, no doubt.

Interestingly, the Bible says to put to death false prophets, also. Imagine how many televangelist thieves would disappear if that were to be enacted in this day and age.

[ziggytrix]

Maybe you could read down a few verses...

Not while I'm busy taking things out of context to make a whole religion out to be based on murder! :lol

[Zero Signal]

Also, stop equating Christians with the stipulations of the Law of the Old Testament until you understand it what the Law was given for. The Law was not taken away in the New Testament, but Christians are not bound by it either.

[Zero Signal]

Maybe you could read down a few verses...

Not while I'm busy taking things out of context to make a whole religion out to be based on murder! :lol
I wasn't making them out to be based on murder (and if that is how it seemed, then I apologize), but Muslims saying that it is a religion of peace is a bending of truth at best.

[ziggytrix]

Not you personally. It's just all the rage right now.

Arabic ’islām, submission, from ’aslama, to surrender, resign oneself, from Syriac ’ašlem, to make peace, surrender, derived stem of šlem, to be complete.

maybe that's ironic?

[Zero Signal]

While it may be possible to deceive those who do not speak Arabic or those who do not know much about Islam, propaganda like this does not fool someone who knows the Arabic language and the teaching of Islam, a religion that was established by violence and still believes in violence as a principal and as a way of life. The relationships between Muslims themselves and between them and all other nations have always been based on terror and still is. Islam and Salam are two incongruous words that share no common ground either in name or in substance.

In order to find the meaning of a certain word in the Arabic dictionary, it is essential to search for the three letter infinitive verb which is called the root. Many words can be derived from the same root, but they don't necessarily have to have any similarity in their meaning. The word Islam, which means ‘submission’, is derived from the infinitive Salama. So is the word Salam which means ‘peace’ and so is the verb Salima which means ‘to be saved or to escape from danger’. One of the derivations of the infinitive Salama means ‘the stinging of a snake’ or ‘The tanning of the leather’. Hence, if the word Islam has something to do with the word Salam i.e. ‘Peace’, does that also mean that it must be related to the ‘stinging of the snake’ or ‘tanning the leather’?

Muhammad used to send letters to the kings and leaders of the surrounding countries and tribes, inviting them to surrender to his authority and to believe in him as the messenger of Allah. He always ended his letters with the following two words: "Aslem, Taslam!". Although these two words are derived from the same infinitive Salama which is the root of Salam, i.e. ‘Peace’, neither one of them implies the meaning of ‘peace’. The sentence means ‘surrender and you will be safe’, or in other words, ‘surrender or face death’. So where is the meaning of ‘Peace’ in such a religion that threatens to kill other people if they don't submit to it?

[Helm]

I wasn't making them out to be based on murder (and if that is how it seemed, then I apologize)

Islam is spread by the sword. If you will not convert, then you will be destroyed. The Qu'ran makes that emphatically clear.


Not a lot of room for construsion there...

[ziggytrix]

Last time a Muslim tried to talk to me about Islam he didn't threaten me with violence after I let him know I wasn't interested in practicing a religion. Was he a bad Muslim?

. The sentence means ‘surrender and you will be safe’, or in other words, ‘surrender or face death’.

It means "surrender to God and you will be safe". Jesus practically said the same thing.

Two questions:
1. Are you a practicing Christian, Zero?
2. Do you believe all the propaganda you're cut'n'pasting here?

[Zero Signal]

Being based on murder at its core and using conquest to spread your beliefs are two different things. If you said that Islam has not been spread by spilling the blood of millions of people and oppressing millions or billions more under their iron fist, then you would be incorrect.

Semantics, perhaps.

[ziggytrix]

If you said that Christianity has not been spread by spilling the blood of millions of people and oppressing millions or billions more under their iron fist, then you would be incorrect.

[Zero Signal]

It means "surrender to God and you will be safe". Jesus practically said the same thing.
Stalin might as well have said it with that faux sincerity of peacefulness, considering the bloodshed that Islam wrought to spread itself.

Two questions:
1. Are you a practicing Christian, Zero?
Yes.
2. Do you believe all the propaganda you're cut'n'pasting here?
Perhaps you can tell me where it is incorrect.

[/quote]

[Zero Signal]

If you said that Christianity has not been spread by spilling the blood of millions of people and oppressing millions or billions more under their iron fist, then you would be incorrect.True Christianity hasn't been spread like that. The Inquisition was simply a means for the Catholic Church to destroy those who they saw as a threat to their power. The Crusades were sent to free Jerusalem from the Muslims.

[Helm]

If you said that Christianity has not been spread by spilling the blood of millions of people and oppressing millions or billions more under their iron fist, then you would be incorrect.True Christianity hasn't been spread like that. The Inquisition was simply a means for the Catholic Church to destroy those who they saw as a threat to their power. The Crusades were sent to free Jerusalem from the Muslims.

Ziggy, don't bother.

Edit: ok I'll bite:

True Islamic faith hasn't been spread like that. Terrorist attacks were simply a means for Islamic fundamentalists to destroy those who they saw as a threat to their way of life.

[Zero Signal]

Let's throw out the last 1500 years of Islamic history, shall we?

How exactly HAS it been spread? With rose petals and songs and dancing?

[Helm]

what you said only where Islam put Christianity blah blah blah

[ziggytrix]

2. Just as much as you're believing the crap you're pasting. I ADORE message board litmus tests.

Um, I quoted religious texts & dictionary entries. If that's crap, then I'm done with this discussion. You guys have fun talking about how Islam is inherently evil and let me know if I can be any assistance in wiping them off the planet, thanks! :)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Do the same contextual arguments really apply to the Qur'an? I've generally heard otherwise, since the Bible and the Qur'an primarily have stylistic differences. The Qur'an is shorter than the Old Testament, and a little longer than the New. This leaves little wiggle room.

Since you won't believe me, I have cited a "scholastic" resource:

http://www.themodernreligion.com/science/science-bucaille.html

As we have noted earlier, experts in Biblical exegesis consider the books of Old and New Testaments to be divinely inspired works. Let us now examine, however, the teachings of Muslim exegetes, who present the Qur'an in quite a different fashion.

When Muhammad was roughly forty years old, it was his custom to retire to a retreat just outside Mecca in order to meditate. It was here that he received a first message from God via the Angel Gabriel, at a date that corresponds to 610 A.D. After a long period of silence, this first message was followed by successive revelations spread over some twenty years. During the Prophet's lifetime, they were both written down and recited by heart among his first followers. Similarly, the revelations were divided into suras(chapters) and collected together after the Prophet' death (in 632 A.D.) in a book: the Qur'an. The Book contains the Word of God, to the exclusion of any human additions. Manuscripts dating from the first century of Islam authenticate today's text, the other form of authentication being the recitation by heart of the Qur'an, a practice that has continued unbroken from the time of the Prophet down to the present day.



UNCORRUPTED NATURE OF THE QUR'AN

In contrast to the Bible, therefore, we are presented with a text that is none other than the transcript of the Revelation itself; the only way it can be received and interpreted is literally. The purity of the revealed text has been greatly emphasized, and the uncorrupted nature of the Qur'an stems from the following factors:

First, as stated above, fragments of the text were written down during the Prophet's lifetime; inscribed on tablets, parchments and other materials current at the time. The Qur'an itself refers to the fact that the text was set down in writing. We find this in several suras dating from before and after the Hejira (Muhammad's departure from Mecca to Medina in 622 A.D.) In addition to the transcription of the text, however, there was also the fact that it was learned by heart. The text of the Qur'an is much shorter than the Old Testament and slightly longer than the New Testament. Since it took twenty years for the Qur'an to be revealed, however, it was easy for the Prophet's followers to recite it by heart, sura by sura. This process of recitation afforded a considerable advantage as far as an uncorrupted text was concerned, for it provided a system of double-checking at the time the definitive text was written down. This took place several years after the Prophet's death; first under the caliphate of Abu Bakr, his first successor, and later under the caliphate of Omar and in particular that of Uthman (644 to 655 A.D.) The latter ordered an extremely strict recension of the text, which involved checking it against the recited versions.
---

Oh, my answers:

1. Yes
2. Just as much as you're believing the crap you're pasting. I ADORE message board litmus tests.

[ziggytrix]

<double post>

[KevinTheOmnivore]

If you can't respond to the substance of what I said, then don't, but don't blame your stupid little quiz on us.

[Zero Signal]

what you said only where Islam put Christianity blah blah blah
:rolleyes

[ziggytrix]

If you can't respond to the substance of what I said, then don't, but don't blame your stupid little quiz on us.

"In contrast to the Bible, therefore, we are presented with a text that is none other than the transcript of the Revelation itself; the only way it can be received and interpreted is literally."

There are schools of Muslim thought that don't believe this, and there are schools of Christian thought that say the Bible IS the literal word of God.

If you are referring to the 2 questions I asked of Zero as my "stupid little quiz" you can go fuck yourself. I didn't ask YOU a god damned thing.

[ziggytrix]

2. Do you believe all the propaganda you're cut'n'pasting here?
Perhaps you can tell me where it is incorrect.


The sentence means ‘surrender and you will be safe’, or in other words, ‘surrender or face death’.

Person 1 says A. A could be construed as B. Therefore person 1 said B.

This is a fallacious argument and one that I can find repeated VERBATIM on several very anti-Islamic websites. I was wondering if you unquestioningly believed Mohammed signed all his letters "surrender or die!"

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"In contrast to the Bible, therefore, we are presented with a text that is none other than the transcript of the Revelation itself; the only way it can be received and interpreted is literally."

There are schools of Muslim thought that don't believe this, and there are schools of Christian thought that say the Bible IS the literal word of God.

Fair enough, but that doesn't address the actual size of the content matter by comparison, not to mention the difference in how the writings in each one were transcribed.

You may not believe that the literal interpretation straight verbatim from the mouth is the way to go, but you can still argue then that the writings in the Qur'an should be taken more literally than what's in the Bible.

That's why I don't like your equivalence argument, because it assumes that both books were written and compiled under VERY similar circumstances, which I don't believe to be the case.

Also, there's a key distinction you're missing here. Maybe both books have really bad literal interpretations, so you thus shouldn't interpret either literally. Okay, for sake of argument, I'll grant you that.

Where I see a problem is that muslim nations are actually ruling and judging their people based off of these interpretations, and often codifying some of the more questionable positions in the Qur'an. By contrast, if a state building in Texas wants to display the 10 Commandments, we have a huuuge debate over the matter, one which roles all the way up to the highest court in the land. THIs, to me, is also why your relativity argument doesn't fly.


If you are referring to the 2 questions I asked of Zero as my "stupid little quiz" you can go fuck yourself. I didn't ask YOU a god damned thing.

No, you misunderstand. I LOVE the idea of qualifying what you post on the board, ESPECIALLY if we disagree with you....! That way, when you talk about religion and Christianity, I can ask that you provide your own stance on the matter, thus disqualifying EVERYTHING that you may say on the matter....! FANTASTIC!

[ziggytrix]

By contrast, if a state building in Texas wants to display the 10 Commandments, we have a huuuge debate over the matter, one which roles all the way up to the highest court in the land. THIs, to me, is also why your relativity argument doesn't fly.

But I'm not arguing that Islamic theocracies aren't 5 centuries behind the Western ones in terms of development. There were times when a man could be locked up or killed for heresey in European Christian societies. And they called those times the Dark Ages with good reason. Islamic culture could certainly stand to have it's own Renessaince.

My argument is that mainstream Islam is not concerned with the violent conversion of nonbelievers to Islam.


No, you misunderstand. I LOVE the idea of qualifying what you post on the board, ESPECIALLY if we disagree with you....! That way, when you talk about religion and Christianity, I can ask that you provide your own stance on the matter, thus disqualifying EVERYTHING that you may say on the matter....! FANTASTIC!

Uh right. I just didn't want to ASSUME that he was a Christian just because he seems to have something against Muslims. It wasn't so I could disqualify everything he had to say. I just like context. If you'll scroll up, you'll see where I said I felt context is important.

[ziggytrix]

Let's throw out the last 1500 years of Islamic history, shall we?

How exactly HAS it been spread? With rose petals and songs and dancing?

BTW, if you're interested in a different side of the story read this (http://www.thewaytotruth.org/islamandhumanity/spreadofislam.html). It's Islamic propaganda tho, so I do expect you to take it with a grain of salt.

here's a sample quote if you don't wanna read the whole thing
A. J. Arberry has also pointed out that the reason for the spread of Islam is Islam itself and its religious values. (Aspects of Islamic Civilization, p.12) He states:

The rapidity of the spread of Islam, noticeably through extensive provinces which had been long Christian, is a crucial fact of history.. The sublime rhetoric of the Quran, that inimitable symphony, the very sounds of which move men to tears and ecstasy". (M. Pickhtal, The Meaning of the Glorious Quran, p.vii)

Arberry continues:

This, and the urgency of the simple message carried, holds the key to the mystery of one of the greatest catalysms in the history of religion. When all military, political and economic factors have been exhausted, the religious impulse must still be recognized as the most vital and enduring.

Brockelman, who is usually very unsympathetic and partial, also recognizes the religious values of Islam as the main factor for the spread of Islam. (History of the Islamic Peoples, p.37) Rosenthal makes his point as follows:

The more important factor for the spread of Islam is religious law of Islam (Sharia which is an inclusive, all-embracing, all-comprehensive way of thinking and living) which was designed to cover all manifestations of life. (Political Thought in Medieval Islam, p.21)

or if you prefer, a more neutral (and in my opinion more credible) version:

Many historians have questioned whether these conversions to Islam were in fact genuine transformations and acceptance of the new religion, or whether it was performed by physical force or other pressures by Muslim conquerors (i.e. a convenient strategy to succeed in trade). "It is now apparent that conversion by force, while not unknown in Muslim countries, was, in fact, rare." (15) Instead, most people who adopted the new faith did so voluntarily, and such force was condemned by religious teachings. As the Qur'an proclaims, "Let there be no compulsion in religion." (16) Also in his authoritative commentary and translation, 'Ali further explains that compulsion is incompatible with Islam because "religion depends upon faith and will, and these would be meaningless if induced by force." (17)

Even when these conversions were voluntary there is the question of motivation. Did they convert out of true faith or social and political advantages to be gained by membership? "It seems more realistic to recognize that in most cases worldly and spiritual motives for conversion blended and cannot be differentiated." (18) What matters in the end is that not only did the religion spread quite rapidly, but many of those who converted for worldly reasons either personally embraced Islam on spiritual grounds or their descendants did. The means may have been financial expedient, but the end for many was a firm, convicted embrace of a new religion.

Rapid conversion to Islam was rare. In order to make it a more permanent force, it was introduced gradually and reinforced over time until full adherence to the doctrines of Islam was completed. Trading was vital to this process because of the continued return of traders after periods of letting the new religion acclimated to the new culture, and vice versa. Such slow immersion in the three regions under study was also important in that it permitted the local culture the opportunity to modify the religion to the local culture and the traditions of the local community (within shari'a (Islamic law) of course).

Interestingly enough, according to Robinson, popular culture in the non- Arab regions where Islam became a major religion attributes the introduction of Islam to holy men. That is local tradition in southeast Asia, central Asia and China, and sub-Saharan Africa attributed the introduction of Islam almost exclusively to holy men. Further scrutiny of remaining records, however, reveals that many of these holy men often doubled as traders, or arrived in the company of traders and on their ships, so either way the trading process played a vital role in the spread of the religion.

source: http://www.american.edu/TED/spice.htm

[KevinTheOmnivore]

My argument is that mainstream Islam is not concerned with the violent conversion of nonbelievers to Islam.

Right, but what are they concerned with? That seems to me to be the real question. The topic wasn't how is Islam spread (which is where the convo went), but rather, what Western behavior has helped inculcate bad behavior on the part of extremist muslims.

I don't think that Wahhabists or "extremists" are concerned with converting the West either. I do however believe that they want to hurt the West, and the question is do we remain open and tolerant and pluralistic in order to feel really good about ourselves, or do we start to take a firm stance against those who might hurt us?

I personally don't care if people want to be muslim, and no, I don't hate them. I would love to live in a warm, feel-good society where we all live side-by-side and go bowling together on Fridays. But look, for example, at the Scandinavian countries. granted, it's one slightly xenophobic society clashing with another, but it hasn't been a pleasant transition with their new muslim neighbors.

Is it our weakness that they hate? Is it our willingness to be open to almost anything that conveys weakness to them...? Would there actually be a better coexistance if we got tougher?


I just didn't want to ASSUME that he was a Christian just because he seems to have something against Muslims.

And had he provided you that info up front, the whole conversation could've been avoided. Be up front about your Christianity, and we'll just figure out what you think aboout Islam. The system is flawless. Maybe we can have like a jesus fish emoticon to speed it up.