Political Crossfire Forums

[ieatfood]

I found this from another post. It is a woman who claims that the clash of the west vs islam is really a clash between a modern sophisticated civilized world versus a barbaric, outdated, backwards, and ignorant civilization.

In many muslim societies, this "heretic" would have been tortured and put to death.

What are your thoughts?

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null

[HomoUniversalis]

I agree with her. Though muslim culture is not essentially backwards, it is in this time. And the conflicts are indeed between a humanist, progressive culture, and a backwards one. Many of the imams in the muslim world have no understanding or notion of the ideals of the western world, and condemn them, out of ignorance, using their religious authority to compell others to follow.

However, this is not the full problem. Islam itself is also in a humanist conflict, between those muslims who have humanised in the western world (or in the ME for that matter), and the fundamentalists. Yet, this battle does not seem to be battled, as it was in Christianity by Luther et al.
It seems as if the muslims seem to be hesitant in engaging in an intellectual debate regarding the quran, and its translations, and condemning the interpretations of terrorists and fundamentalists as inhuman.
Rather, they say such interpretations are impossible, and that islam means peace, while the fundamentalists are saying the exact same thing, in term leading to the west believing muslims as a whole have a VERY distinct idea of peace (this coupled with terms like "The house of peace"), it is very difficult to accept islam as a whole.

Muslims in the west MUST speak out against fundamentalist and support their humanist governments against the barbaric fundamentalists. If not, the nuanced view of islam will never come to fully exist in western civilisation, and we can only fear what a large basis of hatred against muslims will mean in the West.

I like her statement on that Muslims have to ask themselves what they can do for humanity, before they demand to be respected by humanity. Let those moderate muslims show their capabilities to bring enlightenment to the west, and seperate themselves from fundamentalist islam. Until such a time, do not expect a nuanced view of the west. They, largely, only see fundamentalist islam, with a silent minority of moderates, and that is unacceptable (which is shown by the upmarch of anti-muslim parties and statements by settled politicians).

Mr U

[Random Evil Guy]

ieatfood wrote: I found this from another post. It is a woman who claims that the clash of the west vs islam is really a clash between a modern sophisticated civilized world versus a barbaric, outdated, backwards, and ignorant civilization.

In many muslim societies, this "heretic" would have been tortured and put to death.

What are your thoughts?

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null

no arguments from me. in many ways, islamic countries are backwards and intolerant.

[Saracen]

I'm calling BS on that one. Why? I'll explain later.

[Saracen]

Here's why. I responded to a similar thread in P and G.

Ozzone wrote: I found this link on another forum. It's a secular woman stating, in her opinion, what is wrong with the Muslim faith and what she feels needs to be done to stop the fighting.

Watch it yourself and decide. I think she nailed it right on the head dead solid.

VIDEO

Well, I'm not surprised. Seeing that she lives in America, and that she probably has no idea about the Middle East and leans towards the American secularism, and not to mention that the translation was bad and she took religion right out of context like some of you guys here do, I'm calling that video what it is: bullsh!t.
Not to mention the fact that she's gotten herself nowhere in the argument. There is no clash of civilizations or cultures. It's all an exaggeration. Plain and simple.
And if you want proof, just read this argument I posed to Chingu:

Saracen wrote: No one is seeking to make a Christian a Muslim either. And no, I am not choosing sides. Sorry. Also, Chingu, the large post you put up is essentially what you said before, which was refuted by bob.appleyard and others. Middle Eastern culture is pretty westernized right now to produce another terrorist. The only source of terrorism are people, not cultures. Terrorism is not an ideology, but a war tactic, and the first two countries that employ this tactic that come across my mind are the US and Israel. Trying to put the blame on one side of the story while attaining a fake moral high ground won't do. If it was a clash of cultures, you would see more than what you're seeing today. I already showed you that it's not a clash of cultures. It's just a clash between people. These people do not represent our culture or way of life... far from it. They are nothing but outcasts that go around and kill innocents. Even if there are people who protest and take part in violent activities, that doesn't make them religiously or culturally motivated. It's just that they're angry. If you write another topic like "Clash of Factions", I would agree to that. But no, it's not a clash of cultures. It's really silly that you take it to monumental proportions and think that you're speaking the "truth" whereas in fact the only thing you're doing is mounting up philosophical garbage upon garbage. Also, many Muslims and Middle Easterners won't agree with that garbage because they, too, know that there is no "culture clash". And as the guys said, you can't tell me how my "culture" functions. The only thing you can do is spew up so much hate about it and bring about more excuses for interventionism. I guess you'll never learn, Chingu. With that said, I extend an invitation to the Middle East. If you fear it so much, I suggest you look at it firsthand and see for yourself in order to gain an understanding... unless, of course, you'd rather stick to your head-bashing ways. I won't blame you, though.

[HomoUniversalis]

Quote: If you fear it so much, I suggest you look at it firsthand and see for yourself in order to gain an understanding...

Come to my home. Say to me that freedom is dirty, homosexuals are vile, and I am a moron. I will smile at you, and give you some more coffee. Say it at street, some people will shake their heads at you and go on about their business.

Can you give me the same guarantees when I go to the Middle-East? Can you guarantee that when I say that Islam is dirty, muslims are vile, and you are a moron, that I will not be harmed? Even when I do so on the streets?
Though I do not fear islam, muslims or the Middle-East, I appreciate living. Can you guarantee me that I will be safe in the Middle-East?

What do you think of my post in this thread? I talk less about a clash between cultures, I think.

Mr U

[Saracen]

HomoUniversalis wrote: Quote: If you fear it so much, I suggest you look at it firsthand and see for yourself in order to gain an understanding...

Come to my home. Say to me that freedom is dirty, homosexuals are vile, and I am a moron. I will smile at you, and give you some more coffee. Say it at street, some people will shake their heads at you and go on about their business.

Can you give me the same guarantees when I go to the Middle-East? Can you guarantee that when I say that Islam is dirty, muslims are vile, and you are a moron, that I will not be harmed? Even when I do so on the streets?
Though I do not fear islam, muslims or the Middle-East, I appreciate living. Can you guarantee me that I will be safe in the Middle-East?

What do you think of my post in this thread? I talk less about a clash between cultures, I think.

Mr U

I can guarantee that you'll be safe. However, I suggest you take a look at this big post that debunks the video:

Saracen wrote: SamJ2K5 wrote: The problem is that Islamic Law breeds terrible cultures and countries..... Could you please name ONE good thing that Islamic culture has made in the last 200 years??? I understand that you think we should leave them alone and that is fine and a very popular position to take, but the woman was not talking Iraq or America in the ME at all..... The woman was simply pointing out that there is a problem in the Islamic culture.... Where am I wrong??? Where was she wrong???

Islamic Culture is not the problem. It's the people. If you keep concentrating on Saudi Arabia and Iran while turning a blind eye to the other 21 Arab states and other Islamic countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia which have all made progress, you've got a problem in seeing that, not us.

Well, I watched the video, and I can point out several things.

1. There were many parts in the video that were purposely censored, so I won't rely on the video.

2. She lashes out vehemently against Islam and Muslims without regarding a single achievement of the Islamic Empire.

3. She is a known vocal critic of Islam, and has no knowledge whatsoever about it. In other words, she has much knowledge about Islam as did Bag of Rags.

4. Until I get a transcript of the ENTIRE interview, I'm going to call that whole video what it is: bullsh!t.

After watching that video, I realized that all she did was lash out at the Islamic world with gross overgeneralizations without looking at the facts. First of all, she does not know that Muslim women have a much more respected stance in Islamic society than do women in the West. Second, civilization depends on who's defining it. I don't call, for example, a woman who walks out half-naked "civilized" for that matter, or people who go and drink in parties or whatever "civilized". They can do it as much as they want, and I'm not stopping them, but it does not give me the right to call the shots on what's civilized and what's not. Moreover, she glorifies the Jews for surviving the Holocaust (and that's a good thing, but...) without acknowledging what the Palestinians have been going through for the past few decades (warning: graphic pics). Moreover, she also fails to recognize the push for Arab reform that has been driving the Arabs ever closer to betterness. In addition to all this, she seems to be too pro-Bush to realize that the war on Iraq is more detrimental to the Iraqis and more advantageous for the Americans.
Now, as for your stupid logic, Sam, if you expect the Islamic world to come up with something (and it's very evident that they have come up with a lot), then you must be expecting the same thing from other places like South America and Australia and so forth, huh? Individuals, not societies, contribute. Trying to make things collective won't work. And also following from your stupid logic (I call stupid what it is), the American culture is responsible for every death in Iraq, and for every bullet that goes into Israeli Galils that kill Palestinian children. That sounds stupid, right? When I read about the Salem Witch Trials, did I think that Christian culture involves burning innocent women at the stake? No, because that type of thinking is backwards and is illogical to say the least. It's not the culture. It's just some of its people. The woman in the video lost all credibility. It's evident, also, from her history that she has lived in America all her life to acquire her views, so I find her as biased and ignorant as I find most anti-Islamics.
I'm going to quote a friend of mine on this:

Zeeman wrote: How come when that happens Arabs blame American govt.and foreign policy and not the west or even the American people..I guess thats barbaric thinking now isnt it?? I would guess if it was you on this side of the world you would think all the white race is responsible..

Melchior wrote: Western Society owes a lot to Arab Culture, check it out:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/01/08/alphabet/index.html

I'm not sure about the last 200 years, but for comparison maybe you could post what other countries have come up with? (Not counting the USA, considering 200 years is our very age).

I simpy find it astonishing how you can denigrate the cultural value of, what, almost 1/3 the planet?

Great post!
:clap: :tu:

I replied to it in the "Politics & Government" section.

[eynon]

HomoUniversalis wrote: Quote: If you fear it so much, I suggest you look at it firsthand and see for yourself in order to gain an understanding...

Come to my home. Say to me that freedom is dirty, homosexuals are vile, and I am a moron. I will smile at you, and give you some more coffee. Say it at street, some people will shake their heads at you and go on about their business.

Can you give me the same guarantees when I go to the Middle-East? Can you guarantee that when I say that Islam is dirty, muslims are vile, and you are a moron, that I will not be harmed? Even when I do so on the streets?
Though I do not fear islam, muslims or the Middle-East, I appreciate living. Can you guarantee me that I will be safe in the Middle-East?

What do you think of my post in this thread? I talk less about a clash between cultures, I think.

Mr U

there are many places in the US where saying those things will get you punched right in the nose, but then again many Europeans only consider us half-civilized :wink:

[Saracen]

Eynon81 wrote: there are many places in the US where saying those things will get you punched right in the nose, but then again many Europeans only consider us half-civilized :wink:

I can think of a few places, Eynon. :wink:

[HomoUniversalis]

Eynon81 wrote: there are many places in the US where saying those things will get you punched right in the nose, but then again many Europeans only consider us half-civilized :wink:

I like to call it... nearly civilised :P

Saracen, on your quote, I don't normally talk about the method in which a text is written, but the red hurts my eyes. It does not do the argument good.

I hope you will allow me to respond to your quote here, as you posted it here, and I'm too.. uhm... lazy to go to that other thread :).

Saracen wrote: Islamic Culture is not the problem. It's the people. If you keep concentrating on Saudi Arabia and Iran while turning a blind eye to the other 21 Arab states and other Islamic countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia which have all made progress, you've got a problem in seeing that, not us.

I agree. It is important to gain a complete and full view of reality, and to differentiate between various cultures. It is why I try to avoid difficult definitions such as 'clash between civilisations', 'cultures' or even religious beliefs. I prefer to see it as a clash within islam itself, an inevitable clash, that has as its playing ground, much of the civilised world. As a result of the globalisation of the 'Imperial' West. Imperial is between accents because we are no longer imperial, but because our influence and power stretched beyond borders in the past, and the 'global village' is not easily broken down now.

This clash within islam is between an islam that has seperated itself from what I perceive to be arab culture (I'm no expert on this), which I view as uhm, primitive. That is, stoning, chopping off limbs, et cetera. It is on one side those who see Muhammed as a revolutionary and continue the revolution now (for women's emancipation, and so on), and on the other side, the fundamentalists, traditionalists, who believe in the worldwide submission to a global muslim state.

Quote: Well, I watched the video, and I can point out several things.

1. There were many parts in the video that were purposely censored, so I won't rely on the video.

I agree. Even though I agreed with her, I want to hear the full story, not just her reply.

Quote: 2. She lashes out vehemently against Islam and Muslims without regarding a single achievement of the Islamic Empire.

There are people who place question marks on the achievements of the islamic empire. That said, I would appreciate you backing up your claim that she acts without it. She attacks the teachings of islam, perhaps, but that does not mean she places it fully in a negative text. All she wants, or so I see it, is to be left the hell alone. She wants that people can have religion in their personal lives, interact with others, but that the religion of other people is of no concern to 'them' (I resent using 'them', but I hope you understand I'm not trying to seperate mankind into muslims and non-muslims)

Quote: 3. She is a known vocal critic of Islam, and has no knowledge whatsoever about it. In other words, she has much knowledge about Islam as did Bag of Rags.

This is an unfair exaggeration, of which I wonder whether it holds merit in an unexaggerated form. Besides, before Allah, are you not also without knowledge?

Quote: 4. Until I get a transcript of the ENTIRE interview, I'm going to call that whole video what it is: bullsh!t.

That's not nice.

Quote: After watching that video, I realized that all she did was lash out at the Islamic world with gross overgeneralizations without looking at the facts. First of all, she does not know that Muslim women have a much more respected stance in Islamic society than do women in the West.

This upsets me. Islamic Society? In the West? Are we talking here about the same complex culture we previously agreed on? Who is generalising here? I think you are being unfair. The west is not dominated by ONE teaching or idea. You can't generalise it, or at least, shouldn't, I think.

Quote: Second, civilization depends on who's defining it. I don't call, for example, a woman who walks out half-naked "civilized" for that matter, or people who go and drink in parties or whatever "civilized".

Oh, I think of civilised as living in cities. The capability of forming large groups of people whilst preserving individuality. Something I don't see (but perhaps I'm not looking hard enough) a lot in islam. Individuality, the ability to be different then the rest. Perhaps, a homosexual atheist who likes to walk around in pink clothing.

Quote: They can do it as much as they want, and I'm not stopping them, but it does not give me the right to call the shots on what's civilized and what's not.

Civilised, the opposite of 'barbaric', historically means non-foreign. That is, you are not civilised because you speak a different language and you act different. Arrogant? No way! :P


Quote: Moreover, she glorifies the Jews for surviving the Holocaust (and that's a good thing, but...) without acknowledging what the Palestinians have been going through for the past few decades (warning: graphic pics). Moreover, she also fails to recognize the push for Arab reform that has been driving the Arabs ever closer to betterness. In addition to all this, she seems to be too pro-Bush to realize that the war on Iraq is more detrimental to the Iraqis and more advantageous for the Americans.

You are being, I dislike saying, unfair. She speaks here of jews, in an, I dare say, aphorism. That is, the jews did not give meaning to the holocaust, or the crimes done against them, but doing back evil, but by excelling, by showing the world that the crimes agains them were crimes against mankind, because they were in fact hurting the greater minds of man.
I'm not saying that was their goal, it was their accomplishment. Paraphrasing her statement, "Don't demand respect, show greatness and deserve it." I agree with that statement, and I imagine you do too. Muslim, I call, do not victimise yourself, but be a person to be reasoned with, and show that you are ready for a cooperation with the west.

We are doomed or blessed towards each other. We have reached a stage in the history of our species where we can no longer live in small groups. We MUST live with each other, or whipe each other out! Is either side important enough to warrant the destruction of the other? Of course not.

Quote: Now, as for your stupid logic, Sam, if you expect the Islamic world to come up with something (and it's very evident that they have come up with a lot), then you must be expecting the same thing from other places like South America and Australia and so forth, huh? Individuals, not societies, contribute. Trying to make things collective won't work. And also following from your stupid logic (I call stupid what it is), the American culture is responsible for every death in Iraq, and for every bullet that goes into Israeli Galils that kill Palestinian children. That sounds stupid, right? When I read about the Salem Witch Trials, did I think that Christian culture involves burning innocent women at the stake? No, because that type of thinking is backwards and is illogical to say the least. It's not the culture. It's just some of its people. The woman in the video lost all credibility. It's evident, also, from her history that she has lived in America all her life to acquire her views, so I find her as biased and ignorant as I find most anti-Islamics.

Am I biased and ignorant? Second, my judgement on the Christian culture is one I will not corrupt this thread with. However, my call against islam has always been one against deception. Do not call yourself the religion of peace with a history of witch trials, murder and rape or war. Acknowledge that you have a warful past, come to peace with it, say "This is what we do not want", and live past it. Don't expect me to accept your reason when you say "my religion is one of peace" (nearly saying that mine isn't), after the atrocities carried out in your name. Accept the streams in your religion, and begin that debate about humanism within islam.

The burden is on the muslim to show to man that he is just as capable of great acts of humanity and enlightenment then any other.

Finally, before you ignore my question.. :P Am I biased and ignorant?

Mr U

[Saracen]

Mr U wrote: Besides, before Allah, are you not also without knowledge?

You are right, of course, but she shows no basic understanding whatsoever.

Mr U wrote: That's not nice.

And...? I can't say anything about it? :razz:

Mr U wrote: This upsets me. Islamic Society? In the West? Are we talking here about the same complex culture we previously agreed on? Who is generalising here? I think you are being unfair. The west is not dominated by ONE teaching or idea. You can't generalise it, or at least, shouldn't, I think.

I'm showing the flaw of logic in her argument by presenting a complete opposite, but as you said, perspectives differ.

Mr U wrote: Oh, I think of civilised as living in cities. The capability of forming large groups of people whilst preserving individuality. Something I don't see (but perhaps I'm not looking hard enough) a lot in islam. Individuality, the ability to be different then the rest. Perhaps, a homosexual atheist who likes to walk around in pink clothing.

Like I said, it depends on who's defining it.

Mr U wrote: You are being, I dislike saying, unfair. She speaks here of jews, in an, I dare say, aphorism. That is, the jews did not give meaning to the holocaust, or the crimes done against them, but doing back evil, but by excelling, by showing the world that the crimes agains them were crimes against mankind, because they were in fact hurting the greater minds of man.

I guess I am being unfair, but with all her fingerpointing without acknowledging what Muslim and Christian Palestinians go through, I wouldn't seem unfair in the least bit. ;)

Mr U wrote: We are doomed or blessed towards each other. We have reached a stage in the history of our species where we can no longer live in small groups. We MUST live with each other, or whipe each other out! Is either side important enough to warrant the destruction of the other? Of course not.

I'll give you that one.

Mr U wrote: Am I biased and ignorant? Second, my judgement on the Christian culture is one I will not corrupt this thread with. However, my call against islam has always been one against deception. Do not call yourself the religion of peace with a history of witch trials, murder and rape or war. Acknowledge that you have a warful past, come to peace with it, say "This is what we do not want", and live past it. Don't expect me to accept your reason when you say "my religion is one of peace" (nearly saying that mine isn't), after the atrocities carried out in your name. Accept the streams in your religion, and begin that debate about humanism within islam.

I'm not talking about you. I was arguing against the poster in the quote box on the top of the page. As for the rest of your argument, it's not carried out in the name of Islam, but it's just that they say they commit these atrocities in the name of Islam, but it has nothing to do with Islam because, well, Islam does not call for it.

[ieatfood]

Saracen wrote: No one is seeking to make a Christian a Muslim either. And no, I am not choosing sides. Sorry. Also, Chingu, the large post you put up is essentially what you said before, which was refuted by bob.appleyard and others. Middle Eastern culture is pretty westernized right now to produce another terrorist. The only source of terrorism are people, not cultures. Terrorism is not an ideology, but a war tactic, and the first two countries that employ this tactic that come across my mind are the US and Israel. Trying to put the blame on one side of the story while attaining a fake moral high ground won't do. If it was a clash of cultures, you would see more than what you're seeing today. I already showed you that it's not a clash of cultures. It's just a clash between people. These people do not represent our culture or way of life... far from it. They are nothing but outcasts that go around and kill innocents. Even if there are people who protest and take part in violent activities, that doesn't make them religiously or culturally motivated. It's just that they're angry. If you write another topic like "Clash of Factions", I would agree to that. But no, it's not a clash of cultures. It's really silly that you take it to monumental proportions and think that you're speaking the "truth" whereas in fact the only thing you're doing is mounting up philosophical garbage upon garbage. Also, many Muslims and Middle Easterners won't agree with that garbage because they, too, know that there is no "culture clash". And as the guys said, you can't tell me how my "culture" functions. The only thing you can do is spew up so much hate about it and bring about more excuses for interventionism. I guess you'll never learn, Chingu. With that said, I extend an invitation to the Middle East. If you fear it so much, I suggest you look at it firsthand and see for yourself in order to gain an understanding... unless, of course, you'd rather stick to your head-bashing ways. I won't blame you, though.

on one level, it is somewhat flawed to even use the term "culture" as islam is a vast vast collection of extraordinarily diverse peoples and there is no one culture that defines every Muslim. After all, Osama bin laden used to frequent nightclubs and drink heavily.

On the other hand, while it is true that not all muslims are suicide bombers, it is also equally true that all suicide bombers are muslim. And while you may seek to dismiss these suicide bombers as radicals and on the fringe and not representing true Islam, nevertheless, from the perception of the world, this is what Islam is becoming associated with. With increasing frequency, when people around the world hear the term Muslim or Arab, the first thing that pops into their head is of a guy with an AK-47 beheading some hostage with a dull knife. As a muslim, this must trouble you. These radicals are damaging your religion far more than any stupid cartoon.

Also, one cannot deny that there is a war going on. The war has 2 sides--the governments of western countries versus certain "Muslims." Now you may say--it is only certain muslims and therefore it is not a clash of civilizations. And you may be technically correct. But because these radical muslims are living within and among Muslim society--it deeply involves all Muslims just as a terrorist attack involving only New York should concern all of America. The United states is waging war against a subset of people living and thriving in your country. There is a very thin line between that and waging a war against you.

Finally, there is indeed a clash of cultures, as is evidenced by the recent Denmark cartoon conflict. The war did not involve bombs and tanks but it did involve violence. And basically the Muslims were pissed off at western culture for their freedom of speech. One culture was pissed off at another culture. That seems to define a clash to me.

And lastly, there is always an inherent clash of cultures because of the very nature of islam and its incompatability with democracy. Islam is supremely intertwined with the state. The very existence of Sharia implies that you cannot separate church and state. Meanwhile, western democracy and a western lifestyle requires such a separation. If you are going to transform into a western-style democracy, you need western laws, many of which directly contradict Sharia. As far as western nations are seeking to democratize the world, Islam will always stand as a force against democracy, just as China's communism does. And just as the US is becoming hostile to china, it will increasingly become hostile to Islam as well. Muslim countries will also stand up to resist the forces of westernized democracy as they are incompatible with Islam. That is where the conflict lies.

[station agent]

ieatfood wrote: In many muslim societies, this "heretic" would have been tortured and put to death.

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?i=214&ar=1050wmv&ak=null

Really? Are there any statistics of how many religious executions like this really go down? I know it happens, but I wasn't under the impression that it was an epidemic.

I know sometimes dissidents disappear and are just not ever heard from again, but that's just political repression for you, nothing really religious about it.

So how many religious executions an hour, a day, month, year are we talking about here?

[Saracen]

ieatfood wrote: on one level, it is somewhat flawed to even use the term "culture" as islam is a vast vast collection of extraordinarily diverse peoples and there is no one culture that defines every Muslim. After all, Osama bin laden used to frequent nightclubs and drink heavily.

I never knew about OBL that way, but you are 100% correct on the first sentence.

ieatfood wrote: On the other hand, while it is true that not all muslims are suicide bombers, it is also equally true that all suicide bombers are muslim. And while you may seek to dismiss these suicide bombers as radicals and on the fringe and not representing true Islam, nevertheless, from the perception of the world, this is what Islam is becoming associated with. With increasing frequency, when people around the world hear the term Muslim or Arab, the first thing that pops into their head is of a guy with an AK-47 beheading some hostage with a dull knife. As a muslim, this must trouble you. These radicals are damaging your religion far more than any stupid cartoon.

Yes, I know that. However, why do you blame us for something that is happening miles away, when we Muslims are really living in places like the MidEast (western part of it), North Africa, and East Asia? We're not part of those communities, and the Islamic community is not a unified one, because there are many sects of Islam as well. Also, suicide bombing was first carried out by the Vietnamese during the Vietnam war, believe it or not, and suicide bombing only appeared last decade here in the MidEast.

ieatfood wrote: Also, one cannot deny that there is a war going on. The war has 2 sides--the governments of western countries versus certain "Muslims." Now you may say--it is only certain muslims and therefore it is not a clash of civilizations. And you may be technically correct. But because these radical muslims are living within and among Muslim society--it deeply involves all Muslims just as a terrorist attack involving only New York should concern all of America. The United states is waging war against a subset of people living and thriving in your country. There is a very thin line between that and waging a war against you.

Hello? Read above. This does not concern all Muslims. An attack on New York may concern America, but the fact that only 20 nutcases did it doesn't mean that all 1.3 BILLION Muslims are to blame. These radicals are not living among us. I've travelled throughout the entire MidEast and have not seen a single nutjob carrying an AK-47, nor have I seen an unarmed nutjob to say the least. These radicals of AQ are what we'd like to call outsiders because they are not part of the Islamic community to begin with! There are no 2 sides. There is no clash of cultures. This is just a battle between the US govt. and the radical Muslims that are against the US!

ieatfood wrote: Finally, there is indeed a clash of cultures, as is evidenced by the recent Denmark cartoon conflict. The war did not involve bombs and tanks but it did involve violence. And basically the Muslims were pissed off at western culture for their freedom of speech. One culture was pissed off at another culture. That seems to define a clash to me.

Incorrect. The clash that you saw did not involve cultures. It involved people. Muslims were pissed off at a series of cartoons. They were not pissed off at the Danes. It's sad, though, that both sides took the issue monumentally and made a mountain out of a molehill. There are no cultures clashing. When "Piss Christ" was aired, Christians were outraged and protested against it. Was there any clash of cultures? No.

ieatfood wrote: And lastly, there is always an inherent clash of cultures because of the very nature of islam and its incompatability with democracy. Islam is supremely intertwined with the state. The very existence of Sharia implies that you cannot separate church and state. Meanwhile, western democracy and a western lifestyle requires such a separation. If you are going to transform into a western-style democracy, you need western laws, many of which directly contradict Sharia. As far as western nations are seeking to democratize the world, Islam will always stand as a force against democracy, just as China's communism does. And just as the US is becoming hostile to china, it will increasingly become hostile to Islam as well. Muslim countries will also stand up to resist the forces of westernized democracy as they are incompatible with Islam. That is where the conflict lies.

That's incorrect. Islam is indeed compatible with democracy. We just need to apply it correctly. There is no battle that is going to be fought here. Stop trying to make the story bigger than it is. There is no armageddon to predict out of all this, buddy.

[Muslima]

My simplest response will be that the westerners who live in the middle east are most applicable people for answering questions about safety and intolerance in the middle east.

and about insulting islam, well IT IS wronng to insult a religion, any religion.......as for the non-muslims you are very Very easy going about your religion(s) when or if insulted!

[Locke25]

Saracen wrote: That's incorrect. Islam is indeed compatible with democracy. We just need to apply it correctly. There is no battle that is going to be fought here. Stop trying to make the story bigger than it is. There is no armageddon to predict out of all this, buddy.

Haha, yes, that is why since the 7th century AD, there has been no democracy in the Middle East at all, unless it was introduced by some Western country.

[Saracen]

soldierofchrist wrote: Compatiable with what? Democracy? Brother, take one look at the Middle East region. There's one democracy, introduced by the US, that looks like it'll fall flat on it's face.

Well, the Middle East at the moment may not be compatible with democracy, bro. But Islam, if practiced properly, will bring about a good democracy. I'm not talking about a theocracy. I'm suggesting that the US Constitution has a lot in common with Islamic teachings that it is possible. :)

[Saracen]

soldierofchrist wrote: But throughout history, it hasn't been compatible,

Could you point out a specific example? I don't doubt you though...

Quote: why is this going to change suddenly?

Well, the thing is, the Middle East is undergoing a lot of reformation these days, but of course, it's going to take a long time to get there.

[pharaoh]

Quote: But throughout history, it hasn't been compatible, why is this going to change suddenly?

Err...Sir You are making some big and over the top accusations here. Islam never stood between the people and democracy. The true reason why the middle east hadnt any powerful democracy like in the west is because we didnt have the same revolutionary experience as in France or in England or in Germany. We hadnt any French revolution or a step by step movement towards democracy as in England. And do you know why? No its not because of Islam, Islam has nothing to do with this, infact Islam is 100% against dictatorship, its simply because the middle east was under occupation for the better part of the last 5 centuries (at least). We were under Ottoman occupation then French then English and Italian then the French again then we became free, but hey we werent really "free", we were governed by dictators who are prepared to kiss the devil's behind than to make the people govern themselves.
Islam was put in the rear seat by the dictators and even in Saudi Arabia and in Iran Islam is not correctly applied.

[Locke25]

pharaoh wrote: Quote: But throughout history, it hasn't been compatible, why is this going to change suddenly?

Err...Sir You are making some big and over the top accusations here. Islam never stood between the people and democracy. The true reason why the middle east hadnt any powerful democracy like in the west is because we didnt have the same revolutionary experience as in France or in England or in Germany. We hadnt any French revolution or a step by step movement towards democracy as in England. And do you know why? No its not because of Islam, Islam has nothing to do with this, infact Islam is 100% against dictatorship, its simply because the middle east was under occupation for the better part of the last 5 centuries (at least). We were under Ottoman occupation then French then English and Italian then the French again then we became free, but hey we werent really "free", we were governed by dictators who are prepared to kiss the devil's behind than to make the people govern themselves.
Islam was put in the rear seat by the dictators and even in Saudi Arabia and in Iran Islam is not correctly applied.

Dude...Islam wasn't put in the rear seat under the Ottomans.