The two faces of Islam.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There ARE no current examples

If you dial back to 1300, and the Pope heard that some splinter Christian group during the Crusades lined up Muslims and Jews and masscred them, the Pope would condemn them?

You are being naive.

It is a comment on the state of affairs as they are RIGHT NOW, to underscore the fundamental differences between the two religions.

YOU CAN'T COMMENT ON THE STATE OF AFFAIRS RIGHT NOW TO UNDERSCORE THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES. This is a logical fallacy. Because one group is violent at the present and the other group is relatively peaceful then that explains the differences in both groups each of which are over 1000 years old? That's ridiculous. If that were the case, then I'd have to say that Britain civilization is fundamentally less violent than Chinese civilization because right now Britain is less violent .

[Velociryx]

I'm not sure where you live, Imran, but I'm living in the present. The differences I see in the present may have their roots in the past, but they have there RELEVANCE in the here and now.

It's absurd to talk about what your great, great, grandpappy did in terms of current events.

Current events are...well, current. Sorta by their nature and design.

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

And, Vel, since no Muslim cleric anywhere is condeming Islamic terrorism, how can there be a good, peaceful Islam which Bush says exists, and a different "fundamentalist" Islam we should oppose?

A recent caller on a talk radio show identified himself as a Mulsim and apologized to America for 9/11. He said the reason other Muslims cannot speak out is fear. He said they fear they will be targeted, or their families "back home" will be targeted, for violence. So there may be some, many or even a majority who oppose violence; but the religion as a whole appears to be ruled even internally by violence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Vel, you still don't get it.

You make a statement like Islam is fundamentally more violent than Christianity. Then you only base it on the present and current events. That is simply moronic.

[Velociryx]

My initial statement was that there was a fundamental difference between these two current events:

1) Muslims dancing in the streets after a cafe bombing

2) No such Christian equivelent present on the world stage today

You don't see the fundamental difference there?

None at all, right?

No difference.

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

My initial statement was that there was a fundamental difference between these two current events

And then you expanded it to say there was a fundamental difference between the two RELIGIONS. And you can't deny it, you just said it a few posts up.

[GePap]

Ned:

unless you know every single Muslim cleric in the world, your statement about them loses all validity, specially since I doubt you are particularly looking for Clerics that might prove you wrong.

Vel:

There is no more violence in the poor Muslim world today than there is in the poor nonMuslim world. Colombia is as racked by violence as any part in the Middle East. Just 20 years ago, so was most of Cnetral America. And all the Muslim extremists around can't match the amount of bloodshed shed in central Africe. The single greatest act of human depravity vs. Humans was carried out in 1994 in Rwanda, one Million killed. There are preachers and bishops, christians, accused of aving sermons urging their congregations to join in the mass murder: men with as much, perhaps more blood on their hands than Osama bin Laden. All the killing in Rwanda was done by Christians. As I said, Crhistian clergy urged them on. Is Christianity to blame? Now, Idoubt there was much dancing as the people were being massacred- it takes a lot to kill one million out of 8 million people in a state in just three months, plus soon afterwards 1.5 million fled fearing retribution when Tutsis took back over.

The violence in the Muslim world can't be expalined by reading the Koran as this threat implies. Suffi Mystics and clerics in central asia have read it and for them it allows for a deeply spiritual, mystical faith. Are the, people who study the Koran deeply, wrong, simply because there are other people who also read the Koran deeply disagree? Oh, and no one has yet mentioned the Shiaa, Sunni split. I guess Muslims do disagree about the meanings of Islam. The violence can better be explained by politics than by scriptural quoting.

[Velociryx]

If I said "religions" then that was my bad, BUT....if you go back and re-read my posts, you will see that I have remained on the same topic despite all attempts to derail me....focused squarely ON the events (and lack thereof) described in the post above. Bombings leading to celebrations on the one hand (islam) in today's world, and nothing of that sort from christianity.

I know you love a good debate, but surely, SURELY you can see that THIS is precisely where I have kept the focus of all my posts.

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bombings leading to celebrations on the one hand (islam) in today's world, and nothing of that sort from christianity.

That statement itself indicates that you are seperating this into a religious issue. Are you say ALL Muslims celebrate after violent acts against civilians and ALL Christians do not? That is saying one religion is fundamentally violent and the other isn't.

GePap brings up the interesting example of Rwanda, where Christians massacred millions and priests led them on. They may not have danced, but Christians urged it on.

You can't blame one religion for something and then say you are not blaming the religion. That's just silly.

[Ned]

GePap, Obviously I am basing what I say only on news reports. If there are clerics speaking out against violence, the news media is not reporting this.

I would welcome a link to a story that will prove me wrong.

[Velociryx]

Imran....has anyone ever told you that you nitpick, rather than debate? Well...you do.

Read my words closely.

Today, in the world, you will find examples of muslims dancing in the streets celebrating after cafes filled with innocent people get blown into tiny little bits by a muslim splinter group.

You do not find christians doing such things when one of their splinter groups blow people in cafes into tiny little bits.

This represents a very different mindset.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

-=Vel=-

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran....has anyone ever told you that you nitpick, rather than debate? Well...you do.

Debate is about nitpicking. It is about taking the words of the opponents and turning them around. Especially when someone says something totally illogical.

Today, in the world, you will find examples of muslims dancing in the streets celebrating after cafes filled with innocent people get blown into tiny little bits by a muslim splinter group.

You do not find christians doing such things when one of their splinter groups blow people in cafes into tiny little bits.

This represents a very different mindset.

So you are saying the religions create a different mindset? Admit it, that is what you are saying. You are saying Islam creates people that dance after terrorist acts.

Your whole analysis is flawed. You take the Middle East and apply what they do to all of Islam which is much, much greater than the Mid East. You seem to think that no one else has ever celebrated after terrorist acts. Columbian Marxist rebels celebrate after they kill a high up person in the government. They may not dance, but that is because they aren't inclined to.

You are attributing one small group and attributing that to the whole, a classic logical fallacy.

If you had stated that poor countries have a different mindset than rich countries and are inherantly more receptive to violence against the supposed oppressors, then I'd agree... but you want to put it on one religion and then say you aren't.

[GePap]

Vel:

To say that bombings lead to celebrations in 'Islam' makes no sense.

Lets take your example: someone blows up a caffee in Israel and Palestinians dance, or there is an attack in the US like 9/11 and many people dance. Now your assumption is that because, undeniably, people do dance (celebrate the violence) then Islam must allow this, and hence it is different from Christianity. Thre are myriad problems with such a statement:

First, we must, like you, assume islam as a dependent variable, true for all those involved. Now, how many people dance? For the attacks on the US there was celebrations in a few area like Palestine. BUt was the celebration widespread, to muslim in al countries? NO. In all muslim states, only a minority celebrated, in Iran there were mass protest for the US. If it is Islam that is the variable, then this result makes no sense. Should not all 1 billion muslim have been dancing?
NOw, at the same time, you are faulty by expecting all those dancing to be Muslims. A small minority of palestinians are Chirstians, and of course, there are many slightly relegious folk, the type that don't pray or fast when they have to. You can't prove that none of the Palestinians dancing where Chirstians or socialists. And if any of them were there in the crowd, the your dependent variable, Islam, is wrong, since we have elements that have nothing to do with it behaving as all the other elements did.

Perhaps Vel you need to start looking for another dependent variable.

[Velociryx]

*sigh*

Having debated all through Highschool and college, I can tell you that your nitpickicking assumption is incorrect. Debate is much more than that.

Do not try to read more into my statement than is there. I am saying all I mean to say by those simple statements.

There's a very different mindset at work.

That's all. No conclusions, no judgements. Just an observation. A somewhat scary observation.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

GePap: The fact is that it wasn't the Amish who were out dancing in the streets after the cafe was bombed in the name of Allah.

It wasn't the French.

It wasn't limited to members of the PLO, the PTA, the KGB, or any other group.

It was a group of folks who practiced Islam, who felt like partying after hearing that some innocent folks got blown to smithereens.

Their leadership did not condemn either the bombing itself or the party atmosphere that followed.

What does that sugesst to you?

-=Vel=-