Muslims Kill for Religon?

can't you say that for every religion?

well, maybe except Jew on Buddhist crimes, but every other possibility could be true.

 

How about the Hindu suicide bombers who blow up innocent buddhists in Sri Lanka?
What of Jewish extremists like Goldstein who massacre arabs?
What of christian terrorists like McVeigh who blow up babies in federal buildings?
Christian arabs who slaugher palestinians in lebanon?
Buddhist soldiers who let pogroms against hindus in Sri Lank?
What of Christian colonists who massacred, tortured, and enslaved?
Hindu extremsits who murder Christians in India?

Your logic just sucks... to put it bluntly.

Islam does not have a unique problem with violence.

What it does have is a lot more people willing to kill in the name of religion.. but not all Muslims believe that.. just like not all people of other faiths are peace loving folks.

I do believe Islam is at an historical low right now... but your type of generalizations are not about understanding or tolerance.. but something far more sinister.

 

Huh?
What do you call the separatist movement in India?

 

And hes telling you it has nothing to do with Islam. Every place in the world has people who intepret their local religion the wrong way or take it to extremes. The reason why "Muslims" seem more involved to you is because they strike when least expeted. And theres no organized army. Therefore it gets more coverage and people fear it more.

But surely you can find more examples from other religions who have done just as much damage to others, if not more than Muslims. Christians(Hitler) for example killed Millions of Jews. He didnt just blow them up to a no pain death, he tortured them, then killed them. Christians have also killed many American Indians in he name of "Christ".

Everyreligion preaches tolerance and love for others. But it also says to kill the "non beleivers" or "evil ones". Unfortunately, thats the passages most people remember. Mainly because its the easiest way out.

 

That's wrong. Admittedly, the 1st crusade was an answer to the ruler of Constantinople who was being attacked by Islamic forces. But this was used by the Pope as an excuse to send the knights, religious orders and anyone else interested to go forth reclaim the Holy Land from the infidel, and thus give the Pope an empire he could rule over through the Church.

Saving Constantinople would have been enough, but the Christians had altierior motives, and in fact killed many native Christians because they looked like Muslims (i.e. not European).

 

Re: Re: Re: Muslims Kill for Religon?

Quite honestly,
I don't think the whole world changed after September 11. Not the real world anyway. The world through the eyes of your average US citizen and politician and military general, on the other hand, did change. For once, the US was exposed as vulnerable as some 2900+ lives went down in flames with its towers of global capitalism and "free" trade.
For the US citizens, it was a rude awakening to the real issues facing them as denizens of a global community, a community that they had been either hiding from, shielded from, or given a distorted view of through the "history" books and TV. Many responded with denial and panic, while others responded with rage and vehemence, while still quite a few others saw it coming. Everyone else was used to seeing it on TV happening to other countries like Sudan and Israel or seeing it in Chuck Norris movies, being portrayed as some sort of wacko purely religious fanfare. Folks like Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter took the time to demonize Islam for singlehandedly causing all the violence that we see across the globe in other "less civilized" nations and vindicate what they've been saying all along about their version of the truth (while in reality they were just playing along with Osama and friends right into their game). "Evil" suddenly became the keyword, and it was an easy salve to use on a well-placed wound that was wrought by a political sword sheathed in a hollow interpretation of religion.

This is not the first time that the world has changed because of something like this. Ask the Native Americans about Pizzaro and Columbus and they'll tell you the world changed all right.

As for Islam being looked at more closely than other religious fanaticism, it's because of politics. Look at where all the cookie jars are around the world where the US has its hands stuck into. Any coincidence then that they happen to run into the world's second largest religion? Is it also any coincidence that these cookie jars were once colonized by the European powers, too, and don't like the thought of having a virtual colonial administration that answers to the US of A's interests? Are these people are also afraid of their culture being replaced wholesale by commericialism and capitalism and English and Western style clothing, like what happened in Turkey or Iran? Perhaps that's part of it, although certainly no one I know in India or Pakistan is afraid to drink Coca Cola or eat hamburgers and hot dogs or drive a Cadillac!
So what does religion have to do with all this? There's this book called the "Clash of Civilizations" and it supposedly details the "fundamental and irreconcilible" differences between Islamic culture and its more "advanced" Western counterpart. To me, this is all a joke. While it is true that there really was no doctrine of separation of religion and state in early Islamic history and this clashes with our modern ideas of democracy, it certainly doesn't mean that there was no such thing as ANY degree of separation of religion and state in Islam. Look at the Moghul empire in India, where Hindus and Jews were allowed to practice their religions freely without being forced to convert and they were treated as equals. Hell, one of the kings even married a Hindu! Or in old Jerusalem under Saladin, where essentially the same rules applied.
For me, the irreconcilible differences come when one civilization constantly puts its hand down the other's throat all for political gain. Guys like Bin Laden are pissed that the US is sitting on their land and are afraid that "Imperialism: The America Cut" is about to play in the world theatre soon.
As for taking a whole new step in the 1980's:. The whole new step probably came about as a result of acquiring new and improved technology for killing and a slew of rising regimes that have been looking to give a slap back to the US in the face for years as their nations just starting getting back on their feet following decades and even centuries of imperialism (let's not forget that after WWII, many middle eastern nations were still not fully independent and even after they acquired independence, they were fresh targets for US capitalism and Soviet Communism export backing- see Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan). It was a good time to be an enemy of the state, since you had good company: the Soviets, Qaddafi, Khomenei- all demonized by the US for political reasons. It's not like these states all directly sponsored terrorist groups, but some people took the rallying cry seriously enough to go terrorize. Mind you, there was also a lot of infighting in the region, like Iran-Iraq, which was backed by the US. Let's also not forget about the whole Israel-Palestine issue. There are a whole lot of political reasons, but they all added up.
Oh yes, and please do keep in mind, that while there are different sects of Muslims, that Shiite vs. Sunni is political in root and that within the Sunni branches, like Wahhabiism or Hanafi, there are interpretive differences. For instance, the oft-demonized Wahhabiis are extremely conservative whereas the Hanafi (like myself) are more moderate (the Wahhabis would say liberal!). That being said, the whole message of Islam interpreted through Wahhabiism is what Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda claim to base their teachings on, quite sadly. This is not to say that Wahhabiism is to blame for the terrorism, but rather that it is no surprise that such a conservative and somewhat culturally unadaptive interpretation of the religion could be taken to such an extreme (just like Christian fundamentalism and white supremacy or imperialism, if I'm not mistaken).

 

Hitler was decidedly anti-christian! He killed many christians along with Jews and gypsies. He worked against the churches of Germany, and was deeply into the occult.

 

He was christian. He warped the religion into what HE thought it was supposed to be. It didnt go well with ohers ofcourse so he killed them. How is this diff than Osama and the Taliban and other Muslims?

 

No, Hitler was decidedly anti-christian. He persecuted many in the christian church in Germany during his rule.

 

Hitler was born a Christian, but was not a Christian at the time of the Holocaust. Nazi religion was pagan. Whether or not that "counts" as him being a Christian who practiced atrocities is sort of debatable. I'd say no, since being Christian is a choice; it's not like being black. If you're born black, you're black for life (unless you're Michael Jackson, then you can jump back and forth. ).

If you're inclined to think of Christianity as a sort of meta-tribe, then I guess you can argue that Hitler's atrocities were "Christian" atrocities.

 

To borrow a title of a song...

"It's Killing In The Name Of"

Serg, Hitler did not kill in the name of Christianity, etc.

 

Yep, nothing but a good old fashion land grab.

 

Re: Re: Re: Muslims Kill for Religon?

I'll tell you what happened. Now it did not happen overnight but as soon as the British stopped ruling the world, everything turned to crap.

 

Hindus and Jews do not live together. If Israel was created in present day India.. you better believe Hindus would have something with Jews.

Buddhists persecute Christian Tamils, does that count??

Two words: Indira Ghani!! Her assasination by Sikhs suggests that maybe, just maybe Sikh sepratists don't like Hindus.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Muslims Kill for Religon?

The Ottoman Empire was fairly secular in the sense that it allowed minority religions to keep their own rights (although they were taxed).

Pertaining to the Armenians.. yeah the Turks did a lot of nasty things... but so did the Armenians. Armenian terrorism was rampant in Anatolia, and massacres of Muslims such as the one in Van proves this is no one-sided conflict. I would call it more of an ethnic conflict. Greeks and Turks have killed each other at various times in history. That is more ethnic than religious. In the same sense most Lebanese are muslim (save the 30% Christian minority) so that could be seen as an intra-Islamic conflict, but it has more to do with Arab and Turk ethinc disputes. I am not sure what specific event you reference when you mention the Lebanese. Surely today they are more concerned with illegal Syrian occupation.

 

anytime you get right-wing fundamentalists in power, trouble will follow. Boy, I bet the Palestinians are hankerin' for Ehud Barak now! then you get this right-wing monkey Sharon and mix him up with the right-wing monkey Arafat and look what happens...

therefore right-wingers should be quashed. Even in this country, right-wingers have taken advantage of 9/11 by imposing their oppressive world view. Who wants to kick Jerry Falwell or Billy Graham Jr.'s ass right now? if i didn't know better, you'd think these guys committed the 9/11 attacks (let's see: hijackers: dead, bin Laden: probably dead, taliban: dead, Democrats: politically neutered, right-wing Christian fundamentalists: on the rise). it

let's start by locking up all texans , Bible humpers, and people who say "y'all" and put them in circuses for decent people's amusement.