Threat of Islam?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: rmnunez Islam has some deficiencies in my opinion, but I'm not a Muslim. Many of the "deficiencies" I see in Islam are things many westerners with more enlightened or cosmopolitan views decry in Catholicism particularly; hierarchical structure, enforcement, orthodoxy. A better organized Islam wouldn't have this problem with hot-headed imans mouthing-off radical sermons, they would be better trained and supervised and their uppermost elders more respected. Islam never experienced the enlightment, reformation and a protestant schism, these deprive them of a sense of proportion in balancing temporal and spiritual domains, any formal restraint on religious excesses or much tolerance for any variation. A slew of advantages flow from the western experience; egalitarian societies with representative governments, freedom of expression, competitiveness, scientific enquiry and a strong sense of property. Islam was founded by their prophet Mohammed who was simultaneously their holiest man, governor and military commander. Christ preached humility, renounced the government's authority and never led an army, he preached turning the other cheek and loving one's enemy... Throughout Mohammed's lifetime he lead Muslims in a series of battles across the Arabian peninsula and Islam expanded this way by conquest. Christians had a period of expansion through conquest before the Reformation, they favoured missionary conversions rather than slaughtering the infidels after that. Christ chose a disciple to follow in his mission, Mohammed's followers chose among his biological successors and they've got problems with this since the succesors must also be as Mohammed; religious leaders, governors and military commanders. Terrorism inspired in Islamic fundamentalism is a serious problem that endagers the whole planet. They need a scholarly body that has universal acceptance to be recognized as the only ones capable of licensing an iman. They need to develop a practice of synodal assemblies to address the religious concerns of Muslims in a general way, craft guidelines and endorse practices. They need to dissassociate themselves with politics comletely, censure any preaching that relates to the conduct of government, foreign policy or issues relating to international relations.

Overall, good post. I disagree in that Christ's teachings should be any more adhered to than that of Mohammed. If anything, Mohammed was the more realistic preacher since he had to fight for what he believed in, instead of dying immediately for it. Humans will never be without war while we all have different values and intentions. We all know that.

But, you're exactly right in that extremist terrorism needs to come to an end. What solutions do you propose? Also, watch out for the crazy people who go nuts when we debate about Islam-->Mia.

[tinybear]

In Pakistan alone (supposedly under the regime of a moderate Muslim leader), hundreds of attacks - including gang rapes, ``honor killings'' of wives accused of having affairs and brides murdered for marrying without family consent - are reported each year. Most go unpunished.

In two recent cases, two men killed their sister and her suspected lover by slitting their throats, while another man beat his sister to death for refusing an arranged marriage.

This must also end.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: tinybear In Pakistan alone (supposedly under the regime of a moderate Muslim leader), hundreds of attacks - including gang rapes, ``honor killings'' of wives accused of having affairs and brides murdered for marrying without family consent - are reported each year. Most go unpunished. In two recent cases, two men killed their sister and her suspected lover by slitting their throats, while another man beat his sister to death for refusing an arranged marriage. This must also end.

The big question is how?

[rmnunez]

My solution to terrorism, Islamic fundamentalist-inspired or not, is erradication. No bargaining, no concessions. I think brute force, torture and humiliation in capture are good answers, would advise visiting these on relatives of those directly involved as well. Kill, torture and humiliate their wives, children, parents, brothers and sisters too.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: rmnunez My solution to terrorism, Islamic fundamentalist-inspired or not, is erradication. No bargaining, no concessions. I think brute force, torture and humiliation in capture are good answers, would advise visiting these on relatives of those directly involved as well. Kill, torture and humiliate their wives, children, parents, brothers and sisters too.

That sounds worse than terrorism itself? Violence will not do any good. Societal war is of the past. No longer can you change the minds of a society by conquering them as Alexander the Great did. That will create more violence, it won't stop. Especially when government is run based on belief. You can ruin buildings, you can kill leaders, but you cannot destroy belief. You must change belief by making other beliefs more believable or proving that the other beliefs are more progressive.

[rmnunez]

I know my prescription is harsh, but its targetted at a discrete group which cannot find fit in modern society. The beliefs shared by terrorists are not progressive nor amenable to proof of their veracity, furthermore -it makes no difference to them whether others find these believeable or progressive.

[Matt W]

And it doesn't work. Look at Israels' treatment of the Palestinians. That's only been going on 50+ years, and the effect on the Israelis themselves is hardly great. I'd rather not have that, thank youso much.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez My solution to terrorism, Islamic fundamentalist-inspired or not, is erradication. No bargaining, no concessions. I think brute force, torture and humiliation in capture are good answers, would advise visiting these on relatives of those directly involved as well. Kill, torture and humiliate their wives, children, parents, brothers and sisters too.

To paraphrase a popular American TV game show - Is that your "Final Solution?"

If brutality and murder were effective tools, war would have died out several millennia ago. Becoming terrorists ourselves only expands the pool.

[Livemike]

Quote by: rmnunez My solution to terrorism, Islamic fundamentalist-inspired or not, is erradication. No bargaining, no concessions. I think brute force, torture and humiliation in capture are good answers, would advise visiting these on relatives of those directly involved as well. Kill, torture and humiliate their wives, children, parents, brothers and sisters too.

So you would torture and murder the innocent to prevent the torture and murder of the innocent. Well fair enough, if that's a valid moral ground then guess what I'm going to do to you?

[rmnunez]

There is a notion in ethics which teaches that some evil can be wrought to prevent greater evil.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: rmnunez There is a notion in ethics which teaches that some evil can be wrought to prevent greater evil.

I'd like that notion explained, or rationalized to me. Evil destroying evil? As if evil even existed. It is a human concept given to the things we, at the time, do not like...at all. Things that go against all, or most, of our morals and beliefs.

[rmnunez]

An analogy might be found in the Iraqi intervention. In that case a determination was reached that a greater evil could be prevented if force was used. Whether the determination was soundly premsed is another matter.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez An analogy might be found in the Iraqi intervention. In that case a determination was reached that a greater evil could be prevented if force was used. Whether the determination was soundly premsed is another matter.

The Iraq invasion is a good example. Not only was the invasion immoral but it is failing. Killing civilians by the thousands and laying waste to a country is sowing dragon's teeth. We are creating our own future enemys, whole new generations of terrorists. We will be far less safe for decades because of King George's great adventure.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: rmnunez An analogy might be found in the Iraqi intervention. In that case a determination was reached that a greater evil could be prevented if force was used. Whether the determination was soundly premsed is another matter.

I agree that, generally speaking, the Iraq war should go against my opinion that violence creates violence. Yet, the Iraq War is complicated and I don't want to get into it in this thread. But I will say that its all about weighing the amount of violence against the promised effects of violence. That's key.

[rmnunez]

Without getting into Iraqi intervention, the analogy then could be made with intervention in Afghanistan where Al Qaeda was based. In that instance too a determination was reached that greater evil would be prevented if force was used. In this case the determination was soundly premised as motivated Al Qaeders could be found on the ground.

[RickSp]

"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword." --Matthew 26:52

Aside from the moral consideration, it is also a practical maxim. Violence begets violence. It is justified in response to an attack and in that case, the response should be swift and devastating. Otherwise violence just becomes a blood feud. We can never kill all of our enemies. We always create more in the process.

[rmnunez]

Wrath of God?

When the tsunami struck I remember some radical Muslim cleric suggesting it was the wrath of Allah over the decadence and perversions proliferant in the afflicted Asian resort area. Now I read about a terrible earthquake in Kashmir, where it is generally held OBL hides. Any Christian 'fundies' claiming this might be divine intervention again?