Islam vs. the Western World: off-topic posts from a Religion thread

Americans kill Muslims, Muslims kill Muslims, Americans kill Americans, it's all irrelevent to the subject. Being able to disrespect Islam didn't cause any of this. What Muslims are trying to do with this resolution is distance themselves from the actual cause of the majority of conflict you love to cite, and that is the connection between Islam and terrorism, due to Islam's emphasis on Jihad, which provides a religious justification for violence directed at non-Muslims.
Islam and terrorism, due to Islam's emphasis on Jihad, which provides a religious justification for violence directed at non-Muslims.

For example?
I suppose you never risk making mistakes if you never stand up for freedom and democracy.
I don't think invading sovereign countries is an example of standing up for freedom and democracy. Leaving 50,000 troops to "protect your interests" after destroying a country is plain malice.
I don't think bombing the Pentagon is a good example of standing up for Islam, but hey.
I don't believe it was intended to stand up for Islam. I believe the [allegedly stated] motivation was removing foreign troops from their lands.
I don't think invading sovereign countries is an example of standing up for freedom and democracy.

Well, we invaded France and Italy and Belgium during World War II and that was decidedly with the intent of "standing up for freedom and democracy". So, what do you think?

Leaving 50,000 troops to "protect your interests" after destroying a country is plain malice.

The Iraqis destroyed far more than we did ....and they also killed far more Iraqi citizens than did the Americans. So, ...what do you think now?

Baron Max
Bowser, I think we actually shared some PMs a while back. What a shame to find out you think like this.

No, but the word "zealots" comes to mind. I'm certain that there are good Muslims who follow the less narrow path of a conscientious mujahid. I'm willing to bet that many Muslims are already domesticated and more in step with the current century. But that doesn't speak for the multitude who follow a more destructive path, encouraging archaic religious dogma, threatening western values.

This is the problem with Western supremacist thinking, they promote Western civilization as the ultimate evolution in human society, viewing all other people as inferior and subhuman. Recently their attention has turned to Islamic societies, because of mineral wealth and the lack of willingness of Muslims to replace their own culture with a foreign one.

Perhaps you should realize that by killing our women and children, it is you who are threatening our way of life, rather than vice-versa. Do you see any Muslim nation having invaded America or Europe with its armies? Compare that to how many Muslim countries are under occupation and you will fidn the truth.

Nevertheless, all human beings will have to answer to God for their crimes. It's better to learn the truth while you are alive, of who is an oppressor and who is the oppressed. Because if you find out in the afterlife, there will be many problems.

I think we see much of it for what it is: a savage culture. When your enemy hides among the oppressed, certainly there will be casualties. Who doesn't want a clean war where women and children are spared? We would be very happy to kill only extremist.

Savage culture? This were exactly the same words used by Westerners in the new world to massacre Native Americans and to use our Black African brothers as slaves in the New World. The lies resurface again. Do you forget how many Natives in your country you butchered? Now you want t do this to us?

One example, predator drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghan kill an average of 30 to 50 innocent civilians a month, mostly children and women. One attack in Pakistan killed 50 school children while they were in their classroom. How can you possibly justify this? Where these little youngsters extremists?

Tell me, do you really anticipate that kind of resolve from western civilization? Of course we are at war with radical Islam, but do you truly believe we will be lining up Muslims for extermination?

The rhetoric is there, the occupations of other peoples' lands, and the demonization of all aspects of Islamic culture, dehumanization of Muslims. There are even federal emergency centers established which may provide temporary residence to individuals during a federal emergency.

Muslims are the Jews of the 21st century. The concentration camps are in place. It's only about time when the public, due to the media rhetoric, demands placement of unpatriotic Muslims of Western nations there. Muslim majority countries are all either under intense economic sanctions, ruled by foreign backed dictators, or under direct occupation by foreign armies (from the West or backed by the West). The Jews were lucky, because they only suffered in Germany, the Muslims are going to suffer everywhere. Men, women, children, it doesn't matter, we are all undesirables and must be exterminated.

And each one of them would be trampled by radical Islam if the opportunity was given a chance. But I will give you that, not all cultures in the middle-east live in mud huts, yet most find themselves suffering Islamic rule, which seems to detract from any advances and acquired wealth a nation might enjoy.

Suffering Islamic rule? Like the Western backed monarchies of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc? Don't forget that these monarchs were once the same ones whose ancestors helped foreign Western armies invade their own countries, subjugated their own people. They are not part of us, they have been imposed on us.

How can we truly strive for wealth when all our rulers are usurpers and backed by strong foreign powers? What recourse do the common people have about this? These governments are oppressive, because they strive against Islam, killing our scholars, putting their own puppet scholars to replace them, stealing the wealth earned by the sweat of the common people to line their palaces with gold and to pay their Western security guards. You really think Islam is the problem. I can't believe how naive you are.

Perhaps wholesale theft and marginalization of the common people by Western backed rulers of the Middle East is a part of the anger and frustration, have you thought about that? Perhaps occupation of all the Muslim majority regions on the periphery of the Islamic world is part of the anger. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) foretold that the nations of the world will feast on us like a group of guests feasts on a dinner, and when the people asked whether Muslims will be few, he said you will be as numerous as the foam on the sea, but your rulers will be the worse of you. The Prophet told us that the principle cause of our oppression will be our apostate rulers, who will fell our blood and sweat to the foreigners.

I know I'm ragging on it pretty hard, but that's because I can't find anything good to say about Islam or its followers. What does it offer but oppression and the limitation of individual liberty?

It offers exactly the opposite. Islam is a religion where ever man is free, and no oen has a right to enslve him. Islam gives man the courage to stand us to his oppressors, and even declares those who cower in the safe of oppressors are not true Muslims. Islam is a religion of resistance, and perfectly applicable to the present situation where we find the oppression of the Muslim people of the world has reached an intolerable level. When 1,000 civilian Gazans are killed, and 3,000 injured, while only 3 Israelis are killed (including one soldier), and world acts as if everything is normal, then we have a problem.

The oppression has overfilled the cup, and now its overflowing. We, as a proud and once independent people cannot bear this anymore. It is our knowledge that we were once free and the masters of our destinies which keeps us moving forward. Rememember, God always resides with the oppressed.

What? Really? Where did you read that? When did the Moslems get to North America??

Well then you haven't checked in a while. Genocide is a concerted effort to remove an entire population from existence. The Americans - as evil as they may be at times, and as stupid as these wars were - have not committed genocide. To suggest that they have is essentially to give up on rational discourse and to admit that you're interested only in satisfying yourself, not in converting others. You'll never convince someone they're wrong when you're throwing massive exaggerations their way.

When America gets to building death camps where they openly slaughter civilians by the thousand, we'll start talking genocide. When America shows a concerted effort to kill every single Iraqi, or every single Moslem, or every single Afghani of a particular tribe, then we can say it is a genocide in progress.

One million civilians deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq, caused by overt American military bombing and arming of rival factions. Genocide.

Don't forget that these were the same people who launched wholesale genocide against our Native American and enslaved Black African brothers and sisters. They haven't changed much, even though they like to believe this. If you don't believe me, go take a trip to a native American reservation, looks worse than Afghanistan, which by the way they messed up too.

Oh, and if you guys think America ruling the world has been bad... just you wait until China takes over. Remember, China is the nation currently sending planes and guns to the Sudanese government. Even America wouldn't be quite so obviously evil as to make money off of 3,000,000 people dying. Or the countless more millions that have died in DPNK thanks to the Chinese-supported Kim regime.

And the US arming South Sudanese and rival Darfur factions. I am still quite surprised at the lack of knowledge of Darfur among Westerners. They like to think they are well-informed, yet don't know that all the groups fighting in Darfur, and there are many factions are Muslim and African. It is not as simple as one versus the other, because often rival bedouin tribes ally with and agrarian tribes to defeat their rivals. Western influx of arms to rival factions in Darfur is the main cause of the violence, because the main goal is to bring down the Sudanese government. It is part of the greater goal of eventual disintegration of all strong Muslim countries to make the dependent to Western countries. Sudan's alliance with China is perhaps what is keeping the country together, and stopping millions of people from starving to death (because of Western sanctions).

Westerners have forgotten that the best way to deal with foreign governments, Muslims included, is diplomacy.

I'm sure many Iraqi's are quite content that the country will become a democracy. Mind you, only the ones who already have food, water, electricity and such care about the political state. In fact, I've heard many interviews with Iraqis who are both proud and hopeful for their country. Both the haters and the happy exist. Some will call them liberators, some will call them tyrants.

Some called Caesar a hero.

Though, I'm not sure the same can be said at all for Afghanistan.

Yes, if the happiness of a state could be measured by violence, death, and poverty, you would be correct. For the rest of the sane people here, let Afghanistan and Iraq serve as a reminder that wanton destruction of civilians' lives will be met with maximum resistance anywhere, its not limited to Muslims. Lest you forget Vietnam and the Phillipines.

And the Americans sent the same to Saddam so he could fight Iran, to Israel to they can fight the Palestinians and any one of their neighbors, let us also not forget to the Taliban and Osama so that they could fight the Russians. Remember the oh so liberal Shah of Iran the U.S propped up? That worked well didn't it? The Shah was so hated it paved the way for Ayatolla Khomeni as they begged for his return and cheered in the millions when he did (excuse me if the spelling is incorrect). Actually we are always fighting wars through proxy and in the process making things worse. Remember the support of south Vietnam so called 'free' government? The illegal bombing of Lao which drew communism and Cambodia which led to the strength of the Khmer Rouge and that crazy psycopath Lon nol the U.S supported, who created nothing but disaster for the Cambodian people and unwittingly strengthening the KR. The Chinese at least are not hypocrites, they don't pretend to care or interfere in sovereign issues anymore than they would want anyone interfering with their own, what they do is direct trade...quid pro quo. They don't give long speeches about democracy, freedom and all that jazz while propping up despotic leaders. They don't pretend to be 'innately good'.

I agree 100%. Propping up oppressive dictatorial regimes while placing sanctions on and threatening to bomb or supporting the bombing of democracies (Gaza, Iran, Lebanon) defeats the purpose of 'spreading democracy in the world.' I think its about time for the US to change its cowboy mentality in its foreign policies.

Did I mention Cuba? Oh how could I forget the U.S support for a corrupt regime which gave rise to Castro who we now consider the bane of our existence. Ahh and then there was Musharaf, that military strongman. The pakistanis hate us now don't they? And they forced Musharaf to resign didn't they? And now no one knows which way the wind is blowing in Pakistan. No world dominating power whether Chinese or American or British has ever, ever given rise to a better world its simply a comedy of errors and a failure to comprehend the consequences of our own histrorical foreign policy. Yea Tyler, the world is so much better with the U.S at the helm:rolleyes:

Your synopsis was completely correct. I simply want to give a background about Pakistan. When Musharraf entered power through a coup in 1999, he was seen as a liberator because Nawaz Sharif's government was seen as corrupt. The US and Western countries immediately put economic sanctions on Pakistan. During his rule, Musharraf did much to improve the infrastructure of the country and corruption was greatly marginalized in the higher offices of his rule. All of this changed, however, when in 2001, America pressured Musharraf's government to help it in its war against Afghanistan, on the threat of invasion of Pakistan itself. Since Pakistan's population considers Afghanis as ethnic cousins, there was massive resistance from its populace. Musharraf had no choice but to accept the threats from America, and opened up Pakistan's airspace and its bases for American troops to reach Afghanistan. The West in turn lifted sanctions from Pakistan and offered to pay for the use of its facilities in aid. Later after millions of malnourished and suffering civilians from Afghanistan reached Pakistan to escape the violence, they began to tell Pakistani people about the terrors they faced in Afghanistan from the bombing campaigns on civilians, atrocities by American and Northern Alliance troops on ethnic Pathans (Pukhtoons), and urged Pakistan to help them. Pakistani civilians, upon learning of these stories, because increasingly against supporting the war, which they viewed as a war against innocent civilians. Musharraf began to crack down on these dissidents, and when the Chief Justice of Pakistan attempted to force the government to release political prisoners and religious prisoners, if evidence of guilt could not be established in a court of law, Musharraf had him removed. The main reason for Musharraf being hated in Pakistan is related to his support for the invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistanis wanted to stay neutral in the conflict, but Musharraf, forced by America, increased support to US troops, until eventually he became completely isolated in Pakistan, and relied on America completely for his rule. When he became too unpopular in Pakistan, America tried to save face by publicly supporting Benazir Bhutto and condemning military rule in Pakistan, isolating their best ally in Pakistan. Benazir, however, was assassinated. No one knows by whom, Americans say Taliban, but that seems unlikely. Many people in Pakistan believe infact her husband Asif Zardari, the current president of Pakistan, had his wife killed so he could take power using sympathy of the people, it is well known that they disliked each other. Pakistanis voted for his part, PPP, and eventually he bullied his way into the highest position of the party. He is widely seen by Pakistanis as the most corrupt man in Pakistan (his nickname is Mr. 10%, because he took 10% compensation from people or companies who needed a job from the government). America hails Zardari as a democratic example, but in fact he is further destroying the country, and isolating his political opponents, recently he removed Nawaz Sharif's party from Punjab through political bullying. He's basically a dictator in civilian garb, Musharraf was 100x better, though he wasn't that good either. Right now, there are massive protests going on in Pakistan against the current government because of lack of electricity, wheat, and rice, along with the inability to attack predator drones by the US military against civilians in North Pakistan. Pakistani people view him as an American puppet. If you want to learn more, you can ask me.

Do you give credit for Islam keeping you in the dark ages.

I blame that on Western occupation, colonization, and pillage of our societies after the fall of the Ottoman and Mughal Empires. In India, for more than 100 years, the highest government job a Muslim could have was a tea maker and filler of inkpots. The Mughal dynasty and Muslim nobles, men, women, and children, were hunted down like animals and slaughtered without mercy. This is what we got for trusting the British only came to Muslim lands to trade and to promote goodwill. We can't forget the injustices committed against our people so easily. This started when the Europeans colonized our land and destroyed our societies, the present conflict is an extension of that struggle for Muslim independence from foreign control and foreign backed regimes.
Bowser, I think we actually shared some PMs a while back. What a shame to find out you think like this.

What's your vision for the Middle-East? If western influence vanished from the region, what do you suppose would happen?
What's your vision for the Middle-East? If western influence vanished from the region, what do you suppose would happen?

I am not averse to Modernism as a matter of principle, I simply resent the influence of modern Western governments in Muslim lands.

There is no doubt in my mind that the overthrow of the majority of the governments and institution of new civil order in the Middle East is desperately needed. Islam requires that this movement be established by justice and truth, and not with deceit or violence against innocents. It will be similar to common people's revolution, headed by religious people of high position such as generals, politicians, nobles, and religious scholars. A coup d'etat would be preferable, but as already evidenced in prophecies in hadith, in some regions such as Saudi Arabia, it might not be enough.

Muslims don't want an expansionist state as conveyed by the American media and US government, but simply greater autonomy and independence over their own affairs. Similar to the Khalifat, it will be a federation of all Muslim nations who wish to join such a federation. Each region would retain its own military, political, social, and economic control of their respected province, which would be further joined in larger regional blocks relating to linguistic, ethnic identity. For example, Pakistan and Afghanistan would be one block, incorporating Kashmir.

Much has been written by Maulana Maududi about the establishment of Islamic system. A head representative, Khalifah would be elected by a majlis e shura, council of discussion, and by judged by representative body of grand muftis, and the muftis would themselves establish the reign of qadis, qazis as judges exercising the right to judge with authority from the local governor and the mufti.

Lastly, it is in the interest of the West to grant independence to the Muslim world, because of mutual interests in the betterment of all people. Muslims would be a power, who if the West chose, could be a powerful ally to further strengthen humanitarian and betterment of the world. However if the West refuses, then freedom will be achieved regardless, because self-determination is an obligation on Muslims. It is in the interest that the people of the Muslim world decide what they want, and that this decision should be respected. If the people of the Muslim world want to govern by their own law, no amount of supporting puppet dictators and strongmen can prevent the rise of the people's aspirations.

It is not the West which Muslim world despises, it is the inference in Muslim countries' affairs which we despise. Western culture, like Chinese culture, like Turkish culture, Persian culture, is something accepted by the people, and not forced on them. There are Western Muslims, don't forget that, they are in the 53 million Muslims in Europe, and 8 million Muslims in the United States and Canada.
In Hangzhou. I attended a cross-cultural studies program at Zhejiang University
I've heard good things about both the city and school. Though mostly I just hear "the girls there are beautiful"
You mean Taiwan? A Chinese friend of mine once said that the West would never understand about Taiwan. She said in China 'we have a thousand years of feeling'.
Yes, surely that's a good enough excuse to take away people's freedom and not let them choose their own future. I have absolutely no sympathy for authoritarian territorial grabbing and threats of war. As someone who seems to be generally against American expanisionism, I'm kind of surprised you would manage to excuse Chinese missiles and bombs by "well, they have a thousand years of history." Though perhaps you're not supporting, but just stating. It's kind of like Bush saying about Saddam "he tried to kill my daddy!"
I have never met anyone from China who thought Western politics were necessarily better than the 'asian way', as a matter of fact I have met many who accuse the West of arrogance.
I have. Quite a few, in fact. But I will say that it took me 6 months of living here, being able to speak Chinese and knowing their history well before anyone felt comfortable telling me their political opinions. And yes, of course there are just as many, if not more, who would suggest that their system is simply better than the West's.
As for the 3,000+ perhaps the U.S hasn't done so with its own citizens but it certainly has caused the deaths of many more non-citizens. Do you suggest that killing ones citizens is more heinous than killing non-citizens?
No, I would suggest that a government willing to slaughter it's on en masse to keep itself in power is probably a little worse than the current American leadership. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
Anyway with a population as large as theirs you should put those figures in context as well as in which context those murders took place. As a matter of fact can you please give the context for those deaths?
I'm not so sure the families of those 3,000+ feel the same way you do. "Well Ms. Li, maybe your son died... but think of it this way... China's so big that there are plenty of other people!"

June 4th, 1989. Though there are a large number of other examples, many of which caused more death. The whole period from the 60s to the mid-70s was a fair blood bath. But, in the interest of judging the future, I would think the experience of the Cultural Revolution will not be repeated; much as slavery will not come back in America. 1989 is a much greater insight into the current leadership.
Like I said they deal in trade, they remove themselves from any internal policies concerning sovereign governments.
No, they don't. That's just the propaganda. They're heavily involved in affecting Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, Nepalese politics, as well as African policies. Even if they weren't, I would argue that selling guns and warplanes to a murdering dictator negates the benefit of "staying out of other countries' internal affairs." What they mean when they say this is that they "stay out of other government's affairs." They have no concern for the people.
Chinese arms can be found all throughout Africa, militia men don't have to do business directly with China to get their hands on them.
Or they can be like Zimbabwe and just have them shipped by the boatload.
Don't pretend that American hypocrisy that speaks of democracy, freedom and human rights on one hand and then arming people on the other is any less destructive.
But America has done some good things for other countries. Bosnia. Iraq - though the cost is much too high - will quite probably become a democracy. Been massively supportive of some burgeoning democracies (though Russia may be squashing that hope). America, in short, may be bad, but it's not bad as a matter of rule. China will openly support dictators as a matter of furthering it's own legitimacy.

And when you say they "don't deny it" you're wrong. They deny it to their own people and censor any information about it. I doubt the Chinese people would support these policies if they knew.
I don't blame the Russians nor the Chinese for extending protection. The heavy handed arrogant attitude of the U.S government when it comes to foreign policy has created this backlash by other governments and since we don't have the moral high-ground we have no way of using that as leverage.
This I just can't agree with at all. Each person is responsible for their own decisions, and you cannot blame America for what Russian and Chinese individuals have chosen to do. If your defense of China's arms-sale to Sudan and protection of it's leaders is "well.... America does bad things too!" I would say "yes, they do. And both of them should stop." I can't for the life of me understand the "well America does bad, so China can do bad too" argument - don't mothers teach their children that two wrongs don't make a right anymore?
China offers more aid to Africa than any other nation in recent years but I don't call that 'colonization'. But please leave a link to the article when you have the time.
They offer aid to nations that will sell them oil and buy their weapons. For all the (due and correct) criticism America has received for giving aid to nations in exchange for oil and construction contracts, I would think oil/weapons deserves the same if not more.

I'm having a very hard time understanding how you think America is worse than China. Or maybe you're not suggesting that. But this all started when I said that I think Chinese/Russian world-rule will be worse than American-led world-rule. If you think the Russians and Chinese will do a better job at leading the world, I'd love to hear why. Because frankly, what I've seen inside China is not very encouraging.

(Diamond, I'll reply to you later, I'm a tad busy right now.)
No SAM, and we don't shit in them either.

Wash Cloth and Soap.

Water is good for washing. Rubbing shit with paper is not sufficiently clean.

Is that how you clean babies bums? With paper???? chee chee.:bugeye:

Water is good for washing. Rubbing shit with paper is not sufficiently clean.

Is that how you clean babies bums? With paper???? chee chee.:bugeye:


We don't seem to have the problems with Diarrhea and Cholera deaths in our children that seems to affect the Muslim communities.

We don't seem to have the Cholera problems prevelent in the Middle East, Asian, and Pacific, Muslims communities.

Probably because you don't use sanctions to deny food and medicines to your children. The "price is worth it" mindset.

I remember when obesity was the health problem in Iraq.


The "price is worth it" mindset.

Yes, how many Musllims die at Muslim hands??

"the price is worth it"
None. They all die at the hands of invaders who manipulate them. Why else would societies that were stable for 800 years under the Ottomans fall apart in 60 years?

The kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the dictators of Iran and Iraq, the destabilisation of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, all at the hands of western imperialism. Destroyed the societies, stripped the people of self rule, destroyed economy and educational systems and killed millions.

And its the Arab mindset that worries them?
Is that how you clean babies bums? With paper???? chee chee.:bugeye:

Baby wipes actually. Moistened paper towels that clean away what needs to be cleaned away until their bath.

Newborns poo a lot. And I mean a lot. Pretty much before, during and after each feed. If we had to wash them each time they poo'ed.. completely impractical.

I would recommend Huggies unscented since it does not irritate sensitive baby skin.

We use water water and cotton. With a drop of Dettol

Newborn newborn, as in 1-3 day old babies, cotton wool and water works fine. But then we go into explosive range and it just doesn't cut it. I tried the whole cotton wool and water thing with my first and yeah.. after we got past those first few days.. the horror.. bring on the wipes! Much less messy.