Sorry I'm slipping off as well Roos, though apart from condemn what they did it's pretty hard to say much more about that incident besides fit it into the larger picture.

I'm not anti Muslim to answer any earlier comments, just collect evidence and put it together. It seems historically most religions had their own crusades, probably beginning with the Buddhists, followed by the Christian crusades, Spanish inquisition, Russian pogroms and of course the gas chambers. And the current statistic says over 90% of terrorists today are Muslims. There's not really any way round that. Fine, it's only a small measure of the whole population but that's the reality of it and looking for reasons and explanations, especially when many of the organisers live in western countries and have none of the hardships of maybe Sudan or Albania, isn't going to stop your friend getting blown up on a bus.

Recent civil wars support this view as well, Nigeria (north now under sharia law), Sudan, former Yugoslavia, Kashmir, Chechnia and a bit further back Lebanon shows every time a new bloodbath breaks out, Muslims wanting independent rule or local dominance are around more often than not. Of course in Yugoslavia the retaliation was even worse, and many of the reactions were naturally just as dreadful as what caused them in the first place. But my point here isn't fault finding but the fact there are areas of Muslims rising up against their state apparently every few months so there has to be a common reason behind it. This could be partially the koranic commands and partly the imams who whip up hate against infidels, and also against all other Muslim groups. A Sunni called the radio this week and says he doesn't even see Shias as Muslims and doesn't care what happens to them, and he was born over here. In Iraq the two groups have been killing each other ever since the country was created last century with no regard for cultural groups, as in Yugoslavia which has since broken up.

Believe me, if Jews were doing the same thing I'd be writing exactly the same about them despite being one myself. Wrong is wrong whoever does it and just because your part of a group doesn't make you responsible for all of them.

In and of itself I don't think that Muslims in a given area wanting their own governance, especially in areas where their current governance involves another religious state contrary to their own, and perhaps also hateful towards their own. This is not to say I support or even excuse violent uprising. As everyone knows, I'm a pacifist. Across the board. But lumping civil war because muslims want independent rule into the "terrorism" catagory seems a little odd to me. It's as if you're saying, "Look, there's a civil war, and what a surprise, it's Muslims wanting independent rule. See what a violent religion it is?"

I was a bit general there, but I also believe they involved terrorism and indicate that the urge to take over and subsume any other local culture is currently mainly happening with Muslims and no other religious group on any scale. And the civil wars were thoroughly violent, especially in Sudan where innocent people are slaughtered outside any military action.

And there is a very popular British organisation that is still getting into mosques and universities whose sole aim is to create a world Muslim state. It's pretty hard to ignore the elephant in the middle of the room, as the saying goes, however much you dislike the consequences of looking at it. Of course it's not a black and white case, but one big enough to be impossible to ignore.

I just can't help remembering a little thing called 9/11. I have a real tough time feeling sorry for people who are trying to kill me.

I was merely suggesting that the desire for their own rule is not in and of itself a bad thing, as I said. The methods used to obtain their own rule may be another matter entirely, and the desire to take over other religiuos states is also another thing entirely. But the desire to have their own governance is not an indication of violent teachings.

And I would say your are wrong that Muslims are the only group who currently display an urge to "take over and subsume any other local culture" but that depends on what you consider an urge, what you consider a religious group and how recently you would consider "currently", as in would that be actively as we speak or in recent years. The situation in Israel cannot, I think, be blamed solely on the Muslims, and I think anyone who tried would be wrong. Milosevic's actions are described as ethnic cleansing, but was it as much religiously motivated as ethnically? And I'm sure that is a discussion for a different time and place.

As for the Sudan: The initial setup of self-governance for Sudan was accomplished by England and Egypt and it was they who provided most of the control to the primarily Muslim north. It was the Southern, non-muslim Sudanese who revolted, causing the civil war, rather than submit to third-party-created Muslim control. It would be difficult to say with what info I have read that the Muslims somehow arranged for southern Sudan to be lacking in representation, and it would also be difficult to suggest that they fought back against the rebels because the rebels weren't Muslim enough. If their crime was not allowing the non-Muslim Sudanese to have their own self-goverened territory then I wonder how that example carries over to other, similar conflicts. And in the end, the non-Muslim southerners were granted autonomy.

The second civil war started after it was announced that even non-muslims living in the north of Sudan would be subject to new penal code which incorporated punishments from Shari law. (Oh my my my, a country impossing religiously oriented punishments? I can't think of any other nation which does that!) Since north Sudan was a Muslim state, this isn't actually all that far fetched. This law didn't extend, as near as I can tell, to the Southern states which had been granted autonomy. However, it did start up the war again. I'm sure this is overly simplified, and I don't doubt that many atrocities were (and are being) carried out during both of these civil wars, but suggesting that the root of the problem is Muslims trying to subsume, convert, kill off or otherwise take control of otherwise peaceful and non-violent local culture is outright wrong.

The Sudan doesn't have a good human rights record. Muslim states, like ALL RELIGIOUS STATES as far as I'm concerned, are a bad idea. (Call me crazy, but I like the separation of church and state, and I don't think there's any excuse ANY excuse to have it otherwise, but if a country is controlled by a religious faction, then it stands to reason it will be governed by religious law. Right?)

In other words, much like the fact that the American Civil War was far more complicated a matter than some righteous Americans wanting to free slaves from some evil Americans, all of the examples I can think of have a lot more oging on than the evil hand of Islam trying to grip the world.

And I don't know any Muslims who think that's a good idea.

And Mikey, not all muslims are trying to kill you. I get more trouble from self-righteous, overbearing Christians here in American than any of the Muslims I know. If it's appropriate to judge an entire religous group based on the actions of a few, then I can't think of a single religous group that is worth the effort.

Being a self righteous and overbearing Christian who is under attack in the good old USA each and every day by the ACLU and others. ..I will have to respectfully disagree. Now, I kept this short as to not be accused of a personal attack.

Have to disagree with what? That I get more trouble from Christians than I do with Muslims? I've been physically threatened by a Christian who claimed they were doing it for my own good. The Muslims I know are all very live and let live, whereas I live in an extrememly Christian-controlled part of the country where the "live by my rules" mentality is very much alive. Whether or not you are self-righteous and overbearing wasn't brought into the discussion until you did, as the Christians I have a problem with live here. And also, for the record, nothing I said implied that I was generalizing about Chrisians.

Or if you were disagreeing whether there was a religion worth the effort, then I'm still not sure what the argument is. If a religion is judged by the actions of one, two, even a small but effective percentage of it's followers, then there is no religion out there which couldn't be judged harshly. I'd be interested to be shown a religion which hasn't been maligned by people acting in it's name.

Edited to add: Or are you disagreeing that all Muslims are trying to kill you? I wouldn't even know how to respond to that.

I'd like to go back to some points made on the first page of this thread, for example, by Roos.

I wonder whether it really makes sense to ask questions like 'Is Islam [or Christianity or any religion] a "religion of peace" ?' Surely, one finds a wide variety of attitudes - which is hardly suprising in view of the very large number of adherents that Islam has and the huge range of different environments in which they live.

I doubt whether much can be gained by an outsider trying to answer such questions by looking at another religion's scriptures. Here I'm thinking of the link that Roos gives to Diana Holbourn. After all, an outsider looking at the Bible might get some very inaccurate ideas about Christian beliefs and miss others completely. The trouble is that one needs an insider as a guide ...

I am respectfully disagreeing that Christains are any more overbearing or self righteous than any other religion. In my experiences they are a lot less overbearing and fanatical than muslims.

Last time I looked it wasn't the Christians who flew planes into the world trade center or the penatgon. I am well aware that all muslims are not out to kill me. It is however very hard to figure out which one's are !

And for the record, I think you were generalizing about Chrisitans, just my opinion as a Christian of course.

It is rare that I don't say exactly what I mean. I don't believe that all or even most Christians are overbearing or self-righteous. I have as many Christian friends as I have Muslim friends. (More, actually, but it's pretty close.) Therefore I wouldn't generalize about them any more than I would condone generalizing about Muslims. To do so would be to insult my friends, whom I believe are examples of how wonderful Christianity can be, just like generalizing about Islam is an insult to my many Muslim friends for whom I have the utmost respect. It is true, though, that the Christians I have trouble with are the self-righteous and overbearing ones. I'm sure most people have trouble with self-righteous and overbearing people, regardless of religion, but it happens that I have had specific problems with specifically self-righteous and overbearing Christians. Alternatively, I've never had any problems with the Muslims I know. So, I have more trouble with overbearing and self-righteous Christians than I do with Muslims. If I had said that Christians were more overbearing and self-righteous than Muslims (or any other religion) then you would indeed have right to take umbrage and I would owe you an apology. However, that isn't what I said.

I personally find it difficult to know which Christians to trust, but I'm an odd sort of person, so that's not really an argument. I suppose I can't stop you from believing I said something different, but if you stick around a while I'm sure you'll get a hang of peoples' personalities so that misunderstandings like this won't be as big a deal in the future.

What about the KKK? Aren't they Christian? Don't they commit atrocities in the name of 'racial purity'? And the IRA - haven't they committed terrorism in the name of Christianity as well?
Yet I would never judge all Christians by the actions of a few fanatics, just as I would never judge all Muslims on the actions of a few.

So many credible thoughts and comments being posted. I can`t add much except.....It is so easy to call yourself a muslim or a christian, the people,for example, that Lothruin knows may call themselves muslims, but what if according to the koran they simply are not [As mentioned by Satguru earlier and Bloomsby to a degree]? What if to be a true believer you have to commit horrific acts on non-believers etc, as I have quoted previously, and your reward is to go to some afterlife filled with..... [well I`m not going to post here the worst of the korans idea of heaven but if you know anything about the korans promises you will understand why] such things as mentioned in the koran? I`m hoping no-one will post the same question regarding christians and the bible, that would be hardly an original comment, and far too easy just to type out.

Extradition, which I mentioned, and 'send them back' are of course not the same thing. Offended countries seeking extradition of a criminal or terrorist aren't necessarilly those of the offender's origin. The USA has considerable difficulty in extraditing such persons from European countries, because the death penalty exists there. Even between countries of the EEC, which apply the same legal systems, extradition is still a major problem as was recently shown by the difficulty Britain had in extraditing a suspect terrorist involved in the London Tube bombing.
IMHO the 'human rights' of terrorists and other persons suspected of very serious crimes, should not take precedence over the 'human rights' of everyone else. I know of course that's not going to happen in Europe, in particular in Britain, and we can expect an ongoing and increasing influx of terrorists, drug barons, murderers, plane hijackers, etc, all claiming asylum and demanding that their 'human rights' be upheld. These are obviously a tiny minority of the total number of immigrants, asylum seekers, etc, but they are vociferous and have a strong following and support from the 'human rights' industry. Eventually we will be forced to get tough on those who encourage and advocate terror, but that day is still a long way off I fear.

Those who kill in the name of Islam justify their acts by a twisted interpretation of the Koran. In their minds, they *are* following the Koran. It's like someone who reads the Bible and believes that because it only outlaws murder, it's ok to kill doctors who perform abortions.

It's a perfectly valid point, roos. How do I know that the Muslims I know aren't actually doing a shoddy job of being Muslim? But even though you asked people not to ask this question, it follows that how do I know that the Christians I call friends aren't also doing a shoddy job of being Christian? I mean, my best friend, who is a faithful Christian, and as good an advertisment for Christianity as any I can think of, but she doesn't think homosexuality is sinful, she doesn't talk to people about her faith unless they ask her, she hasn't ever told a single soul they're going to hell because they haven't asked Christ to be their savior... I DO know plenty of Christians who would tell me that my friend isn't a very good Christian. Conversely, I know my friend would tell me that it is THEY who aren't very Christlike.

Likewise, I'm sure that the extremists who breed terrorism and hate would try very hard to convince others that the type of person I know who calls themselves Muslim is not a proper Muslim at all, all the while my Muslim friends are saying the same thing about the extremists. How does one know who is correct?

I'm an outsider to both Christianity and Islam. And in general I dislike organized religion. The religion that goes with the faith. I don't dislike either Christianity or Islam in and of themselves, but the religiousity (different than faith) that goes with them. It is that religiousity, that dependence on a heirarchy, the dogma and the third-party worship that detracts from personal faith and really causes most of the problems I see with both of those sets of beliefs. When one is raised to believe that they can be told the best way to worship, then they might actually worship in exactly the way they are told, be it simply taking part in the fellowship of church, calling women wearing pants a sin (that happens in both Christianity and Islam) or killing the unrighteous (also happens in both Christianity and Islam, though I am obviously willing to concede that recently it's been more on Islam's shoulders).

Boy, that's way off topic, really, but it boils down to this: I must judge a faith by it's followers as much as by it's scriptures. Judging by census numbers alone, the vast majority of Muslims are not committing atrocities, and MOST of the ones who aren't are staying silent, neither speaking out for or against the extremists. And the total of Muslims I know personally are vocally pacifistic and renounce the extremists.

Comparing this to Christianity: Do the majority of Christians become vociferous when a madman kills an abortion doctor? Do massive amounts of Christians come out to voice their dissent with that attitude? No. Most people are silent. The fact that they do not come out openly and in large numbers to denounce the perpetrators does not actually imply their agreement with those people. It only implies their desire to simply be who they are, worship as they do and not get involved, and I don't blame them, with the number of people I spoke to who just thought it would be best to "nuke the towelheads", accompanied by every epithet you can think of concerning their lack of belief in the "Right god" and their ethnicity, regardless of whether they had ever actually killed anyone or condoned such an action.

So, I must judge a faith by it's followers, and I see a small number of Muslims behaving VERY badly (forgive my complete understatement) and the vast majority of Muslims simply not responding, a small percetage vocally opposed to those who behave badly, and another small percentage not exactly in support of, but at least moderatly sympathetic with those who behave badly. Again, comparing it with Christianity, I see the same sort of breakdown. Some Christians who behave badly, some who oppose them, some who just sympathize and most who simply stay to their own devices.

And before anyone makes the point, I'll cut you off right now: Just because the Christians in question aren't committing massive acts of murderous terrorism doesn't mean the comparison can't be made. Where I am right now, in my small part of my democratic nation, extremist Christians pose a greater threat to my life as it is now than any Muslim. Just because they aren't threatening to kill me doesn't mean their threats aren't just as great in my eyes. And I am not exaggerating. In fact, I'd just as soon it be a threat against my life, because I could at least fight back, rather than be forced to live my life by a set of religious rules in which I do not believe. Again, that's probably a discussion for another thread, and one that probably wouldn't appear on this forum.

I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this: It is really for the followers to decide what the "proper" interpretation of the Koran is, just as it is the followers who ultimately decide what the proper interpretation of the Bible is. If most Muslims believe that the Koran should be interpreted as a peaceful document, then I see no reason to doubt them, just as most Christians believe that the Bible should be interpreted as a peaceful document. I've read the Bible, and if I didn't have some very peaceful-minded Christians (and Jews, for that matter) that I trusted tell me it was a peaceful document, I probably wouldn't have believed it. The same might be true if I read the Koran. Having read it, what would I think about the religion until some trustworthy Muslims told me what their interpretations were?

Just an aside but an example of how human nature will override all but the purest teaching. A Hindu friend of mine just called to say a 22 year old woman at work, a born-again Christian, on hearing of both her parent's early deaths said they were damned for not being Christian and so was she, and that was their punishment. Taken to an extreme most religions can be used to create insanity except the idea of a Buddhist meditating to death... But apart from the anti-abortionists in the States, born again Christians only use words against the infidels, never violence. I know they did in history but have put that long in the past besides a few lunatics.

Satguru, words can be just as much a threat to a life as violence if the words shape the policy which governs. And I hate to say it, but anti-abortionists aren't the only violent Christians in the states, either. What about killing homosexuals? Read about Benjamin Williams. What about anti-semitic violence? What about anti-muslim violence? There ARE Christian sects in the US that teach that violence is an acceptable answer to sinful behavior, and there ARE Christian sects in the US that encourage violence against sinners in one way or another. Many of the people who have been convicted of murder of any number of various sinners and infidels believed they had at least tacit support from their religious leaders, and in many cases, they did! Check this out:

"When Matthew Shepherd was killed for being homosexual, a Baptist congregation gathered outside the courthouse during his killers' trial. They held up banners that stated how many days Shepherd had been in hell, and used some disgusting names to describe him. They seemed to be happy that he had been brutally murdered."

Is that a whole congregation of lunatics? The boys who killed Matthew Shepard were hateful, but I doubt they could be classified as lunatics. (Though the Benjamin Williams I mentioned above probably is!) I think the terrorists are lunatics. The only difference is they are better organized lunatics with desparate people to follow them. I actually would be inclined to liken the situation to Nazi Germany. A powerful, charismatic, lunatic leader with a bunch of powerful, lunatic generals with a whole lot more people who were neither powerful nor lunatics but WERE desperate for leadership, a cause, a way to lift themselves from their current life, to make things better, to find a scapegoat for all the bad that happened to them. It just so happens that in the current situation the lunatic leaders are also religious zealots in an extreme and violent way.

And as I said at first, even if the threat of violence is not present, that doesn't mean the threat is not just as real.

Wow. Where to start? Seems there's nothing like religion to get people fired up...

I suppose it all comes back to basics: In this world, there are good people, bad people, scared people, misguided people, slightly mad people etc etc. and all those in between. Always have been, always will be. You get all of these people in all religions. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

At the moment, it's Islam coming to the fore. Not the first time religion has justified such horror, probably won't be the last either. You look back in history and see all manner of persecution and slaughter...The troubles in Ireland, the reign of Bloody Mary, the Reconquista, the Crusades, the expulsion of the Jewish population from England and on and on and on. These things happen when bad people, good people, slightly mad people etc get an idea in their heads and run with it. The problem isn't religion. It's us. Religion pops into peoples minds as an excuse for anything, and all of a sudden they think their way is right.

Some people don't like people of other faiths. Others don't like women. Some don't like those of a different race. Some think they have the right to make these people's lives hell, just because *they* don't like them. And then, there are those that think it's *god's* will that they kill them.... You find all of these kinds of people in all faiths, whether they show it or not.

Arguing about it is fine, we can do it indefinitely. In fact, arguing is easy. It's figuring out how to get through to extremists of all faiths that's the hard part.

Couldn't agree more with you Lothruin. As a person who actually lives in the Gulf, though not one of the Muslim faith, I personally find it rather, well, narrow minded to suggest that over a billion people from vastly different cultures and areas can in fact all be judged by the acts of a few. Say what you may about their religion, the fact is that the vast majority of Muslims are not fanatics bent on the destruction of the world (no matter what Fox News would have you believe), but people who just want to live their lives in a law abiding fashion. I can't really think of anything further to add really, it's all been said before, but I just think that, being a person who lives in an Islamic nation, without being Muslim, and one who actually has a first hand impression of what actually takes place, I thought I'd just comment.

(Edited for typos)

Mmmm...thank you, Shrivats, for giving me a bit of a reality check on just how comfortably located I am here in Australia. I see evidence all around me every day of people getting carried away with notions of possible threats in the future, whilst forgetting that many people live in very real danger, every day, right now.

Quote:

---

Arguing about it is fine, we can do it indefinitely. In fact, arguing is easy. It's figuring out how to get through to extremists of all faiths that's the hard part.

---

Beeblebrox I can see no argueing going on here, just people presenting their thoughts, concerns,opinions and knowledge about a current event in a restrained ,controlled and thoroughly readable manner.

Your third sentence,as quoted by me, is to a degree why I post current events stories regarding muslim extremist actions, I could just as easily post about another religion but as a few people have stated Islam is the one that`s currently in the news the most and perhaps the fastest growing one. I am hoping that someone will one day post a solution as to how to get through to extremists, but I can`t see it being posted soon sadly.

If there were extreme groups of other religions presently carrying out acts of mass murder in the name of their religion, I'm sure there'd be just as much condemnation levelled against them. The fact is that it is extreme Muslim individuals and groups who are carrying out these atrocities throughout the world, and no amount of comparism with historical events of centuries ago can justify these brutal acts. Unfortunately, many other people of the Muslim faith, whilst not directly involved in spreading terrorism, still support it by their failure to condemn known terrorists. One of the suicide bombers, involved in the recent London bombings, was buried last week in Pakistan with the word 'martyr' on his grave.I can understand families grieving at the loss of a close relative, but mass murderers should not be glorified by anyone.
I do not regard the entire Muslim world as supporters of terror just because some have taken up terrorism in the name of their religion, but I have no hesitation in utterly condemning the minority who have embraced this evil cause.
Like some other posters, I too have lived, worked and travelled for years in Moslem countries, often in very remote regions. I can 'get by' in Arabic so am able to converse with local people too. Out of thousands of Muslims I've met, both professionally and socially, I've never met one who openly supported terrorism or its leaders. The attitude of most, is I reckon best summed up by the comment of a Jordanian I met last year in Aqaba. Speaking about Osama bin Laden, he said "he's a rat living in a mountain cave". 'Muslim' terrorists are as much the enemy of Islamic people as they are of the rest of us, and they kill many more Muslims than they do people of other religions.

Lothruin, I get your point, but it's not meant to be a competition to show how many other religions can reach the same level, and though I didn't realise how many christian lunatics you actually had there (as there appear not to be equivalents in the UK) I doubt they'd ever spread their activities outside your own borders.
The Muslims are coordinated in ways not even the CIA can probably keep up with worldwide and able to give orders in one part of the world for bombings to take place in another, and also actively train people to learn terrorism in Pakistan and Britain, the latter coming from an ex-wife of one of the largest British (though born in Nigeria and a convert) trainers who knows from the inside, though she didn't actually realise what he was up to until after they divorced. She's now helping the police track him down and find enough evidence to prosecute them. Comparing your examples of extreme Christians I don't think they will ever become a threat outside your own country and are unlikely to carry out anything even close to the scale of 9/11.