Understanding the Revolutions in the Middle East

Oh right...

Well isn't religious and political persecution essentially the same thing. Persecution based on belief. And if people have committed atrocities for their own non-religious beliefs should, as previous comments on this and other topics have dictated, politics be considered an evil and destroyed?

ok im getting really tired of ur discrimination against Islam. I know more normal muslims than i do non muslims and I live in New Jersey where theres not a large muslim pop. The Quaran in no way justifies what the muslim extremists do. All holy books state a way of defending ur religion in a struggle. Islam is not a dangerous relgion. The extremists DO twist it around

thats the thing...INTERPRET. Its how they interpret it. U r basically trying to tell a muslim that how he describe HIS OWN religion is wrong. R u serious?

All you've just done is made baseless assertions. Meanwhile, I've made logical arguments against everything you just stated, and many of my arguments have still not been addressed by anyone.

How many times do I have to explain this? If the content of a dogmatic holy book that over a billion people are fanatically obsessed with can easily be interpreted to justify violence, then we have a very serious problem worth speaking honestly about.

I read all ur other posts before I posted that btw. U r trying to tell a muslim that what he is saying is wrong basically and that hes not stating everything he can when hes clearly presented all that he has needed to

So because he's a Muslim, that means he's a learned scholar and his statements should be taken as authoritative and unchallengeable by the likes of me, a mere infidel? Also just because he happens to interpret his religion in a specific way doesn't mean his interpretation is correct. That doesn't mean Osama bin Laden's interpretation was correct, it just means the Koran is up for interpretation, and one of those interpretations justifies violence.

but ur saying the koran is dangerous and terrible because it justifies to be able to defend ur religion in a crucial time. Like he said there is no reward for intentionally killing urselves to kill others who are not fighting u like suicide bombers do. And know it does not make him a scholar on his religion but I would expect him to know a lot more and belive him more on stuff about Islam because he is a muslim and clearly understands the koran

As he said suicide is a sin so suicide bombing is wrong. Therefore Osama and people like him were just twisting the religion to benefit them.

which he fails to understand

What does defending a religion even mean? This is a very vague concept. It could mean any number of things. The concept of violence in defense of a religion could easily mean violence if someone insults Islam or violence if someone draws cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad or violence if someone renounces their faith in Islam and then criticizes Islam like my hero Ayaan Hirsi Ali has done. It could mean violence if an army of infidels invades Muslim land, in which case all the Muslims fighting Americans and NATO forces in the Middle East are justified in doing so according to their holy book. And I simply find this idea of violently defending a dogmatic belief system to be despicable and extremely dangerous.

I've quoted passages from the Koran that can clearly be interpreted to mean exactly the opposite.

and if u read what ahmed said u would understand what tht meant

The revolution in Egypt perfectly fits what the koran means

So, CorB, what exactly do you think we should do to Islam policy-wise?

To corB
This what basically happened was in some village in afganistan the people are angry and are ready to do anything to make the Americans leave.
But first they need weapons but they don’t have money. The sheik is the local leader of the village
Suggests mines and bombs as they are the cheapest thing in the black market (which is true)
The villagers agree and buy mines and bombs. And so they plant mines on the aods that the military use but they do not know what to do with the bombs. The villagers suggest to plant them in the American military barracks. But the sheikh disagrees and says the security is to much. He then suggests planting the bombs on people. The villagers are astounded they don’t want to die like a coward commiting suicide. They start to explain that to the sheikh but the sheikh starts to call them bad muslims and threatens to encure gods wrath. The villagers not knowing much about islam are frightened. The sheikh then promises they would be martyrs and give them rewards in heaven (which is wrong) the villagers then agree. And so the strap bombs to themselves and go to the barracks but the sheikh again stops saying that killing 1 or 2 soldiers is worthless. He tells the villagers if the want to fight against America they have to take it to America. The villagers again reluctantly agree.

u and r are not words.

Nintendo would like a word with U.

If a belief should be restricted based on the fact that it could possibly be and has been misinterpreted by an individual then we most likely would not have any belief at all, Islamic or otherwise. And to extremists being violent, there are two sides of the spectrum of extremes. Just one you do not have to worry about.

Policy-wise, not much, I actually don’t think our governments should change their policies in respect to Islam all that much, if at all. One of the only major concerns I have, and It’s something I think we should have a proper policy on (if we don’t already) is the possibility of Islamists acquiring nuclear weaponry. When you’re dealing with a group of people who openly state that they love death more than we love life, then the prospect of mutual destruction as a deterrent completely loses it’s value. The governments of Western civilization need to do everything in their power to prevent such a situation from arising and we need to be prepared to take serious action if such a situation were to arise

I believe, on a governmental level and on a social level, the West must encourage and support moderation in Islam. One of my hopes is that these recent revolutions in the Arab world may possibly be the start of a transformative time for Islam. I believe the United States and the West should do everything it can to appear on the side of the Arab people, we must give the impression that we actually care about their wellbeing and that we aren’t the great imperialist allies of Satan that the extremists would make us out to be.

Another thing, I don’t actually think our governments should officially say what I‘m saying. When Obama made his speeches to the Muslim world, even though he says things I technically disagree with, I still think he should say those things. It‘s a matter of diplomacy and saying Islam is an evil religion isn’t exactly a good diplomatic policy to possess. However, we the people, not our government, should be able to speak openly and honestly about Islam without a conversational stigma surrounding it, it’s time we took down religion from it’s social pedestal. Religion and specifically Islam are problems, the sooner we all realize this the sooner we can figure out a solution.

I don’t care if you think this sheik isn’t interpreting your religion correctly. He’s interpreting it one way and he’s using it as a tool for encouraging violence. And if the cause for Muslim violence and terrorism is merely political, and has nothing to do with with their religion, then why aren’t there Tibetan Buddhist suicide bombers blowing up Chinese buses?

What do you mean restricted? I’m not saying we should make religion illegal or anything. But yes, I do advocate for an end to belief in all irrational dogmatic ideologies of any sort, political and religious.