# Destroy the idols, Egyptian jihadist calls for removal of Sphinx, Pyramids



## Big Don (Nov 12, 2012)

[h=1]Destroy the idols, Egyptian jihadist calls for removal of Sphinx, Pyramids[/h]Monday, 12 November 2012 By AL ARABIYA                      EXCERPT:



 			                                        			  				An Egyptian jihad leader, with self-professed links to the  Taliban, called for the destruction of the Sphinx and the Giza Pyramids  in Egypt, drawing ties between the Egyptian relics and Buddha statues,  local media reported this week. 

Murgan Salem al-Gohary, an Islamist leader twice-sentenced under former  President Hosni Mubarak for advocating violence, called on Muslims to  remove such idols. 

All Muslims are charged with applying the teachings of Islam to remove  such idols, as we did in Afghanistan when we destroyed the Buddha  statues, he said on Saturday during a television interview on an  Egyptian private channel, widely watched by Egyptian and Arab audiences.

  						 		  														God ordered Prophet Mohammed to  destroy idols, he added. When I was with the Taliban we destroyed the  statue of Buddha, something the government failed to do.

His comments came a day after thousands of ultraconservative Islamists  gathered in Tahrir Square to call for the strict application of Sharia  law in the new constitution. 

But in retaliation to Goharys remarks, the vice president of Tunisias  Ennahda party, Sheikh Abdel Fattah Moro, called the live program and  told Gohary that famous historic military commander Amr ibn al-Aas did  not destroy statues when he conquered Egypt.

So who are you to do it? he wondered. The Prophet destroyed the idols  because people worshiped them, but the Sphinx and the Pyramids are not  worshiped.

Gohary, 50, is well-known in Egypt for his advocacy of violence, Egypt Independent reported.

He was sentenced twice, one of the two sentences being life  imprisonment. He subsequently fled Egypt to Afghanistan, where he was  badly injured in the American invasion. In 2007, he traveled from  Pakistan to Syria, which then handed him over to Egypt. After Mubarak's  fall in early 2011, he was released from prison by a judicial ruling,  the newspaper added.
END EXCERPT
Make sure you bend over backwards not to slander or even slightly inconvenience their culture...


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 12, 2012)

I think it is stretching the word to describe religious extremists as having a culture, Don.  

Someone handing over their facility to reason to a fictional 'divine' authority has rather stepped away from the notion of being either civilised or rational; without those two traits you don't really have a culture in the high-functioning sense of the word.  Shamanic Primitivism is more like it, the voluntary (or institutionalised) relinquishing of responsibility for actions to a 'higher', non-corporeal authority.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 12, 2012)

Muslims, in RECENT YEARS, (i.e., yes, we know Christians did stuff HUNDREDS of years ago...) have destroyed a lot of cultural icons.
Biggest statue of Buddha in the world... Buddhist temples...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 12, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Muslims, in RECENT YEARS, (i.e., yes, we know Christians did stuff HUNDREDS of years ago...) have destroyed a lot of cultural icons.
> Biggest statue of Buddha in the world... Buddhist temples...



Hundreds of years ago? Revisionist history much?
Hitler was not "hundreds of years ago". Neither was the IRA. Neither are the various Christian lunatics still out there today.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 12, 2012)

Dirty Dog said:


> Hundreds of years ago? Revisionist history much?
> Hitler was not "hundreds of years ago". Neither was the IRA. Neither are the various Christian lunatics still out there today.



Hitler, and the IRA ran around destroying relics of other religions? The IRA attacked other Christians, Hitler was STEALING relics, not destroying them wholesale...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 12, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Hitler, and the IRA ran around destroying relics of other religions? The IRA attacked other Christians, Hitler was STEALING relics, not destroying them wholesale...



Right... because all those bombs? They didn't destroy nutin...


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 13, 2012)

*Yesterday* a bomb was found close to a Protestant Primary school ( children aged 4-11) in Northern Ireland, the bomb police say was designed to maim, kill and destroy. The IRA certain is trying to destroy another religions icon ie a school...complete with the children in it. This isn't the first time a bomb has been found in or near a school.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20296706

Hitler destroyed synagogues, razing them to the ground, destroying the contents.


----------



## Empty Hands (Nov 13, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Someone handing over their facility to reason to a fictional 'divine' authority has rather stepped away from the notion of being either civilised or rational; without those two traits you don't really have a culture in the high-functioning sense of the word.  Shamanic Primitivism is more like it, the voluntary (or institutionalised) relinquishing of responsibility for actions to a 'higher', non-corporeal authority.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 13, 2012)

Let's be clear about somthing right off the top.  It isn't Muslim's that destroyed the Buddhist statues, it was extremist.   While the extremist might have also been Muslims in that case, it was not the edicts of Islam they were working off of, but rather thier own extremist positions, much as extremist of other faiths.  It is an important distinction, otherwise we blame a faith for the bad behaviour of extremist.  For example, not all Protestants are bomb planting, wanna be child killers.  Yet using the "logic" of too many people, that statement would be entirely valid if "Protestants" was changed to "Muslims."  Extremist of all religions are the danger, not followers of any particular religion.  If you cannot make the distinction, you might be an extremist yourself.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 13, 2012)

:chuckles:  Don't take it as too broad a brush, *EH* .  We are talking extremists, those who, by the very definition, take things beyond what is reasonable or tolerable.  The sticking point is, of course, who you define as 'extreme'.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 13, 2012)

This is the perpetual issue of defining *'otherness'*.  We understand nuances inside our own cultures, and have difficulty seeing those same nuances in other cultures.

We (Westerners) know that there are many kinds of people who call themselves 'Christians'.  Some are devout, pious, give to charity, try to live exemplary lives, and do not interfere in the lives of others.  Some are out knocking on doors and trying to convert. A very tiny subset are shooting abortion doctors and blowing up abortion clinics.  We do not define the latter as '_what Christians do_'.  We understand implicitly that extremists are the exception and not the rule (which would explain why we call them 'extremists', as noted in the thread above).

On the other hand, we do not see any shades of gray in our view of the 'other', in this case, Islam.  If a Muslim kills their child in an 'honour killing' for looking at a boy, or if they throw acid on a family member for 'disgracing' them, or if they blow up an historic statue because it is forbidden in their religion, we tend to see it as '_what Muslims do_', when it is not.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to be opposed to the horrible things that some extremists do.  No matter their religion.  But it is not molly-coddling, nor is it tacit approval, to point out that the percentage of Muslims who perform or demand such acts is rather small compared to the number of Islamic people in the world.  Now frankly, if one wanted to point out that there appear to be more extremists inside the Islamic faith at the moment than there are inside the Christian faith, I'd be hard-pressed to deny it.  I'm not sure what is to be done about that, but I suspect that painting all Muslims as evil is not going to do much towards encouraging them to be more moderate in their viewpoints.  It seems we are doing the work of the Islamic extremists for them; we push the moderates into their arms.  Brilliant, that.

Of course, one would be bound to ask, if one wished to pursue flawed reasoning, what one proposed be done about this blowing up of statues or killing of children, presuming it is done outside of one's own country.

Shall we kill all Muslims?  That would be rather difficult, I think, but I'm open to suggestions on how this could be accomplished, just for the sake of humor.

Shall we invade all Islamic nations?  We've done so well with the last two, it beggars the imagination to perceive how we could possibly accomplish this, but again, I'm interested in how one envisions such could be accomplished.

Or is this just generalized whingeing about those terrible Muslims?  If so, boring.  Very boring.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 13, 2012)

Destruction of early Islamic heritage sites




> The destruction of sites associated with early Islam is an on-going phenomenon that has occurred mainly in the Hejaz region of western Saudi Arabia, particularly around the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The demolition has focused on mosques, burial sites, homes and historical locations associated with the Islamic prophet, Muhammad and many of the founding personalities of early Islamic history. In Saudi Arabia, many of the demolitions have officially been part of the continued expansion of the Masjid Al-Haram at Mecca and the Prophet's Mosque in Medina and their auxiliary service facilities in order to accommodate the ever-increasing number of Hajj pilgrims. Detractors of the demolitions and expansion programs have argued that this phenomenon is part of the implementation of state-endorsed Wahhabi religious policy that emphasizes the Oneness of God (Tawhid) and entirely rejects the worship of divine proxies to God or even the practices and habits which might lead to idolatry and polytheistic association (Shirk).






> ...attempt was made to tear down Muhammad's tomb ...
> 
> ...the house where Muhammad was born was converted into a library and was slated for demolition as part of an expansion project....






> Islams core tenet is the recognition and worship of one supreme, non-Trinitarian God, which it shares with Judaism. Islam espouses the direct link between a believer and the God and rejects the intercession or the existence of a medium between the two. Although this position can be considerably more complex within the different schools and strains of Islamic theology, the conservative orthodoxy of Wahhabism adheres strictly and literally to this position and prefers to abide by a more narrow and safeguarded interpretation.
> 
> The widespread demolition of gravesites, tombs, mausoleums, birthplaces, mosques or locations otherwise connected with the prophet Muhammad, his family and companions, pious individuals or important events in Islamic history after the Saudi conquest of the Hejaz was an attempt to eradicate non-orthodox practices that had become established in regional Islam during that time. The ongoing demolition of similar places until the present day may constitute the continued effort by Saudi authorities to safeguard Islamic monotheism against non-orthodox practices that are not recognized by Islam.
> 
> ...




Below is the incomplete lists of destroyed sites


Mosques


    The mosque at the grave of Sayyid al-Shuhada Hamza bin Abdul Muttalib.
    The Mosque of Fatima Zahra.
    The Mosque of al-Manaratain.
    Mosque and tomb of Sayyid Imam al-Uraidhi ibn Jafar al-Sadiq, destroyed by dynamite on August 13, 2002.
    Four mosques at the site of the Battle of the Trench in Medina.
    The Mosque of Abu Rasheed.
    Salman al-Farsi Mosque, in Medina.
    Raj'at ash-Shams Mosque, in Medina.


Cemeteries and tombs


    Jannat al-Baqi in Medina, leveled, still open access for men only.
    Jannat al-Mu'alla, the ancient cemetery at Mecca.
    Grave of Hamida al-Barbariyya, the mother of Imam Musa al-Kazim.
    Grave of Amina bint Wahb, Muhammads mother, bulldozed and set alight in 1998.
    Graves of Banu Hashim in Mecca.
    Tombs of Hamza and other martyrs were demolished at Uhud.
    Tomb of Eve in Jeddah,[15] sealed with concrete in 1975.
    Grave of the father of Muhammad, in Medina.


Historical religious sites


    The house of Mawlid where Muhammad is believed to have been born in 570. Originally turned into a cattle market, it now lies under a rundown building which was built 70 years ago as a compromise after Wahhabi clerics called for it to be torn down.
    The house of Khadija, Muhammads first wife. Muslims believe he received some of the first revelations there. It was also where his children Fatimah and Qasim were born. After it was rediscovered during the Haram extensions in 1989, it was covered over and it was made into a library.
    House of Muhammed in Medina, where he lived after the migration from Mecca.
    Dar al Arqam, the first Islamic school where Muhammad taught.[16] It now lies under the extension of the Masjid Al Nabawi of Madinah.
    Qubbat al-Thanaya, the burial site of Muhammed's incisor that was broken in the Battle of Uhud.
    Mashrubat Umm Ibrahim, built to mark the location of the house where Muhammads son, Ibrahim, was born to Mariah.
    Dome which served as a canopy over the Well of Zamzam.
    Bayt al-Ahzan of Sayyida Fatima, in Medina.
    House of Imam Ja'far al-Sadiq, in Medina.
    Mahhalla complex of Banu Hashim, in Medina.
    House of Ali where Hasan and Husayn were born.


----------



## Carol (Nov 13, 2012)

You can see terror actions from people of many backgrounds, including Christian, Hindu, Maoists, etc. on the South Asia Terror Portal, www.satp.org  I will present one warning though.  The founder is KPS Gill, is a retired Indian police officer who gained notoriety during the 1984 Sikh pogroms that followed Indira Gandhi's assasination.  He is not without controversy himself, especially for his (aggressive) counter-terrorism efforts while in uniform.  That being said, I find his SATP site to be rather neutral and fact-based, focusing on events and not editorializing.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 13, 2012)

Terrorist Groups


List of designated terrorist organizations


Domestic terrorism in the United States


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 13, 2012)

Hey Don,  what's your solution to the issue?  How would you handle it, if you had the power and authority to follow thru?


----------



## Big Don (Nov 13, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> Hey Don,  what's your solution to the issue?  How would you handle it, if you had the power and authority to follow thru?



I'd tell everyone to STFU, but, I'm kinda antisocial...


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 13, 2012)

Big Don said:


> but, I'm kinda antisocial...



That explaiins why I don't see you at the meetings


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 13, 2012)

Of course, Don's underlying point is that Islamic people don't think like Westerners. We get it. However, when you consider how they do think its very interesting. For instance, the is no such thing as creativity; instead, they are extemporaneous, which is actually a more accurate term for the concept we know as creativity, which brings us to what Don is talking about. Graven images are in fact a re-creation of what they consider non-created. Its all very sinful.
Sean


----------



## Big Don (Nov 13, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> Of course, Don's underlying point is that Islamic people don't think like Westerners. We get it. However, when you consider how they do think its very interesting. For instance, the is no such thing as creativity; instead, they are extemporaneous, which is actually a more accurate term for the concept we know as creativity, which brings us to what Don is talking about. Graven images are in fact a re-creation of what they consider non-created. Its all very sinful.
> Sean


No, my underlying point, was, and is, that were Westerners to destroy the Ka'aba, there would be all kinds of hell to pay. Aforementioned Hell to pay would start with decrying the wanton destruction of Muslim culture. When Muslims destroy Buddhist icons, and even MUSLIM icons, it is virtually ignored.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 13, 2012)

Big Don said:


> No, my underlying point, was, and is, that were Westerners to destroy the Ka'aba, there would be all kinds of hell to pay. Aforementioned Hell to pay would start with decrying the wanton destruction of Muslim culture. When Muslims destroy Buddhist icons, and even MUSLIM icons, it is virtually ignored.


Why would westerners want to do that? Secondly, its understood, and therefore virtually ignored. 
Sean


----------



## Big Don (Nov 13, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> Why would westerners want to do that? Secondly, its understood, and therefore virtually ignored.
> Sean



IF... But, just for the sake of argument, the destruction of the Ka'aba was left out of the movie 2012, to keep Muslims from going ape


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 13, 2012)

Big Don said:


> IF... But, just for the sake of argument, the destruction of the Ka'aba was left out of the movie 2012, to keep Muslims from going ape


A sound decision.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 13, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> A sound decision.



But, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, etc do not get the same consideration. Why is that? Is it because when Muslim extremists get mad, they actually explode, where as with the other groups, it is figurative?
There is a word for that, and it is spelled: C  O  W  A  R  D  I  C  E


----------



## James Kovacich (Nov 13, 2012)

Big Don said:


> No, my underlying point, was, and is, that were Westerners to destroy the Ka'aba, there would be all kinds of hell to pay. Aforementioned Hell to pay would start with decrying the wanton destruction of Muslim culture. When Muslims destroy Buddhist icons, and even MUSLIM icons, it is virtually ignored.



Its their country, not ours, to do as "they" choose. Why dou you an American, care what they do in "their" country.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador (Nov 14, 2012)

Some treasures transcend nations--I'd hate to see the pyramids destroyed. They're a world cultural heritage issue. This isn't to say I'd use force to stop them, but I _do _have a stake in archaeology.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 14, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> Of course, Don's underlying point is that Islamic people don't think like Westerners. We get it. However, when you consider how they do think its very interesting. For instance, the is no such thing as creativity; instead, they are extemporaneous, which is actually a more accurate term for the concept we know as creativity, which brings us to what Don is talking about. Graven images are in fact a re-creation of what they consider non-created. Its all very sinful.
> Sean



Islamic people and Westerners? There are a good many 'Islamic' people who are Westerners, there's also a good many 'Islamic' people who are Asian. There are also different schools of thought in the Islamic world just as there is in the Christian world. To assume that there even is such a thing as 'Islamic' people is incorrect as is assuming all Islamic people think alike, do Christians? In Christianity you have everything from Roman Catholics, Amish, Baptists, Methodists, Quakers etc,all the High church people, the happy clappy ones right through the scale to those awful ones who wish American soldiers dead, you can't say they all think alike so you can't assume that all Muslims do either. What you are meaning is the Muslims in the Middle East and Pakistan rather than the Muslims of Singapore, Brunei and other such places.


----------



## James Kovacich (Nov 14, 2012)

arnisador said:


> Some treasures transcend nations--I'd hate to see the pyramids destroyed. They're a world cultural heritage issue. This isn't to say I'd use force to stop them, but I _do _have a stake in archaeology.



I agree but I'm seeing a changing world. Some for the better and some for the worse. We influence nations and people hate us for it. We've caused change for decades and now we complain because we don't like the change. Its kinda like we're burning both ends of the candlestck.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 14, 2012)

Big Don said:


> But, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, etc do not get the same consideration. Why is that? Is it because when Muslim extremists get mad, they actually explode, where as with the other groups, it is figurative?
> There is a word for that, and it is spelled: C  O  W  A  R  D  I  C  E



You have a valid point, although I am not sure the reason for it is cowardice.  In the US and most of Western Europe, there is a stigma against labeling actions by Islamic extremists as evil.  That much is true.  Yes, if extremists of other religions did equally obnoxious things, we'd have less compunction about calling them what they are, evil.

On the other hand, we have a number of good and valid reasons for so doing.

First of all, we are at war with terrorism, as we say, which in practical terms means we are at war with Islamic terrorists.  Not Catholic or Irish or Basque or other kinds of terrorists.  We established a precedent early on since 9/11 (President Bush actually started it), of going well out of our way to make it clear we are not at war with Islam or with Muslims, but with terrorists, who happen to be extremist Muslims.  We are careful as a nation to make the distinction.  This important point has been lost on a lot of angry Americans who either cannot or do not want to draw lines of distinction between Muslims who blow stuff up and Muslims who do not.

Yes, it is a double-standard.  And in time, we'll be less reticent about calling things by their right names with regard to Islam and some of the terrible things done in the name of that religion.

It is also true that the Left in the US is doing their usual patty-cake where they pretend that this is not happening.  In this thread, Don, we see the same tactic so often employed by the Right; point out that OTHER groups have done the same or WORSE.  It's the 'worse criminal' argument, and it's as ridiculous when they do it as when it is employed by yourself or billcihak (Bill does it more often than you do, IMHO).  It's a form of deflection; "Oh, don't pay attention to the evil that THIS group does, because OTHER groups do or have done even WORSE!"  Doesn't fly.

However, my questions still remain unanswered.  Given that this is the situation, what would you have us all do?  What is your point?  What is it you want done?  Shall we attack them?  Shall we attack all Muslims?  Shall we stand up and tsk, tsk at them in a loud unified voice?  What exactly is it that we are to do here?

Yes, we are especially sensitive towards saying or doing things that make us appear to be biased against the Islamic faith, and perhaps we go too far in pursuit of wanting to make it clear we hate terrorism, not Muslims.  On the other hand, we're constantly reminded by the very loud angry drumbeat of the extreme right that we do have fine upstanding citizens who either cannot or refuse to make that distinction.  I am not accusing you, Don, I hope you know that.  But let's face it; we've still got a lot of knuckle-draggers on the Right who insist that Allah orders all Muslims to kill or enslave us, it's in their Koran, and of course all Muslims secretly want that.  Right?

In my book, the extreme Right and the extremist Islamic terrorists are on the same side.  They both want war between Islam and the rest of the world.  And they'll both do and say anything to get it.  I would not be surprised to find that in back channels, they communicate on this.  Every hate-filled diatribe made by a right-winger about them awful terrible Muslims is simply pushing moderate Muslims ever further towards their extremist brethren.  Nice work.  We're gonna have us a war with 1.2 billion people, and those few bone-headed hate-mongers calling themselves Republicans are going to make sure of it.  I hope they are happy when they get what they want and discover that we cannot kill 1.2 billion people.


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 14, 2012)

Very nice post Bill.

You are right in that it is not cowardice.  In my opinion it is intellect.  Do we focus our ire on the extremist actually using terrorism or do we allow the bigots in our society to spread our anger to 1.2 billion people?  I know which is more effective in fighting.  If these knuckleheads think that fighting 1.2 billion people will be anything other than a nightmare, think how many people are in Iraq and Afganastan?  Decade of war in both places and they sure don't have 1.2 billion people.

Some people are afraid.  People who are afraid do not make the most sound descisions.  Other people want easy answers.  Islam is foriegn and strange for some people.  So it is much easier to hate Muslims because it fits into the "other" rather easily.  Some have issues in that our enemies, the extremist, do not have a particular "look."  They come from all cultures and societies.   Ask others and they'll tell you that Muslims are brown people who wear certain things and we need to do this or that to them.  Its bigotry, but anyone that points that out is called niave.

It is a tragedy that the buddhist staues in Afganastan have been badly damaged by the Taliban.  Being Buddhist I look at it the same as a famed church.  However, I also know two things; extremist were responsible, not Islam, and change and loss are part of life.  Much better the statues than thier usual tactics of hurting innocents.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Nov 14, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> You are right in that it is not cowardice.  In my opinion it is intellect.  Do we focus our ire on the extremist actually using terrorism or do we allow the bigots in our society to spread our anger to 1.2 billion people?  I know which is more effective in fighting.  If these knuckleheads think that fighting 1.2 billion people will be anything other than a nightmare, think how many people are in Iraq and Afganastan?  Decade of war in both places and they sure don't have 1.2 billion people.
> 
> Some people are afraid.  People who are afraid do not make the most sound descisions.  Other people want easy answers.  Islam is foriegn and strange for some people.  So it is much easier to hate Muslims because it fits into the "other" rather easily.  Some have issues in that our enemies, the extremist, do not have a particular "look."  They come from all cultures and societies.   Ask others and they'll tell you that Muslims are brown people who wear certain things and we need to do this or that to them.  Its bigotry, but anyone that points that out is called niave.
> 
> It is a tragedy that the buddhist staues in Afganastan have been badly damaged by the Taliban.  Being Buddhist I look at it the same as a famed church.  However, I also know two things; extremist were responsible, not Islam, and change and loss are part of life.  Much better the statues than thier usual tactics of hurting innocents.



There has been a notable tendency for the Left to refuse to directly address issues that are endemic in some Islamic nations, and I know that also stirs suspicions and anger on the Right.  *Both sides have a point*, IMHO.

On the one hand, why poke the bear with a stick?  Take Terry Jones for example.  He burns a Koran.  His absolute 1st Amendment right, no doubt about that.  Yet, he clearly hoped to prove a point, which was that many Muslims would riot in response.  He wanted to prove how 'they' are.  He got his wish, people rioted, and some UN workers were murdered as a direct result.  The Left clearly has a problem with that, while the Right either remains silent, or actually thinks it's good that people rile up Muslims so that the world will see how 'evil' all Muslims are.

On the other hand, it is NOT uncommon for many Islamic countries to possess a very backward culture, patterned on social customs that we find offensive, such as honor killings, the subjugation of women, putting homosexuals to death, and so on.  The Left does not confront these issues head-on, and generally turns their heads and pretends not to notice.  As a result, their often strident attacks on Western cultures that do this have a hollow ring to them.  If it is so awful to ban same-sex marriage in America, why is it OK for Iran to hang men for being homosexual?

Both the Left AND the Right turn their heads and ignore abuses taking place in nations allied with us in the Middle East.  We pay scant attention to Coptic Christian churches being burned in Saudia Arabia and Egypt, to Christians and Jews being murdered by the score there.  They are our 'friends' and we're simply not going to talk much about the things they do that we know are wrong.

Yes, there are people who are afraid of Islam and afraid of Muslims.  There are people who simply want to tread lightly, but this comes off as being afraid.  There are people deliberately trying to provoke issues between the West and Islam.

I am personally of the opinion that the differences in culture between Muslims of the Middle East and the West is very large, and difficult to navigate.  Without taking over such nations, it is hard to convince them to respect the rights of women, minority religions, sexual preferences, and so on.  We will find it difficult to convince many of them that the only education a person needs is NOT just the Koran, but actual reading, writing, math and other education.  

We face huge obstacles in communication, in understanding each other, in simply co-existing where we happen to intersect, commercially, economically, and geographically.

Furthermore, our very freedoms encourage both good and bad results from expatriate Muslims who come to the West.  By that, I mean that many come here BECAUSE they seek a more Western lifestyle.  Raising children, making money, eating, owning a house, a car, having money in the bank; you know, the American Dream.  And they get it quite often.  They are not only moderate Muslims, there is no reason to consider them anything OTHER than Americans (or UK subjects, etc).  Their religion becomes quite beside the point.  However, those same freedoms ALSO allow Muslims who come West to bring a more backward culture with them, and when they are in sufficient numbers, to attempt to change the rules of the nation they have moved to in order to make their new country more like the one they left.  Then we have Madrassas teaching hate and promulgating terrorism under the guise of freedom of worship, and people attempting to implement various aspects of Sharia Law and so on.  One of the negative aspects of the 'Democracy' we have exported to the Middle East has been that the citizens, given the right to vote for the government they want, are in some cases CHOOSING Sharia Law in various permutations.

So we have a lot of issues to address.  Real issues.  I see points on both the Left and the Right.  I don't know the answers.  But I suspect that hatred won't get us where we need to go.  Blind faith and trust won't do it either.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 14, 2012)

On the subject of honour killings, it's often the 'tradition' of the area or country that these happen rather than the religion. In India and here sadly honour killings happen among the Hindu and Sikh communities as well as Muslim. In many Asian countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc customs are common among all religions. The plight of females and gays in these countries is dependant on the culture of the country rather than the culture of one religion. In India in particular the persecution of Muslims is rife, one reason that lead to the formation of Pakistan.
In Burma the persecution of Muslims is such that Muslims are massacred without the West raising hardly one word. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/14/burma-violence-muslim-rohingya-refugees


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 14, 2012)

Bill, you are correct in many of the things you say.  Many of the negative things attributed to Islam is in fact societal things.  Not that they should be excused at all.  Evil is evil.  Our relationships as a country with Islamic nations and our fight with terrorism is very complex.  It irritates me when some people want to make it simple and hatred is thier vehicle to do so. In the end it does nothing but make the situation even more complicated.  Time and again we have discussions about terrorism and the problems we face in the Middle East and 9 times out of 10 it ends up being a discussion about bigotry and Islam.  It is short sighted at the very least.  

Most people of Islam have the exact same desires and goals of people here in the US.  Instead of building walls built on the few differences between us, perhaps it would be better to build strong ties based upon those things we share in common.  In this way, a more united front could be shown to extremist who threaten both Islam and the US around the world.  Personally, I think it is smarter to have 1.2 billion people of Islam as allies than let a few bigots piss them all off and have them as enemies, on top of our exsisting war with extremist.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 14, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> On the subject of honour killings, it's often the 'tradition' of the area or country that these happen rather than the religion. In India and here sadly honour killings happen among the Hindu and Sikh communities as well as Muslim. In many Asian countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc customs are common among all religions. The plight of females and gays in these countries is dependant on the culture of the country rather than the culture of one religion. In India in particular the persecution of Muslims is rife, one reason that lead to the formation of Pakistan.
> In Burma the persecution of Muslims is such that Muslims are massacred without the West raising hardly one word. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/14/burma-violence-muslim-rohingya-refugees



Speaking Muslims and the Westerners knowledge and concern of things Muslim.... ever heard of Xinjiang? (that is not so much a question to Tez as it is expanding on her post)


----------



## WC_lun (Nov 14, 2012)

Isn't that the province where Chinese Muslims live?  Just a guess.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 14, 2012)

Brunei is a Muslim country that is extremely pro 'Western' and has little to do with the Arab world. They are particularly pro British, our forces train jungle warfare there and a British regiment of Gurkhas stationed there. The Sultan is a good friend of the UK.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 14, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Islamic people and Westerners? There are a good many 'Islamic' people who are Westerners, there's also a good many 'Islamic' people who are Asian. There are also different schools of thought in the Islamic world just as there is in the Christian world. To assume that there even is such a thing as 'Islamic' people is incorrect as is assuming all Islamic people think alike, do Christians? In Christianity you have everything from Roman Catholics, Amish, Baptists, Methodists, Quakers etc,all the High church people, the happy clappy ones right through the scale to those awful ones who wish American soldiers dead, you can't say they all think alike so you can't assume that all Muslims do either. What you are meaning is the Muslims in the Middle East and Pakistan rather than the Muslims of Singapore, Brunei and other such places.


Well, that is something to consider, but if by chance they believe in Allah, they understand he was not a creator God.
Sean


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 14, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> Isn't that the province where Chinese Muslims live?  Just a guess.



yup


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 15, 2012)

Touch Of Death said:


> Well, that is something to consider, but if by chance they believe in Allah, they understand he was not a creator God.
> Sean



You'll have to run that by me again as I don't understand what you are getting at. If 'by chance' who believe in Allah'? and what's the last couple of words mean?
It's a fact that there are different sects of Islam, Muslims don't just live in the Middle East, there's Muslims in the West, we have a good many in the UK, been here several generations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/uk_1.shtml


----------



## Monadnock (Dec 31, 2012)

Images of prophets, structures built to glorify men, idols and anything that suggests a distraction from the one Creator are not allowed in Islam. The pyramids would fall into one of these categories. It's their country so they can do as they please. Now, I do not think there are many people in Egypt who still worship Ra or a past king or pharoh, so I think it is a little extreme to destroy them, especially when they could generate some tourism dollars. But it's not our country.

This is the call of a few hard core conservatives, not the majority Ummah.

In America, we believe in freedom of religion. You can have as little or as much faith as you want. There are no restrictions, so long as your actions do not harm anyone else. So you can believe something as simple as a place to go after death, to as much as believing that the religious texts are to be followed word for word. And nobody can fault you for it. It's your right in America.

So just imagine, that there are some people who not only follow religious texts to the letter, but also glean insight and make their own decisions based on their beliefs when no clear answer is given in the texts. This is their right. It is not extreme. It is having complete faith. It's their right to reject anything that does not fit in their faith, including science.


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 31, 2012)

It may be their country, but these things are not truly theirs. Some things transcend national ownership.


----------



## GrandmasterP (Dec 31, 2012)

The Ahmadiyya Moslems in Srinagar are custodians of the tomb of Jesus, it was quite the pilgrimage destination before the troubles.
There's almost as many different flavours in Islam as there are amongst the Christian denominations.
Not all Moslems are terrorists it's just that, at present; most of the terrorists out to do 'us' down happen to be Moslems.
A while back it was the IRA and when this lot are done and dusted there's sure to be some other whackos a comin' down the pike.


----------



## Monadnock (Dec 31, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> It may be their country, but these things are not truly theirs. Some things transcend national ownership.



Like oil?


----------



## arnisador (Dec 31, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> It may be their country, but these things are not truly theirs. Some things transcend national ownership.



Agreed. There's a world cultural heritage issue here.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 31, 2012)

CanuckMA said:


> It may be their country, but these things are not truly theirs. Some things transcend national ownership.





arnisador said:


> Agreed. There's a world cultural heritage issue here.



Question is....how much of the world would agree?


----------



## Uncle (Dec 31, 2012)

Any of it that actually understands their significance. I mean the Jews were forced to build the bloody pyramids using slave labour and THEY don't care that they exist.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 31, 2012)

Uncle said:


> Any of it that actually understands their significance.



And how many is that?

I don't want to see any of it destroyed but I see this a lot; we (American's) think that what we think is what the world thinks and that is not necessarily the case. And there are those that know the significance that may also think that it is none of their business since it is not their country


----------



## Uncle (Dec 31, 2012)

The low level proletariat are always a larger populous than the educated in any country however if we allow them to run the world it would be world war III. The educateD folks in Egypt and the surrounding countries will have the same opinion.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 31, 2012)

Uncle said:


> Any of it that actually understands their significance. I mean the Jews were forced to build the bloody pyramids using slave labour and THEY don't care that they exist.




Of course we care that they exist. They are a world heritage, it's part of the history of the world. What makes you think we wouldn't care?


----------



## CanuckMA (Dec 31, 2012)

Uncle said:


> Any of it that actually understands their significance. I mean the Jews were forced to build the bloody pyramids using slave labour and THEY don't care that they exist.



1) we do care they exist.

And 2) we did not build them. Hebrew slaves built the store cities of Pytom and Rameses.


----------



## Uncle (Dec 31, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Of course we care that they exist. They are a world heritage, it's part of the history of the world. What makes you think we wouldn't care?


Let me rephrase the 'do not care.' I meant that even though the Jews were used as Egyptian slave labour (i know they likely didn't build the pyramids) they don't care if the Egyptian monuments stand. That's what you call level headed.


----------



## Sukerkin (Dec 31, 2012)

I think a healthy dose of reading up on the actual history of the region rather than the 'Hollywood' version (and the biblical political bias version too) might be of advantage to all before positions get a little too entrenched (Yeah, archaeological/historical pun attack! ).


----------



## granfire (Dec 31, 2012)

Uncle said:


> Let me rephrase the 'do not care.' I meant that even though the Jews were used as Egyptian slave labour (i know they likely didn't build the pyramids) they don't care if the Egyptian monuments stand. That's what you call level headed.



huh? what?


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 1, 2013)

Uncle said:


> Let me rephrase the 'do not care.' I meant that even though the Jews were used as Egyptian slave labour (i know they likely didn't build the pyramids) they don't care if the Egyptian monuments stand. That's what you call level headed.




????????

First, they're really is not such thing as "The Jews". We are a collection of individuals. And if asked, the majority would certainly care about the pyramids and the Sphinx. As a nation, Israel is accutely aware of the treasures of the past. Israel is one massive archeological dig.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 1, 2013)

Uncle said:


> Let me rephrase the 'do not care.' I meant that even though the Jews were used as Egyptian slave labour (i know they likely didn't build the pyramids) they don't care if the Egyptian monuments stand. That's what you call level headed.



Why are you saying 'they don't care, when we are telling you 'WE' do?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2013)

Its their country if they tear it down it sucks but who's going to stop them?  You want to send the military Into Egypt to guard them by force?  It would be a sad day it they were torn down but the only people that should have a say are the Egyptians.  If the Queens decided to tear down Big Ben should the Chinese be allowed to tell them no and then ace troops around it to protect it?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 1, 2013)

Interesting point, *Ballen*.  I would imagine that being designated a World Heritage Site probably gives such things as the Sphinx a certain legal status that allows for their protection?  In the same fashion that buying a listed building here means that there are severe limits on what you can do to it even tho' it is your property.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Interesting point, *Ballen*.  I would imagine that being designated a World Heritage Site probably gives such things as the Sphinx a certain legal status that allows for their protection?  In the same fashion that buying a listed building here means that there are severe limits on what you can do to it even tho' it is your property.



But I would think the only thing protecting  the building is your own country agreeing to be a part of the world heritage site system.  So if I bought a building and decided to destroy it in say London I would think the London authorities would stop me.  But if the ones doing the destruction were the authorities who would stop them?  
How would you stop them?  If they are so extreme in there religious views they believe they need to tear down the pyramids some sanctions.by the world heritage foundation won't stop them.  Then you need to weigh is cutting aid and hurting millions of people that had nothing to do with the decision worth keeping the pyramids up?  Or how far do you go do you send in physical troops?  You can in Egypt its not as powerful as say china but if china decided to tear down the great wall could we send in troops to stop them?  I think not.  I'm all for trying to talk them out of it but to say you can't do it it belongs to the world, not you, will only force the hand of the new leaders to prove they are strong.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 1, 2013)

:nods:  Sadly, I think that you put your finger right on it there.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2013)

I would be sad if it happened because its on my bucket list to go see them.


----------



## WC_lun (Jan 1, 2013)

You really think the Egyptian government is going to tear down those pyramids?  Tourism to those sites are a major source of income for the populace around them and the government.  There are extremist who will propose stupid actions, but Egypt is not going to hurt themselves financially to that degree.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 1, 2013)

WC_lun said:


> You really think the Egyptian government is going to tear down those pyramids?  Tourism to those sites are a major source of income for the populace around them and the government.  There are extremist who will propose stupid actions, but Egypt is not going to hurt themselves financially to that degree.


I dont but that wasnt really the question I was answering.  There are some that expressed an opinon that they couldnt do it the pyramids belonged to the "world" not egypt.  I think they can and theres nothing anyone can do about it. But no I dont think they will.


----------

