‘Destroy the idols,’ Egyptian jihadist calls for removal of Sphinx, Pyramids

[Big Don]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tez3]

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]

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]

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

yup

 

[Tez3]

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]

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]

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