Muslim world needs conversion, not understanding

[Brendan_64]

It’s not about the ‘west’ though that ‘Global force for good’ isn’t being lead too well.

It is the notion that the West is somehow a ‘Global force for good’ that is quite sick really. If we count the number of innocent civilians killed by an aggressor, then I reckon we’d come ‘op of the league’. The propaganda that this is all somehow justifiable because we are doing it in the name of ‘freedom and democracy’ is quite sickening really. Bomb any nation we wish to, and that’s OK because we’re doing it in the name of ‘freedom and democracy’.

 

[ffg]

It is the notion that the West is somehow a ‘Global force for good’ that is quite sick really. If we count the number of innocent civilians killed by an aggressor, then I reckon we’d come ‘op of the league’. The propaganda that this is all somehow justifiable because we are doing it in the name of ‘freedom and democracy’ is quite sickening really. Bomb any nation we wish to, and that’s OK because we’re doing it in the name of ‘freedom and democracy’.

I suppose the context would help, but it’s not worth it at this point, FRIDAY!

The line you quoted was a bit of a tongue in cheek situation. I’m sure the ads are not running in your country.

You might want to scan the world news section of the forums.

Your conclusions are not accurate.

 

[manualman]

How many Islamic countries have attacked the West before we sent in the bombers? I can’t think of one can you? Iraq? No. Afghanistan? No.

What gives us the right to attack nations that have not attacked us, and kill many thousands of innocent civilians in the process?

Are Islamic terrorists guilty of killing more innocent Western civilians, than the West is of killing more innocent Muslim civilians? An innocent life is an innocent life regardless of what part of the world he comes from.

A point can certainly be made that the US is often naïve in deciding where and when to intervene in global conflicts and callous about the side effects of said decision.

But you rather badly cross the line into false moral equivalence on this one. If you are unable to see the motivational difference between those who intentionally send suicide bombers into civilian populations to cause carnage and mayhem and those who seek to find and kill the cowardly leaders who RECRUIT said suicide bombers while they are hiding among civilians in attempt to shield themselves, then I’m calling you out on it. Bunk.

No western nation goes willy nilly to war against muslim countries peaceably going about their lives under Natural Law norms. They do so in response to outrageous acts of terror and despotism going on WITHIN those countries or being exported from them. Even the Iraq war (which I’ve come to believe was a bad mistake) was motivated by the horrific behavior (and worries about future such behavior) of Saddam (though I grant you that it all would have been ignored in a no oil location like Sudan).

It’s certainly true that the west can’t always be the global police and step in and stop atrocities. But I’m not convinced that more people died in Afghanistan or Iraq as a result of US intervention than would have died under the pre-war internal trajectories going on there. The Taliban were mass murderers in Afghanistan. Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Try to keep some perspective on the scale of things, OK? There’s a lot to criticize about the west that’s legit. Asserting moral equivalence with jihadis is just lunatic talk though.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Um, what? Could you elaborate on case of western nations attacking peaceful Islamic countries guilty of nothing more than minding their own business? I seem to be missing out on some current events.

I certainly do think the western world needs to understand Islam better. It’s certainly true that the vast majority of muslims are decent and honorable people. Duh! They’re HUMAN! The vast majority of humans are decent and honorable people. Even though fallen, people are still created good in God’s image and likeness. That goodness is terribly damaged by the fall, but not destroyed.

I’m not yet convinced that the teachings of Islam have had a net positive impact on the people of the Islamic world. In fact, I’m inclined to think the world would have been better off had Muhammed never been born. It seems to me that much of his teaching has immutably fixed Islamic culture in the 8th century in a manner that cannot be reformed. There’s an innate civilizational conflict of principles there that no amount of ‘feel good’ tolerance on our side is going to fix.

I’d say we DO need to learn more about Islam, so we can show muslims how Christ is the son of God, while Muhammed was just an flawed man.

The West has been interfering with Middle Eastern states since the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW1, with the interference reaching its height during the Cold War. There is also a clear linkage between the political/social oppression of the people of the various ME states by Western installed/supported regimes and the rise of politically charged/dominate Islam.

 

[manualman]

The West has been interfering with Middle Eastern states since the fall of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WW1, with the interference reaching its height during the Cold War. There is also a clear linkage between the political/social oppression of the people of the various ME states by Western installed/supported regimes and the rise of politically charged/dominate Islam.

The first sentence I certainly agree with. Where I perhaps differ with you is in the implication that this is anything new. Before the Ottomans collapsed, THEY were the regional superpower and tossed their weight around. It’s the nature of political power that it is used to advance one’s own interest. Fallen humans and all…

The second sentence is pure nonsense, like asserting that me getting a good sleep at night causes the sun to rise since that’s my observed pattern! Militant, theocratic Islamic expansionism dates back to Muhammed himself. It waned for a few recent centuries due to the internal turmoil caused by the Ottoman decline and Sunni/Shia squabbling. With the departure of the Ottomans, muslim culture and tradition made it inevitable that regional muslim leaders would vie for the chance to reunite the Islamic world and reclaim its lost glory. It’s a western fantasy to suppose that Islam as a religion can be separated from it’s innate political structure. It’s designed for a central ruler of nearly unlimited power. Those rulers weren’t despots because the West installed them. They were despots (absolute monarchs, if you like) because that’s the nature of Islamic culture.

Few people realize how close we came to Islam over-running the west on an ongoing basis for many centuries. Things were still very much in doubt as recently as the late 16th century! It’s easy to condemn the heavy handedness of the allies after WWI, but they were perhaps a little closer in time to the idea of ‘Muhammaden hoardes’ descending on Vienna. History is an onion like that: always another layer underneath…

 

[Randy_Carson]

I absolutely do not agree with the author. Converting people to what our vision of the world is does not solve everything. Jesus is the way for some, but not all, and that’s how it should always be.

I’m more familiar with the following way of thinking:

John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The first sentence I certainly agree with. Where I perhaps differ with you is in the implication that this is anything new. Before the Ottomans collapsed, THEY were the regional superpower and tossed their weight around. It’s the nature of political power that it is used to advance one’s own interest. Fallen humans and all…

The second sentence is pure nonsense. Militant, theocratic Islamic expansionism dates back to Muhammed himself. It waned for a few recent centuries due to the internal turmoil caused by the Ottoman decline and Sunni/Shia squabbling. With the departure of the Ottomans, muslim culture and tradition made it inevitable that regional muslim leaders would vie for the chance to reunite the Islamic world and reclaim its lost glory. It’s a western fantasy to suppose that Islam as a religion can be separated from it’s innate political structure. It’s designed for a central ruler of nearly unlimited power. Those rulers weren’t despots because the West installed them. They were despots (absolute monarchs, if you like) because that’s the nature of Islamic culture.

I suggest you do some more research on the history of the governments of the various ME and North African states. Off the top of my head I can name 4 that pretty much disprove your argument above- Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and Syria. The closest ME states to what you describe (which would be Saudi Arabia and Jordan) are also two of the least militant or expansionist states in the region.

 

[manualman]

I suggest you do some more research on the history of the governments of the various ME and North African states. Off the top of my head I can name 4 that pretty much disprove your argument above- Egypt, Libya, Iraq, and Syria. The closest ME states to what you describe (which would be Saudi Arabia and Jordan) are also two of the least militant or expansionist states in the region.

Am I reading you correctly in that you are asserting that Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Syria DON’T have a long and sad history of despotic strong man rulers???

I’ll certainly agree that those nations have tended to have more secular minded strong men, but mostly because that is a useful expedient for keeping the lid on Sunni/Shia internal conflicts. Notice lately what happens when the strong man is toppled? But the cultural predisposition for a dictator in Islamic countries is still there even when said dictator downplays the explicit role of Islam in his government.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

One wonders if Pope Francis will follow in the steps of his namesake. The early Friars made quite a name for themselves preaching in North Africa and the Near East.

One wonders. I’ve heard people speculate he may be the child referred to in Rev 12, whose life is cut short, but during whose relatively short life (or pontificate?) the nations are ruled by a “rod of iron,” one wielded by him.

A pontiff who paid the ultimate price to spread the faith would be an inspiration across all sectarian lines.

 

[coachkfan1]

The elephant in the room is the state of Israel. While it is true that Christianty and Islam have been set at variance for many centuries, the majority of the Islamic world now hates the west because of the existence of and continued backing of Israel by the U.S. and Britain.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Conversion or some great intimidation.

 

[Brendan_64]

The elephant in the room is the state of Israel. While it is true that Christianty and Islam have been set at variance for many centuries, the majority of the Islamic world now hates the west because of the existence of and continued backing of Israel by the U.S. and Britain.

That is true.

 

[Brendan_64]

No western nation goes willy nilly to war against muslim countries peaceably going about their lives under Natural Law norms. They do so in response to outrageous acts of terror and despotism going on WITHIN those countries or being exported from them.

No they don’t. They do so in order to extend their sphere of influence. Attrocities are occurring (and have been occurring) in nations all across the globe, yet for the most part the West does nothing about it. The West intervenes when such intervention would benefit their national interests, economic. political or otherwise.

The notion that the West invades other nations motivated by altruism and a desire to “do the right thing” for the people there is nonsense. The West intervenes when it sees an opportunity to benefit its national interests. Attrocities committed provide some sort of convenient moral justification.

We have no right, or mandate, to behave like a self-appointed “global policeman” let alone carry out this self-appointed role by bombing many thousands of completely innocent civilians, whose only ‘crime’ is wanting to go about their daily lives and provide for their families. The people we bomb are no different from us. Our lives are not more valuable than theirs, us bombing and killing many thousands of them is no better than if they bombed and killed many thousands of us.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Am I reading you correctly in that you are asserting that Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Syria DON’T have a long and sad history of despotic strong man rulers???

I’ll certainly agree that those nations have tended to have more secular minded strong men, but mostly because that is a useful expedient for keeping the lid on Sunni/Shia internal conflicts. Notice lately what happens when the strong man is toppled? But the cultural predisposition for a dictator in Islamic countries is still there even when said dictator downplays the explicit role of Islam in his government.

-No, you are trying to ignore the fact that the despotic strongmen of those states had nothing to do with Islam or the supposed “Sunni-Shia internal conflicts.” Said strongmen rose to power on very non-Islamic ideals and were able to stay in power due to support from the West/Soviets.
-Russia also has a very long history of embracing despotic strongmen. Cultural acceptance/desire for such is not due to religion.
-What happens when a repressive regime falls shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, especially if said regime has been in power for a long time. Regime falls, power vacuum is created, the only ones left that are organized/motivated enough to fill said vacuum are the extremist orgs/movements that outlasted the regimes purges.
-What happened in the former Yugoslavia doesn’t really support your argument.

 

[famdigy]

Comments?

ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/the-muslim-world-needs-conversion-not-understanding

This catholic agrees with the author and I do not take issue with anything in this article.

You should read into the history of the Christian Missionaries and their efforts to convert Native Americans to Christianity back in the 1800s.

 

[concretecamper]

You should read into the history of the Christian Missionaries and their efforts to convert Native Americans to Christianity back in the 1800s.

Oh…here we go…

 

[manualman]

The notion that the West invades other nations motivated by altruism and a desire to “do the right thing” for the people there is nonsense. The West intervenes when it sees an opportunity to benefit its national interests. Attrocities committed provide some sort of convenient moral justification.

We have no right, or mandate, to behave like a self-appointed “global policeman” let alone carry out this self-appointed role by bombing many thousands of completely innocent civilians, whose only ‘crime’ is wanting to go about their daily lives and provide for their families. The people we bomb are no different from us. Our lives are not more valuable than theirs, us bombing and killing many thousands of them is no better than if they bombed and killed many thousands of us.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I never claimed that the west only acts on pure altruism, did I? Show me where.

There’s a huge moral gap between concocting “convenient moral justifications” and deciding to use military force when there are national interests at stake AND there are legitimate just war criteria met. Can you see that?

Perhaps I’m ignorant of some situation you reference here, but can you show me where western forces bombed “many thousands of innocents going about their daily lives” in a actually similar to what the terrorists do (whether 9/11 or other event of lesser impact)? You don’t see ANY moral difference between targeting militants and inadvertently killing some civilians versus intentionally targeting as many civilians as possible? Seriously?

 

[manualman]

-No, you are trying to ignore the fact that the despotic strongmen of those states had nothing to do with Islam or the supposed “Sunni-Shia internal conflicts.” Said strongmen rose to power on very non-Islamic ideals and were able to stay in power due to support from the West/Soviets.
-Russia also has a very long history of embracing despotic strongmen. Cultural acceptance/desire for such is not due to religion.
-What happens when a repressive regime falls shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, especially if said regime has been in power for a long time. Regime falls, power vacuum is created, the only ones left that are organized/motivated enough to fill said vacuum are the extremist orgs/movements that outlasted the regimes purges.
-What happened in the former Yugoslavia doesn’t really support your argument.

Perhaps I should clarify then and stipulate that I never meant to imply that ONLY Islamic culture tends to produce despotic leadership and totalitarian states. Indeed that’s a problem that seems to stem from fallen human nature itself, so it pops up globally. But I DO assert that Islam reinforces that aspect of fallen nature, which is why such a state is almost UNIVERSAL among long time Islamic cultures. You have a point that said dictators had assistance from Cold War powers in providing the weapons of domination. But that’s only an assistance, not a guarantee. Many places in the world are awash in guns without resulting in the sort of dictatorship that is almost universal in the Islamic world.

To the extent that any Islamic nation has had any sort of success in establishing a broader base of power, hasn’t that success ALWAYS been accompanied by systematic attempts to exclude Islam from the system of government at hand (I’m thinking precisely of Turkey here)?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Perhaps I should clarify then and stipulate that I never meant to imply that ONLY Islamic culture tends to produce despotic leadership and totalitarian states. Indeed that’s a problem that seems to stem from fallen human nature itself, so it pops up globally. But I DO assert that Islam reinforces that aspect of fallen nature, which is why such a state is almost UNIVERSAL among long time Islamic cultures. You have a point that said dictators had assistance from Cold War powers in providing the weapons of domination. But that’s only an assistance, not a guarantee. Many places in the world are awash in guns without resulting in the sort of dictatorship that is almost universal in the Islamic world.

To the extent that any Islamic nation has had any sort of success in establishing a broader base of power, hasn’t that success ALWAYS been accompanied by systematic attempts to exclude Islam from the system of government at hand (I’m thinking precisely of Turkey here)?

History disagrees with your conclusions. First, the model of an Islamic nation actually has a very long track record of creating successful and powerful states. The Islamic nation model only actually began to fail (from internal rot due more to the inertia of stability than anything else that is common in pretty much every long term stable political form of government) in the last century when confronted with a technologically and economically superior model (which is also true for all forms of governments). The Ottoman Empire was not always known as the “sick man of Europe,” and for good reason.

Additionally, your claim regarding Islam being a weakness or liability can also be applied to not only other faiths, but to pretty much anything. Catholicism, feudalism, slave based economy, colonial system, monarchy, etc, etc, etc. I wish to prove that Catholicism is a weakness- point to England’s rise after it abandoned it, point to France’s resurgence after it abandoned it, point to Spain’s failure to maintain it’s empire. Colonial system- Former European colonial powers not only being “former” colonial powers, but dependent on a former colony for it’s military protection. Feudalism- how many feudal powers survived the industrial revolution? Slave based economy- Rome, CSA, England’s abandonment of it.

Lastly, if you really believe that Western/Soviet support was only an assistance and not a guarantee then I suggest you review recent history. There is a reason (and no it’s not because they want to protect Christians) that Russia is so supportive of Assad, the “Arab Spring” didn’t take root in US/West backed governments.

 

[zz912]

Understanding, absolutely. I feel as if the Western world is only seeing the extremist parts of Islam and greatly needs to see that there’s peace and harmony in Islam.

Why is it our job to diligently search for very illusive things, and ignore the blatantly obvious?