More agreement

Submitted by Michel (United States), Aug 18, 2007 at 16:36

Logic dictates that if such atrocity took place there must be teachings in Islam that would justify such an atrocity, and that if Muslims tell us that those killers were not real muslims is nothing but nonsense. I have not seen a single Muslim following the 9/11 atrocity that tells us yes there are indeed doctrines in islam that would allow such atrocity and Muslims should work at fixing such bad doctrines once and for all. But you know what? the only thing we heard is that islam is the religion of peace (sic)!

It was an atrocity of so far unheard of scale. But then human kind always tries to push the envelope further and further and a nuclear attack seems no more impossible. However, I feel that bad doctrines across the globe throughout history were used as justification for crimes against humanity.

Now your argument that islamic imperialism is not any different from any other form of imerialism so why go after Muslims, is a poor argument. Imperialism should be defeated in any form, be it Islamic or otherwise.

Totally agree. Wherever the pressure originates, we must push back.

Now Muslims lecture us about the crusades ad nauseum but when reminded that the Arab invasion of the middle east was not any different and at least the god of the Christians never told his followers to invade the lands of others as the God of the Qur'an really says. And you know what? when I tell Muslims that islam was indeed spread by the sword (yes there are few exceptions) the responses that you get are most pathetic.

Don't you agree with me that pretty much all religion or doctrines were spread by the sword? Were these ever peaceful? Wherever we saw expansion in any form or shape, it usually was accompanied by force and cruelty. That to my opinion is an allencompassing fact and can not just be attributed to the Muslims.

What is amazing about your Pakistani friends, their ancestors were victims of Arabian imperialism and now they are out to spread islam. The ultimate Stockholm syndrome.

At least as my (few Muslim and not just Pakistani) friends were concerned, I never once saw any tendency to "spread the gospel", which is exactly, why I admired them a great deal. I can not say the same of some of my very best friends who happen to be avid bible scholars. I find myself way too often being patronized and under a pressure of submitting to their intepretations. I love them but I continuously need to push back. I never had to to that with my Pakistanis, even though I was a tiny minority at the time.

As far as the Pakistanis are concerned as a whole - I do not think that they own a special role. At some point all these religions seem to have conquered a region and such fanatics can be found anywhere. Wouldn't you agree that Catholizism was certainly not the prevalent religion in South America, before we conquered the place....and now? The most retro type of Christianity outside of the Vatican is practised there.... with a great deal of pressure to missionarize and "spread the gospel..... not with weapons or terror, I admit, but the terrorism of the Bin ladens certainly does not lend itself to winning new converts over, does it now?

I guess, aforementioned explains, why I stand so adamantly against any religion of any kind with expansive nature or exclusive in kind. I consider myself as a spiritual person though, but I have yet to find a spritual home which does not exlude "non believers" or is expansive in nature, which is a bit stupid, as it is so much more convincing to others to simply let them come due to your lived example and not due to any kind of pressure. As long as these various sects, religions and churches do not get this simple fact of life, but exercise intolerance, financial and moral pressure to conform, in a way one could call this religious imperialism, we will find ourselves in conflict without any end in sight.

The day a Christian Priest told me with a straight face, that even a person like Mahatma Gandhi would never be considered as worthy of our "afterlife", but would burn in hell, due to the simple fact, that he was a non-bliever, was the end of my Church career.... That was the most extreme example of exclusive religious fanatism in my personal experience outsid e of violence... What arrogance. And here in the US, such religious "rednecks" are by distance more outspoken or powerful than most other minorities.

As long as we find such in any religion, conflict is nothing but a logic consequence. Here again, I concur with you and condemn any form of intolerance from any form of religion or culture.

Man it is 40C, 110F here and I need to cool down now.... My keyboard is melting...

See Ya/

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".