What's with the Muslim "God is great!" bit?

[Marduk]

154, we just discussed the problem of quotes taken out of context, and I already gave an example of exactly one of your cherry-picked phrases out of context. ?

9 And God said

15:4

1 Corinthians 14:9 talks in tongues of a different language

Job 41:19 Out of his

Numbers 22:21-38 Ass

 

[HansMustermann]

Rofl. Well played.

 

[TimCallahan]

154, consider the following verses from the Qur'an:

Q 2:62: The Muslim believers, the Jews, the Christians and he Sabeans [i. e. Mandaeans] - all those who believe in God and the Last Day and do good - will have their rewards with their Lord. No fear for them, nor will they grieve.

Q3:84: Say [Prophet], "We believe in God and in what has been sent down to us and to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes. We believe in what has been given to Moses, Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We do not make a distinction between any of the prophets. It is to Him that we devote ourselves."

Q29:46: Believers, argue only in the kindest way with the People of the Book, except with those of them who act unjustly. Say, "We believe in what was revealed to you; our God and your God are one; we are devoted to Him."

Now these verses are as cherry-picked as those you quoted. In fact, the treatment of Christians by Muslims, Muslims by Christians, and Jews by either religion has been, and continues to be checkered. At the present time, Islam seems to be particularly intolerant. as noted in the video to which you gave a link, concerning the treatment of the Copts in Egypt. At the same time, advocates of Eretz Yisroel, "Greater Israel," are utterly intolerant of the Palestinian Arabs, who have been living there for the 2,000 years.

I am, of course, concerned about the generally anti-western drift in Islam, but it doesn't represent the be all and end all of that particular religion.

 

[HansMustermann]

Which actually isn't all that hard to explain. The Muslim part of the world has been the whipping boy of the West for quite some time now. Between the coup in Iran, funding Iraq (a secular state) to attack Iran (a muslim state), the 6 days war against Egypt for not toeing the line, two centuries of fiasco in Afghanistan, a decade of aggression in Iraq, the raid on Syria based on Mossad disinformation, and Israel acting like an aggressive prick and bombing neighbours left and right, yeah, you get the idea. And while Christian fundies may have a reason to cheer at that even if they don't actually like Jews, because their Rapture depends on Israel, the Muslims have no such reason to cheer.

Add belligerent speeches by idiot fundies, including Dubya apparently acting under orders from God, and it starts to sound even to a lot of non-Muslims like the new crusades.

But it's not just that they have reason to hate the Christian West.

Remember that part about all those bellicose-sounding Suras being in the context of an armed attack at the time on the Islam? Bingo. That's why they can be used against the West right now. Not as much just because it's that freely interpretable, but because it's trivial to present it as the same kind of war on the Islam that the polytheists of Mecca were doing at the time. You don't actually need to reinterpret much. Once you have a bunch of people convinced there's a war against the Islam, basically those verses can be applied for what they actually say.

Of course, the perverse part is that the easiest was to defuse that would be to just start leaving them alone. You can't convince people to apply, say, 2:191, if 2:190 says they don't have to, and 2:192-193 say they should stop.

But yeah, good luck with selling that idea to idiot fundies who do want a new crusade to spread the word of their deranged Lord.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Quran 2:191: "... kill the disbelievers wherever we find them …"

Why the ellipsis? Did you feel the need to edit the full context or did you simply post someone else's list without bothering to actually look up the listed verses?

Lets look at the context of this verse:

Shakir translation.

2:190 And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

2:191 And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

2:192 But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

2:193 And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.

 

[TimCallahan]

Which actually isn't all that hard to explain. The Muslim part of the world has been the whipping boy of the West for quite some time now. Between the coup in Iran, funding Iraq (a secular state) to attack Iran (a muslim state), the 6 days war against Egypt for not toeing the line, two centuries of fiasco in Afghanistan, a decade of aggression in Iraq, the raid on Syria based on Mossad disinformation, and Israel acting like an aggressive prick and bombing neighbours left and right, yeah, you get the idea. And while Christian fundies may have a reason to cheer at that even if they don't actually like Jews, because their Rapture depends on Israel, the Muslims have no such reason to cheer.

Add belligerent speeches by idiot fundies, including Dubya apparently acting under orders from God, and it starts to sound even to a lot of non-Muslims like the new crusades.

But it's not just that they have reason to hate the Christian West.

Remember that part about all those bellicose-sounding Suras being in the context of an armed attack at the time on the Islam? Bingo. That's why they can be used against the West right now. Not as much just because it's that freely interpretable, but because it's trivial to present it as the same kind of war on the Islam that the polytheists of Mecca were doing at the time. You don't actually need to reinterpret much. Once you have a bunch of people convinced there's a war against the Islam, basically those verses can be applied for what they actually say.

Of course, the perverse part is that the easiest was to defuse that would be to just start leaving them alone. You can't convince people to apply, say, 2:191, if 2:190 says they don't have to, and 2:192-193 say they should stop.

But yeah, good luck with selling that idea to idiot fundies who do want a new crusade to spread the word of their deranged Lord.

Concerning the hilited area, here's where we see the interface of politics, economics and religious strife. In (I believe) 1906 the British fleet switched from powering their ships with coal to powering them with oil. While this increased efficiency and decreased the weight of the fuel they had to carry, there was one disadvantage to the change: England had plenty of coal, but no oil. Since the British had to get oil from the Near East, that got them involved in controlling southern Iran (the Russians established a sphere of influence in the north) as a sphere of influence, as well as controlling Iraq.

Our need for oil has led us to do essentially the same thing. For example, we fomented the coup that ousted a freely elected government and put in the Shah. It's small wonder they hate us. So, if we could replace oil with some mix of fuels and alternate energy sources, we would leave them alone, and much of the hatred would gradually diffuse.

Regarding the state of Israel, many Arabs look on it as a European intrusion into their territory, since most of the Jews who emigrated to become the Israelis came from Europe. If we were to lean on Israel to accept a two state solution, allowing the West Bank area to become a Palestinian state, that would undercut those preaching an end to Israel, hatred of the West etc.

Even were we not to need their oil and even were there to be a Palestinian state, there would still, of course, be many Muslim clerics railing against the West, capitalism, democracy, liberalization of sexual mores, empowerment of women, etc.; but their rants would increasingly fall on deaf ears as Muslim youth embraced the Internet, free exchange of ideas and freedom itself. We must still expect all kinds of craziness to come out of the Muslim world, because all the changes that would be let loose in a time of peace and security would cause one hell of a blast of culture shock.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Even were we not to need their oil and even were there to be a Palestinian state, there would still, of course, be many Muslim clerics railing against the West, capitalism, democracy, liberalization of sexual mores, empowerment of women, etc.; but their rants would increasingly fall on deaf ears as Muslim youth embraced the Internet, free exchange of ideas and freedom itself. We must still expect all kinds of craziness to come out of the Muslim world, because all the changes that would be let loose in a time of peace and security would cause one hell of a blast of culture shock.

I agree. Those who point to current unrest in the Muslim world would do well to look at the history of Islam and other religions. In recent years we've seen some appalling Christian on Christian violence in places like Ireland. And the Protestant schism led to many years of bloody war in Europe. Just because we see violence coming from some elements of the Muslim world it does not logically follow that there is something intrinsically brutal about Islam. Do do so also fails to take into account the socioeconomic realities of parts of the Muslim world as factors in the behavior we observe in some places. Who knows what the future may hold for Muslims? I hope that one day Muslims will look back on this era much the way Catholics look back on a past in which popes had the power to order torture, execution and war.

 

[HansMustermann]

I don't think it's even just the occupied territories. As I was saying, Israel has been bombing its neighbours for half a century for even looking funny at it. But of course if you do that with proper airplanes and laser-guided rockets, it's just proper civilized international relations, but if you send some guy with a trunk full of explosives, then you're just one those muslim crazies.

And I really mean half a century.

- 1951 to 1966: about a dozen incursions carried out against its neighbours as responses to various acts of terrorism, in the name of establishing a high blood cost to the countries where those terrorists happened to be. Strangely similar to the same idea that got the SS to shoot a few civilians for each German killed by partisans. And just about as popular among those on the receiving end of it.

- 1954: Operation Susannah. In a complete dick move, Israeli agents plant bombs in Egyptian, American and British-owned targets in Egypt to try to make it look like Egyptian nationalists are attacking the west.

- 1956: Israel basically aggreed to play the role of an aggressor in Egypt, just so England and France could pretend to intervene in Egypt to keep the peace. If they just declared war themselves, see, then _they'd_ look like aggressors.

Also includes such incidence as the bloody massacre of civilians in Khan Yunis. And the torpedoing of the US ship USS Liberty, killing 34 crew members.

You can probably imagine how this made Israel just about as popular in Egypt and other Arab states as Iraq was loved by the USA after attacking Kuwait. And having played the bait for the super-powers doesn't make it really any better. "Sorry, I just punched you in the eye so my two best buddies can screw you up the ass," still counts as being a dick.

- 1966: Israel bombs Samu because apparently there were palestinian terrorists there. But, you know, the rest of the world had kinda started frowning upon bombing villages in other country without declaring war first. Needless to say, the guys on the receiving end of it somehow didn't start liking Israel any better for it.

- 1967: Israel starts the 6-day war with an attack on basically all its neighbours. Granted, they _were_ rattling sabres increasingly, and might have sooner or later declared war. Or maybe not. But being the guy who starts a war is not going to make you loved by those neighbours.

And so on, and so forth, including such dick moves as:

- 1982: Operation Opera. Iraq had managed to get on France's good side and got a small 40 MW research nuclear reactor. Also remember: back then Iraq were not yet considered the bad guys, they were actually the West's darling. Note that not only did Iraq sign agreements to not use it for any military purposes, and was a signatary of the non-proliferation treaty and all. The reactor had also been designed to be useless for producing weapons, on occasion inspected by such figures as Harvard University professor of physics Richard Wilson who too declared it completely useless for making weapons.

Israel bombed it without declaration of war or anything, and in a move that shocked even its western allies.

- 2007: Operation Orchard. Similar bombing against an alleged reactor site in Syria. Manages to violate Turkish airspace too and drop their fuel tanks in Turkey, although Turkey _really_ has nothing to do with terrorism or Islamism. It's a NATO and Council Of Europe member and a thoroughly secular state.

And so on and so forth. You could fill two pages with just the list of such operations, and a book if you include what happened there.

Regardless of who's right or wrong, it's making not just itself seriously unloved in the area, it's also making all its western allies seriously unloved for backing it.

ETA: And at any rate it's making it trivial to find people willing to believe that it's a similar attack on Islam and persecutions as Mecca-vs-Medina when those Suras were given and thus the same urge to fight applies.

 

[ddt]

- 1951 to 1966: about a dozen incursions carried out against its neighbours as responses to various acts of terrorism, in the name of establishing a high blood cost to the countries where those terrorists happened to be. Strangely similar to the same idea that got the SS to shoot a few civilians for each German killed by partisans. And just about as popular among those on the receiving end of it.

Best known one: the Qibya massacre, by Unit 101 led by Ariel Sharon.

Also includes such incidence as the bloody massacre of civilians in Khan Yunis. And the torpedoing of the US ship USS Liberty, killing 34 crew members.

That was in 1967 during the Six-day war.

- 1966: Israel bombs Samu because apparently there were palestinian terrorists there. But, you know, the rest of the world had kinda started frowning upon bombing villages in other country without declaring war first. Needless to say, the guys on the receiving end of it somehow didn't start liking Israel any better for it.

I hadn't heard of that one yet. The background is very interesting. After an Israeli border patrol had hit a mine:

On November 12, King Hussein sent a letter of condolence to Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol, via the U.S. embassy in Amman. From there it was sent to U.S. ambassador Barbour at the embassy in Tel-Aviv; instead of forwarding it to the prime minister, he left the letter on his desk - assuming it was not important and there was no rush. Early on the morning of November 13, King Hussein received an unsolicited message from his Israeli contacts stating that Israel had no intention of attacking Jordan.

(wiki). But nevertheless.

- 1982: Operation Opera. Iraq had managed to get on France's good side and got a small 40 MW research nuclear reactor. Also remember: back then Iraq were not yet considered the bad guys, they were actually the West's darling. Note that not only did Iraq sign agreements to not use it for any military purposes, and was a signatary of the non-proliferation treaty and all. The reactor had also been designed to be useless for producing weapons, on occasion inspected by such figures as Harvard University professor of physics Richard Wilson who too declared it completely useless for making weapons.

And let's not even start on how Israel got its nukes.

And so on and so forth. You could fill two pages with just the list of such operations, and a book if you include what happened there.

You forgot the 1982 invasion in Lebanon, advancing to Beirut and facilitating the Sabra and Shatila massacre (hey, there's Sharon again!).

And the 2006 Lebanon war - out of retaliation for one kidnapped crew, half a country bombed to smithereens.

ETA: And at any rate it's making it trivial to find people willing to believe that it's a similar attack on Islam and persecutions as Mecca-vs-Medina when those Suras were given and thus the same urge to fight applies.

Well, of course, if you belong to the Israel-can-do-no-wrong school you cannot understand that, on principle. Come to think of it, one of those guys stands in court tomorrow for inciting hatred, starting out from the same misreadings of the Quran as illustrated in this (and various other) threads. A good sentence for him would be to be forced to engage a discussion like this and have his arguments torn to shreds.

 

[TimCallahan]

It has occurred to me that there might be yet another reason for our further involvement in the Muslim world. Apparently, a recent mineralogical survey found that Afghanistan has a lot of lithium, which is important to a whole range of high tech instruments. Hence, we could be sucked into an unending occupation of that benighted and ungovernable land.

 

[HansMustermann]

Oh, and btw, I accidentally stumbled upon the Salon today and by a strange twist they had an article on the front page saying the same thing: they don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us for being the aggressors. Seems like it's been clear to some advisors too for quite some time.

http://www.salon.com/news/terrorism/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/10/12/terrorism

After a study on suicide bombings, for example, it turns out that, and this is a copy-and-paste quote, "the majority of suicide terrorism around the world since 1980 has had a common cause: military occupation" and "We have lots of evidence now that when you put the foreign military presence in, it triggers suicide terrorism campaigns, ... and that when the foreign forces leave, it takes away almost 100% of the terrorist campaign,"

Also, basically, this was known at least in 2004 by the US government already:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/10/20/terrorism

But yeah, good luck selling that to the fundies. Nah, let's act like the muslims are some kind of crazies, that it's only their religion that makes them do crazy crap, and God wants them smacked upside the head anyway.