Bring back our girls

[marty998]

Ok I'm really bored. It's Sunday night and I'm waiting for the Giro d'Italia to start (bloody Eurovision won't end fast enough) and also for the Spanish Grand Prix where our Danny Ricciardo will fly Concorde speed past a certain little shithead who needs a good smack across the face.

When I get bored I start solving all the world's problems. This involves imagining a world where reason trumps money and logic trumps dogma (yes I realise I will be imagining a while).

I want to know how the fuck the world can stand idly by and do nothing for weeks when hundreds of girls have been been brazenly kidnapped to be sold as sex slaves. Where a medieval warlord can say to the world at large fuck you I will rape and torture and pillage and burn and do whatever I want and you can't stop me.

I want to be able to do something about this. But I am stuck and stumped for what can be done to eradicate this scourge against humanity. The usual solutions of proper education of girls and access to reproductive control and autonomy, together with economic development do work. That much I know. But it doesn't work when a crazed militant has a gun to your head.

I am not usually one to advocate shoving a hellfire missile up someone's arse, to be detonated at some undetermined point in future, but in this case I will make an exception.

There are some bright minds on this board. That I am sure of. What do you believe should be done, not only to save these girls, but to draw a line in the sand and actually uphold the values enshrined in the various UN declarations on human rights and rights of all children.

I am at a loss. I just find it disgraceful that these things continue to happen and we do nothing.

[marty998]

Oh and I don't mean to be flippant with my opening remarks. But I think that is part of the problem though. I'm dealing with a first world problem of TV scheduling while this is happening in another part of the world.

That thought is actually quite upsetting to be honest. I pray those girls are returned safe, but praying just seems not enough.

[BlueMR2]

That thought is actually quite upsetting to be honest. I pray those girls are returned safe, but praying just seems not enough.

Seems so terribly unlikely they'll be found and returned.  Either they've already all been split up and sold off, or they're all dead, buried in one big pit somewhere.

The world is not a friendly place.  Sometimes it takes violence from the normally peaceful to deal with those that know only the way of violence.

[stripey]

I agree with all of these sentiments. I really do find it very upsetting too- firstly that this sort of stuff goes on at all > AD2000 and secondly the media ignoring it, thirdly that it feels like so little is being done (having said that, this is my perception from the media, see the second point).

It's not just that group, that sect, or the nation or continent. It's estimated that around 700 (Christian and Hindu) girls suffer similar fates in India alone, annually.

I might get a bit more involved in a couple of NGOs again, I think. I have opinions and ideas for mid to long term however I do not feel comfortable posting publicly on a forum about all of them.

In the immediate timeframe, I have no idea what the best thing to do is. I think the other thing is that as Westerners our perception of what is or isn't being done is highly related to reporting (or otherwise) by our media. A state of emergency has been present in many states in the north since last year. As far as I am aware, the Nigerian and US governments are co-operating, as well as many neighbouring countries.  I think the trick is managing to move things forward without radicalising a whole new generation of Fulbe and Hausa people, and providing appropriate care and trauma management to the child soldiers it uses too.

[Letj]

The Nigerian government and military are afraid of Boka Haram so they can do whatever they want to do. It's hard to fight an enemy who is not afraid to die as we learned in Iraq. I've been heartbroken over this and as a mother I think about the suffering of the girls and their mothers constantly. Something has to be done but I am not sure what can be done other than carpet bombing those m.......ers but as we have seen they are good at taking cover under women and children.

[marty998]

It's hard to fight an enemy who is not afraid to die.

That's the key isn't it? Bad things happen when good people do nothing. But thats because the good people are afraid to die.

I believe this will be the event that jolts the world into action. It's not going to go away quickly, even though the MSM has moved on to the next celebrity scandal. I hope it also jolts the Islamic world into condemning it, rather than the tacit approval given by their various leaders with their fundamentalist medieval view of their religion.

[iris lily]

... I hope it also jolts the Islamic world into condemning it, rather than the tacit approval given by their various leaders with their fundamentalist medieval view of their religion.

Yes, I am hoping that the lack of response I see by Islamic leaders is simply my own myopia, and that in fact many Islam radicals (not moderates) are saying to their brethren: Dude, WTF? Cut that chit out.

[stripey]

Many Nigerian Salafists have condemned the group, apparently- so there are at least strict fundamentalists in the country that are saying Dude WTF.

[Gin1984]

... I hope it also jolts the Islamic world into condemning it, rather than the tacit approval given by their various leaders with their fundamentalist medieval view of their religion.

Yes, I am hoping that the lack of response I see by Islamic leaders is simply my own myopia, and that in fact many Islam radicals (not moderates) are saying to their brethren: Dude, WTF? Cut that chit out.

I doubt it.  Given that very few Christians here in the USA do so when their extremists do things, why should we expect it of another religion?

[LalsConstant]

I doubt it.  Given that very few Christians here in the USA do so when their extremists do things, why should we expect it of another religion?

What can one do, however, to make the media ignore sensationalist hatemongers who do not speak for you, but share the same label?

Also, with all due respect to the distress and damage that such people cause others, kidnapping or murdering even one person is of such a higher level of magnitude compared to any level of asshole behavior, I don't think speculative comparisons can be made.

I just want to throw out there's more to this than people are realizing.

First, it's not just they're kidnapping girls.  They are also killing boys and men.  Why that is not getting more emphasis disturbs me on a deep level.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dozens-students-killed-nigerian-school

Also,

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/377538/hillary-clintons-state-dept-blocked-terrorist-designation-boko-haram-andrew-c-mccarthy

Also highly disturbing.  My point being, hundreds of girls sold into slavery is horrible, and it's even worse, we have more problems on top of it.

Unfortunately, I don't see this ending decisively or well or soon.  I'd offer up the solution of find these people and imprison and if necessary kill them (more likely incarcerating them is a pipe dream in this case and an all lead diet is the only real answer), the problem is the people most qualified to do that or able to do that probably aren't going to (as evidenced by Clinton's decision).

[TreeTired]

First, it's not just they're kidnapping girls.  They are also killing boys and men.  Why that is not getting more emphasis disturbs me on a deep level.

I think the plight of these girls is horrible, unconscionable and should not be tolerated,    but I do find it typical that this act has managed to grab the world's attention while this group has been doing horrible -  and dare I say... far worse - things for years.   These girls haven't been killed as far as we know,  and sadly many girls are kidnapped and sold into slavery every day all over the world. 

But when they murdered 40 or so boys in their dorm rooms, where was the global outrage?     Boko Haram is probably confused that this latest act is getting so much political backlash after all they have done and gotten away with in the past.

[ender]

I want to know how the fuck the world can stand idly by and do nothing for weeks when hundreds of girls have been been brazenly kidnapped to be sold as sex slaves. Where a medieval warlord can say to the world at large fuck you I will rape and torture and pillage and burn and do whatever I want and you can't stop me.

This is hardly the only evil thing to have happened in the world in recent times.

Sex trafficking is hardly absent from the western world, either. It happens all the time even in the United States.

[Jamesqf]

It's hard to fight an enemy who is not afraid to die as we learned in Iraq.

Actually it's not all that hard, if your hands are not tied by a media and segment of the public back home, who will protest bitterly every time one of those 'not afraid to die' fanatics is given his wish.

Supposing the Nigerian military could locate Boko Haram's camps, carry out successful assaults, free the girls, and send the fighters off to enjoy their 72 virgins.  Within a week, the liberal media would be calling the military war criminals, and painting Boko Haram as misunderstood victims.  It's be 10 times worse if it could be shown that European powers helped, and if the help came from the US;..

[Leisured]

I remember the astounding massacre in Rwanda in 1994. The world was slow to respond, because we do not expect a society to break down in such a spectacular manner, and in so short a time. I regard this slow response as understandable. What do we want rich countries, or the UN, to do? Post observers in all poor countries, cell phones at the ready, waiting for some atrocity to happen?

Since decolonisation, it has been customary for rich countries to allow governments in poor countries to manage their own affairs. Most of the time this sort of works, but Rwanda in 1994 and north east Nigeria now are exceptions. Why does the Nigerian government do nothing? By the time rich countries accept that there is a problem, it will be too late. I do not see that there is much we can do about it, short of turning all poor countries into protectorates run by the UN.

[GuitarStv]

It's hard to fight an enemy who is not afraid to die as we learned in Iraq.

Actually it's not all that hard, if your hands are not tied by a media and segment of the public back home, who will protest bitterly every time one of those 'not afraid to die' fanatics is given his wish.

Supposing the Nigerian military could locate Boko Haram's camps, carry out successful assaults, free the girls, and send the fighters off to enjoy their 72 virgins.  Within a week, the liberal media would be calling the military war criminals, and painting Boko Haram as misunderstood victims.  It's be 10 times worse if it could be shown that European powers helped, and if the help came from the US;..

I think that the protest and outrage is not from killing fanatics . . . it's from the mistakes that are routinely made in the attempt to kill fanatics.  With good reason.  Every time that you bomb a couple schools, a couple churches, someone's grandmother, a janitor in a building near the one you meant to hit . . . you are adding to the ranks of a new generation of terrorists by giving a very valid reason to hate you and your country.  Things get even worse when you put boots on the ground.  It only takes one or two Robert Bales types to create a generation of hatred.

[Jamesqf]

I think that the protest and outrage is not from killing fanatics . . . it's from the mistakes that are routinely made in the attempt to kill fanatics.  With good reason.  Every time that you bomb a couple schools, a couple churches, someone's grandmother, a janitor in a building near the one you meant to hit . . . you are adding to the ranks of a new generation of terrorists by giving a very valid reason to hate you and your country.

I think this illustrates a very fundamental mistake that a lot of people make.  They simply can't manage to wrap their heads around the idea that the fanatics are not acting out of hate, especially hate for any particular country caused by its past actions.  They are acting out of the very sincere belief that this is what their god requires of them.

[GuitarStv]

I think that the protest and outrage is not from killing fanatics . . . it's from the mistakes that are routinely made in the attempt to kill fanatics.  With good reason.  Every time that you bomb a couple schools, a couple churches, someone's grandmother, a janitor in a building near the one you meant to hit . . . you are adding to the ranks of a new generation of terrorists by giving a very valid reason to hate you and your country.

I think this illustrates a very fundamental mistake that a lot of people make.  They simply can't manage to wrap their heads around the idea that the fanatics are not acting out of hate, especially hate for any particular country caused by its past actions.  They are acting out of the very sincere belief that this is what their god requires of them.

I was going to say. If this was based on anger for past actions, I'd expect a lot more Japanese, Vietnamese or German terrorists. They've all got much more grounds for much more serious beefs with the United States than anybody in the Muslim world.

I can see a comparison to be made with Vietnam . . . Although the relationship between the US and Vietnam was certainly not repaired by more bombing and killing of civilians.  Japan and Germany were at the losing end of a war in which they committed some particularly hellacious actions.  I think that cultural shame precludes much terrorist sentiment from spilling over.  That and tremendously powerful economies which help to prevent the desperate poverty that seems to breed terrorists the world over.

Granted, there are always the occasional crazies in any group of people who want to stir the pot/start trouble.  The concept of ending the wanton killing of innocent people by wantonly killing other innocent people . . . and the expectation that this will have no consequence towards the way that your country is treated . . . It really smacks of a poor understanding of human nature.

[Jamesqf]

I was going to say. If this was based on anger for past actions, I'd expect a lot more Japanese, Vietnamese or German terrorists. They've all got much more grounds for much more serious beefs with the United States than anybody in the Muslim world.

Or consider bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban.  By any reasonable standard, one would think that he and his followers should have been grateful for the US assistance in their war against the Soviets.  But no, once the Soviets were no longer a threat to them, they turned around and started attacking the US.  And of course anyone else who wouldn't subject themselves to Islam.  Not from hatred, but from religious duty.

[marty998]

I was going to say. If this was based on anger for past actions, I'd expect a lot more Japanese, Vietnamese or German terrorists. They've all got much more grounds for much more serious beefs with the United States than anybody in the Muslim world.

Or consider bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban.  By any reasonable standard, one would think that he and his followers should have been grateful for the US assistance in their war against the Soviets.  But no, once the Soviets were no longer a threat to them, they turned around and started attacking the US.  And of course anyone else who wouldn't subject themselves to Islam.  Not from hatred, but from religious duty.

You would think 2 nuclear bombs dropped on Japan would have bred a tiny bit of resentment. But as GuitarStv alluded to earlier, the economic development and co-orporation between the West and Japan following the end of WW2 helped to build a bridge between the cultures.

The difference between Japan and Afghanistan is the economy. In Afghanistan there was none, apart from the narcotics trade.

It's odd that on an early retirement forum I am calling for work and employment to be normalised in these trouble spots. But if you occupy your population with jobs it takes away the boredom in these places that drives the people towards fanatics promising a better life and afterlife.

[marty998]

Yes I know I was a bit simplistic. I just tried to pick out a glaringly obvious difference. (The other big ones as you say quite correctly are culture and religion).

I saw today that half the girls have been converted to Islam and a video of them has been released reciting verses from the Koran. Appears they are going to be used as a bargaining chip for the release of other jailed militants.

[Roland of Gilead]

What is this about missing girls?  Were they on an airplane?  Sorry, I can't stay interested in a story unless it involves a tv show like scenario or bigfoot.

Joe Public

[GuitarStv]

Or consider bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban.  By any reasonable standard, one would think that he and his followers should have been grateful for the US assistance in their war against the Soviets.  But no, once the Soviets were no longer a threat to them, they turned around and started attacking the US.  And of course anyone else who wouldn't subject themselves to Islam.  Not from hatred, but from religious duty.

This might be how you see it, but it's not how the leaders of al qaeda see things.  They are often religiously motivated, but they're not killing people because their religion told them to do so.  They see themselves as protectors of a religion that's under attack.  Every time that a heavy handed and overzealous response takes place it reinforces their vision of the world and acts as a recruitment aid.  In Bin Laden's own words:

As I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

 . . . sounds an awful lot like something you were calling for in your own earlier posts, eh?


It's a similar case with Boko Haram.  They see themselves as defenders of a 'pure' Islam, and are fighting to prevent westernization.  Again, the religion is important, but it isn't the cause of their horrible actions . . . it's their conservative values.  I think that we are all aware that religion can be interpreted in any way that the person examining the subject wants.  You take the stories you like and discredit the stories you don't, interpretation of things said thousands of years ago and written in a different language is not exactly a precise art.  Look at the wildly different takes on the bible that have resulted in Jews, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox churches, and the Westboro Baptist church.

Many in this thread are professing some fear of Islam.  I'd argue that the religion is (at most) an excuse used by these groups to do things to fight change.  It's a convenient banner to hide under, not a driving force.

[SwordGuy]

I was going to say. If this was based on anger for past actions, I'd expect a lot more Japanese, Vietnamese or German terrorists. They've all got much more grounds for much more serious beefs with the United States than anybody in the Muslim world.

The Germans and Japanese got what they deserved.  They have no cause for being pissed off.  Quite the opposite as we went out of our way to reconstruct their countries after the war and have treated them very well indeed. 

As for the Vietnamese, it was none of our business.  We could easily have been allies with the Vietnamese communists.  They liked Americans because we helped them against the Japanese and were traditionally anti-colonial.   They have been wise enough to understand that we meant well, even if we were stupid about it.

[SwordGuy]

It's not just that. There's no compelling American interest in rescuing these girls. A compelling moral interest, absolutely.

But soldiers sign up to "deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat," not "destroy evil people in general." When you send in the 101st Airborne, you are telling soldiers, "You must face a non-negligible risk of death or maiming in the commission of this task, and if you refuse, we're going to throw you in prison." Soldiers signed up to face that risk in the defense of the United States. This isn't defense of the United States or its immediate interests, it's playing world cop.

This.  Exactly.  It's simply none of our business.

[Jamesqf]

I think it's naive though to say that the economy is the main difference between Japan and Afghanistan. These are massively different populations, with enormously different cultures, history and religious beliefs.

One thing that's often missed about Japan is that part of the surrender terms was an explicit disavowal by the Emperor of his divinity, and the dismantling of Shinto as the state religion.  Something similar was true of Germany, too: the Nazi ideology was removed from power, its leaders executed or imprisoned, and if I'm not mistaken Germany still makes display of Nazi symbols &c a crime. 

As for the Vietnamese, it was none of our business.  We could easily have been allies with the Vietnamese communists.

Hardly possible, since the only reason for the US action in Vietnam was to oppose Communism.  I think it's also likely that the lack of Vietnamese 'terrorists' has a lot to do with the subsequent fall of the USSR and collapse of world Communism.

[Jamesqf]

This might be how you see it, but it's not how the leaders of al qaeda see things.  They are often religiously motivated, but they're not killing people because their religion told them to do so.  They see themselves as protectors of a religion that's under attack.  Every time that a heavy handed and overzealous response takes place it reinforces their vision of the world and acts as a recruitment aid.

Except that there has never been "a heavy handed and overzealous response".  The problem is that Islamists, believing in the correctness of the Prophet's words, regard any resistance to Islam as overzealous.  Allah has commanded them to subjugate the infidel: any sort of resistance is therefore blasphemy.

It's a similar case with Boko Haram.  They see themselves as defenders of a 'pure' Islam, and are fighting to prevent westernization.  Again, the religion is important, but it isn't the cause of their horrible actions . . . it's their conservative values.

No, the religion is the cause of their conservative values, and the religion is their justification for imposing their values on other people.

I think that we are all aware that religion can be interpreted in any way that the person examining the subject wants.  You take the stories you like and discredit the stories you don't, interpretation of things said thousands of years ago and written in a different language is not exactly a precise art.

I think you are confusing Islam with Christianity.  Sure, Christianity is founded on a collection of tribal myths (Old Testament), and a bunch of second and third hand accounts (at best) of the life of Jesus, most of them retranslated through several languages.  The Koran, by contrast, is entirely the product of one man.  It and the Hadith are written in a language that's still used today, and is comprehensible by any educated person in the culture - much as Latin was in Europe up until fairly recent times. 

The upshot is that it's much more difficult to select out parts you like from the Koran, or claim translation errors.

[GuitarStv]

Except that there has never been "a heavy handed and overzealous response".  The problem is that Islamists, believing in the correctness of the Prophet's words, regard any resistance to Islam as overzealous.  Allah has commanded them to subjugate the infidel: any sort of resistance is therefore blasphemy.

http://rt.com/news/yemen-drone-strikes-report-538/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/world/asia/us-afghan-tensions-increase-as-airstrike-kills-more-civilians.html?_r=0


It looks pretty heavy handed and overzealous from where I'm sitting.

No, the religion is the cause of their conservative values, and the religion is their justification for imposing their values on other people.

OK.  Let's take your comment at face value for a second and consider the implications of what you're saying.  Islam turns people into merciless killers and terrorists.  It is not possible to follow Islam without being one.  Clearly we should then round up all the Muslims in North America and hold them in detention camps and prisons to ensure the safety of everyone else.  I don't want to go all Godwin's law here . . . but there are some disturbing parallels of thought arising from this set of conclusions . . .

The upshot is that it's much more difficult to select out parts you like from the Koran, or claim translation errors.

I don't think that I am.  Islam is founded on a collection of writings of Muhammed collected or recounted by memory of the people who survived him.  There are multiple points of contention regarding the meaning of older versions and newer ones, and there are different versions of the Koran.  Most importantly, as with most religious manuals . . . they must be approached with care, understanding that they are products of the eras they come from and can't be literally interpreted.  If your interpretation of Islam were true, then every muslim in the world would actively be trying to blow themselves up to be martyred for the cause.  I can assure you that the many muslim people I know, work, and live with/around aren't doing that.  Which means that either they're all dormant sleeper cell operatives . . . or interpretation of the works really does matter.

[Jamesqf]

It looks pretty heavy handed and overzealous from where I'm sitting.

Perhaps you need to move your chair?  As for instance you earlier quoted bin Laden on destruction in Lebanon being a motive for his attacks on the US, without stopping to consider that the destruction was in turn the consequence of the Arab world's repeated attempts at genocide against Israel.

OK.  Let's take your comment at face value for a second and consider the implications of what you're saying.  Islam turns people into merciless killers and terrorists.  It is not possible to follow Islam without being one.  Clearly we should then round up all the Muslims in North America and hold them in detention camps and prisons to ensure the safety of everyone else.  I don't want to go all Godwin's law here . . . but there are some disturbing parallels of thought arising from this set of conclusions . . .

First problem here is that there's a difference between a cultural Muslim (or Christian, Hindu, etc), and someone that actually believes in the religion.  Just as with Christianity in many parts of the US, it's a background assumption: people assume you're Christian, so you belong to a church, even go sometimes, pay lip service to the beliefs, etc, in order to get along in the community, without having any true religious belief at all.  Add to this the fact that in many Islamic societies, it can be physically dangerous not to appear as one of the faithful, and you have a large proportion of 'Muslims' who likely carry the label more or less unwillingly.  It's as though you labeled me as a Christian because I live in the US, and my parents sent me to Sunday School and so on until I was old enough to decide for myself not to go.
 
Now that you've whittled the problem down to actual beliving Muslims, you have a second problem.  While every believing Muslim must, by definition, share the goal of subjugating the infidels, it's still possible to differ on the choice of effective tactics.  Thus some might see terrorist attacks as counterproductive.

Most importantly, as with most religious manuals . . . they must be approached with care, understanding that they are products of the eras they come from and can't be literally interpreted.

Sorry, but we've got a fundamental (no pun intended) difference of opinion here.  I think every religious scripture must be interpreted literally.  They are, after all, supposed to be the literal Word of God(s), and of course no god worth his/her/its salt would lie - because otherwise the whole religion would be a lie, wouldn't it?

Beyond that, the differences in language, interpretation, &c are much less with the Koran than with any other major religion.  You might compare it to Shakespeare: yes, there are variant versions, some changes in language, and so on, but it's still trivially easy for an educated modern person to read & understand almost anything* in the plays, perhaps more easily than the street vernacular of the era.  There's also a feedback that acts to stabilize the language, precisely because the educated person of whatever era has Shakespeare/the Koran as a standard of language.

*Though I have to admit I was for a long time quite puzzled as to why Hamlet kept going on about incest.

[LalsConstant]

Sorry, but we've got a fundamental (no pun intended) difference of opinion here.  I think every religious scripture must be interpreted literally.  They are, after all, supposed to be the literal Word of God(s), and of course no god worth his/her/its salt would lie - because otherwise the whole religion would be a lie, wouldn't it?

OT in the OT forum:

I don't pretend to be an expert but to my knowledge, a good many different religions' teachings are parables or conveyed through metaphors.

I take your interpretation to be that any texts that identify any parts of themselves are self contradictory, since there are no parables or metaphors in any religious text and they're all 100% literal true stories. 

I'm also curious how religions that doesn't really have a god or gods have literal word of god(s) scriptures.  The notion that a god or gods the adherents don't believe in produced the written scriptures for these religions has interesting implications.

I'm also curious why the fallacy of composition is not a consideration when analyzing a religion.

My intent is not to say any of this is wrong, just that this would strike me as a very interesting way of looking at things because of the questions posed here.  Novel approaches pique my interest is all.

[GuitarStv]

It looks pretty heavy handed and overzealous from where I'm sitting.

Perhaps you need to move your chair?  As for instance you earlier quoted bin Laden on destruction in Lebanon being a motive for his attacks on the US, without stopping to consider that the destruction was in turn the consequence of the Arab world's repeated attempts at genocide against Israel.

Hmm . . . so you've now realized how violent actions tend to incite more of the same.  Yet you still call for more of it as a way to end violence?  :P  How do you square that away logically?

OK.  Let's take your comment at face value for a second and consider the implications of what you're saying.  Islam turns people into merciless killers and terrorists.  It is not possible to follow Islam without being one.  Clearly we should then round up all the Muslims in North America and hold them in detention camps and prisons to ensure the safety of everyone else.  I don't want to go all Godwin's law here . . . but there are some disturbing parallels of thought arising from this set of conclusions . . .

First problem here is that there's a difference between a cultural Muslim (or Christian, Hindu, etc), and someone that actually believes in the religion.  Just as with Christianity in many parts of the US, it's a background assumption: people assume you're Christian, so you belong to a church, even go sometimes, pay lip service to the beliefs, etc, in order to get along in the community, without having any true religious belief at all.  Add to this the fact that in many Islamic societies, it can be physically dangerous not to appear as one of the faithful, and you have a large proportion of 'Muslims' who likely carry the label more or less unwillingly.  It's as though you labeled me as a Christian because I live in the US, and my parents sent me to Sunday School and so on until I was old enough to decide for myself not to go.

OK.  Not really relevant to the discussion, but sure.

Now that you've whittled the problem down to actual beliving Muslims, you have a second problem.  While every believing Muslim must, by definition, share the goal of subjugating the infidels, it's still possible to differ on the choice of effective tactics.  Thus some might see terrorist attacks as counterproductive.

The people to whom I'm referring call themselves Muslim, attend a mosque, and try to live their lives according to the principals of the Koran as they understand them.  If someone decides to 'subjugate infidels' by living a life of harmony as an example for others that's pretty far away from participating in a terror attack, no?  I'm totally comfortable with person A, but not with person B.  Yet both are following the same religion.  Clearly then, the religion is not the problem as you've been claiming.  It's the people, using the religion as an excuse for their actions.

Most importantly, as with most religious manuals . . . they must be approached with care, understanding that they are products of the eras they come from and can't be literally interpreted.

Sorry, but we've got a fundamental (no pun intended) difference of opinion here.  I think every religious scripture must be interpreted literally.  They are, after all, supposed to be the literal Word of God(s), and of course no god worth his/her/its salt would lie - because otherwise the whole religion would be a lie, wouldn't it?

Aesop's fables contain valuable truths about human nature, but are mostly written from the perspectives of animals.  Parables are great ways of conveying information, just because they're obviously false doesn't make them any less valuable.

I'm not sure that there is any religion that claims to have documents written by a god.  Most Abrahamic religion is based around documents written by men who claim to have experience with God.  Sure, some people will claim that the literal word in the bible, or the Koran, or the Torah is infallible and must be interpreted literally.  But there are many followers that can be found of any religion who will acknowledge that understanding of the time period several thousand years ago is necessary to make sense of what's written.

There is considerable disagreement in interpretation of the Koran in the Islamic community.  Some separate the verses into early and later works of Muhammad and argue for abrogation of parts, some argue for no abrogation, some follow a more literal interpretation, some try to delve into more esoteric interpretation and deeper meaning in the passages, etc.  You're trying to force your views of the religion onto the whole of the religion in order to paint a particular picture that you have in your head.  This doesn't reflect reality.

Beyond that, the differences in language, interpretation, &c are much less with the Koran than with any other major religion.  You might compare it to Shakespeare: yes, there are variant versions, some changes in language, and so on, but it's still trivially easy for an educated modern person to read & understand almost anything* in the plays, perhaps more easily than the street vernacular of the era.  There's also a feedback that acts to stabilize the language, precisely because the educated person of whatever era has Shakespeare/the Koran as a standard of language.

*Though I have to admit I was for a long time quite puzzled as to why Hamlet kept going on about incest.

Difference in language may be surmountable . . . but to claim that there is no area for difference of interpretation is simply incorrect, as I explained above.

[Jamesqf]

OT in the OT forum:

I don't pretend to be an expert but to my knowledge, a good many different religions' teachings are parables or conveyed through metaphors.

I take your interpretation to be that any texts that identify any parts of themselves are self contradictory, since there are no parables or metaphors in any religious text and they're all 100% literal true stories.

Understand that I have no interest in writing a book here - and even if I had, I doubt the thread would wait around for me to finish it :-)  So anything I write is necessarily incomplete.  I had thought about mentioning parables, but thought it would be an unnecessary digression.  It does seem fairly easy to distinguish between parables and express commandments or accounts of events that are supposed to be true.

I'm also curious how religions that doesn't really have a god or gods have literal word of god(s) scriptures.  The notion that a god or gods the adherents don't believe in produced the written scriptures for these religions has interesting implications.

I think that's more a failure of language than anything: we're forced into using the same words for two quite different things: the literal Word of God scriptures of the Abrahamic religions and their kindred, and the more philosophical 'scriptures' of e.g. Buddhism.  It can be argued, and often has been, that Buddhism and such aren't really religions at all.  What religion would say "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!"?  But you do have, in the Abrahamic-type religions, the self-referential dogma that the Torah/Bible/Koran is the literal Word of Yahweh/God/Allah.

I'm also curious why the fallacy of composition is not a consideration when analyzing a religion.

If it's an article of faith of your religion (as it is with Islam) that your religion's scripture is the infallible Word of God...  Well, how can you argue with God?  Of course the reverse is also true, at least IMHO.  If any part of a scripture can be shown to be false, that proves that the whole thing is not the Word of God.

Hmm . . . so you've now realized how violent actions tend to incite more of the same.  Yet you still call for more of it as a way to end violence?  :P  How do you square that away logically?

Because it has been shown to work?  Again, risking the wrath of Godwin's Law, violence, properly applied, managed to end the Nazi genocides and (so far) German expansionism.  Likewise, properly applied violence seems to have ended Japanese imperial ambitions, nor did the Romans have further problems with the Carthaginians after the Third Punic War.  There are other historical examples in abundance.

Secondly, and specifically WRT your example, both parties have to agree to end violence.  If the Israelis chose to forego violence, or even if they became less adept in its use, they would be exterminated in short order.  This seems to be historically true of any group facing Islamic expansionism: either they become better at violence than the Muslims, or they are conquered and killed or assimilated.

[rosaz]

Secondly, and specifically WRT your example, both parties have to agree to end violence.  If the Israelis chose to forego violence, or even if they became less adept in its use, they would be exterminated in short order.  This seems to be historically true of any group facing Islamic expansionism: either they become better at violence than the Muslims, or they are conquered and killed or assimilated.

I think calling the Palestinian-Israeli conflict "Islamic expansionism" is fairly inaccurate. It was Muslim land, had been for the better part of a millenium, and then one European Christian empire decided to hand it back over to the Jewish people, after they had been forced out of it by another European, non-Muslim, empire. A step which was necessary because yet a third European empire had decided to try to exterminate the Jewish people en masse. Pretty hard to blame the current conflict on "Islamic expansionism". I think the more accurate cause would be "European jack-assery".

Just out of curiousity, if the UN decided tomorrow that the Native Americans
had a right to the land that you and all your neighbors had lived on for centuries... how would you react, if conventional warfare was not an option (because you were so ridiculously outgunned)? How long would you keep fighting for what you saw as lawfully yours?

[GuitarStv]

Hmm . . . so you've now realized how violent actions tend to incite more of the same.  Yet you still call for more of it as a way to end violence?  :P  How do you square that away logically?

Because it has been shown to work?  Again, risking the wrath of Godwin's Law, violence, properly applied, managed to end the Nazi genocides and (so far) German expansionism.  Likewise, properly applied violence seems to have ended Japanese imperial ambitions, nor did the Romans have further problems with the Carthaginians after the Third Punic War.  There are other historical examples in abundance.

I guess that the difficulty is that applying the force to the right degree is by far the less likely outcome.  . . . otherwise Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, the Ivory Coast . . . hell, nearly any country in Africa would all be great examples of violence and war working to bring about a better world.

It would also be good to distinguish between a dispute with a country or city (where the people have something to lose, and thus something to leverage for control of their actions and to ensure cooperation) and the same with a group with little or nothing to lose.  In the latter there's no reason to prevent endless regrouping and reignition of conflict.

Secondly, and specifically WRT your example, both parties have to agree to end violence.  If the Israelis chose to forego violence, or even if they became less adept in its use, they would be exterminated in short order.  This seems to be historically true of any group facing Islamic expansionism: either they become better at violence than the Muslims, or they are conquered and killed or assimilated.

For a group so bent on expansionism (in your words), the Palestinians don't seem to be doing it right.

[Jamesqf]

I think calling the Palestinian-Israeli conflict "Islamic expansionism" is fairly inaccurate. It was Muslim land, had been for the better part of a millenium, and then one European Christian empire decided to hand it back over to the Jewish people, after they had been forced out of it by another European, non-Muslim, empire.

Wrong.  The whole thing pretty much started after WWI, when a bunch of Jewish people decided it would be a good idea to emigrate to Palestine (which had become possible because of the Ottoman Empire's collapse).  These people were perfectly happy to live in peace with their Arab/Islamic neighbors, like most other immigrants around the world.  Unfortunately, some of the Arabs didn't like their new neighbors, and decided to exterminate them.  The Israelis managed not to be exterminated in 1948, and in several subsequent attempts.

Just out of curiousity, if the UN decided tomorrow that the Native Americans
had a right to the land that you and all your neighbors had lived on for centuries... how would you react, if conventional warfare was not an option (because you were so ridiculously outgunned)? How long would you keep fighting for what you saw as lawfully yours?

Not even close to parallel, as the UN (or its predecessor, the League of Nations, didn't hand anything to the Israelis.  The Jews who moved there, pre-1948, bought or rented land &c from its legal owners.  So how would I react if an American Indian (or any other immigrant) wanted to rent or buy something I was willing to sell?  I'd count the money, and shake hands on the deal.

For a group so bent on expansionism (in your words), the Palestinians don't seem to be doing it right.

This is true, which is probably why they've more-or-less given up on trying the wholesale slaughter approach, and turned to piecemeal killing combined with propaganda.

[gooki]

Back to the topic at hand.

The best way to prevent further atrocities is to remove the vulnerable from the reach of the oppressor. Open your doors to refugees.

If the oppressor has no one to oppress they loose all power.

If they then what to take power by invading your land, then you have the right to destroy them.

Not everyone will want to leave, and justifiably so. But give them choices.

The other option is to encourage the government that represents the vulerable to act in the interests of the society they govern.

[libertarian4321]

People do crazy evil, sick things in the name of religion (all of them).

[marty998]

Oh Gooki, it pains me to say this but the open door refugee policy was used and abused in Australia under the previous government. We had Sri Lankans, Iranians, Afghanis, and even Albanians coming in on leaky boats, claiming asylum long after conflicts had ended. All the way to Australia! Don't tell me there are not safe haven countries along the way. 50,000 turned up last year overwhelming the system.

I am totally embarrassed about what the current government has done to "stop the boats". There a million and one things wrong with the current policy, but it damn bloody well worked and has allowed us to take in a full quota of refugees from other, dare I say more deserving places around the world (but in the end, what is the definition of deserving, there's just too many around the world in need)

[GuitarStv]

I think calling the Palestinian-Israeli conflict "Islamic expansionism" is fairly inaccurate. It was Muslim land, had been for the better part of a millenium, and then one European Christian empire decided to hand it back over to the Jewish people, after they had been forced out of it by another European, non-Muslim, empire.

Wrong.  The whole thing pretty much started after WWI, when a bunch of Jewish people decided it would be a good idea to emigrate to Palestine (which had become possible because of the Ottoman Empire's collapse).  These people were perfectly happy to live in peace with their Arab/Islamic neighbors, like most other immigrants around the world.  Unfortunately, some of the Arabs didn't like their new neighbors, and decided to exterminate them.  The Israelis managed not to be exterminated in 1948, and in several subsequent attempts.

Can you provide sources for your claims?  Everything that I've read on the matter indicates that the Jewish people and Arabs in Palestine were living relatively peacefully together until there was a sudden and huge influx (more than a quarter million) of Jewish people escaping from Hitler, leading to the Arab revolt in the late 30's. . . which is when the British tried to restrict Jewish immigration to the area . . . which the Jewish people ignored, leading to more and more conflict.  There was a whole clandestine movement to sneak Jewish people in to Palestine . . . and by the end of WWII one in three people in Palestine was Jewish.

None of that sounds like a peaceful neighbour buying land and setting up shop.  It sounds more like invading refugees pushing the people who live in a place out of their homes.  Something that Israeli settlers continue to do on a regular basis to this day (although they're no longer refugees).

Just out of curiousity, if the UN decided tomorrow that the Native Americans
had a right to the land that you and all your neighbors had lived on for centuries... how would you react, if conventional warfare was not an option (because you were so ridiculously outgunned)? How long would you keep fighting for what you saw as lawfully yours?

Not even close to parallel, as the UN (or its predecessor, the League of Nations, didn't hand anything to the Israelis.  The Jews who moved there, pre-1948, bought or rented land &c from its legal owners.  So how would I react if an American Indian (or any other immigrant) wanted to rent or buy something I was willing to sell?  I'd count the money, and shake hands on the deal.

The UN didn't hand anything to the Israelis pre-1947. . . but the British sure did between 1934-47.  The British allowed immigration into the area.  And when the British decided that all this immigration they were allowing was too much, the Jewish people formed the Aliyah Bet to continue illegally immigrating to the area.

In 1947 the UN did actually hand something to the Israelis.  A country.  With defined borders.  Those would be the ones in the picture I posted above.  The state of Israel continued to annex and occupy Palestinian land over the following years to the point that there is virtually no Palestine left any more.  The are the dominant military force in the middle east right now, backed by the dominant military force in the world.  To suggest that this is an example of Muslim expansionism is pretty dismissive of the facts.

So yes, the British and the UN did decide to give land to the Jewish people to form the state of Israel.  More than 700,000 Palestinians were expelled from their own land to create the state of Israel.  The question asked was quite apt.

For a group so bent on expansionism (in your words), the Palestinians don't seem to be doing it right.

This is true, which is probably why they've more-or-less given up on trying the wholesale slaughter approach, and turned to piecemeal killing combined with propaganda.
[/quote]

Which wholesale slaughter events are you talking about?

Don't get me wrong . . . I can't support terrorist attacks made by the Palestinians.  But it is not hard to see where the animosity has arisen from.  Blaming 'Islamic expansionism' is a total denial of the history of the Israeli expansionism and illegal actions in the region.

[Jamesqf]

Can you provide sources for your claims?

Umm... History books?

None of that sounds like a peaceful neighbour buying land and setting up shop.  It sounds more like invading refugees pushing the people who live in a place out of their homes.

Strange, because it does to me.  Just as a simple practical question: if you're a refugee or group of refugees escaping persecution, just how do you manage to push the current inhabitants out of their homes? 

We could draw a pretty fair parallel with current illegal immigration from Latin America to the US - with, of course, the major difference that the Latinos are just coming for the money, not escaping from someone who wants to exterminate them.  So have the Latino immigrants driven Americans from their homes?

The UN didn't hand anything to the Israelis pre-1947. . . but the British sure did between 1934-47.  The British allowed immigration into the area.

And why on Earth shouldn't they have allowed immigration?  You might also notice that they allowed immigration into Britain itself, to such a degree that (per Google) some 13% of the current population is foreign born?   

In 1947 the UN did actually hand something to the Israelis.  A country.  With defined borders.  Those would be the ones in the picture I posted above.

No.  That partition plan was a stopgap, intended to forestall the Arab League's stated intent of repeating the Holocaust.  If the Palestinians, and the Arab/Muslim world in general, had been willing to live in peace with their neighbors, there would have been no reason for such a plan.

The state of Israel continued to annex and occupy Palestinian land over the following years to the point that there is virtually no Palestine left any more.

That's one way of looking at it.  Another is that the Arabs continued to attack, and to lose each war, with consequent loss of territory.  I think it's also quite telling to note that Israel has given up (sometimes repeatedly) much of the territory it has conquered. 

Something that has always puzzled me is why the Israelis, almost alone in history, should be expected to do this.  It seems to run contrary to the natural course of history, which is that a country victorious in war gains territory.

The are the dominant military force in the middle east right now...

Obviously.  If they weren't, they'd be dead, which is a pretty strong motivator :-) 

Which wholesale slaughter events are you talking about?

1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973.  All these were intended to be wholesale slaughters - the old "Drive the Jews Into the Sea" meme. 

But it is not hard to see where the animosity has arisen from.  Blaming 'Islamic expansionism' is a total denial of the history of the Israeli expansionism and illegal actions in the region.

Now whether this all is evidence of Islamic expansionism is perhaps arguable.  We'd have to argue over the difference between intentions, and the ability to carry out those intentions successfully.  But it certainly does add to a considerable amount of evidence, historical and present-day, which indicates that Islam's true believers simply are not willing to live in peace with others, on an equal footing.

So the upshot is that so-called "Israeli expansionism" is, at base, nothing more or less than the imperative of survival.  Nor am I at all sure how the concept of "illegal actions" has any sense or meaning at all in this context.

PS: Apropos of Islam's true believers living in peace with others, here's this from today's news: http://af.reuters.com/article/sudanNews/idAFL6N0O13IC20140515

[Mr Mark]

I liked how once the usa came in with the drones, all of a sudden the nigerian gov asks the guy to get in touch.

"Just give us a call on your mobile! "

I imagine someone sneaking up behind this insane lunatic and softly whistling the sound of a distant approaching missile,  then stopping before he turns and acting as if nothing had happened.

[GuitarStv]

Can you provide sources for your claims?

Umm... History books?

OK.  Fairly noted that you cannot.

None of that sounds like a peaceful neighbour buying land and setting up shop.  It sounds more like invading refugees pushing the people who live in a place out of their homes.

Strange, because it does to me.  Just as a simple practical question: if you're a refugee or group of refugees escaping persecution, just how do you manage to push the current inhabitants out of their homes? 

I guess you convince the British who were effectively ruling the land at that time to let you in.  The Palestinian inhabitants didn't really have a say in the matter.

We could draw a pretty fair parallel with current illegal immigration from Latin America to the US - with, of course, the major difference that the Latinos are just coming for the money, not escaping from someone who wants to exterminate them.  So have the Latino immigrants driven Americans from their homes?

Has the UN given large chunks of the US to Latino immigrants to make the scenario comparable?  I don't remember reading anything about in newspapers . . .

The UN didn't hand anything to the Israelis pre-1947. . . but the British sure did between 1934-47.  The British allowed immigration into the area.

And why on Earth shouldn't they have allowed immigration?  You might also notice that they allowed immigration into Britain itself, to such a degree that (per Google) some 13% of the current population is foreign born?   

I guess because at the time (much like the US) they weren't allowing large numbers of Jews to immigrate into their own country. . . only to far away Palestine where they wouldn't be a nuisance, and would be someone else's problem.

In 1947 the UN did actually hand something to the Israelis.  A country.  With defined borders.  Those would be the ones in the picture I posted above.

No.  That partition plan was a stopgap, intended to forestall the Arab League's stated intent of repeating the Holocaust.  If the Palestinians, and the Arab/Muslim world in general, had been willing to live in peace with their neighbors, there would have been no reason for such a plan.

Your information is incorrect.  The partition plan was not stop-gap, it was intended to be permanent (http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0af2bd897689b785256c330061d253).  You have also conveniently forgotten that Jewish Zionism was considered as much a problem by the people of the UN as Arab nationalism (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=gwika-Y-ghwC&pg=PA7#v=onepage&q&f=false).

If we look closely at land ownership of the time, we can easily refute your claim that the Jewish people were given land they owned, and see that Arab people were displaced from their homes by the partition plan (the partition plan next to the land ownership shows areas assigned to the Jewish faction in blue):

The state of Israel continued to annex and occupy Palestinian land over the following years to the point that there is virtually no Palestine left any more.

That's one way of looking at it.  Another is that the Arabs continued to attack, and to lose each war, with consequent loss of territory.  I think it's also quite telling to note that Israel has given up (sometimes repeatedly) much of the territory it has conquered. 

Something that has always puzzled me is why the Israelis, almost alone in history, should be expected to do this.  It seems to run contrary to the natural course of history, which is that a country victorious in war gains territory.

To which war are you referring?

Giving a person back a little bit of something you have taken by force is maybe a nice gesture . . . but doesn't rectify the problem of all of the other stuff you've taken away from them.

I guess that they're expected to give back the land that belongs to the Palestinians because Israel has been 'victorious in war' as you put it, largely because they have been given huge amounts of weapons and armaments for defense.  It's difficult to continue supporting the need for defense when the country you're supporting is so clearly acting as an aggressor.

Which wholesale slaughter events are you talking about?

1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973.  All these were intended to be wholesale slaughters - the old "Drive the Jews Into the Sea" meme. 

So, none of these events were actually 'wholesale slaughter' as you previously claimed.

1947-1948 was a civil war due to the UN giving away the Palestinian lands.
1956 Israel invaded the Suez canal starting a war
1967 Israel started a six day war against Egypt by bombing their airfields and tanks, and end the war by seizing a lot of Palestinian territory
1973 Israel fought the Yom Kippur war against the Egyptians and Syrians (In this case Israel was not the aggressor)

So . . . three of the four 'intended wholesale slaughter' events you're talking about were precipitated by the Jewish people.

But it is not hard to see where the animosity has arisen from.  Blaming 'Islamic expansionism' is a total denial of the history of the Israeli expansionism and illegal actions in the region.

Now whether this all is evidence of Islamic expansionism is perhaps arguable.  We'd have to argue over the difference between intentions, and the ability to carry out those intentions successfully.  But it certainly does add to a considerable amount of evidence, historical and present-day, which indicates that Islam's true believers simply are not willing to live in peace with others, on an equal footing.

I think that this has proven that when you take land away from people, they stay angry about it for a long time.  Nothing you've brought up has indicated 'Islamic expansionism' or even religious motivation.

PS: Apropos of Islam's true believers living in peace with others, here's this from today's news: http://af.reuters.com/article/sudanNews/idAFL6N0O13IC20140515

I think that you can find extreme factions of many religions doing crazy stuff.  The actions of those few certainly don't reflect on the actions of the many followers of the religion who are perfectly decent people. 

[iris lily]

...I think that you can find extreme factions of many religions doing crazy stuff.  The actions of those few certainly don't reflect on the actions of the many followers of the religion who are perfectly decent people. 

Today's headliner about the woman sentenced to death in the Sudan for marrying a christian man and then refusing to recant is horrifying. That's official government action there, and "Sudan's penal code criminalizes the conversion of Muslims into other religions, which is punishable by death" according to the Yahoo article.  That's an extreme faction, sanctioned by the government of the entire country.

When it's official government policy it's hard for me to see that as "actions of a few." 

http://news.yahoo.com/sudanese-woman-sentenced-death-apostasy-123904046.html

[GuitarStv]

...I think that you can find extreme factions of many religions doing crazy stuff.  The actions of those few certainly don't reflect on the actions of the many followers of the religion who are perfectly decent people. 

Today's headliner about the woman sentenced to death in the Sudan for marrying a christian man and then refusing to recant is horrifying. That's official government action there, and "Sudan's penal code criminalizes the conversion of Muslims into other religions, which is punishable by death" according to the Yahoo article.  That's an extreme faction, sanctioned by the government of the entire country.

When it's official government policy it's hard for me to see that as "actions of a few." 

http://news.yahoo.com/sudanese-woman-sentenced-death-apostasy-123904046.html

The Sudan is an authoritarian state under Omar al-Bashir.  He was voted in to power by intimidating his main opponent to drop out a couple days before the vote (http://www.voanews.com/content/butty-sudan-elections-01march10-89668017/153946.html).  I'm not entirely sure you can say that the government is enforcing the will of the people in this country.

That said, there are 1.57 billion Muslims in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country).  The population of the Sudan is roughly 30 million (http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE54K0CR20090521?sp=true).  Assuming every person in the Sudan is Muslim, AND that they all agree with the laws that are in place (which is unlikely) . . . that works out to less than two percent of the world population of followers of Islam . . . which is a small minority.

[LalsConstant]

Understand that I have no interest in writing a book here - and even if I had, I doubt the thread would wait around for me to finish it :-)  So anything I write is necessarily incomplete.  I had thought about mentioning parables, but thought it would be an unnecessary digression.  It does seem fairly easy to distinguish between parables and express commandments or accounts of events that are supposed to be true.

Fair enough, I just wanted to clarify what you meant there because as presented it was such an intriguing idea.

I don't think I agree that it's always easy to know what's supposed to be parable or analogy and what's not though.  Scriptures, if analyzed as literature, sometimes tend to be a bit spare.

I think that's more a failure of language than anything: we're forced into using the same words for two quite different things: the literal Word of God scriptures of the Abrahamic religions and their kindred, and the more philosophical 'scriptures' of e.g. Buddhism.  It can be argued, and often has been, that Buddhism and such aren't really religions at all.  What religion would say "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!"?  But you do have, in the Abrahamic-type religions, the self-referential dogma that the Torah/Bible/Koran is the literal Word of Yahweh/God/Allah.

Again fair enough, I was just curious if there were bigger implications because again, it was such an intriguing idea.  But I think you're just really hung up on an interpretation that isn't necessarily so.  The idea of dogma for example isn't in the Bible itself, that's an approach someone came up with to understand the Bible.

In other words I think you're either assuming an interpretation of the thing is the thing itself or insisting adherents are for some reason bound to use some particular interpretation which is faulty.  I have no way of definitively saying either is wrong, I am just saying I don't follow this line of thought.

I'm also curious why the fallacy of composition is not a consideration when analyzing a religion.

If it's an article of faith of your religion (as it is with Islam) that your religion's scripture is the infallible Word of God...  Well, how can you argue with God?  Of course the reverse is also true, at least IMHO.  If any part of a scripture can be shown to be false, that proves that the whole thing is not the Word of God.

But does that mean the rest of the thing that isn't shown to be false is the word of God?

And how do we know the part that says "this is the word of God" is referring to the false part?

It's a completeness issue, or rather an assumption of completeness on the part of the observer.

In the interest of being concise, I will just say I think this isn't a particularly great way to evaluate Islam or any religion or anything similar to a religion in some capacity, but it's such a minor matter I doubt it's worth hashing out each and every little twist and implication because we all have better things to do. 

Others will inevitably disagree with me of course.

Thanks for responding!

[Jamesqf]

Can you provide sources for your claims?

Umm... History books?

OK.  Fairly noted that you cannot.

No, noted that I do not have time, space or inclination to provide a thorough grounding in history for you.

Just as a simple practical question: if you're a refugee or group of refugees escaping persecution, just how do you manage to push the current inhabitants out of their homes? 

I guess you convince the British who were effectively ruling the land at that time to let you in.  The Palestinian inhabitants didn't really have a say in the matter.

So how does letting refugees (or any other immigrants) in equate to pushing people out of their homes?  Do Latino (or Indian, Asian, etc) immigrants, legal or illegal, push me out of my home?  Only if I'm a prejudiced SOB unwilling to live with folks of different backgrounds.  Even then, it'd be my free choice to move or not.

Has the UN given large chunks of the US to Latino immigrants to make the scenario comparable?  I don't remember reading anything about in newspapers . . .

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that Americans (in general, anyway) have been fairly willing to live alongside their new neighbors (even intermarry with them), instead of trying to kill them off.

So, none of these events were actually 'wholesale slaughter' as you previously claimed.

I never claimed that there were wholesale slaughters.  I said that they were intended to be wholesale slaughters, but failed.

1947-1948 was a civil war due to the UN giving away the Palestinian lands.

If it was a civil war, then why were other Arab countries involved?

That day, the armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq invaded/intervened in what had just ceased to be the British Mandate, marking the beginning of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

1956 Israel invaded the Suez canal starting a war

The Israelis responded to Egypt's act of war:

In 1956, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, in contravention of the Constantinople Convention of 1888. Many argued that this was also a violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[42][43] On July 26, 1956, Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal Company, and closed the canal to Israeli shipping

1967 Israel started a six day war against Egypt by bombing their airfields and tanks, and end the war by seizing a lot of Palestinian territory

Israel made a preemptive strike against the early stages of an Egyptian attack.

On May 30, 1967, Jordan signed a mutual defense pact with Egypt. Egypt mobilized Sinai units, crossing UN lines (after having expelled the UN border monitors) and mobilized and massed on Israel's southern border.

I think that this has proven that when you take land away from people, they stay angry about it for a long time.  Nothing you've brought up has indicated 'Islamic expansionism' or even religious motivation.

But the land was not "taken away", it was lost in the sense that a gambling wager was lost.  The Palestinians made (and continue to make) a bet that they could drive the Jews into the sea instead of having to live peacefully on an equal footing with them.  They lost.

The actions of those few certainly don't reflect on the actions of the many followers of the religion who are perfectly decent people.

I disagree.  If they were really good people, how could they follow a religion that teaches evil?  (I mean honestly believe, not just pretend for the sake of survival.)  Risking Godwin's Law again, could perfectly decent people be Nazis?

[Jamesqf]

That said, there are 1.57 billion Muslims in the world...

Are there really?  I think that depends on just what makes one a Muslim, does it not?  (Or a member of any other religion, of course.)  Now most, if not all, 'Muslim' countries consider anyone who has Muslim parents to be a Muslim, and as noted above, will often impose severe penalties on anyone who openly leaves the religion.  So in such places, aren't many people just going to say "OK, I'm a Muslim, Allahu Akbar!  Now can I get on with my life?" without really believing in the religion at all? 

In the same way, many Americans will say they are Christians even though they know little of the religion, don't follow its practices or attend church.  What fraction of those really believe?

[rosaz]

Could perfectly decent people be Nazis? If you're defining Nazism as the desire the eliminate the Jewish people, then no, clearly not. But Islam cannot be reasonably defined as the desire to eliminate all non-Muslims, any more than Judiasm can be defined as the desire to eliminate all non-Jews, even though there are some parts of the Jewish scriptures that pretty clearly command them to do just that. I'm a pretty decent person and a Christian, and I'm forced to acknowledge that many Christians today do terrible, terrible things in the name of Christianity. And yet I don't believe that practicing my religion makes me evil.

And surely you're aware that everyday around this country, millions of Muslims are going about their business, raising their families, joking with their colleagues, and worshipping God (I find the American refusal to translate "Allah" as pretty offensive, on a side note. We don't insist on always referring to the Jewish deity as "Yahweh"), all without ever once planning to murder the infidels.  I'm just baffled... have you really never met a Muslim? Where do you live exactly?

And I'm not sure how you can see the loss of land as a "gambling wager". If during a war your people (including those who had no interest in fighting) fled your homes out of fear, or were forced to do so, and then tried to return, only to be told, "Well we'll give you half of it back"... would your declining that offer in hopes of regaining your land really constitute a wager?

[Albert]

National borders have not been eternally constant during the course of human history. I don't think there is a single sizeable stretch of a land border in Europe older than ca 300 years. Most are much younger than that. Indeed it used to be Arab land for a long time, but now it's Jewish property which they have managed to conquer by whatever means. That's it and if Arabs want to regain it they are free to try another war with the obvious risk of losing even more territory.

To add to the previous discussion, of course there has been a massive Islamic expansion with a sword and fire albeit mostly very long time ago. 50-60% of the current Islamic area worldwide used to be Christian.

[iris lily]

...
That said, there are 1.57 billion Muslims in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country).  The population of the Sudan is roughly 30 million (http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE54K0CR20090521?sp=true).  Assuming every person in the Sudan is Muslim, AND that they all agree with the laws that are in place (which is unlikely) . . . that works out to less than two percent of the world population of followers of Islam . . . which is a small minority.

Sure, some analytical measure of the problem is comforting. I guess. Certainly the badnick extremists have the ear of our American mainstream media who loves scare stories.

So much of this problem really IS the freekin' stupid media who will dwell on a story like the Sudan woman and the radicals know it and that's why they stage these events such as the kidnapping of 200 girls.

[Jamesqf]

But Islam cannot be reasonably defined as the desire to eliminate all non-Muslims...

But the Koran does command Muslims to subjugate all non-Muslims.

And surely you're aware that everyday around this country, millions of Muslims are going about their business...

That brings us back to the earlier question of just what makes one a Muslim (or a Christian, etc).  Is it because the religion forms part of your cultural background (the way the religious right says that America is a Christian nation), or do you have to really believe in the religion?  I think the second is what matters, and I'd argue that by that definition, there aren't millions of Muslims in the US.

I find the American refusal to translate "Allah" as pretty offensive...

While I find the translation... well, maybe not actually offensive, but disconnected from reality.  They are quite different conceptions, after all.

I'm just baffled... have you really never met a Muslim? Where do you live exactly?

Again, that depends on what you consider to be a Muslim.  I know quite a number of people from Islamic cultural backgrounds - my best friend from college married a Lebanese guy, another good friend fled the Iranian Islamic takeover with her parents, there've been numerous co-workers &c - but AFAIK none of them are believing Muslims, any more than my childhood Sunday School indoctrination makes me a Christian.

If during a war your people (including those who had no interest in fighting) fled your homes out of fear, or were forced to do so, and then tried to return, only to be told, "Well we'll give you half of it back"... would your declining that offer in hopes of regaining your land really constitute a wager?

We might do a comparison between those who fled, and those who stayed, and what they gained or lost thereby.  So yes, it was a gamble.  You could also consider that, from the Israeli point of view, those who fled were doing so to make it easier for the Arab armies to conduct their planned genocide.

National borders have not been eternally constant during the course of human history. I don't think there is a single sizeable stretch of a land border in Europe older than ca 300 years. Most are much younger than that. Indeed it used to be Arab land for a long time, but now it's Jewish property which they have managed to conquer by whatever means.

Still, that's jumping into the middle of a problem.  It still goes back to the question of why so many of the Palestinians, or the Arab peoples of surrounding countries, were unwilling to live in peace with a relative handful of non-Muslim immigrants.  Going back to that pre-1948 UN partition plan, which was an attempt to address already-existing conflicts...  Calling a particular area "Jewish land" or "Arab land" is just politics.  With a bit of tolerance, Arab Ali could own a farm or a house in a majority-Jewish area, just as Jewish Isaac could own a shop in an Arab area.  And in fact that is pretty much what those who stayed managed to do, despite the problems caused by ongoing conflict with the surrounding Arab world.

To add to the previous discussion, of course there has been a massive Islamic expansion with a sword and fire albeit mostly very long time ago. 50-60% of the current Islamic area worldwide used to be Christian.

Indeed, AFAIK* pretty much all lands that are now Islamic became so by conquest, some  not so long ago as all that.  E.g. the violence that accompanied the partition of British India into present-day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.  So it does seem rather hypocritical for Muslims to believe they're being victimize or persecuted when part of the Dar al'Islam is re-conquered by non-Muslims.

*I don't know about SE Asian lands such as Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.