Is there something fundamentally wrong with Islam? (Page 3)

This may be our most visible export but far from our biggest.

Actually, I bet they more us than we think about them. Given our general (as a whole, present company excepted) ignorance as Americans about the rest of the world.

Friends who worked in the LA movie industry told me entertainment was the biggest export of the US but it was some years ago and I never heard this anywhere else.  What would be our biggest export I wonder if it isn't entertainment?

Our biggest export is money. Think on that. And in no particular order of things that in a $$$ perspective are bigger than entertainment, consider:

Hard goods. This includes automobiles and iPods and stuff. Although you have to define exports loosely, as the apple lineup, although headquartered here, is built by Foxconn in China. And GM and Ford and Chrysler still build a bunch of stuff here that get shipped overseas. And so does honda, toyota, BMW, and Mercedes. 

Pharmaceuticals. America, and some parts of Europe, are the world's drug engine. 

Food. We produce an amazing amount of food. Dwarfs hollywood by a million times. However, we give much of it away, so I'm not sure it gets the credit it deserves. 

Franchises. If you've got 20,000 McDonalds outlets worldwide (outside of US), they gross an amazingly huge number, much bigger than whatever a movie or artist could deliver. You could, though, argue that it's entertainment, too.

Military equipment. Jets and missles to Isreal, NATO countries, and worldwide. Plus the related aircraft from Boeing and McDonall Douglas. Lots of smaller enterprises probably rank in this discussion (like services), I'm just not privvy to the data. 

Entertainment is well behind all those, plus wouldn't be surprised to find it behind oil, which we actually export, plus a bunch of niche exports. It's a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. Culturally, it's huge. Dollar-wise, not huge. 

While I am not thrilled with what happens in the Occupied Territories (my personal opinion is that all Jews should be out of there, with a nice wall between both sides), I'd say that much of what happens with the Palestinians is in response to their own behavior. As for Israel/Jews being at the forefront of peace, it takes two to tango. Unilateral actions won't work, as proven with the Gaza Strip.

Regarding the past part, apples and oranges. You're ignoring what led to the treatment, in both cases, or to be more precise, inferring that the situations were similar. Which is incorrect.

Do you know how they got it in the first place (this time around, not Joshua's time)?

Israel gets squeezed on the North by Syria, on the East by Jordan and the Iraqi Army and on the Gaza Strip by Egypt until they launch the Six Days War. They took the Sinai Penninsula, Gaza, West Bank, and the Golan Heights.

In October of 1967, Israel offered to return the Sinai and Golan Heights, but they sent the offer to the US and we never passed it to the Arab League. Then they get attacked on Yom Kippur 1973 in a surprise attack.

Israel again takes some of the Golan, backs up a bit on the Suez.

Then Jimmy Carter negotiates the Camp David Accords, Israel gives back the Sinai up to Gaza.

The general theme here is that Israel has been attacked several times and each time, they take a piece of the guy attacking them. Then they give a little back, then they're attacked again.

So why should they give it back again?

And for that matter, why is Jerusalem not allowed to belong to Israel? What is the significance for the Palestinians/Arabs?

while i appreciate bringing the source of the info to the discussion, much like the bible, i'm assuming that picking out random verses out of the quran is not very useful, where you need the context of the whole chapter, culture, language, author, etc to understand the meaning of it.  for example, "when the months have passed" what months?  what rituals?  is the translation "kill" accurate? 

deuteronomy says to stone adulterers.  word for word, you can pick that verse out of the book.  is that what christians and jews are literally meant to do and is that what christians and jews all over the world condone?

I cut and pasted from a Muslim site Quran.com. So it does say "kill".

Your analogy is not even the worst example from the OT. In fact, Joshua was told several times by God in the OT to wipe out whole tribes. Then he told his descendants to wipe out several tribes.

But Christianity had Jesus who said the whole "Cast the first stone" bit. Jesus never talked about killing and he clarified whole sections of the OT where it did.

I posted the above without comment on Islam and I'll leave it there.

exactly, which is why you must read more than just pick and choose verses to understand the message of the quran as well.

as for "kill," i get that the website chose that word, but we are translating from a very different language and kill may just be the best english word the site can come up with.  this happens all the time in the bible as well.

i am not well educated on Islam as well, so do not want to make any judgment in either direction, but I am just saying any muslim can cherry pick a handful of verses from the bible and call christianity a violent faith very easily.

As always Meh, you are wise and I agree with your statement.

most shocking thing i've ever read on BT!  i gotta show my husband this

As an American Jew who has been to the ME on a number of occasions for business, I am also disappointed with the current Israeli government and their expansion of settlements in politically sensitive regions. On the other side, I believe Hamas relies heavily on keeping Israel as an enemy, and keeping their own people in poverty and poor education to ensure their own political future. 

Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel, and that is non-negotiable. There is no reason that a peaceful Palestinian state could not also have Jerusalem as their capitol, as there are few places in the world where so many different religions and people exist.

One other comment, one of the holiest places for Jews is the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. Just above the wall is the Dome of the Rock, where Muslims believe Mohammed ascended to heaven, and Jews believe Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac. How many places in the Muslim world do you see a Jewish holy site (or synagogue) being allowed to exist next to a Muslim place of worship?

The question is a valid one and needs to be stripped of PCism to have a real and valid discusion of the issue.  Clothing the issue in PCism does not allow for a candid discussion of the issues, nor does it allow for real understanding of the region and it's people and the people that rule them.  Without this understanding we are at a disadvantage in dealing with the peoples of the region.  Burrying our heads in the sand and responding with PCism condemning christianity for its faults or saying that the majority of Muslims are peace loving people, ignores the current geo-political realities of the pervasivness of Radical Islam throughout the middle east.  This PCism is what allows us as average Americans to be shocked by what is happening in Egypt, Libya, Yeman, and Tunisia...but should we be?  Why is it shocking that political powers would exploit a 15 minute anti-Mohammed youtube video as a means to excite the general populace to do their bidding?  If we don't honestly talk about how Islam is practiced in the region we will continue to be surprised by events like these. Using Muslims in England, or France, or the U.S. as examples of the average Muslim in the Middle East is simply a poor agrument, if we are truly interested in understanding what is going on in the region.  We also have to admit that Islam is both a theology as well as a political construct in the region, and that's why analogies of Western practitioners of Islam fall short.

The fact remains, that the majority of the Muslim world has lapsed into fundementalism.  Not just "violent attacks" which everyone is focusing on but also the cultural issues.  The issues regarding womens rights and the role of women in the society, crime and punishment.  Even once liberal or moderate Muslim countries are becoming more and more radicalized...see Turkey for example.

The president of Egypt came out and condemned the attacks but also said that there was a "red line" when it comes to the Profit Mohammed, and he added that he hoped that the UNited States would punish the film maker. (This is what NPR reported this morning, so I didn't get this from Fox News) This is the president of a previously "moderate" Islamic state.  A man that just yesterday John McCain called a moderate.  I am of the opinion that the statement expressed by the President represents the majority opinion in the Muslim world outside of the West.  Remember this is a statement of a "moderate Muslim" leader.

We have to come to grips with this.  We have to understand this, we have to talk about this openly.  Perhaps the question of "is there something fundementally wrong with Islam?" isn't the accurate question to be asked but rather "Is the way the majority of the countries in the Middle East practice Islam fundementally wrong, and why has Islamic extremism spread across the region, and what can be done to either combat it or utilize it to best protect U.S. interests?"

If we don't strip the limitations that come with PC rules of discusion away we will continue to be surprised when things like this occur.

Palestinians were given Israel in 70 AD by the Romans. Between 70 AD and 698 AD, it was not a holy site for Islam.

One more, if Muhammad ascended from Temple Mount, why does he have a tomb in Medina that is also a holy site? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masjid_al-Nabawipick a death/ascension spot...

My apologies if this has been brought up in this thread.  My state recently passed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  Of course, the charge was led, in large part, by Christian groups and passed in large part due to Christian voters.  I should say, this is my impression unsupported by any sort of polling data. 

After reading and hearing some of the discussions on the issue, I began to question if there is something fundamentally wrong with Christianity.  I'm talking here and now.   Of course there are plenty of good Christians and where I live the majority opposed the amendment.  But the full experience left me wondering what sort or strange sorcery could lead so many people to believe such silliness.  I recognize this is a far cry from suicide bombings and stonings, but the question is very similar.

The Dome of The Rock was where Muhammad first ascended to heaven and received the teachings of the Qur'an from God. If I recall correctly.

Sort of the point.

That was his first revelation he later went on The Night Journey where he prayed at the rock and was taken to Heaven on a winged horselike creature. *Very short version.

 Oh and not ascended as in died, ascended as in taken to meat Allah.

I'm not sure what you are trying to go for here, but here is  the reader's digest condesed version of the history as I understand it of Islam -

Muhammed's parents lived in Mecca, a major trade crossroads at the time, I think making a living as makers of idols. Muhammed learned of the bible and both judaism and christianity because of the open nature of the trading at the time, and became convinced that he also was a prophet of the one god of Abraham. Initially, like Jesus, he preached peace, and saw himself as another in the lineage of judaic principles, so he had his followers pray towards Jerusalem. When they actually GOT to Jerusalem, they were rebuffed, and he became angry, and turned instead back to Mecca as a holy spot, that was being spoiled by all the idolators. So he rallied his people and returned to Mecca, engaged in an ultimately successful war, then expanded back to spread the word of God as he saw it.

So many early jewish and christian holy sites were holy to islam, being seen by the muslims as successors to those faiths (in the same way that christians see themselves as successors to judaism w/r/t being favored by god - the same god). And the Koran reflects a history that did indeed recount a lot of warfare - much like the old testament recounts a fairly bloody history by the jews to take over territory that was then occupied by other tribes (like the Philistines - aka the Palestinians). But that does not make islam a violent religion any more so than the old testament makes judaism or christianity a violent religion.

In fact, during the initial expansion of Islam, they were much more tolerant of people retaining their faiths than the christians of the time (think Spanish Inquisition and forced conversion of the jews). One might argue that the belief that those christians had (they were saving people from eternal hellfire since only accepting Jesus was the way to salvation, and therefore any torture you endured on earth was nothing to worry about) was evidence of the more violent nature of christianity. I still hear christians say that because I don't accept Jesus as my savior that I am doomed to spend eternity in hellfire. Fortunately very few of them seem to want to put me on the rack to get me to renounce my beliefs and accept theirs.

What I was trying to say is that ALL of the major monotheistic religions have the same roots, and there is an inherent doctrine of tolerance towards others. It's the biased interpretation of these writings by so-called religious leaders with their own agenda that results in extremism.

You see it in every religion. Islam is not exceptional, except in the extreme nature of the violence. I place the blame squarely on their societal structure. Keep a people poor and uneducated and they will be desperate for any leader that gives them hope, even if that better life can only be achieved through martyrdom.

x2. Although I would say that while all or nearly all major religions (not just the monotheistic ones) throughout history have some doctrine of tolerance or version of the "Golden Rule", they also have elements in their origins that support interpretations of highly intolerant behaviors towards non-members. Sometimes even doing good things are interpretated through a somewhat intolerant window - I recall hearing about a jewish doctor in Israel who said the reason he treated Arabs was that if he did not, then arabs would mistreat jews. And so he would indirectly end up hurting fellow jews, which was against the tenets of the faith. Not that basic human decency and medical ethics required him to treat arabs.