Questions for King Tolerance:

1) When Muslims deliberately attack civilian targets and women and children are killed, this is called 'terrorism.' When American planes bomb enemy targets and women and children are among the casualties, this is called 'collateral damage.' Though both are human tragedies, do you agree or disagree that intent distinguishes the morality of one act from the other? Please elaborate.

2) Like the Quran, the Old Testement is repleat with violence and intolerance. Do you make any distinction between Islamic and Christian theology as it pertains to degree and extent in this regard? Please elaborate

3) Do you feel that Capitalism perpetuates greed, inequality and corruption and should eventually be replaced with a more equitable economic system?

4) Only a tiny fraction of Muslims are actual terrorists. But what percentage of Muslims living in the West do you believe aspire to eventually replace secular law with Islamic law?

5) Muslims have petitioned the European Court to rule that prohibitions on polygamy are discriminatory. What do you think are the implications for women living in Europe if the court agrees?

6) Do you believe Israel is principally responsible for the animus existing between Muslim and Jew in the Middle East? Please elaborate either way.

7) The Prophet Muhammad is considered by Muslims to be the examplar for all humanity in terms of behavioral ethos. Based upon the Hadith and the Sira, do you believe Muhammad's example is today beneficial or detrimental to the development of Islamic society? Please elaborate.

8) Do you believe in the multicultural premise that all cultures are equally valid and value judgements of one culture based upon the ethos of another are invariably prejudiced? Please elaborate.

9) Would you agree with the following statement? 'War never solves anything.'

10) In order of importance, please list what you believe to be the reasons for Islamic terrorism:

a) Western imperialism

b) Islamic theology

c) poverty

Thanks.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 23, 2005 9:08 AM

Hasn't that old Iraqi patriarch heard the good news? Saddam is behind bars and FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH.

So the Christians of Iraq best get their marching boots on...

Posted by: kj at September 23, 2005 9:20 AM

Bush and Blair have made a frightful mess out of Iraq. Period! They rushed in with little understanding of Islam, and little understanding of the politics of the region, too. We all know what they call people who rush in where angels fear to tread, don't we?

Islam and democracy, notwithstanding Bush and Blair's fantasies to the contrary, are immiscible. They are immiscible here in the West, and they are immiscible there in the Middle East also.

It is a great pity that this whole thing hadn't been better thought-through, better planned. But it wasn't, and now we shall have to pay a high price for Bush and Blair's very poor judgement, frightfully poor judgement! Now, we have added another Islamic country to the growing list of Islamic countries in the world. That crescent moon sure is a-spreading!

Saddam Hussein, for all his frailties and weaknesses, and nasty and cruel ways, did actually keep Islam largely out of politics in that country, and he certainly knew how to keep order there, too. That's more than can be said for Bush and Blair! Even though I am certainly no fan of Saddam Hussein, I do think that the whole idea of trying to bring democracy to a Middle Eastern country was, is, and will be flawed. It's a strategy destinied to failure. It really might have been better to have left Saddam exactly where he was: in charge in what is now fast becoming an ungovernable geographical expression! It has aso tilted the balance of power in favour of Iran - our arch enemy! Where have our leaders learnt their geo-politics?

Minority groups such as the Chaldeans there will now, unfortunately, have to pay the high price of Bush and Blair's ignorance and false hopes. That's what's sad about the whole thing!

Posted by: Mark at September 23, 2005 10:13 AM

Mark:

Superficially, until Gulf War I, Saddam ran a "secular ship" because it served his purposes, and not to keep peace between Iraq's various religions and ethnic communities. Far from it. He exploited these divides to his fullest advantage, which is how he held power for so long.

Aside from Iraq being a client state of the Soviet Union a good decade or more before Saddam assumed power via an infamously bloody coup against his own leader, meglomaniac that Saddam is/was, he certainly didn't want to share power with anyone, least of all the clergy, Sunni or not. But, like Islam, Baathism is not a socialistic movement, but an expression of Arab ultra-nationalism, that was actually the brainchild of an Christian Arab who converted to Islam after returning to the Middle East from France.

After Gulf War I, Saddam was suddenly a born-again Muslim, building mosques and declaring himself the enw Salahudin. That's also when he started hosting international terrorism conferences with such distinguished invitees as bin Laden in attendance, and likely bank-rolled the merger of bin Laden's group with Al-Zawahiri's group.

If Iraq is a mess today, it's not so much a function of the invasion as what was bubbling beneath the surface was there for a very long time. I remember, towards the end of Tito's reign over Yugoslavia, people asking what would happen once Tito was gone -- refering to the way Tito had managed to keep the country united and relatively free of sectarian strife. Had Saddam dropped dead of a heart attack or the like, we'd likely see the same result as we are seeing now, and, in truth, 60 years of Baathism was more the cause of Iraq's social dysfunction than the preventative.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 23, 2005 1:30 PM

Astute analysis waterdragon...and let us all keep in mind that even after overthrowing Bakr in '79, Saddam remained in many respects a Soviet client. It is common currency in the West to claim Saddam was "our boy." Truth be told, all during the Iran-Iraq War, while Reagan traded arms for hostages to the Ayatollah at the same time he tilted towards Iraq, the Iraqi military remained equipped with Soviet tanks and artillery, Soviet Migs and French Mirages.

Besides helping to orchestrate and finance a resupply pipeline of Soviet ammunition, the extent of Reagan Administration aid was the sharing of satellite photography.

In geo-political terms, I always supported the tilt towards Iraq...because it started around '83-'84, AFTER Iraqi troops had been expelled from Awhaz province in Iran. Saddam certainly started the war, but Khomeini needlessly prolonged it for 5 years. The goal of the Ayatollah was to topple Saddam and spread the Islamic Revolution. The US tilt towards Iraq was appropriate policy at the time (in my 'umble opinion).

I admit to remaining mystified why Reagan clandestinely sold arms to IRAN. As ransom for hostages in Lebanon?...(he only succeeded in starting a cottage industry). As a means to finance the Contras?...(certainly he could have done that with generous donations from the Saudis and the Sultan of Brunei). Sustaining Iran's war-making capability was inimical to US interests and US policy.

What is certain is that the characterization of Saddam as an American creature is a slander that now has wide currency in our culture. It is just as fallacious as the notion that the Taliban was our creation. The US withdrew its assets from Afghanistan in '92, when it became evident that we couldn't stop the fratricide of the Mujahaddin. This was 2 years before the Taliban even existed as an organization.

Posted by: Cornelius at September 23, 2005 1:57 PM

Waterdragon52: I stand by my words: Bush and Blair knew not what they were doing! Period!

Posted by: Mark at September 23, 2005 4:46 PM

Experience in the secularized West has shown that apostasy from religion can have unpleasant side-effects. On the one hand, people are better informed and more open and honest about touchy subjects. On the other hand, many people flush out ethics and self-restraint along with the religion which they have come to see as irrational and obsolete. In this sense, one can sympathize with those Muslims who fear that a weakening of Islam will lead to immorality, hedonism, crass consumerism, flaky quasi-religions (whether political, sex-centred or occultist) and a general lowering of cultural standards. If the world of non-Islam gets identified with Hollywood, McDonalds and Playboy, it is understandable that Muslims will cling to the devil they know rather than expose themselves to the intruding devils from the West.

This is where non-credal or post-credal spiritual traditions have a key role to play. They have to show the Muslims that there is life after apostasy from an irrational belief system. They have to prove that religion can be something else than a silly acceptance of some prophet's vainglorious claims about himself.
http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/articles/irin/wahiusa.html

Posted by: leavingtheleft at September 24, 2005 1:47 AM