Racial profiling

[rubaiyat]

Originally Posted by Cat

...the democratic principle that all subjects are equal before the law and presumed innocent until proven guilty)?

That is the west's principle and only holds where muslims are not the government. The only Islamic country that comes remotely close is Turkey, and that is stretching it. Indonesia is working on it but mostly it is still only intent.

How do you separate Islamic faith from the Koran? It's statements are clear, not "loopholes", and not equitable to either muslims or non-muslims. Any attempt to interpret it in a milder light is met with death sentences.

Islam obtained its hold through the sword, unlike all the other creeds I nominated, and many of its exhortations, I quoted only some, are not peaceful.

There is even a death sentence declared on anyone choosing in their own conscience to follow another faith. How is that peaceful?

The only restraint ever on muslim expansion was their ultimate military failure, something that clearly angers many of the current militants. Obviously they are determined to renew the fight and there are virtually no Islamic authorities willing to flatly condemn them for it and many eager to encourage them.

Given their tactic of striking with no warning and using suicide tactics, waiting till after the event is obviously not an option. Irregardless muslims are not being rounded up randomly. The surveilance they are under is directed at those who are actually calling for or conspiring to violence. The same as police keep an eye on skinheads. I suppose that is racial profiling to "pick on" whites with shaven heads, Union Jack T-Shirts and heavy boots?

Broader surveillance would not be required if the muslim community itself clearly and flatly condemned the violent actions and took its own measures to weed out the perpetrators. Instead all we get is wishy washy platitudes for our benefit followed by much clearer statements that support or absolve the militants.

[reed]

Who has taken a flight with "iffy" folks aboard?
I have, twice. Air Pakistan for one. New York, Paris, Karachi. Of course "they" never explode "their" own planes but remember Air India and other "3rd World" companies that have. Whatever......

Despite the the prayers in the corridors during the flight and the fact I couldn't get a beer, all went well. However, when I saw the pilote (because we all got off the plane at the same time at Orly), I was so glad to have arrived at my destination. Why? Because he had a prayer book in his hand and looked older then my stepfather who was 70 at the time.
1 year before 9/11.

I don't know what the moral of the story is. I just may fly Air Pakistan again however. Just to be on the safe side.Talk about profiles?

[rubaiyat]

Ever fly with JAT, The old Jugoslav airlines? The pilots were all ex Air Force. Used to stroll across the tarmac, turn over the Illyusin's engines and take straight off from a cold start.

With the angle of ascent and descent I think they were practicing dogfights.

After all the excitement they delivered us to the wrong city, having changed destinations on the ticket without telling us.

Definitely no "God willing" there, just a flight into the unknown in the hands of disgruntled public servants with a death wish.

[Cat]

I never argued for separating the Islamic faith from the Koran, quite the contrary. I argued for separating the Islamic faith from Islamic politics. We hardly have an issue with Muslims per se, we might have an issue with Islamic governments who condone or sponsor terrorism and we surely have a problem with terrorism, no matter who perpetrates it.

If we start to apply other rules to foreigners than we apply to ourselves, our "universal" values go down the crapper. That's just apartheid all over again. Making two lines to acces the plane "white - non white" is just plain old racism. And isn't that the same problem you are pointing out in Islamic societies? That some people are not seen as full members of the community?

I'm not really impressed by your argument that under Islamic law apostates are killed. The catholic church has been burning people alive for hundreds of years for disagreeing with the official christian worldview, which rests on a literal interpretation of the bible. Pope John Paul II finally acknowledged in the 1990's that perhaps threatening Galileo wasn't such a good move after all and that perhaps they shouldn't have burned Giordano Bruno alive in 1600. What do you expect of Islam? Why would you hold it to higher standards that those we have followed in our own history? People in western europe have been blowing each other up with the same tactics in the '70 and '80, blowing up trains, plains, public buildings for the same kind of irrational idealogical wars over right and left wing politics. They haven't been defeated with mitlitary firepower, but made part of a fair and open political process. This takes some time, but if our values are truly universal, and not just because we said so and will shoot you if you don't agree, the rest of the world will come around eventually, step by step to share them. If we are the first to abandon them in times of trouble, then what values are they?

[pds]

Now now Cat.

You're usually right on, and mostly right here, but "the catholic church has been burning people alive for hundreds of years..."

Ok - not a native speaker, you are forgiven for not using past tense.

But the point is well made - the west has had it's renaissance and it's enlightenment. Islam is still trying to deal with those concepts and, granted, the terrorist response is part of it's own "inquisition."

@Rubiyat...

Sorry to hear that you think that only Islam is spread by the sword. Please look into the colonial period once again. The treatment of native mexican-americans by Jesuit priests and other church officials was the source of my discontentment with Christianity. It was the sword and the knife, not the sacrificial example of Christ that brought the cult of Jesus to the world.

[rubaiyat]

I am perfectly well aware of some of the past history of christianity. One of the reasons why I am extremely concerned at the intolerant and oppressive stance of a significant part of Islam both in the past and today.

Keep in mind that Christianity's core faith is that of love for one another and to turn the other cheek. It began as a persecuted minority that gained its acceptance and most of its conversions by example and persuasion.

People typically lapse from the teachings. The examples you gave of the Conquistadores, are that of looters who used the excuse of religion to cover their own ambitions. They weren't the only ones to ever convince themselves their crimes were based on noble principles.

Where this differs from Islam is that Islam was from the beginning a martial religion with Mohammed as its commander. It's faith includes some of the tenants of love and peace but from the beginning it was brutal, killing, raping and enslaving many people that it conquered. All this happened under the leadership of its founder.

Can you imagine Jesus, Buddha, Zororaster, or Bahá'u'lláh actually going to war, looting, putting whole populations to the sword, enslaving their women and children to be sexually exploited, in the name of their God?

The death sentences on apostasy, stonings, mutilation, slavery, oppression of non-believers and women are all codified in the Koran and Sharia law. Which is why very few Islamic scholars have said Ossama bin Laden and his followers are acting contrary to the Koran, because they aren't.

Modern western democracies through the development of secular humanism have separated religion and government. Their civil law protects all their citizens, muslims as well as all other faiths.

This particularly seems to enrage many muslims who see such toleration as contrary to their teachings which do not separate religion from government and they are willing to act on their beliefs. Their idea of paradise is to make life hell for as many people as they can.

If we don't defend ourselves we must succumb. I don't see that as an option.

[rubaiyat]

The catholic church has been burning people alive for hundreds of years for disagreeing with the official christian worldview, which rests on a literal interpretation of the bible.

Actually the Catholic Church does not rest on a literal interpretation of the bible, for example they accept scientific evidence as to the age of the universe. A bit slow on the uptake but they got there eventually.

Can you tell me when was the last "burning" by the Catholic Church?

Now tell me when was the last stoning, beheading or amputation by Islamic authorities?

Let's see this is Friday, so it would have to be...

[rubaiyat]

Here's some good news :-p

Saudi Arabia promises to remove references to Christians as "swine" and Jews as "apes" in school textbooks.

Just a taste.