Racial profiling

[Rhisiart]

I am very sad about the killing of a nun, but I don't see any thing different about that incident and the killing of children in Baghdad by Rumsfeld's 'Strike & Awe' bombing at the start of the Iraq war. Both acts were cowardly.

To go back to my original posting on this thread, my daughter and I travelled from Manchester to Stuttgart last weekend. I have never witnessed such careful security checks anywhere before on my previous travels (even Tel Aviv airport). My seven year-old daughter's half eaten chocolate bar was carefully scrutinised by three security officers.

My daughter and I are white. Others in my queue where Pakistani or Indian. None of us of were treated any differently.

So no evidence of racial profiling at all.

[rubaiyat]

I gave up on trying to give tit for tat rebuttals on the misquotes, it got too lengthy and tedious.

I am waiting on Cat to ask for references to Muhammad's killings. I have plenty more to add if he wants, but I am sure he knows what I am quoting.

This is the very issue that the muslims were once again rioting over. You'd think they hadn't read their own Koran or the hadiths.

Beliefs being beliefs you are not going to get believers to actually accede to reality no matter what the facts. That is the trouble with beliefs, there is a circularity to the logic that allows anything because it is self affirming. Muhammad is the one true prophet because Allah said so. How do we know Allah said so? Because the one true prophet said so.

There are signs of Allah ofcourse favoring Muhammad above all others. Whenever Muhammad needed for example to have more than the requisite 4 wives or to marry his son's wife, Allah always supplied him with the necessary revelation.

There is also the problem that none of this comes from original sources. Just as with Jesus, the Koran was written and assembled by others much later, which was made even more difficult by the many forgeries circulating the Islamic world.

Islam has neatly solved the problem of proving actual veracity by adding a death sentence to anyone who questions any of this too closely.

I agree with Cat, Muhammad's story is fascinating like many historic figures. Naturally everything has been interpreted, to make Muhammad look good no matter what he did, even though some of his deeds were frankly horiffic. That muslims unapologetically chronicled all this just goes to show how unimportant the fate of non-muslims was in their view.

Apocryphal stories are always written about leaders, usually by people who were never there. Take Washington cutting down the cherry tree, all made up ofcourse, but happily repeated forever.

Observing this, I wonder where Tony Robbins will end up. If all his books are gathered together posthumously into a testament by his acolytes. His ability to change lives, perform miracles (reduce weight and improve income) and lead people onto a new path in life will certainly make him a prophet. Did I spell that right?

[rubaiyat]

Originally Posted by rhisiart

I am very sad about the killing of a nun, but I don't see any thing different about that incident and the killing of children in Baghdad by Rumsfeld's 'Strike & Awe' bombing at the start of the Iraq war. Both acts were cowardly.

Much as I intensely dislike Rumsfeld, I don't think he was aiming at the children, whereas the nun's murderer was definitely aiming at her and everything she stood for.

[rubaiyat]

btw Love your Norman Wisdom icon. I still wet myself when I think about him tangling his bicycle up in the Lady Mayoress' chandelier.

[rubaiyat]

Cat: I forgot another muslim v muslim conflict:

Indonesia's Confrontasi, when it tried to invade Malaysia.

[Cat]

Originally Posted by Viro

It's hilarious how you choose to misread that passage.

Which I did to show how easy it is to take fragments out of context to try to prove you're right.

A parallel universe with a jewish baby eating cabal? No, I live in the parallel universe of Israeli soldiers training Kurdish soldiers in the eventuality of a civil war in Iraq, which will split the country and lead to the establishment of Kurdistan as a buffer state.

About the "muslim invasion", perhaps I was unclear, let me rephrase what I meant. I did not mean "when was the last time an islamic country attacked another islamic country", I meant "when was the last time that an Islamic country (which had adopted the Sharia as civil law) invaded another, non Islamic country to annex it and impose Islamic law on it". That better? Let's make a concrete counter-example: Iraq invading Kuwait is not what I mean. Iraq was a secular (=non-religous) military dictatorship which invaded Kuwait for economical reasons. So, please, have another go at it.

Beliefs being beliefs you are not going to get believers to actually accede to reality no matter what the facts.

That, unfortunately, is too often true.

Muhammad is the one true prophet because Allah said so. How do we know Allah said so? Because the one true prophet said so.

This is also true, mutatis mutandis, of christianity and all major revealed religions. God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is true because it is inspired by God.

Islam has neatly solved the problem of proving actual veracity by adding a death sentence to anyone who questions any of this too closely.

This is a classic of any totalitarian regime, and the same tactic used by the Catholic Church. Eat flaming death, heretic! Islam, however, is a religion, not a sovereign state. Also China throws dissident in jail for opposing the ruling party. Your statement is probably true of many authoritarian governments, also for countries where Islam is the main religion, but is it therefore true of Islam as a religion?

Back on topic: Racial profiling. How do you correlate race with religion? How can you identify someones religion at all except by asking? Do you want to force everybody to register his creed on their passports? How do you decide which ones are risks? Are Sunni's more inclined to blow up aeroplanes that Shiites? What about finer distinctions? Are Salafi's more dangeous that Wahabis? Could you say whether Monophysites are more dangerous that Nestorians? What about those that would say, yea, I'm Christian or Muslim, but have no idea at all about fine theological differences? Do you think all Roman Catholics are fully aware of what it is that they believe? Ask someone about the "filioque" controversy (and don't go looking it up on wikipedia first!). If we can generalize about Protestants and Catholics and call them Christians, and we can generalise about Sunni and Shia and call them Muslims, why is there such a problem in generalising about Christians, Muslims and Jews? There's really not such a big difference in the creeds themselves, but only in holy rites and worldy customs, which technically are side-effects. Less that a hundred years ago no man or woman would leave their home in western europe without a hat or a scarf. It simply was not done. And in a Church you would take it off. That's custom for you. Now we complain about Islam's headscraves. It really is ridiculous. We go to war over things like this?

Cue music: "When will we ever learn?" / "Wann wird man je verstehn?" (preferably the version by Marlene Dietrich)

[rubaiyat]

Which I did to show how easy it is to take fragments out of context to try to prove you're right.

I appreciate that, but unfortunately the quotes and references to Islam's early and not so early history is not taken out of context. Islam has violence at its core, prescribes it in the Koran and reinforces it with constant threats of violence against anyone who is even vaguely critical.

Neither are the cases I sited, of Sudan as a sharia state, nor the peculiar islamism of Gaddafi. Narrowly defining your version of islamic states is just that, an attempt at eliminating real world examples. Thankfully it has been quite some time since fanatical Islamic states were strong enough to force their flavor of religion on anyone except their own hapless citizens. That doesn't stop them trying though.

The fact that they have been held at bay is not to their credit, just a symptom of the economic and cultural stagnation they bring on themselves. Iran, Syria, Lybia, Pakistan and Sudan have found other ways to plague their neighbors. Iran particularly is working hard at building up its military and it seems is intent on gaining nucleur weapons. It already has the missiles to deliver them.

Islam is ofcourse not the only example of the circular logic of religious "proof" but it is currently almost unique in using violence against any scholars or critics who debate its merits. It has got to the dangerous state of cowing anybody saying anything except innane flattery. Muhammad himself killed his critics and prescribed in the Koran those "offenses" where Mulsims may kill without retribution. Those who go out and kill in the name of Islam are only following his instructions.

...but is it therefore true of Islam as a religion?

Well yes, it is true of Islam as a religion.

Just as it is true of the Japanese sect that gassed the Tokyo subways and the fringe religious nutters in Waco, Jonestown, Utah, and various African countries such as Uganda. Civilised people have adopted an unfortunate code of moral equivalence that forgives the worst excesses in the name of tolerance. Time to stop and stand up for our principles.

Back on topic: Racial profiling. How do you correlate race with religion

No-one is correlating race with religion. Several apprehended extremists have been neither Arabs nor Asians. What I think you and others are trying to do is put up a smoke screen of racism because a large portion of the extremists are obviously Arabs or Asians.

As such you are making a difficult job even harder, by shielding extremists.

If you are unhappy with the unwanted suspicion that is falling on the muslim community, take it up with the real instigators of the problem, the extremists and their supporters who seem to take comfort from the "moderate" muslims silence or qualified agreement.

[rubaiyat]

btw I have a lot of sympathy with the Kurds, although I am unaware of any Israeli military training. Do you have any substantiating proof?

I am inclined to think this is a red herring, because Israel would not want to imperil its good relations with Turkey, the strongest Middle Eastern nation.

The Iraqi Kurds seem to have the only functional and decent government in that sorry country. They mostly treat their women decently as well. It is a pity their homelands got divided up amongst several nations. They deserve to have a country of their own.

NB I found the news story you were referring to. Hardly seems the core of an army. The Israeli training company may be genuine, but then the Middle East has seen stranger things. The Turkish FM was being very disingenuous with his statement that Turkey has always defended the Kurds. In the same way as it "defended" the Armenians.