@
gambit
There was no civil war in America?
You Veits didn't have a civil war ?
French didn't have a civil war?
Chinese didn't have civil wars?
Russians didn't have a civil war?
British didn't have a civil war?
If a few Muslim nations are at a civil war right now why is thar ironic given the political history of the mankind?
Just because there were religious persecutions under the cover of civil wars in the past and elsewhere, that does not make right a repeat of today and in Syria or Egypt.
The problem is that, in your perspective above wars, are American,French,Viet,Chinese civil wars not 'Christian,Buddhist' civil wars and so on, but the civil war in Syria 'is a Muslim civil war'.
However the conflicts were/are labeled is irrelevant. I have seen CNN called it 'Syrian civil war' more than the religious label.
I understand that minorities are targeted in the Middle east,Pakistan,Indonesia. What about minorities being discriminated against in Europe,the ban on the Mosques,Veils,Minarates is 'not' 'targeting minorities'?
The attacks on the Mosques in the EU and America is 'not' an attack on minorities? - Targeted searches on the American air ports is 'not' discrimination, American wars in Muslim countries 'is not targeting' other people's way of life?
How many Muslim
MINORITIES died over how long?
Muslims do take criticism of their faith, as a matter of fact 'criticism is institutionslized' in Islam. They have 'mujadid's' [Reinventors] who are extremely qualified scholars, who question the beliefs and give judgements on them through debates with other scholars called 'Manazirah'. This is a civilized form of self criticism which no other Religion has. There lies a fine line between acceptable constructive criticism and vile abuse generated out of bigotry.
All of the above is irrelevent for those who do justice to their own intelligence, God refused to cure insanity though.
Please...
When Andres Serrano immersed a crucifix in what he claimed to be his urine and called it 'art', no riots came in the US, France, Britain, Spain, Vatican City, or anywhere in South America where Catholicism is dominant. And yet when there was an allegation that the Quran was desecrated in the US, Afghans rioted and 17 locals died. Any kind of such allegations in the West pretty much involved high level government interventions and pleadings with the people not to do it so as not to offend the Muslims.
But put aside crass insults for now. If I am a minority Christians living in a Muslim dominated country, say Pakistan, and I challenge the Muslims in the public square that Muhammad is not and never was any prophet of any god, how safe would I be? Most likely I would be crucified upside down and while I was suffering, Muslims would stone me to death. Then once I am dead, my body would be drawn and quartered. All the while the Muslims cheering 'Allah Akbar'.
Continue to lay aside crass insults for now. Why must I be a 'respected' scholar in order to criticize Islam, even to its foundation? I know of a Christian woman who complained to Human Resources of a friend who had a racy 'pin-up' style background image of his wife on his personal laptop that was also authorized for on-site company use. The wallpaper was not pornographic in the current understanding of pornography. It did not came from any well known "Men's Interests" magazines. It was of his wife and she was a beautiful woman. The complaint was not directed at his superior for possible inappropriate use of equipment. It was straight to HR for a moral offense.
The point here is that a religious person -- Christian -- took great offense at a passive and non-directive disagreement with her religious beliefs. We see similar things where Muslim taxi drivers refused service to farepayers who carried alcohol or a blind person who needed his guide dog. None of these people are respected scholars. They did not actively challenged the religious beliefs of the person next to them. But the religious people, the Christian woman and the Muslim taxi drivers, saw some things that they did not like in the personal lives of others and made bones about those things.
Respected scholars debating in a reasonably genial but really quite controlled academic environment is not a valid test to gauge the overall tolerance of the believers. Notice I said 'believers' and not 'religion'. But if once we had medieval Christianity persecuted scholars and scientists who dared questioned the shape of the Earth, what is to prevent medieval mentality of modern Muslim religious leaders who issued fatwas on just about anything and everything they do not like? Nothing to prevent them at all and we see plenty of them, right? Osama bin Laden issued a fatwa to kill any American and he said it is a religious duty for every Muslim. Who was the imam in Iran who fatwa-ed that a nuclear weapon is a religious duty?
Are these Muslims respected scholars?
Looky here...The real test and gauge is when ordinary believers of
ALL religions are able to challenge each other
IN SPITE OF EACH PERSON'S INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION WITHOUT ANYONE RESORTING TO VIOLENCE OR EVEN TAKING EMOTIONAL OFFENSE.
That, my friend, is where the Christians succeeded and the Muslims failed. I grew up with a Korean-American friend who now lives in Japan as English instructor and consults as corporate language advisor in Japan and Korea. The Koreans and the Japanese do not have positive opinions of the Muslims over religious tolerance. The image of an intolerant and violent Muslim is worldwide.
