Isn't it a bit hypocritical to accuse others of intolerance if we fail to be tolerant ourselves? It's their right to practice their religion. And I say go for it. So what if people would prefer a "pure" society without foreign cultural elements? The world is in constant change, and a nation that refuses to change and embrace new elements stagnates. Just look at Iran (though it must be said, the Iranian people themselves tend to be liberal, and actually think well of the West).

I am bothered by the Troubles in Northern Ireland as well, but I'm not going to project that onto Protestants or Catholics elsewhere.

The islam-extremists are evidently causing major unrest in the world. And the moderate's silence is quite deafening. Even a blind and deaf person can notice that. Yet, you fail to notice it.[/quote]

But they are not silent. In fact, they are the first to speak up against the radicals. I don't know why they don't get more media attention, but even when they do it seems people aren't interested in reading or hearing about nice Muslims.

Did you not say, and I quote, "That's a matter of debate but it brings us back to the concept of the Muslims cleaning their own house"? You don't actually state that it's all Muslims, but you do imply that the problems you mentioned are the result of being Muslim, which subsequently affect Muslims in general. I didn't say that you didn't allow for exceptions, but the fact that you seemingly treat "well-behaved" Muslims as exceptions says a lot. If I am wrong in these assessments, I apologize.

Well you are wrong and are (deliberately i'm starting to think) reading all kinds of things into a very simple statement.

So for the last time i'll explain it. What i meant is, the west can bluster and bomb and sanction all they want, but the only true solution to Islamic terrorism is for the Muslims themselves to put a stop to it.

They know who is doing it, they know where they're doing it and they are the only ones that can root it out permanently.

Is that clear to you now? There's no racism here, i'm not calling anyone "well-behaved" or "exceptions", just a simple statement of fact.

Are we in or heading for a Clash of Civilizations?
 

You finally got it too, August?
Kissaki is putting words in his opponent mouth that never have been said nor intended and criticises others linking self-serving assumptions of dubious credibility with obvious truths that nobody in his right mind can deny.
Example:It makes a conclusive debate rather difficult...

Are we in or heading for a Clash of Civilizations?
 

@ Konovalov:
My answer to your poll has been "No".

I have been thinking about and reading a lot on the subject lately, the Quran, "Understanding Terror Networks" by Marc Sageman and some Dutch books.
My conclusion is that while there are tensions at points were civilisations touch, a clash, as in 'a violent battle' in which one of the participants is doomed, is unlikely.
Tensions between cultures have always existed. In the past those were confined to the geographic borders of those cultures. Modern international travel and communications can put substantial elements of other cultures in the heart of other cultures (Dubai being an example in the Middle East).
I think those tensions are normal.

Your underlying question is whether or not there would be a violent clash between Islam and it's neighboring cultures. While there might be clashes, even violent ones, a clash of 'Biblical' or 'Quranian' dimensions seems very unlikely in my opinion.
A realistic external threat does not exist. I can't foresee Arab countries or masses attacking the West in a way that would really shake our culture, unless through a multiple nuclear strike.
An internal threat does certainly exist, but it won't threaten much more than the borderline of Western culture. Although there are too many extremists and a substantial portion of Muslim society is willing to condome terror, it is still a minority of all Muslims. Most Muslims just want to live a better life in a better place and will one day realise that that place is only better because it is non-Muslim. Islam will never be close to a majority in any Western country. At the same time, history teaches us that any prolonged stay of a foreign social group in new environment, especially with an open and modern Western society, has a strong assimilating pulling force after a few generations.
What we perceive as the threat of Muslim fundamentalism may well be a desperate and doomed attempt to stick to threatened 7th century values in a 21th century society.
I also think that Muslim fundamentalism holds the seeds of its own destruction: the more it exposes itself and its backward values, the more the West will see it as a challenge, that in the end will actually deepen awareness of our own values. Furthermore, let's not forget that Muslim extremism is hopelesly internally divided both as theories and as actions are concerned...
Having said that, I do not exclude more violence on a limited scale, also against Muslims, as the autochtone population perceives its own values and freedoms as more and more threatened by Muslims.

The end is clear for all to see. Fundamental Islam will have to take a hard, critical and painful look at itself and adapt to modernity or remain a religion of underperforming countries and/or societies, irrelevant and not contributing to progress of the world society.

i agree completely.

the only issue is that, if you are a muslim fighting against extremism, how do you get extremists to see beyond their narrow viewpoints? the task is made more difficult when for every example of peaceful intent that you give, someone else has an example of western hypocrisy or exploitation or whatever you wish to call it, that serves as a rallying cry for extremists?

e.g. the invasion of iraq. maybe it was done for altruistic reasons -- bringing democracy to the people of iraq. maybe it was done for security -- the unfound wmd. but some elements are always going to say, "they're here for the oil," or "they wish to impose their culture upon us."

so while i agree utterly with the 1st statement, i also believe that as long as there is a negative interaction with western culture -- in europe, the us, or in the m.e. -- it's going to make the job a lot harder.

[quote="caspofungin"]Why not simply show them how the Quran says otherwise and point out hsitorically how Muhammed and his immediate followers never practiced anything that we're seeing today.

Go ahead.

well, actually, there are clerics and teachers that do that. problem is, doesn't make for a good news story, does it? After all, I got my religious beliefs from somewhere, and i'm not strapping tnt to my body.

Where are there public dialogs?

And this would make great news stories! The mass media has bent over backwards to avoid mentioning the word Muslim or Islam in articles on war, Jihad and terrorism for years now.

Surely The Guardian is dying to publish such pieces and the more the merrier.

But there aren't any.

http://tedrowdrive.blogspot.com/2005/07/outrage.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ent/TopStories

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ent/Editorials

from a non-focused google search, as examples.

Re: Are we in or heading for a Clash of Civilizations?
 

Aren't we the pot calling the kettle black. I don't remember who, but I have been accused either directly or indirectly of "defending" the Nazies or various Islamic terror regiemes, for no better reason than me not hating them enough - and subsequently not portraying them as monsters or sub-human.

To this I can only reply that since I joined Subsim, and peeked inside the General Forum, I have been blown off my feet with the levels of intolerance among some of the more vocal posters. Not only have people been making highly prejudicial remarks, but these remarks seem to be PC in here. What you just quoted me on isn't merely clever word-play: I hear people moaning about Muslim intolerance, while making it perfectly clear that they will certainly not tolerate any Islamic elements in their culture, thank you very much. Muslim immigrants are a hoarde of infiltrators, by the looks of it, hell-bent on destroying the fine European civilization. Muslims have been portrayed - and don't you deny it - as less than equal to us.

The blog entry expresses outrage. So? How do that confront Islamic teachings?

Sorry, I'm not regustered to the Globe and Mail, so I cannot see the articles but the same point applies.

No one denies the existance of tons and tons of "moderate" Muslims. The question is their relevance in counterring what they claim is a distorted rendition of Islam.

With all due respect, wouldn't they know better than you, though?

The proper interpretation of Islam, that is.

Who would know better? Those sitting all their lives in a Madras in Pakistan, Riyahd, London or Falls Church, Virginia?

Or those who identify themselves as moderate Muslims who cannot seem to confront the former from a scriptural, historical and religious legal perspective?

Who? Who? Who?

With all due respect.

i hear a lot about how "moderate" muslims need to confront the extremists among us. i argue with my muslim friends about similar subjects, about what it is to be a muslim in the west. i learn all i can about my religion, pass that on to my younger siblings, and, god willing, will someday pass it on to my children.

so what else, specifically, would you like me personally to do?