Islamic argument and my response

An Anonymous person left the following comment following my post of ‘Islam causes war: Reason #7’. I believe that this comment reveals much of the problem when dealing with Islam.

"Interesting, I understand your POV of this present conflict but I respectfully disagree. For starters you are judging religon by those who follow it. As humans we are corrupt beings and yes there are those that misinterpret the teachings of their religon. If you are going to accuse the religon or Islam in this case, have enough sense to open it's holy scripture, the Qu'ran and see for yourself what the religon has to say on the matter of war. You just like the millions of others look at the small group of people that follow Islam who are disgracing the name of the religon. Yet the majority of muslims in the world are ready to convey our message with peace as it had from the start when it began. At the time when Islam flourished the church lagged behind in the middle ages, and Pope Urban II launching the crusades against Islam. If you research what happened during the time, what difference would you find from the term you take as 'Jihad' and 'Crusade'. Yes I do agree there are those that as of now are misusing humane rights to get a message across, but as a muslim I dont considered them my brothers. So the next time you try to blame Islam for the actions of corrupt individuals, research both sides before blogging biased opinions."


Seeing that the vast majority of Muslims are good and peaceful, if I was judging Islam by those who follow it, I would not be focusing upon the warfare that Islam causes. I would be focused upon the good and constructive leadership that the Muslim world is personally demonstrating to the rest of us. This is not the case. I am judging Islam by the governance that Islam created and maintains. An example: In 1944, the vast majority of Germans and Japanese were good people. This was irrelevant. We were forced to kill millions of them to put an end to it. A small ‘minority’ of people was in control and we were at war against them. However, the population DID in fact, support the armies and fought very hard and well.

War is a foreign policy. The Koran specifies in many places when and where war is justified and is to be waged. The Koran also specifies when truces should be implemented. (Please note ‘truce’ as being ‘cease fire’ as opposed to permanent peace) The Koran specifies many functions of a government. Examples: The death penalty, economic policy, foreign policy, exemption from conscription and a complete legal system. These are functions of a modern national government.

Yes, the Crusades were nasty. As wars tend to be. However, the Crusades were a response to the constant pressure from the south and eastern part of the Roman Empire. Much of those parts of the empire had already been overrun by Islam long before the Crusades began. The Crusades were a reaction to this, not the initiator. And speaking of religions mustering armies:

I find it interesting that Muslims keep bringing up the subject of the Crusades. The Crusades are a classic example of a religion fielding an army. This was not uncommon prior to the rise of the nation-state, nationalism and the professional army. This practice disappeared long ago. (Exception: Islam) Today, Islam is the only ‘religion’ that still fields it’s own army. These terror organizations are the modern version of the Middle Age concept of a ‘religious’ army. And they enjoy popular support.

Islam has no ‘lands’ nor ‘waters’ to defend anymore than the Catholic Church can defend the land that a church sits on in New York. Nations do. National armies are what defend them. Yet we hear constant comments about ‘occupation’ of Muslim land. No nation on Earth is willing to commit its armies against the ’occupiers’, yet irregular warfare is still being waged to lift the ‘occupation’. And this concept enjoys popular support throughout the Muslim world. This must end, TODAY. This concept starts wars and will require warfare to end. Islamic nationalism is the cause.

On a side note, stoning people to death has no place in the modern world. This practice is still being followed in numerous places throughout the Islamic world. Want to start a war? Do not allow enforcement of just this one concept and watch what happens.

As for my being biased, YES! As is Anonymous. We all are. One problem here is that anonymous does not see that he/she is biased as well. This can blind a person in many ways. This Anonymous person has not read the entire Koran (Or is ignoring much of it) yet he/she is stating that I need to read the entire thing through. I need to research both sides beforehand. I guess I need to ignore the 90% of the Koran that talks about warfare and governance and focus upon the ‘nice’ 10% that specifies how there is no compulsion in religion. Yes, I still need to study Islam and history more. However, Anonymous is far behind. He/she needs to study history far more than I do, and not just one version of it. He/she needs to widen the view. I like to think that I am pretty good at seeing the other side. And we as a country are pretty good at setting our differences aside. Example: The U.S.-Japanese war 1941-1945 was one of the most brutal our country has ever engaged in. Yet, 60 years later, my wife is Japanese. This is not uncommon in our country and ‘Religion’.