
The Islamic Inspiration for the Original World Trade Center Design - mhb
http://www.slate.com/id/2060207
======
kloncks
I didn't know this and it was very interesting. But, honestly, not all that
surprising.

The beauty of this country is that it's a melting pot of cultures, religions,
ideas, colors, and ethnic classes. It's what makes us both different and
great.

So, of course, Islam, like every other culture introduced us to some beautiful
new ideas. At the end of the day, we're a better more diverse nation because
of said influence along with influences from every other group.

Which is why recent events pain me so much. Why can't we just all get along?

~~~
lionhearted
> Which is why recent events pain me so much. Why can't we just all get along?

I know you're asking rhetorically, but the answer is that there's moral
philosophies that are incompatible with each other.

An example: Islamic culture typically believes that women's sexuality can be a
destructive and corroding force for herself, her family, and society if not
muted and regulated. Progressive multiculturalism believes that any muting or
regulating of a person's sexuality is oppressive and wrong.

Thus progressive multiculturalism believes Islamic culture is oppressive and
wrong, whereas Islamic culture believes progressive multiculturalism is
destructive and corrosive for society and the individuals in society.

The reason we can't all get along is because cultures have violently opposed
moral philosophies. Western progressivism wants to liberate and break what
they perceive as Islamic oppression. Being that leaders in Muslim society
generally have less access to fight back in an information war (since they
have less access to media and universities), they fight back in other, more
base and primitive ways.

Note that this isn't a moral judgment on either side, just an explanation of
why we aren't all getting along.

~~~
kloncks
I wasn't asking rhetorically and I am, in fact, a proud Muslim myself.

I appreciate that you used the word 'culture' before your argument but it's
still wrong to use the word 'Islam' before 'culture'. It's just culture. Not
Islamic culture.

Our moral philosophies are not AT ALL incompatible. At it's roots, Islam is
eerily reminiscent of its two previous Abrahamic influences (Judaism and
Christianity). If the "West" is incompatible with Islam, then by that same
logic it's also incompatible with Christianity and Judaism.

The practices that you mention are heinous and looked down upon by a lot of
people, myself included. The places that practice them are either oppressive
regimes or full of ignorance. If you read the texts of Islam (the Qur'an,
Hadith, etc), women rights are a huge issue and women are very respected.

The problem today is with ignorance, in two ways:

1) Ignorance of people towards Islam. A lot of people have no idea what it is
and they're afraid of the mystery. What's worse is that they let a lot (with
private agendas) fill in that hazy picture for them. 2) Ignorance of some
Muslims themselves that then do many of the problems you're referring to.

I think it's no surprise at all that many of the places that breed these
problems (whether it's terrorism or sexism) have low literacy rates, high
rates of unemployment, horrible schools, no government, etc. In other words,
given these same environments, they would be a breeding ground for bad deeds
anywhere. So, again, it's a problem with cultural problems. Not with Islam.

I'm Egyptian American myself. I'd invite you to take a look at some of the
more modern Arab or Muslim countries. Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, some of the Gulf
states. If I were to respond to your arguments with an example, it would be my
homeland, Egypt, whose population is 85-90% Muslim. We have isolated pockets
of such problems, often in some of the poorer rural areas, but for the most
part you'll find beaches, tv channels, movies, literature that's as
progressive as anywhere else.

~~~
tkahn6
Terror organizations may primarily recruit from impoverished Muslim societies
but they don't always. I have not researched this with any rigour, but there
do seem to be quite a few Muslims from wealthy Western nations that have
joined terrorist organizations. What draws these Muslims?

This is a genuine question and not rhetorical.

~~~
MichaelSalib
Well, the US government started a war for no reason in Iraq that exterminated
a million people. Don't you think bringing about the deaths of a million
Muslims for no apparent reason might enrage some people?

How many of your friends and family would I have to brutally murder before you
said "screw it, I'm going to devote my life to revenge or maybe to just
stopping you from killing more people"?

~~~
tkahn6
From where are you getting your data?

AFAIK sectarian violence has killed many, many more Muslims than the US.

And terrorist organizations existed before the US invaded Iraq.

EDIT: I gather from your comment that you believe terrorism committed against
Western civilians is a reasonable response to the way the US has handled the
war in Iraq. Correct?

~~~
MichaelSalib
_From where are you getting your data?_

Excess mortality figures derived from several published cluster sampling
studies and then extrapolated to cover the period of greatest violence.

 _AFAIK sectarian violence has killed many, many more Muslims than the US._

Please read my comment carefully. I said the US government started a war that
killed a million Iraqis. The sectarian violence of which you speak was not a
significant issue before the war.

 _And terrorist organizations existed before the US invaded Iraq._

Very true. But it seems that various western countries have done other things
to kill and maim large numbers of Arabs and Muslims before the war. For
example, Mohamed Atta appears to have become radicalized by watching Israeli
attacks against Lebanese civilians.

 _I gather from your comment that you believe terrorism committed against
Western civilians is a reasonable response to the way the US has handled the
war in Iraq. Correct?_

No, that is incorrect. I think attacking random people associated with the
government that killed your family is morally wrong. But I also think it is a
very understandable response, one that almost anyone here might engage in.
Because that's how human beings operate.

I marvel at your inability to distinguish between normative and positive
statements.

You never answered my question though: how many of your friends and family
would I have to kill before you turned to violent revenge?

~~~
tkahn6
_Please read my comment carefully. I said the US government started a war that
killed a million Iraqis. The sectarian violence of which you speak was not a
significant issue before the war._

Your use of the word 'exterminated' makes it sound like you're arguing that
the US is directly responsible for Muslims killing Muslims. Sorry if I
misunderstood you.

 _You never answered my question though: how many of your friends and family
would I have to kill before you turned to violent revenge?_

This is quite obviously a rhetorical question. However, the answer is "not
many", but randomly murdering people wouldn't be my response.

I also would like to see a source that says Israel intentionally attacked
Lebanese civilians.

~~~
MichaelSalib
_Your use of the word 'exterminated' makes it sound like you're arguing that
the US is directly responsible for Muslims killing Muslims._

In general, wars tend to cause lots and lots of people to die. That means that
countries that starts wars for no good reason are responsible for the
resulting deaths.

 _randomly murdering people wouldn't be my response_

I'm glad to hear that your violent revenge would stop just short of murder.
Brave talk from a man who hasn't lost much.

 _I also would like to see a source that says Israel intentionally attacked
Lebanese civilians._

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana#Mohamed_A...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana#Mohamed_Atta)
says "A United Nations military investigation later determined it was unlikely
that Israeli shelling of the U.N. compound was the result of technical or
procedural errors."

~~~
tkahn6
_I'm glad to hear that your violent revenge would stop just short of murder.
Brave talk from a man who hasn't lost much_

I never said I wouldn't kill _you_ if you killed my friends and family.
Murdering random people in response to your actions is not only morally wrong,
but also stupid and throughly irrational.

You are apologizing for people who do this because you claim it's "a natural
human response". Killing random people is _not_ a natural human response; in
my opinion, it's the response of a psychopath.

~~~
MichaelSalib
_it's the response of a psychopath_

Perhaps. But I don't think you are very familiar with history. I've read many
accounts of soldiers, including American soldiers, killing random people
because their friends were killed. In general, such people do not face
discipline. In fact, there are many Americans who urged the killing of
completely arbitrary Arabs or Muslims in revenge -- many of these people are
politicians.

My point is: this sort of psychopathy is quite common and very well accepted
in society provided it is directed against out-groups.

~~~
tkahn6
_Perhaps. But I don't think you are very familiar with history. I've read many
accounts of soldiers, including American soldiers, killing random people
because their friends were killed. In general, such people do not face
discipline. In fact, there are many Americans who urged the killing of
completely arbitrary Arabs or Muslims in revenge -- many of these people are
politicians._

Soldiers _are_ court-martialed and arrested for killing civilians.

[http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/jul/13/no-
prisoner...](http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/jul/13/no-prisoners-
america-at-war/) (scroll to bottom)

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/16/usa.iraq1>

[http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-07-09-us-
cases_...](http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-07-09-us-cases_x.htm)

<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,222220,00.html>

Just because not all are found out and tried does not mean it is condoned by
the military or US society. You clearly have your own dogmatic view regarding
US foreign policy and attitudes towards Muslims and I can't really argue with
someone who has an almost religious belief in a point of view.

~~~
MichaelSalib
_Soldiers are court-martialed and arrested for killing civilians._

Sometimes they are. Oftentimes they are not. The fact that some are does not
prove that regulations prohibiting the killing civilians are uniformly or
frequently enforced. Anecdote is not the plural of data. Surely you see that?

 _Just because not all are found out and tried does not mean it is condoned by
the military or US society._

I'd say that when high ranking political figures publicly advocate the killing
of innocent people in revenge for the crimes of others without any sanction at
all, then...yes, that does imply that American society condones their
behavior.

 _You clearly have your own dogmatic view regarding US foreign policy and
attitudes towards Muslims and I can't really argue with someone who has an
almost religious belief in a point of view._

For someone with "almost religious beliefs", I seem to do a very good job
justifying my arguments with evidence. Perhaps that is the main difficulty you
face in discussions here.

Speaking as someone who almost joined the military and who who has read and
studied a great deal in order to understand how military organizations
function in practice, I don't think you're knowledgeable enough on the subject
to effectively participate in discussion here.

