DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

Jared 90% of your post make absolutely no sense… Including this one. What the hell are you trying to say man?

I will answer this question with a question;

Where is the birthplace of Islam?

That answer should let you know just who and where the enemies of the entire world are.

It lets you know that.

It does not let the rest of us know that because this statement does not demonstrate that anyone who is Islamic represents a threat to them, or that the birthplace of Islam represents some special significant enemy of American interests. None of these are in fact real threats. They are imaginary problems that convince you of a danger, but do not constitute reality as a problem for Americans, American foreign policy, or those of our allies.

There are actually real geopolitical reasons to consider Saudi Arabia and its regime's behavior as nominal rival or opponent, or otherwise constituting a hazard to both short and long term American interests. Perhaps you should try investigating those.

Read the Koran.

In the Koran it dictates what Islam and its followers must do.

And what is that?

KILL anyone and everyone who does not or will not follow Islam.

And that is exactly what the followers of Islam have been doing since its inception.

You did not read the Qu'ran. Because that is not what it dictates to do.

That's a hadith and it is not actually a literal command to be used at all times. It is a command to kill your enemies, which is pretty much what you command people to do when there's a war. It is not a command to MAKE war when there is not one. Hence it says nothing about killing people who do not follow Islam (in fact there are significant passages about legal structures for people who do not convert to Islam under Koranic law and that they are to share most of the same rights, which makes this idea of cosmic eliminationism that you're proclaiming into existence seem a little strange)

And as I usually point out, there are billions of Muslims. Most of them, almost all really, by this logic are apparently very poor at being Muslim. Your opinion of Islam and Muslims may be closest to that proclaimed by Al Qaeda, and the net result seems about the same (kill all Muslims, they're more prolific at it than anyone else on the planet), but is not reality, nor the actual dictates of Islamic or Koranic laws.

It is a perverse cosmic fantasy shared by a handful of extremists on both sides of the Atlantic.

Your perception of Islam is just as flawed as Islam wants it to be.

Because it is not yours?

It's not my fault that I've actually read various religious texts interpretatively and can thus account for things like the existence of numerous Islamic majority countries that are often aligned with many of our pro-Western democratic values (Turkey or Indonesia, Malaysia, etc) when your argument implies such things should not exist.

The problem with your idea is that you think we should be enemies with Saudi Arabia simply because they're an Islamic nation. I think we have a lot better reasons to be skeptical of the Saudi regime and its international behavior than their religious views and domestic practices of repression.

The flaw is explained in your statement; "It's not my fault that I've actually read various religious texts interpretatively and can thus account for things like the existence of numerous Islamic majority countries that are often aligned with many of our pro-Western democratic values (Turkey or Indonesia, Malaysia, etc) when your argument implies such things should not exist. "

If you have actually read the Koran, then you would know that only an Imam is allowed to interpret it and that all followers must abide by what the Imam dictates – hence we have suicide bombers and stonings.

The Koran also dictates that all non-believers must be eliminated by any means at hand should they refuse to convert. It also states that no other religion or belief is to be tolerated under punishment of death.

And all this comes out of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.

So.. by your logic.

1) Nobody but Muslims should read the Qur'an. And therefore, no amount of what is actually in it should interest you. You have demonstrated this by not actually quoting the passages which say what you say they do. The Surah you are continually referring to as a definitive "proof" has considerable theocratic scholarship (both from outside and within Islamic jurisprudence) and a long history which demonstrates that basically most Muslims and Muslim regimes are, by your reckoning, not very good Muslims. Because they did not maim and kill all infidels as their holy book supposedly commands them to. It actually commands, as I've pointed out, to kill your enemies in war, which is pretty sensible advice as any good general could tell you (a great general would say you should be able to win without fighting battles).

The Quranic laws and hadiths that make up shariah are heavily dependent on context. They have the misfortune as, say, Leviticus does, of being part of canonical books and thus to be too easily taken literally (while ignoring contradictory passages). This is not a human function limited to Muslims as a result. It repeats itself through nationalism, other major religions (consider the slaughters depicted in the Old Testament or the Crusades), ethnic divisions, and other us-them paradigms. The problem is the us-them dynamic that humans are prone to, and not the specific mechanisms deployed by demagogues throughout the ages.

2) It doesn't actually say that imams should be the only ones allowed to interpret it. In fact, there aren't any mentions of imams, nor does it decree that the people are to follow any such people. Both the Qur'an and the hadiths stress the importance of individual will and conscience over any official clerical decrees (go read them, you clearly have not actually done so). The existence of nominally theocratic states in Islamic society is challenging to this idea, but is hardly much different from the amount of Christian influences upon many Western societies (consider that we often get Sundays off, Christmas, blue laws, laws concerning birth control restriction and so on, by official government action). When we consider how widely pervasive Christian values have been imposed by law, it should not be surprising that Islamic peoples would choose the same force and methods to impose their values upon their society. And in any case, many Muslims within those theocratic states see them as intrusive and repressive, but lack the numbers or backing to overthrow American/Western-backed regimes like that of Mubarak in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. We are seeing evidence of populist opposition to such repression which suggests it's not all that popular to just listen to what the guy in charge says.
3) This also is in the Qur'an:

"whoever slays a soul, unless it be for murder or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew entire mankind; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept entire mankind alive". I have a hard time seeing how that is to be not interpreted when other passages supposedly command death. When there are contradictions like this in theology, regardless of the religion, it implies that interpretation and context are needed.

5) Your retort still does not deal with the geopolitical reality of places like Indonesia, Turkey, etc. It's true there are Islamic extremists. But there are also other forces, ethnic or national interests, and economic conditions, which weigh heavily on the behavior of Islamic majority nation-states. The main reasons to oppose Saudi interests are as follows:
a) oil. Energy independence or at least trade that does not enrich repressive dictatorships like the Saudi regime.
b) Disentangling ourselves from a regional hegemonic/religious conflict between Wahabbis who control Saudi Arabia and Shi'a clerics who control Iran. That's their problem, not ours.
c) decreasing our own foreign aid and support for repressive dictators who favor American policies and diminishes the extremist narrative of American hypocrisies regarding "freedom" in the region (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, and Qatar are among these, all of these regimes are often considered allies). Fewer recruits to commit atrocities would result.
d) decreases our national footprint in the region as well, making it harder to describe the US as an occupying nation or foreign interloper in domestic affairs, another popular extremist troupe.

We helped them get a strong army. I would hope they would use it to help us in our time of need just like we helped them…..Not like when we gave Afghanistan all that money and weaponry to kick the Soviet Union out of their homeland and use what we gave them to start a war with us….and do you know who was in charge of the resistance? Osama Bin ladden