Islamic fundamentalism

[ElectricBadger]

Very good topic! A few thoughts:

Taking non-military hostages is also a one way ticket to hell. Not to mention executing them.

Yes, lots of things -- murder, mayhem, general abuse of innocents -- are quite horrid under Islam. They're also rather frowned upon in Western cultures, and yet a glance at, say, world war II and the large-scale slaughter and abuse of civilian targets (carpet and fire bombings, targetting of civilian industrial/transportation targets, rocket attacks, concentration camps -- by both sides -- and of course, nuclear weaponry) shows how easily heinous crimes are excused by the "necessities of war." Understanding how an 18 year old caucasian Texan star quarterback, cub scout and altar boy could firebomb Hamburg and return to a hero's welcome will probably help in understanding the violence -- and acceptance -- of eastern extremists today. I'm not saying they're right -- nor that we were wrong in the 40's -- but there is a large grey area that's often ignored.

"breaking the rules" is, ironically, what all fundamentalists seem to have in common.

True, but it's also good to keep in mind that non-fundamentalists are pretty good at this too. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? Honestly, the entire idea of following ALL the religious rules is pretty ridiculous from any Christian perspective: that whole "Reformation" and "Counter Reformation" thing ensured that every Christian is throwing out some of the rules.

Another amusing thing Karen Armstrong points out is the distorted view of the crusades.

That's...an interesting perspective on the Crusades; can't say it's one I agree with.

With a loose alliance with the Byzantine empire and the rather spastic west, not to mention incomparable heavy knights who dominated battlefields, the Crusader States were much more than they seemed. They were definitely noticed, there just wasn't much to do about them; the best way to deal with the wacky Franks was to let them keep the only city they were motivated to take. Nor were the Islamic empires they faced in any shape to squish them. But the capture of Jerusalem in particular was very well documented and widely resented, still creating enough political pressure a century later to force Saladin (against his own preferences -- he wanted to head north or east, to richer and easier conquests) to retake the city as part of his effort to unify the Middle East (he wasn't just one emir, he was bringing everything together, thus his astoundinglyawesomeness) -- which led to some spankings by Richard of that huge squashing army you mentioned. So, yeah, the European religious wackos made an impact; they just made a much bigger one in Europe, where every king and pope made explicit efforts towards publicity.

[TomOfSweden]

True, but it's also good to keep in mind that non-fundamentalists are pretty good at this too. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"? Honestly, the entire idea of following ALL the religious rules is pretty ridiculous from any Christian perspective: that whole "Reformation" and "Counter Reformation" thing ensured that every Christian is throwing out some of the rules.

Sorry being late in the answer here. Yeah, but the non-fundamentalists have the excuse for not following all the rules. They're not fundamentalists.

I can't really give a retort about anything else because I know far too little about both Islam and the Crusades. Apart from the fact that all the symbology in every culture and religion meant something different today, than it did back then.

You seem to be the Libraries resident history buff so I'm going to assume you're making these comments for good reason and not pick a fight