Talk:Islam In The World/USA

Supporting Israel is truly against the Quran
Supporting Israel is truly against the Quran because the land of holy mosque "Al-Aqsa" was for the Muslims for centuries and then had been stolen and taken be Israel in the 20 century. just do some research الحارث بن همام (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the Quran predates the holy mosque "Al-Aqsa", only the actions/motivations/events that resulted on the dispute can be against the Quran. For what I know other temples existed before on that same spot, so the rational to destroy other temples or the disrespect to impose the construction of other faiths representations on the same spot is what should be in cause. Are those actions sanctioned by the Quran ? (I don't think so, since they seem morally wrong) --Panic (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a passage somewhere saying something similar to what .. um, the posting user is stating. Something about "if soandso harbors those that are the enemy of Islam, then they too are your enemy" or something like that.  I'll have to look it up.  So, while supporting Israel is not in "contradiction" to the Koran, supporting enemies of Islam is.  Since Israel has taken land and brought arms against Islam, they're considered enemies, and as a result, so is the US.  It would be helpful if the contributor would specify what passage, but I'll see if I can find it.  -- Retropunk (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In order for this book to achieve and maintain NPOV in the long run, presumably it must eventually be transformed into something that actually gives reasoned explanations and discussions of these sorts of points &mdash; within the book itself, not just on talk pages. One wonders whether there ought to be a section of preliminary discussion in the top-level TOC, prior to "Countries' relations with Islam".  --Pi zero (talk) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is my opinion that Israel as a state, has acted criminally against populations and states, but it has done so even on those sharing the Jewish religion and there are even documented some acts of aggression made against the US (the USS Liberty incident, countless acts of espionage and political interference). I don't see in any way Israel as defining itself by acts or declaration as an enemy of Islam. --Panic (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Whether Israel is a hostile state isn't the point, nor the point of my response. However, Israel is seen as a enemy of Islam due to their hostile actions against the people and driving them out of their homes/land, whether it's mandated by the UN or not.  The first quote on the main page proves this and gives reason for Muslims to see Israel as an enemy.  Additionally, there are scriptures that state what I have already previously stated (i.e., supporters of enemy states are also your enemy.)
 * I thought this book was to give a NPOV of the world and the Quran. Although, honestly, I think it's impossible for this topic.  I suppose a contrasting view is that the US sees the extremists as the enemy, not the average Muslim, and thus, their eagerness to support Israel and other countries.  The other coin could continue as even the extremist American sees the average Muslim as a threat due to 9/11 and the actions in Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, and to a lessor effect Pakistan, northern China, and former Russian states.   --Retropunk (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The point I was attempting to make is that the Israel's actions aren't selective or take a particular attention to the religious beliefs of it's targets. You do understand that due to that state's geographical location, by having part of its own population and most of the other states on its neighborhood having the Muslim faith, that makes it implausible as an argument that there is an intrinsic anti-Islamic intention on those actions. For instance Indonesia and Timor was a very similar problem but you wouldn't claim that the Indonesian government was anti-Christian (even if acting against the Christian faith).
 * I agree that some hostile actions and the driving people out of their homes/land could be stated as an action against the teachings of the Quran, if you intend to add it, it should be written in a more NPOV way, but then there is a need to create some equilibrium and the same critiques must be shared by any other violators, even Islamic nations. And if this path is to be take we must state on the scope what should be covered in relation to the time frame, or we will be adding things from the Islamic civil war and the crusades.
 * Almost every human being will transgress over some preset of the Quran at some point in life and nations are formed by people.
 * I agree that it is an hard preposition to make it a NPOV, but it shouldn't be an impossible work, even the process of establishing what is acceptable content is productive on this case since it attempts to create consensus on a very split subject, all participants will benefit and in the end all can agree to disagree and state that in the work.
 * The external policy of the US regarding Israel is not because of the extremists, the US has a strategic interest in Israel mostly because of political power at home by the American-Jews, the electorate and because Israel is the stablest democratic country on that part of the world. We could argue that Israel as a nation is a destabilizing factor but the region had already problems before Israel was created and we should acknowledge that the US external policy was always tinged with self interest above all else (they are capitalists, see the mess they made of south America and the general impact they had on the world), they aren't any shining example in respect to human rights also, locally and abroad, so expecting that they perform above average as a nation is unrealistic at best. The EU also supports Israel and the reasons are basically the same... --Panic (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem of creating a debating area inside of the book is that we must respect the book format and even if there is still some minor NPOV issues they are being addressed constructively... --Panic (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But I will support the centralization of all talk pages in a single page, to me this is still a problem of Wikimedia software in Wikibooks. --Panic (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "a debating area inside of the book", but I suspect that we don't disagree in substance on this point. A book like this one oughtn't contain a "debate".  However, it may present facts about a topic.  (I would call such a presentation a "discussion", but that's a very different sense of the word than the sort of "discussion" between multiple people that is a near-synonym for "debate".)  If some people think one thing and some other people think another, the book can and should say so &mdash; with a single, objective voice (even though written by multiple people).  --Pi zero (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. But then I don't understand the proposal for "there ought to be a section of preliminary discussion in the top-level TOC", did you mean a introduction or a better scope definition ? I thought you wanted to add an active talk page (or similar structure) to the book's TOC, can you explain better what you were proposing...
 * Wikipedia pages like Muslim world, Muslim and Islam could be transwikied into the project and reshaped to provide clarity and some useful background. --Panic (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed point about support for Israel
I removed the following bit: "Unilateral and unbalanced support for Israel. Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states, and in consequence, Israel controls territories beyond those delineated in the 1949 Armistice Agreements. The US is also know [sic.] for suppling war material that is later used against civil populations." As far as I know, the Quran does not forbid support against any specific country or forbid supplying arms used to terrorise civilian populations. If that is the case, I suppose that the scope of this paragraph should be broadened as the US has engaged in such acts all over the world. --Swift (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since killing of civilians is amoral and most mainstream religions don't support amoral acts, in this case Israel could be seen as in violation of the Quran and I presume also of the Tanakh. (I would support extending this to cover the other side for balance, like the PLO, Hamas etc). I'm not objecting to the removal but I'm stating my disagreement to your rationale and will support any request to restore it. IIRC I was the one that rewrote the previous text for balance. You have also to consider that the Quran due to the time it was written/compiled seems to be very specific on how to deal with other religions, specific territories or land disputes... --Panic (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean "rationale"? I don't really understand what you disagree with. Should you respond, please be brief and to the point. --Swift (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes (corrected it). I've said it all above, morality is the basis of mainstream religion, amoral acts are by default "against" accepted faiths, even the sense of being fair/balanced when men deal with each other is part of good moral. In any case this point is a core issue of many muslims (even non radical ones), my view is that it derives on how most US external actions have no consideration for the social aspect of issues and are mostly all based on self interest, in other words the problem seems to be raw capitalism in action. --Panic (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that you disagree with something. Let's just leave it at that. --Swift (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)