PDA

View Full Version : The Hypocracey of Extremist Islam



Shug
22nd September 04, 07:22 AM
Besides the fact that the Koran is almost identical ethically to scripture (turn the other cheek, do unto others as you would have them do unto you) I was talking with a freind of mine yesterday who happens to be a Decon in the Greek Orthodox church, and the subject came up of a treaty signed by the prophit Muhammad himself that was found in a monastary not too long ago (he's a theology major, and I just happen to know something of other religions from Catholic school... and a few of my religiously diverse assosciates). The treaty states that not only would christians be treated with respect, but that they would be protected under Islamic law. There are even referances relating to inter Muslum/christian marriage.

http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/commodity/1089/id94.htm

Its very interesting, and apparantly the document really was carbon dated and came up legit. Naturally, Extremist Muslums didn't take it too well when the document was discovered, and its interesting to note that even though its been proven legit by science, they still dismiss it as a forgery. What is really interesting, is that it wasn't just directed to christians either;

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/treaty22.html

It seems to me in these cases, espescially since the extremists have been at conflict with the jewish community for so long, its the same exact case as certain redneck christian extremist groups in that certain parts of the text they follow are taken out of context, and combined with customs formulated over years and years of fighting with the Greeks, Hungary, Romania, Spain, The Crusaders etc., etc to basically formulate a standard that suits thier violent and power hungry preferances.

I just find it interesting, in a previous topic, someone asked if there was something in the Koran about sawing off other people's heads. Funny thing is, no its deffinately not (such an act is actually the antithesis of what the Koran is SUPPOSED to stand for) but it IS something thats been a part of their customs for years. The Turks actually used to do it to Greek prisoners back in the middle ages.

Its just a shame really. Not only does it sully their religion, it makes most good Muslums look bad.

Ronin
22nd September 04, 07:58 AM
The one thing that the teachings of the koran and the new testament have in common is tolerance, acceptance and love, yet, those are the very things that are NOT emphasizied.

Remember, religion has and continues to be a convenient excuse for war and acts of hate, even though the vast majority of faiths are against those very acts.

Matt W.
22nd September 04, 08:02 AM
Just like guns, the problem with religion is the people!

Ronin
22nd September 04, 08:10 AM
Correct.

Matt W.
22nd September 04, 08:11 AM
And I say that as a religious person!

Ronin
22nd September 04, 08:21 AM
We forgive you.

Shug
22nd September 04, 09:16 AM
actually, what was I thinking, correction the Turks had a habbit of beheading Greek prisoners during the conflicts in 1897

I think I was thinking of Romania in my above post

Osiris
22nd September 04, 10:11 AM
Um...taking over someones country(ies) kind of negates any treaties that may have been made back in the day. As for Islam, it has more in common with the OLD testament.

Shug
22nd September 04, 10:39 AM
well generally at that time Muslums inhabited really only a small portion of territory i believe, and the purpose of the treaty was pretty much to do what the jewish, christian, and non extremist factions of Islam are doing today, which is to develop a policy of agreement and semi-unity between the different factions.

And almost everything you might think you know about the old testament is taken out of context. "An eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth" yes, but the entire passage is more like "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, that is the law of man, but only the Lord shall pass judgement on the guilty." People tend to leave that part out.... and do unto others was a commandment. Guess which part of the Bible that came from.

Shug
22nd September 04, 10:40 AM
And whether or not its for territory, when you use religion as a blanket, I think that opens any specific group to criticism

Osiris
22nd September 04, 10:47 AM
No, not really. Someone takes over the US. Are you still gonna be religious? Yes. Most likely moreso. Are you still gonna fuck them up? Yes. You think we aren't using religion? Please. Everytime I turn around someones praying for the troops. The troops are probably praying. When they survive, theyre probably thanking God. Politicians and clergy are claiming that this is Gods will. So what makes it different when Muslims do it?

Shug
22nd September 04, 10:51 AM
The fact that when we do something, its usually for something more akin to personal vendetta, profit or something of the like. Not saying thats any better, but I've never heard even Bush go on television or in front of a group of people and vow veangance in the name of God. Also, we've never started conflicts, bombings, etc., etc. on a specific group of people (well, maybe until now, we do focu group terrorists) based on their religion. The Muslums have been terrorizing the Jewish community of the middle east for quite some time now. Thats pretty much the difference.

Shug
22nd September 04, 10:53 AM
oh, and just so you know, I'm not religious, I just think if someone wants to appear or claim faith to something, they should usually follow the original convictions of that faith, rather then distorting them into something different to make excuses for committing atrocities that would otherwise be taboo

Freddy
22nd September 04, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by Shug
The fact that when we do something, its usually for something more akin to personal vendetta, profit or something of the like. Not saying thats any better, but I've never heard even Bush go on television or in front of a group of people and vow veangance in the name of God. Also, we've never started conflicts, bombings, etc., etc. on a specific group of people (well, maybe until now, we do focu group terrorists) based on their religion. The Muslums have been terrorizing the Jewish community of the middle east for quite some time now. Thats pretty much the difference.

You forget groups like the Branch Devidians etc.


Originally posted by Shug
The Muslums have been terrorizing the Jewish community of the middle east for quite some time now. Thats pretty much the difference.
Sounds like a pro Zionist line.

Wounded Ronin
22nd September 04, 11:02 AM
What? You mean violent, religious extremists tend to represent their religion poorly!?

QUICK, CALL THE NEWS TEAM!

Osiris
22nd September 04, 11:05 AM
The fact that when we do something, its usually for something more akin to personal vendetta, profit or something of the like.

Why do you think they kill? They aren't hearing voices, they're killing people because they took over their country.


Not saying thats any better, but I've never heard even Bush go on television or in front of a group of people and vow veangance in the name of God.

Its not needed yet.




ROFL

[quote]The Muslums have been terrorizing the Jewish community of the middle east for quite some time now.

Over territory, not religion. Before Palestinians were blowing up Israelis, the Jews were terrorists fighting for land. The current situaton is relatively new.


they should usually follow the original convictions of that faith, rather then distorting them into something different to make excuses for committing atrocities that would otherwise be taboo

Like Christians do? THATS RELIGION.

Shuma-Gorath
22nd September 04, 11:05 AM
Originally posted by Osiris
No, not really. Someone takes over the US. Are you still gonna be religious? Yes. Most likely moreso. Are you still gonna fuck them up? Yes.

Are you going to kill civilian aid workers who are working to help your starving and diseased? Unarmed prisoners incapable of harming you or fighting back? How about crashing civilian aircraft into civilian infrastructure?

Think real hard about that one. Nevermind that the recent string of executions have been carried out by Jordanians.

Osiris
22nd September 04, 11:11 AM
Seriously, Im not a sadist, but if people are gonna be dying for my cause, its gonna be my enemies, not me. Look at war. No ones gonna walk up and challenge a superior army to make their point. Not the US, not the Taaliban, no one. They're gonna go about it in less direct ways often killing plenty of civilians.

Shug
22nd September 04, 11:12 AM
ok

1.) how can I be a zionist when I was raised Roman Catholic

2.) The main dispute between Muslums and jews have always been over "The Holy Land"

I'm sure they refer to it as such for absolutely no reason

and yes, Osiris, I never said that christians don't distort their own faith, as a matter of fact if you go back and read, I referance and COMPARE it. Good job paying attention.

your just trying to be contradictory now, aren't you?

And I never once said that extremist Islam was alone, I don't know where you ever got that. But I've never seen a christian hack some dude's head off.

If this is something your trying to turn into right vs. left, don't bother. I'm more socialist/libertarian then I am conservative (not to say I don't have a few conservative opinions). I never said i agreed with our army being over there to begin with, if you've EVER read any of my posts on other political topics you would know that. I don't agree with the extreme violence that's being represented by the other side either.

Its not black and white smart guy, I don't believe anyone's in the right. But thats my opinion, if you don't agree, good for you.

Osiris
22nd September 04, 11:14 AM
But I've never seen a christian hack some dude's head off.

Africa. As for recently, no. People tend to be more rational when they're NOT under attack.

Shug
22nd September 04, 11:16 AM
that I can agree on

Matt W.
22nd September 04, 11:16 AM
Osiris, Do you believe the terrorists that cut that guys head off are justified in their actions? How about the one's that destroyed the WTC? If so, why? If not, why not?

Osiris
22nd September 04, 11:20 AM
Id say that the decapitations were NOT justifiable. Sadism isn't unexpected, but its wrong.

The WTC attacks WERE justified as they hit targets of executive, economic and military importance, all of which are instramental in US imperialism. Now, this isn't to say that I support them seeing as I fucking live here, but the reality is that this is a war. You think the US wouldn't kill civilians if it found itself in a bad spot? LOL. Hiroshima.

Matt W.
22nd September 04, 11:24 AM
Thanks for answering. I really am trying to understand why you believe what you do.


The WTC attacks WERE justified as they hit targets of executive, economic and military importance, all of which are instramental in US imperialism.

By "justified", do you mean that those are legit military targets in a war, or that we did something to them that gave them the right (for lack of a better term) to attack us? For the record, when I asked, I meant justified in the sense of "gave them the right to attack us".

WingChun Lawyer
22nd September 04, 11:26 AM
IŽll disagree with you about the WTC attacks, Osiris. This is precisely the kind of symbolic attack which tends to backfire, and it did. Imagine if the USA decided to conquer Mecca. NOTHING good would come out of it for the conqueror.

Attacking the WTC was more or less the same, and it did result in a "war on terror", however misguided.

WingChun Lawyer
22nd September 04, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Matt W.
By "justified", do you mean that those are legit military targets in a war, or that we did something to them that gave them the right (for lack of a better term) to attack us?

Matt, this question is impossible to answer in a rational manner. There is no definite war law stating when it is fair or right to attack another country (the USA did not care about the UN rules when going for Iraq), so an answer would have to be based on moral arguments.

Morally, the USA has done enough in the 20th century to deserve a couple of A-Bombs, at the very least. But, morally, american citizens have zip to do with the events which could justify such actions, so we are stuck with a punishment without a convict.

Antagony
22nd September 04, 11:31 AM
"hypocrisy"

Ronin
22nd September 04, 11:38 AM
The attack on the WTC was a mistake, a strategic blunder is you prefer.
It woke up a "sleeping giant".
And, unless the point of the attack on the WTC was to get the States to flatten Afghanistan and invade Iraq, it backfired, bigtime.

Matt W.
22nd September 04, 11:38 AM
Morally, the USA has done enough in the 20th century to deserve a couple of A-Bombs, at the very least.

That seems extreme. Examples?

WingChun Lawyer
22nd September 04, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Matt W.
That seems extreme. Examples?

Sorry, who are you talking to now?

Shug
22nd September 04, 11:40 AM
:P

Osiris
22nd September 04, 11:47 AM
By "justified", do you mean that those are legit military targets in a war, or that we did something to them that gave them the right (for lack of a better term) to attack us? For the record, when I asked, I meant justified in the sense of "gave them the right to attack us".

I mean that those were legit targets. As far as having a right to attack us, sort of. The US has supported Iraq, Iran, Israel, bin Laden, Saudi Arabia and I probably left some out. Thats not good. It certainly begs a response. Whether or not 9/11 was appropriate or if some other response would've gotten the message across without the same amountof casulties, I don't know. After all, it is the government who's guilty here, not the civilians, but they pay the costs during a war.


The attack on the WTC was a mistake, a strategic blunder is you prefer.
It woke up a "sleeping giant".
And, unless the point of the attack on the WTC was to get the States to flatten Afghanistan and invade Iraq, it backfired, bigtime.

Unfortunately we responded to that blunder with one of our own, turing Iraq into a terrorists playground.

Ronin
22nd September 04, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Osiris
I mean that those were legit targets. As far as having a right to attack us, sort of. The US has supported Iraq, Iran, Israel, bin Laden, Saudi Arabia and I probably left some out. Thats not good. It certainly begs a response. Whether or not 9/11 was appropriate or if some other response would've gotten the message across without the same amountof casulties, I don't know. After all, it is the government who's guilty here, not the civilians, but they pay the costs during a war.



Unfortunately we responded to that blunder with one of our own, turing Iraq into a terrorists playground.

While I don't agree that the WTC were legit targets, unlike the pentagon and the white house, you are 100% right in:

"Unfortunately we responded to that blunder with one of our own, turing Iraq into a terrorists playground."

Freddy
22nd September 04, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by Shumagorath
Are you going to kill civilian aid workers who are working to help your starving and diseased? Unarmed prisoners incapable of harming you or fighting back?

They have certain political moltives in mind.
One group is trying to legitimize themselves and the other is trying to de-legitimize them.




REALPOLITIK!

Freddy
22nd September 04, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Shumagorath
How about crashing civilian aircraft into civilian infrastructure?



It was meant to attack and disrupt economically.



Originally posted by Shumagorath
....Nevermind that the recent string of executions have been carried out by Jordanians.

Politically moltivated. Its meant to create a psychological impact to create shock and horror. Its also meant to discourage further foreign aid workers from legitimazing the current Iraqi "government" (still transitory).


REALPOLITIK!

Freddy
22nd September 04, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Shug
I don't know where you ever got that. But I've never seen a christian hack some dude's head off.



You will find extreamist everywhere that will do things that most of us will condemn.

There are extreamist of all faith. Much like how we have supposibly "Christians" blow up abortion offices or snipe at abortion doctors etc. Its does happen everywhere pretty much.

DANINJA
23rd September 04, 04:48 AM
"I don't know where you ever got that. But I've never seen a christian hack some dude's head off."

No one is innocent-for example a catholic preist is being tried for war crimes:

A Roman Catholic priest accused of taking part in the 1994 Rwandan genocide has gone on trial at the UN war crimes tribunal in Tanzania.
Athanase Seromba refused to appear in court, accusing the tribunal of bias.

He is the first Catholic priest to go on trial at the tribunal, set up after the slaughter of some 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus.

He denies charges that he organised the massacre of more than 2,000 Tutsis at a church in the west of Rwanda.

Former Rwandan army chief of staff Major-General Augustin Bizimungu also boycotted the start of his separate, trial on Monday.

They are unhappy at plans to speed up the work of the tribunal in the town of Arusha, by transferring those found guilty, and possibly trials, to Rwanda.

They say that, as Hutus, they will face "victor's justice" in Rwandan, where key government positions are now held by Tutsis.

Brutal

The BBC's Rob Walker in Kigali says that today vast mounds of earth and concrete are all that remain of the church at Nyange.

Flowers and a row of crosses mark the site, but otherwise it has been left untouched for a decade - one of Rwanda's countless monuments to the dead.

But the killings here, even by the standards of the genocide, were particularly brutal, our correspondent says.

As Hutu militias stood guard outside, the church doors were locked, then bulldozers arrived to demolish the building.

More than 2,000 Tutsis sheltering inside were crushed to death.

It is the parish priest, Father Athanase Seromba, 41, who now stands accused of directing this massacre of Tutsis from among his own congregation.

Faster justice

Rob Walker says the start of Father Seromba's trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda will revive heated debate about the role of the Catholic Church during the dark days of 1994.

The Catholic hierarchy in Rwanda had close ties to extremist politicians in the run up to the genocide and some priests like Father Seromba are accused of actively assisting the Hutu militias.
In 2001, two nuns were found guilty of taking part in the genocide in a Belgian court.

The Vatican accepts there are individuals in the church who committed crimes, but controversially, it says the Church as an institution cannot be held to blame.

At the time of the genocide, some 60% of Rwandans were Catholic but some have since converted to Islam, saying the Church failed them in 1994.

Rwanda's government has criticised the slow pace at which the Arusha tribunal has worked.

But our correspondent says that it has speeded up its work in the past year.

It is supposed to complete all investigations by the end of this year and all trials by the end of 2008

Freddy
23rd September 04, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by DANINJA

No one is innocent-for example a catholic preist is being tried for war crimes:

A Roman Catholic priest accused of taking part in the 1994 Rwandan genocide has gone on trial at the UN war crimes tribunal in Tanzania.
Athanase Seromba refused to appear in court, accusing the tribunal of bias.



I remember hearing about that. It was a supposibly Catholic/Christian priest that participated in the genocide.

Ronin
23rd September 04, 11:32 AM
ORGANISED religion is, without a doubt, one of the plagues of modern times, along with terrorism, and reality shows.

cyrijl
23rd September 04, 11:37 AM
(please post source next time)

At any rate ,this is a bad example because he was killing his own congregation. This was a genocide of ethnicity not religion. (not that one is worse than another)

Freddy
23rd September 04, 11:48 AM
From my understanding it was "Hutu" against "Tutsi" (or something under that line).
I think the point was that people can label themselves (any way they want) ie "Christians", "Muslims", "Judaism" etc. and commit atrocious acts and hiding behind their religion.

cyrijl
23rd September 04, 11:52 AM
Exactly, we don't disagree but the example is not fitting here.

The muslims are using religion to kill non-believers.
The priest is killing other ethnicities using his own ethnicity.

Freddy
23rd September 04, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by cyrijl
Exactly, we don't disagree but the example is not fitting here.

The muslims are using religion to kill non-believers.
The priest is killing other ethnicities using his own ethnicity.

Perhaps you are right that the the example is not fitting here. Although its unfortunate that many have killed in the name of religion.


To say muslims are using their religion to kill non-believers is misleading and inaccurate. There are many Muslims who do not believe this is permitted in the Koran and that these killers are using Islam to serve their own purpose and/or have misinterpret what the Koran is about.

Its just as bad as supposibly "Christians" bombing abortion offices and killing innocent passerby. Or how various supposibly "Christians" would support The Crusades etc.

cyrijl
23rd September 04, 12:02 PM
well i think it is clear (i hope it is) that i am not referring to all muslims just the ones here.

Although anecdotes don't count for much. Let me tell you what my muslim friends told me.

My friend's wife beilves the spread of english in the world is a conspiracy to wipe out arabic and make the koran unreadable (the koran is only the koran in classical arabic). And my friend has let me know quite clearly that is all war broke out, you are a muslim above ANYTHING else. Both of these people are college educated and moderate. Almost had me converting too....

Feryk
23rd September 04, 12:25 PM
When someone seeks to commit acts of extreme violence, they NEED to use some sort of moral suasion to gain support. Even an extremist who hates Americans won't generally bite if someone says, "Hey! They've pissed us off! Strap a bomb to your chest and show 'em who's boss!"

But, if his holy leader tells him it's the will of Allah, and that he will be rewarded in the afterlife for killing the 'Devils', he sees himself sacrificing his life for the good of all.

In the end, it's about spin, not religion. And it happens in every one of them (although I've never met a Buddhist extremist?!?). When this first started, Bush was careful to say he wasn't attacking Islam, but terrorists hiding behind Islam's skirts. I hope that is still the case, and I hope that the rest of Islam understands this.

Freddy
23rd September 04, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Feryk
And it happens in every one of them (although I've never met a Buddhist extremist?!?).


I beleive there was some fights between various Buddhist monks a few years ago in Korea. They were fighting over control of some major temple. What I saw I the news were a bunch of monks throwing things at each other and trying to force themselves into a temple. It looked pretty violent I must reckon. :eek:

Hannibal
24th September 04, 05:32 AM
One thing is for certain. The Arabs are a race incapable off living in peace and harmony both with themselves and others. They have proved that time and time again.

Look at every country arounf the world where Islam is the dominat religion. Be it countries in the Middle East, Indonesia....wherever. These are countries where freedom of though and religion is limited. People are living in stinking third world conditions. The people are oppressed and hatred is rife with bugger all social security.

LOVED2BLOVED
24th September 04, 09:52 AM
my experience with muslims was bad.

back at school, they formed gangs and fought with the white/black/chinese/infidel gang and things got pretty ugly.
i can remember the school let us go early alot of times because they were told that there was going to be a big fight between the muslim group(called NKP which stands for normanton killer pakis, yes , they called themselves pakis,) and the white/black/chinese/infidel gang called the stocky barmy army, or SBA.

Back then, i never took much notice, but as im older, its clear to see that religion was the cause of the fighting. there were even arab guys in the SBA fighting agaisnt the muslims.

also, if you asked about a muslims religion back at school, they would get extremly hostile etc...

when the 9/11 attacks hapenned, they were all celebrating in our computer room drawing pictures of osama bin laden and planes going into buildings etc. They talked about osama bin laden like their hero, but they didnt get in trouble, because our teacher (who was muslim) turned a blind eye. this further exagerated the hostilities between the NKP and the SBA. especially when they talked about you in their own language, not realising you know what the words "kharla" (black) and gura (white) mean.

as i said though, i had many friends who were of arab appearance, and they were very westenised and fun loving, but they was not muslim.

Freddy
24th September 04, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Hannibal
One thing is for certain. The Arabs are a race incapable off living in peace and harmony both with themselves and others. They have proved that time and time again.



What a bigoted statement.

Wounded Ronin
24th September 04, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Hannibal
One thing is for certain. The Arabs are a race incapable off living in peace and harmony both with themselves and others. They have proved that time and time again.





Thank you, Hannibal, for a 1930s moment.

Peter H.
24th September 04, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by Freddy
I beleive there was some fights between various Buddhist monks a few years ago in Korea. They were fighting over control of some major temple. What I saw I the news were a bunch of monks throwing things at each other and trying to force themselves into a temple. It looked pretty violent I must reckon. :eek:

Buddhists do fight, and pretty bloodily in the past, Now days, not that often and it usually involves things like:


The time for talking is over. Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.

Freddy
24th September 04, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by Hannibal

Look at every country arounf the world where Islam is the dominat religion. Be it countries in the Middle East, Indonesia....wherever. These are countries where freedom of though and religion is limited. People are living in stinking third world conditions. The people are oppressed and hatred is rife with bugger all social security.

Your ignorant and predjudice.
Malaysia is a country with a Islamic dominant religion they are neither poor or have freedom of religion limited.
The list goes on even if they are alittle more reserved- Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey.

Wounded Ronin
24th September 04, 10:05 AM
Exactly. Have you ever been to Cairo, Hannibal? It's actually a nice place, you know.

Colin
24th September 04, 11:44 AM
Hannibal is just speaking some racist incomprehensible shit.

cyrijl
25th September 04, 01:34 PM
Malaysia is a country with a Islamic dominant religion they are neither poor or have freedom of religion limited.
Actually Malaysia is poor and in the few areas where muslims control the gov't things are not looking good. There are attcks both on the chinese both in terms of their religious freedom and as well as thier person.

Egypt has a high rate of violent crime. As well as oppression of women the least of which is barbaric frmale circumcision.

The sultan of brunei kidnapps women and uses them as sex slaves.

All that being said.

The buddhist monks in Myanmar have firebombed mosques and raided muslim enclaves. The inquisition was started by some overzealous cathilics (to put it midly). Africa is full of religious wars. Shaka comes to mind. Alot of people in the world have done bad. But the countries you pointed to (esp indonesia) are still horrible places with horrible governments. Turkey committed genocie on the armenians, continues to oppress the ppl in the eastern part of the country. Has horrific human rights violations in their prisons.


Look at every country arounf the world where Islam is the dominat religion. Be it countries in the Middle East, Indonesia....wherever. These are countries where freedom of though and religion is limited. People are living in stinking third world conditions. The people are oppressed and hatred is rife with bugger all social security.
Can someone explain what in this is bigoted and untrue?

You can't call someone bigoted becuz they point out something you do not like. Where there are muslims and black ppl there are alot of problems. That does not mean there are problems becuz they are black or muslim. There are social features which accompany people in enclaves. But you can't just deny the obvious. THAT is what racism is made of.

cyrijl
25th September 04, 01:37 PM
It is the governments using religion to oppress people. In europe and the americas, the governments have largely thrown off their religious garb and dressed themselves in consumerism and democracy as comfort instead of religion.

Jenfucius
25th September 04, 03:21 PM
try being rational for a change, religion buffs

cyrijl
25th September 04, 03:24 PM
thanks for the input, dr. spock. BTW when you find a human design or political system based on logic, you let me know.

Freddy
25th September 04, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by cyrijl
Actually Malaysia is poor and in the few areas where muslims control the gov't things are not looking good. There are attcks both on the chinese both in terms of their religious freedom and as well as thier person.



With all respect I dont believe this is true. I think your confusing Malaysia with Indonesia. Malaysia is one of the more wealthist nations in Asia (of course not the most richest) next to of course Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore.

I know someone from Malaysia. He mentions no atacks of ethnic Chinese. Indonesia yes. But not Malaysia (he says Malaysia is not like Indonesia).

Kuala Lumpur is a expensive city to visit. I know someone that went there just two years ago. They have alot of rapidly growing industries and did alot in building their infrastructor. (If you ever watch the movie "Entrapment" you know those spectacular twin towers are in Kualla Lumpur. )

http://www.mkeever.com/malaysia.html

http://www.export-directory.net/key%20economic%20indicators.html

http://www.asiaspirit.com/a-my.htm

(Hope thats helpful.)

"Egypt has a high rate of violent crime. As well as oppression of women the least of which is barbaric frmale circumcision."
I did say in my post with some "reserve". Meaning I;m not saying its perfect. As for Egypt having a high crime rate I dont think its a fair comparison. Brazil is a non Islamic country but they do have a high crime rate as well.