Multiculturalism. Is it suicide?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Only one faith on earth may be more messianic than Islam: multiculturalism. Without it — without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same — the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fail. It's as simple as that. To live among the believers — the multiculturalists — is to watch the assault, the jihad, take place, unrepulsed by our suicidal societies. These societies are not doomed to submit; rather, they are eager to do so in the name of a masochistic brand of tolerance that, short of drastic measures, is surely terminal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read entire article ...

Multi-tabling it
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only one faith on earth may be more messianic than Islam: multiculturalism. Without it — without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same — the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fail. It's as simple as that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read entire article ...

[/ QUOTE ]

The text, cited above, is coming from a Washington Times writer, which should be warning enough. Nonetheless, the points expressed in the text can be summarily dismissed.

The claim "All cultures are the same" must always be qualified. What is it supposed to mean ?

If it means that every culture has value, in the moral values it is based on and imparts, the claim is correct. If it means that those values are the same in every culture and that, therefore, all moral values are the same, then it is wrong. (People who support leaving alone or condoning barbaric practices, eg clit-cutting, on the grounds that we must respect the customs of others are simply being idiots.)

But multiculturalism stands, generally, for something more easy to understand : Tolerance for the Other, for the Different-than-us, for the Stranger. Accepting as equal in worthiness of respect any custom followed by aliens that's otherwise harmless, eg wearing a turban in Lahore, beads-for-tits in New Orleans, etc.

I'm all for combatting moral relativism, a deviant form of political correctness, yes. But those who are quick to badmouth multiculturalism are usually the folks who are the most prone to intolerance. It's a very reliable call.

Re: Multi-tabling it
 

[ QUOTE ]
But multiculturalism stands, generally, for something more easy to understand : Tolerance for the Other, for the Different-than-us, for the Stranger. Accepting as equal in worthiness of respect any custom followed by aliens that's otherwise harmless, eg wearing a turban in Lahore, beads-for-tits in New Orleans, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus, the point and the problem is that many of the customs and philosophies of Islam are NOT harmless--especially to others (and to women).

What's more, Islam is ANTI-tolerance.

Get it now?

Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
The point and the problem is that many of the customs and philosophies of Islam are NOT harmless--especially to others (and to women). What's more, Islam is ANTI-tolerance. Get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are referring to Radical Islam, I trust.

Otherwise, we should be after the followers of the Jewish Faith with equal ferocity. I mean, better get 'em now, when they are comatose, right?

The resident Jewish expert explains why, after Judaism, Islam is the organized religion that is closest to the truth

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The point and the problem is that many of the customs and philosophies of Islam are NOT harmless--especially to others (and to women). What's more, Islam is ANTI-tolerance. Get it now?

[/ QUOTE ]



You are referring to Radical Islam, I trust.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Cyrus.

Islam ITSELF is intolerant towards others. The *ideological basis* of Islam is intolerant towards others.

The Koran is, literally, intolerant towards others.

"Radical" Islam is a term used to describe the beliefs of those who take the Koran completely literally and seriously, and attempt to put its instructions into practice.

Among those instructions are many, many passages in which the Koran enjoins Muslims to fight unbelievers, to subjugate them, to kill them, to terrorize them.

The Koran calls for personal submission to Allah, AND FOR FORCING THE REST OF THE WORLD TO SUBMIT TO ALLAH TOO.

That is why the Koranic choices to be given to infidels is: to convert to Islam, to submit to Islamic rule and pay a special tax, or to be killed. The goal of Islam is not only personal submission to the will of Allah, but also to rule the entire world by Islamic law (by force where needed). Then the whole world will be at peace, following the will of Allah.

Radical Islamists just take all of this (and more) literally, and try to do it, because they are trying to follow the will of Allah as spelled out for them in the Koran.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is why the Koranic choices to be given to infidels is: to convert to Islam, to submit to Islamic rule and pay a special tax, or to be killed. T

[/ QUOTE ]

This is AN interpretation of the Koran for "infidels" living in Islamic states. The Koran clearly requires that living in peace with peaceful neighbours be practiced, that war was to by undertaken only to defend Islam. The Koran also clearly protects societies and people that are of the book.

Your information sources pick and choose quotes, and interpret them in order to reach predefined conclusions. You reliance of sources like MEMRI is one example (your other linked sources are no less propagandist in nature) of tainted sources.

Militant and extremist Islam are, like all fundamentalists, a danger to free societies.

Some day, perhaps, just perhaps, you will open your mind.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]

Islam ITSELF is intolerant towards others. The *ideological basis* of Islam is intolerant towards others.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and the Bible says you can sell your daughter, whores should be stoned, and when "God" tells you to off someone you'd damned well better do it.

I seem to recall something about glass houses that seems particularly relevant in this thread.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Islam ITSELF is intolerant towards others. The *ideological basis* of Islam is intolerant towards others.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, and the Bible says you can sell your daughter, whores should be stoned, and when "God" tells you to off someone you'd damned well better do it.

I seem to recall something about glass houses that seems particularly relevant in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be relevent if there were a series of stonings against women, offings and selling of daughters in the western world all which was supported by a large segment of the bible following religions. However there isn't. There is a growing number of violent attacks originating in the Islamic world against the non Islamic world.

There may be other interpretations possible but currently this particular intrepretation is a problem and it is naive to pretend that the Islamic religion itself is not a part of that problem.

I don't think it is out of line to A) indentify these teachings as being out there B) identify that they are being used to justify terrorist attacks and C) tell the Islamic world that if they do not take it upon themselves "clean up" their religion on their own then we the rest of society will at somepoint pose the question is culture of Islam as tought in the muslem world compatible with our culture.

That being said I think if the illegitimate governments were in some way removed power and the people had basic freedoms things would be much different.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

ACPlayer, I remember I once posted three alternate translations of certain disturbing Koranic verses, in order to satisfy your objections rgarding "interpretation" or "translation". All three translations were by Islamic scholars, who were also Muslims. All three translations corroborated the plain, literal verses of the Koran, just as I had stated.

You then objected further that you couldn't speak Arabic. Well if Muslim scholars and imams agree on the general thrust of the translation, that ought to be good enough for you, since you know nothing about it.

The "protection" of which you speak only applies to those Christians and Jews WHO AGREE TO LIVE SUBSERVIENTLY UNDER ISLAMIC LAW. Hence my claims are correct.

It has been proven to you but you won't accept it because that would force you to revamp your premises and conclusions.

In other words, it is you who are both highly ignorant and dogmatically close-minded about these issues. But the Muslim scholars and imams disagree with you about Islam. And all you have to do is listen to what they say. But you won't even do that.

Talk about close-minded; you are the very definition of close-minded.

Re: Multiculturalism. Is it suicide?
 

If you believe that we are influenced by moslems coming here (as we clearly are) how do you figure that they are not influenced by the society they arrive to?

Saw a documentary here a about a school with about 60 different nationalities. They make a large group and discuss multiculturalism. A Norwegian girl says: "Soon there will be no point in travelling anymore since all cultures are here". A Pakistani boy answers: "Have you ever traveled? Have you been to Pakistan? I feel like a foreigner every time I go there. Everything is so different from how Pakistanis live here."

Think it sums it up, the strength and nature of the human race is to constantly adjust to different conditions. Culture and traditions changes every decade.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

The ideological basis of the Old Testament is NOT based on forcing OTHERS (non-Jews) to submit to God's law. The Bible does not instruct Jews to force others, by military means if necessary, to live under Jewish law. And the Jews didn't try to do this, either.

The New Testament repudiates the ideas of stoning, etc., and essentially renounces fighting or resisting evil deeds done against one's self.

The ideological basis of the Koran, however, IS based on religious/political/military conquest, and on forcing the entire world to live under Islamic law.

Clear difference.

Re: Multiculturalism. Is it suicide?
 

CNN really warps your minds doesn't it?

I sure hope you guys don't start hating us Canadians next.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
That would be relevent if there were a series of stonings against women, offings and selling of daughters in the western world all which was supported by a large segment of the bible following religions. However there isn't. There is a growing number of violent attacks originating in the Islamic world against the non Islamic world.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, it is relevant in that it should cause you to look for other reasons for terrorism(and there are many obvious reason). Understanding that fundamentalism exploits tensions caused by other factors will lead you to the answer.

Fundamentalists today exploit tensions within our society to push intelligent design, to bash gays etc. These are tensions created by a large secular trend over the past couple of decades. If the christian fundamentalist wants to send young ment to their deaths on a mission and the underlying tensions exist that make this possible, then the fundamentalist will find the quotes in the Bible. Hence the glass house comment is apropos.

Fundamentalists today exploit tensions created in their societies by other factors. We need to understand and work to relieve those tensions. The Bush administration has exacerbated these tensins and thus made us less safe.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]

That would be relevent if there were a series of stonings against women, offings and selling of daughters in the western world all which was supported by a large segment of the bible following religions. However there isn't. There is a growing number of violent attacks originating in the Islamic world against the non Islamic world.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is ridiculous to say that Islam is somehow more violent.

What about IRA bombings over the past 100 years in London? (I'm sure that this is somehow different since it's white Catholics doing the bombing to repel an occupying force, eh.)

What about fundamentalists killing doctors that perform abortions?

What about, say, the Matthew Shephard killing? If that had happened in Mecca we'd somehow try to tie it to "Muslim" intolerance of homosexuality.

Religious radicalism is, was, and always will be inherent in any society to more or less the same degree. The only degree to which it varies is within our own outside and inside perceptions of a society. Islam seems more violent because we, the west, choose to see it as more violent and therefore portray it as such.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is ridiculous to say that Islam is somehow more violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to say, but this shows your deep ignorance of the subject.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

i think if you look at my very last paragraph you will see I don't disagree with you as much as it looks upon first glance.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

Verses out of context can be taken from anything to prove anything.

Until YOU understand that the reason we are under attack is NOT Islam but the use of Islam by extremists you will continue to miss the real reason you are feeling unsafe. You have to understand why the extremists use their extremist interpretation AND why those who practice but dont understand Islam are willing to commit the ultimate sin in Islam (suicide).

The terrorist trends are NOT about Islam. Extremist interpretations are tool used by the extremists. You can accept that it is possible for some to have this view of Islam AND there be no terrorist attack in London like we had last week.

Open the mind, it is refreshing.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]


The ideological basis of the Koran, however, IS based on religious/political/military conquest, and on forcing the entire world to live under Islamic law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, then, that every Islamic scholar in the western world would disagree with you. Islam, as much as I've ever heard, says you must only declare war on those who would seek to oppress Islam. Not those who would live in peace as your neighbor.

Your view that Islam is somehow at the heart of the problem is why we will never achieve a lasting peace in the middle east. In essence, intolerance towards Islam creates Islamic intolerance of others and is thereby a self fulfilling prohpecy.

Me? I'm equally intolerant of all religions.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is ridiculous to say that Islam is somehow more violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry to say, but this shows your deep ignorance of the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

In America we back up our assertions with facts. Why do you hate America?

Re: Still wrong-o
 

Yep. Missed that.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

Perhaps not inherently but in practice currently yes Islam is much more violent than western religions. I don't really see how this can be disputed. And I don't think we should have to interpret their religion for them, Muslems made their current practice of Islam a violent one and until they change that we should not pretend otherwise.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


The ideological basis of the Koran, however, IS based on religious/political/military conquest, and on forcing the entire world to live under Islamic law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, then, that every Islamic scholar in the western world would disagree with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Islam as practiced in the western world is not the problem.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
Muslems made their current practice of Islam a violent one and until they change that we should not pretend otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very few muslims make their current practice of Islam a violent one, just as very few Christians make their current practice of Christianity a violent one.

We should be equally outraged at the actions of both of these small groups of violent people, and we should be equally tolerant (or intolerant) of their somewhat flawed religions.

Otherwise our thinking is ethnocentric and more flawed than either religion.

-ptmusic

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]

Islam as practiced in the western world is not the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If Islam is an inherently violent religion then shouldn't we be worried about the other several-hundred-million that practice it who don't live in the Middle East? Why do they get a pass?

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
ew Global Attitude project
Percentages represent:
(1) Confidence in Osamam Bin Laden
(2) Supports suicide bombings and other violent methods to further Islam

Jordan 60% 57% (up 14% from 2002)
Lebanon 2% 39% (down 34%)
Pakistan 51% 25% (down 8%)
Indonesia 37% 15% (down 12%)
Turkety 7% 13% (up 1%)
Morocco 25% 13% (down 27%)

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you accept the validity of this poll? If so while very few choose to act violently would you disagree that a significant portion support violence and violence specifically against the western world.

Do you think if you conducted a poll in the western world which asked A)confidence in the KKK or some other hate group and B) support of abortion bombings you would see anywhere near these numbers.

Islam may not be the root cause but currently in the middle east it is being used to justify and prompt such action and this use is not being rejected in the same manner similar actions would be here.

I don't think we should condem the entire religion but I also don't think we should also pretend that it is in no way related.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

I wonder if as much violence, bloodshed, and death has occured in islamic nations in the last hundred years as it has in europe. Let's see... fifty million violent deaths in world war two... sixteen million world war one... thirty million murdered in russia after world war two... And let's not forget the deaths we imported to vietnam, korea, afghanistan (the first time), iraq (the first time), afghanistan (the second time), iraq (the second time)...

Maybe christianity is inherently unsafe.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Islam as practiced in the western world is not the problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If Islam is an inherently violent religion then shouldn't we be worried about the other several-hundred-million that practice it who don't live in the Middle East? Why do they get a pass?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've already stated somewhere that Islam is not inherently more violent but that currently in practice it is much more so. Lumping the two (western and nonwestern) as one religion would the same as lumping all bible following religions into one. When I post about the problems of Islam I am specifically talking about Islam as practiced and taught in the non western (mostly middle eastern) world.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if as much violence, bloodshed, and death has occured in islamic nations in the last hundred years as it has in europe. Let's see... fifty million violent deaths in world war two... sixteen million world war one... thirty million murdered in russia after world war two... And let's not forget the deaths we imported to vietnam, korea, afghanistan (the first time), iraq (the first time), afghanistan (the second time), iraq (the second time)...

Maybe christianity is inherently unsafe.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not living in that time so really I don't give a [censored]. If you want to agrue that western religion has kept pace the advancements of society while Islam has not that is probably valid.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
Verses out of context can be taken from anything to prove anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

The verses are hardly taken out of context; it might even be more accurate to say that they ARE the context.

[ QUOTE ]
Until YOU understand that the reason we are under attack is NOT Islam but the use of Islam by extremists you will continue to miss the real reason you are feeling unsafe. You have to understand why the extremists use their extremist interpretation AND why those who practice but dont understand Islam are willing to commit the ultimate sin in Islam (suicide).

[/ QUOTE ]

Islam has a rich and ancient history of attacking non-Muslims, especially neighboring non-Muslims.

[ QUOTE ]
The terrorist trends are NOT about Islam. Extremist interpretations are tool used by the extremists. You can accept that it is possible for some to have this view of Islam AND there be no terrorist attack in London like we had last week.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that SOME reasons for terrorist attacks are not because of Islam, but you are dogmatically stating that the attacks have NOTHING to do with Islam. Given that the Koran in many places advocates attacking infidels, and many imams second that notion, I don't see how you can claim that Islam has NOTHING to do with the attacks.

I think the attacks are due to a combination of factors, of which Islam itself is a factor. You claim Islam itself is entirely a non-factor. It seems to me that my view is the more balanced than yours, especially as my view that Islam has SOMETHING to do with SOME of the attacks is supported both by scripture and by the pronouncements of many imams (and bin-Laden and Zarqawi themselves have listed the religious component in their demands and rationales, among other factors).

I think you just don't want to admit the possibility that the religion itself is inherently ideologically incompatible with the entire non-Muslim world. But that is the actual ideological basis of it. And that is a CONTRIBUTING factor, though not the sole factor, to jihads and to many terrorist attacks.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

60 years ago is not ancient history. And you ARE living in the time of the last three conflicts.

My minutes at the library are up.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

ACPlayer-

I posted a number of Qur’an verses and teachings yesterday -- here they are again. See if you can provide a reasonable 'context', or a 'non-extremist interpretation'.

Good luck.

[ QUOTE ]

Qur’an 2:191 “And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter.”


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Qur’an 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Qur’an 66:1 “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows.”


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them.”


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Qur’an 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends.”


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Qur’an 72:15 “The disbelievers are the firewood of hell.”


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Qur’an 2:64 “But you [Jews] went back on your word and were lost losers. So become apes, despised and hated. We made an example out of you.”


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Tabari IX:69 “Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us.”


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Tabari VIII:130 “The Messenger said, ‘Two religions cannot coexist in the Arabian Peninsula.’ Umar investigated the matter, then sent to the Jews, saying: ‘Allah has given permission for you to be expelled.”


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
60 years ago is not ancient history. And you ARE living in the time of the last three conflicts.

My minutes at the library are up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assumed you were not really trying to link wars like WW1, WW2 & veitnam to Christianitity. I don't mind debating with people who do not share my beliefs but I prefer to keep it within the realms of reality.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
I seem to recall something about glass houses that seems particularly relevant in this thread.


[/ QUOTE ]

Except that people who practice Christianity and Judaism have assimilated into the modern world, and condemn many of the practices in their history. As I recall, the Bible reports many atrocities -- I don't recall it advocating them.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

fluxrad, I have provided numerous posts on this board, showing that that Islam is inherently more aggressive, violent and intolerant towards others than are any other major religions.

I am not going to do it all again right NOW.

However I probably will try to summarize things in a future new thread at some point.

Part of the problem (not a bad problem) is that new people continually come to this board and get into discussions, whereas I have posted here since at least 1999. Not saying that to call seniority, but rather to point out the difficulty of trying to summarize things long since discussed, especially complex things.

All you have to do is read the Koran yourself and you will see the numerous injunctions to Muslims to attack, subjugate, kill and terrorize non-Muslims. Also you might try looking at the history of Mohammed's life, then comparing it to Jesus' life.

Night and day.

That is not to say that both Muslims and Christians have not both done some terribly evil things in the names of their religions. However Islam literally enjoins them to violence whereas Christianity (the teachings of Jesus) espouses non-violence.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
Islam, as much as I've ever heard, says you must only declare war on those who would seek to oppress Islam. Not those who would live in peace as your neighbor.


[/ QUOTE ]

Those who would live in peace must live in Dhimmitude . You can see Europe adapting already ...

Re: Still wrong-o
 

It is a problem in the western world, and has been a problem all over the world. You're just not going to see it unless you follow it.

They've done a great job of promoting the 'religion of peace'. And nazis wanted to 'help' the jews ...

Re: Still wrong-o
 

[ QUOTE ]
Funny, then, that every Islamic scholar in the western world would disagree with you. Islam, as much as I've ever heard, says you must only declare war on those who would seek to oppress Islam. Not those who would live in peace as your neighbor.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK--you must try to understand, the Islamic definition of certain terms is quite different than the Western definition. I will give you an example:

The Islamic definition of "peace" is living under the laws of Islam with your neighhbor, both submitting to Allah's will.

Under Islamic ideology, the world is divided into Dar al-Islam (the House of Peace) and Dar al-Harb (the House of War). The part of the world living under Islamic rule is considered at peace, while the rest of the world is considered at war (against Allah's will).

Dar al-Islam is in constant struggle with Dar al-Harb, until the day that Dar al-Harb will also submit to Allah's will, and the entire world will then be at peace, under Allah, living as He commanded men to live in the Koran.

Another example: the Islamic definition of oppressing Islam is resisting its spread or its preeminence as the only true religion.

If you read more about Islam, what *Muslim* scholars or imams have to say, you will get a better perspective on things like this.

Or you might try www.secularislam.org , which is a very interesting and informative site.

A different twist
 

Multiple cultures exist on the globe and will continue to do so. Many of the cultures will claim moral superiority. What is most dangerous? The cultures blending together or staying on eachothers turf?

I think blending is healthier, if Bush and Osama would grow up in the same street I think both 9/11 and Iraq war would be much less unlikely. Comments?

You are getting to the truth here
 

[ QUOTE ]
Islam may not be the root cause but currently in the middle east it is being used to justify and prompt such action

[/ QUOTE ]

Islam is not the root cause. Once we get beyond that we need to dif to find why its use in some parts of the world is being bought into by otherwise, apparently, intelligent young people. What emotion, what desires are allowing the extremists like Bin Ladin to find college educated young men in their prime of their lives to commit suicide. Why citizens of these lands (we now recognize that their being muslim is ancillary to the analysis) are willing to support the suicide bombers in these large numbers.

Bigots have made Islam the root cause of the suicide bombers. With this comment you have shown that you are on the right track now take the next step. The emotions of these people would be the same even if they were not muslim and they would likely have been willing act if given some cover by their extremist leaders.

Islam is NOT the problem (even if it were a violent, intolerant religion which of course it is not) that leads to the terrorist attacks.

Re: Still wrong-o
 

The door is now ajar (perhaps).

You seem to atleast accept that Islam is not the root of terrorist attacks. Now you need to understand that extremist interpreations of Islam is being used as a tool.

We need to focus on the cause not the tool. Focus on the tool leads us down the path of irrational and intolerant behaviours on our path.

I hope you keep trying to open that (now partially ajar) door in your mind. Attagirl! You have my blessing -- may Allah be with you in this endeavour.