What can peaceful Muslims do to help stop terrorism?
Most Muslims are peaceful. Why are they not more vocal in denouncing terrorism? If ISIS has 40,000+ terrorist and other terrorist groups have lesser numbers, what percentage of the Muslim population is violent. I understand that those in the Middle East are afraid. What about those living outside the Middle East.
Vocalization will not stop ISIS, although they will stop the one speaking.
It is far too late to stop ISIS with anything but violence. Until the people in the street take up arms against them they will continue their killing spree.Wilderness, the scary thing is we don't know many of the loose canons and lone wolves until they kill someone. There would be mass anarchy if everyone is armed. Scared people would kill innocent people.
Yes, people will die. More, in the short term, than if they don't fight, but far fewer in the long term than if they do.
Freedom has a price, and if it isn't paid there will be no freedom.It is beyond me how kids in Colorado or anywhere in the US or Canada can decide that they need to go join ISIS. After watching people beheaded and shot, and hearing about women and children being raped, how could they think they'd be better off. Teachers should show videos and have discussions with kids. A student told me that the US is always meddling in other people's business.
I actually understand the anger of the extremist Muslims against both their own and especially the US. It is hard to justify forgiveness of the US when they have seen their friends and family killed by our military. I get that. I'm not sure "collateral damage" and all the good motives in the world can make you forget a child or a wife with their body dismembered after an explosion. There's a lot of anger there, and a lot of it understandable... even though what they have done with it is completely unacceptable.
As far as why Americans or kids would join, well same there. If my sympathized with only one group or didn't understand all the issues, then I would be terribly angry. Children lack the full picture understanding and empathy/compassion is sometimes all encompassing.
As long as generations of children keep getting killed by bombs with American flags on them, there are going to be angry people. We probably should address that or kill them all. Those are really the only two options to eliminate the hate. I'd prefer the former, but it is unlikely to be an option... both sides are willing to kill rather than communicate. We won't accomplish the latter either because exterminating several billion people might be outside our capabilities. So we will continue to "shock and awe" and they will continue to strike at us in any way they can.It is. It's both easy and difficult to show sympathy and or support for either and both sides. It depends on what point in the cycle we are in I guess.
Scared people tend to be "awake people" though. I am not sure that I agree that scared people will kill people. Scared people, scared of a legitimate threat, don't want to kill an innocent, and often only want to not be killed. Its like we are all moving backwards in terns of being civilized, to have to even be talking like this. Yet we do have to be talking like this, by no fault of our own. I personally don't want to have to leave my views I hold, to join up with others in an effort to survive. As we have seen with stories of beheadings, it often doesn't save a person's life anyway.
I was horrified when I saw the news footage last night of the Paris attack again, for I had not seen the video of the police car backing up real fast, trying to get away. For some reason, I had never noticed that before. Trying to back away, that was the defense. Before last night, for some reason I only saw the woman officer on the ground, pleading for her life before being shot, and them picking up something to get back into their car.I haven't see the female officer shooting. I thought the officer backing up the car would loose control of the back end. We all have philosophies. I sure wish we had a solution.
That was not a woman officer on the pavement. It was a male officer and he was not shot in the head by an AK47. The gunshot was a yard away which fell on the pavement and did not damage it. The videos are on Youtube.
Before the gunmen got out of the car there were 3 police officers who walked past it. The roads were all empty, not a soul or a car was driving by even up to 300 yards away. The third 'terrorist' was in class 1,500 miles away North of France and when he saw his name in the news he went to a police station and then was pardoned.
The woman who was supposed to be an accomplice with the guy who held people hostage in a Jewish shop was not even there because she had travelled to Syria a week before.
Sometimes you've got to look outside the box and find out the truth other than through the media.Sorry i thought you were talking about the guy on the floor who apparently got shot in the head with an AK47.
I don't disagree with this, but surely hopefully people won't have to defend themselves here like they have had to in Australia and France as of late? This kind of terrorism understands a particular kind of "communication." Its all an unpleasant topic, but lets not forget what keeps forcing it to be a topic either. The defense I keep on seeing of what amounts to core bad ideas, is alarming to me. Likewise, the demonizing of people that just really, want to live and have their kids live, etc.
I have to think people aren't just siding so much with evil for a variety of reasons, but more am thinking they are scared out of their wits, that is much easier to turn a blind eye to all they are seeing in the news? "That is over there, way way far away.....it will never come here....," that kind of thinking? That doesn't help anything, and allows terrorists to do what they do best. THEY know this, if we don't. They are thinking that with all the PC talk, this is prime time!! Just last night, on the news was talk of there being sleeper cells here, in the USA. Yet they would likely be mocked or demonized for that, while the possibility is very likely, based on what we have seen and heard.They were so terrorized and ill-equipped that it is unlikely that they will revolt. However, with Jordanian on the warpath and the air strikes, they may get some courage.
The people in Syria have tried revolting; that is what the civil war there is all about. But they cannot fight the Iranian-backed Assad regime and the ex-Saddam-Hussein regime now called ISIS at the same time. (Many of the leaders of ISIS are former Iraqi military commanders.) 'ISIS' stands for 'Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.'
Not to mention the fact that there are now more than 9 million Syrian refugees who are not in a position to fight anyone.
When Obama pulled out of Iraq in 2011, he opened the way for ISIS. Now, he doesn't want to upset Iran by intervening against Assad or against Iranian interests in and support of Shias in Iraq. (The Iraqi Civil War between the Shi'a and Sunni factions has killed hundreds of thousands of people and displaced at least 2.7 million since 2006.) Defeating ISIS in Syria right now would mean Syria's continued alliance with Iran and an Iranian takeover of Iraq. The coalition against ISIS is falling apart because of this. Coalition members feel they are being used as pawns to facilitate Iranian interests and they, rightly so, are calling for an answer from Obama.
In the past 24 hours, the Egyptian military killed 77 ISIS-linked terrorists in battles in the Sinai. ISIS now calls this territory the “Province of Sinai.” Do you know where this is? This is on the main highway linking the Egyptian cities of el-Arish and Rafa, next to the Gaza strip and southern Israel. On Israel's northern border, 95% of the Syrian Golan Heights is now controlled by ISIS and missiles have been fired into Israel, resulting in an immediate Israeli response. How long do you think Israel will tolerate that situation on both its borders without a major confrontation? How long would the US tolerate such a situation on its borders?
According to The Wall Street Journal, "Similar Islamic State franchises have also sprung up in parts of Yemen, Algeria and Libya – where the 'Province of Tripoli' claimed responsibility for a deadly attack on one of Tripoli’s main hotels."
And all of this is happening while Iran continues to operate thousands of centrifuges for the enrichment of bomb-grade uranium.
This is far more than Jordan can handle alone. Do you know that the Jordanian strike against ISIS in Iraq required 30 F-16s – 1/2 of the total Jordanian fighter jet assets? Jordan is a country with only 7 1/2 million people. It is also housing 1.3 million Syrian refugees in tent cities. Obama has failed to supply Jordan with the military assistance it has asked for to battle ISIS and Obama has failed to supply the Kurds, though Congress supports both requests. To contradict Obama's lack of leadership and failure to support the Jordanian military, the UAE just sent a squadron of its own F-16s to Jordan.
Obama's lack of resolve in the battle against ISIS and his refusal to counter Iranian ambitions in Syria and in Iraq are without excuse. World historians will never forgive these inactions. Neither will the people who are dying.Writer, you are full of information that gives me cause for thought. Some of it I already knew. Obama was so sure that he could get the whole world to get along just by minding our own business. I think pulling troops out of Afghanistan is going to be a terrible mistake also.
I'm sure that the Mueller girl is dead. It was long before Jordan's surge. I'm sure they did horrible things to her. The burning of the pilot was horrible; however, they do horrible things all the time. Maybe the pilot's family status pressured the king into the current action.
I've got to read through your comments again but I did want to respond.
Thank you for taking time to put that information out for us.some really good info there writer... thanks for sharing.
There are many Muslims that do stand against ISIS. If they didn't, ISIS wouldn't have to fight it's way through the middle east. The reason they are fighting is because they are encountering resistance. The Muslims that stand against them are killed daily yet still continue to stand. Those outside of the middle east do speak against the violence. A simple Google search will provide thousands of results of such. You have to search for it though, because it doesn't make the major network news.
That was a good suggestion Melissa. I must remember that the media loves the hype. This is one interesting site I went to: http://www.kamranpasha.com/blog/?p=68
The Government should take the media to task on this. We then might not have to spend so much money fighting terrorism. The outlaws belong in jail; however, that works to their advantage. They have meetings, recruit and strategize the whole time they are there.It's growing, too. A hopeful sign for the survival of Islam.
Good muslims are living all over the world.but terrorism is not depend on need our freedom.All the country to give the freedom of muslim.Muslims are a man , aren't terrorist.
The French ones have an opportunity coming up on Sunday. Paris is hosting an organised protest march in Paris regarding condemnation of violence and the attitudes to free speech etc etc. 10% of the French population are Muslims, so hopefully they will be well represented at this event.
Many will be afraid that they are putting targets on their backs.
There is a price for freedom, and a very high one sometimes. Yet...those unwilling to pay that price will not have freedom, either.
Look up Patrick Henry and what he had to say about it. I agree with him.
So... though you are sitting comfortably in your recliner, typing away your opinions online, in the warmth of your home right now... you are willing to take your life, your children's lives and your grandchildren's lives and strap on a gun and stand in front of terrorists? And after they behead your grandchildren in front of your eyes and take your daughters as sex slaves... your point will have been...?
They have already risked everything to denounce the terrorist's actions. They have publicly made sure the world knows they are not involved with the murderous villains. So what actual action do you want them to take? And more importantly... why are you expecting these family's to go to war with terrorists? That's the whole point of military. They are well trained men and women who are armed and prepared to do battle. They usually come with not only the backing of a government, but allies from other lands.
I don't feel like what you've shared here is realistic or thought out. I think you are expecting these ppl to commit suicide, with no gain, and for no other purpose than to please your cavalier, John Wayne outlook.Oh my. I know this was a response to Wilderness. And I know I am butting in. And I am typing from an office chair and not a recliner, but...
I can't imagine how anyone could be anymore misguided than you are with this response.
Yes! I will stand myself, my wife, my children, and my grandchildren in the breech before the terrorists. What the hell kind of person thinks it is the responsibility of "the protectors" (the military), to guarantee their freedom - if they are not willing to make the same sacrifice they are asking of them?
And the "they" you speak of have done what? I have not heard them denounce the terrorists en masse' I have heard one or two cable news speakers say "Hey, it ain't us" - but I have not heard what you say you have. And why do you say they have risked everything? Who has risked anything? One or two Joe Blow Organization talking heads? Where is the voice of all the "peaceful" Muslims? I can't hear them.
What to risk? What to gain? John Wayne attitude? Tell me Se-me, what is your liberty worth to you? What would you do to protect your and your children's liberty - call 911?
GAIm not talking about the ideal of fighting for your country. Im talking about the fact that wilderness appears (according to the other thread on this subject) to be holding these ordinary folks responsible. They are speaking out against the terrorists actions. It's all Ive been hearing about for 2 days.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre … fine-islam
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/0 … 29710.html
http://www.newsweek.com/france-charlie- … bia-297480
If them sharing the same skin color and birth place makes them personally responsible, fine. If that is not the case, and he holds them responsible, then he is responsible too. Whoever gets off his couch first, wins.
I think it was Monica Crowley yesterday or the day before, that had an answer for this that i had not heard put quite in the way she did. I might try to find the quote, but it gets one thinking. I don't want to attempt to say it here, and totally get it wrong.
Its a good question...what would really explain so many being silent on speaking out against such violence?I just read this forum, and except for mohamedimrankhan, I don't think there are any other Muslims contributing to the discussion. I think that is a serious problem with this discussion/question. All of us seem to be discussing different viewpoints that we are getting about Muslims from the media, but we are not hearing anything from Muslims themselves. It becomes a sort of echo chamber of third-hand exaggerations building on top of each other. On this discussion/question I generally agree with the viewpoints of mohamedimrankhan, Sed-me and Castlepaloma. I have plenty I would like to contribute here from my own experience, but at this point I would prefer to hear the opinions of Muslims rather than get on my own soapbox. I know if I was a Muslim right now, I'd be extremely angry that non-Muslims somehow expect me to be keeping tabs on all 1.8 billion other Muslims at all times.
Agree
If no Muslims have an opinions here. I'm out.This may explain why they are not contributing to the post. Muslims all over the world are denouncing the terrorist acts, but those kinds of things don't make the news. And people are eager to have someone to yell at, so presenting yourself on a forum is like presenting yourself as a target.
I liken it to the Oklahoma bombings or Ted Kacynski. Yes, I know these are old things, but this argument has been going on for a long time. What did good Christians do to stop them from using Christianity for their horrible actions? Nothing - most of them didn't even know them or even about them until they did their horrible crimes. What about the KKK, that's an ongoing thing. What are good Christians doing about that? Nothing - most don't know what to do, and besides, they are busy working to make ends meet and take care of their children. And even if they tried, the KKK is a group that feeds off the ideas of each other. They won't be easily convinced to think a completely new ideology.McVeigh bombed as a strike against government tyranny, (as he perceived it to be)
Kaczynski killed because he hated society and wanted revenge for its impact on his life
The KKK does what it does in the name of white supremacy
None claimed to be acting with religious motivation. So why do you present them as counter-examples to Islamic Extremists who are all about religious motivation? If those are the examples that you see as relevant, them why didn't you ask what white people are doing to stop them? They are certainly more affiliated with that group than with any religious group.
ps. I don't think anyone was asking peaceful Muslims to "keep tabs" on the Extremists. I think non-Muslims are thinking that these extremists appear to be a part of most Muslim communities. Should we think that other Muslims don't have a inkling of suspicion about the radical mosques? Or that they never hear about Shahid or Abdulla and their secret after-mosque meetings? Or any of the stuff that indicates a less than peaceful agenda?
Or why we don't seem to hear about terror plots foiled because of Muslim tipsters?
As for not commenting for fear of targeting - I have participated in many other forums with topics similar to this, and there were plenty of participants that were part of a group being discussed. Never heard them say what you think.
GAExcellent points GA. I didn't realize there was supposed to be a Christian motive for Ted Kacynski or the Oklahoma bombers. It is not Islamic terrorist against Christians. It is Islamic terrorist against Christians, Jews, non-radical Islamists, and all other infidels. No, I don't Muslim community to keep tabs on terrorist but definitely disagreeing with them might help. I understand that many plots are exposed by anonymous information from non-radical Muslims. Today there was a group of Islamic religious leaders speaking, as a group, against the murders in Paris.
All three DID act in the name of Christianity. You may have forgotten because it isn't brought up as religious terrorism. Why does the KKK burn crosses? If someone says Allahu Akbar right before doing something, it doesn't necessarily mean they are doing it in the name of religion any more than someone saying Oh God is necessarily doing it in the name of Christianity. It seems, though, that any time a Muslim does something, as soon as someone finds out this person was a Muslim, or happens to have a Muslim name, then they must have done it in the name of their religion.
That's exactly my point. Islam is worldwide. Why ask all Muslims to denounce these acts? Why not choose their countrymen instead? A peace-loving Muslim in United States is not going to have much knowledge or influence about the terrorist groups in the middle east or Africa.
People tend to hang out with people who think like them. A peace-loving mosque will not have radicals in it, and if it does, these radicals are not likely to openly announce their ideas. And yes, there have been reports of terror plots that have been foiled because of Muslim tipsters.
That's because they stop talking. People only see things from their own point of view, and rarely try to see it from the other person's point of view. That's why I brought up these other terrorist acts. Just as you were helpless to do anything about them - (the KKK is still an ongoing group, what are you doing about that?), so are the peace-loving Muslims helpless. In fact, we don't even know where the next radical group is going to come from, and we may not even even speak the language they speak. How do you think we are going to be able to talk them out of it or even know what their plans are?How can you be so certain of that? McVeigh wrote a letter stating his reasons - government tyranny, Kaczynski wrote a manifesto that repeatedly stated his hatred of society as his motivation - so where is the evidence of the religious motivation?
As for the KKK, yes the burning cross was their symbol, but their actions were not intended to convince folks of color to come to God, their actions were to purge and subjugate those folks of color. White Supremacy. But, of the three examples, the KKK's actions may be twisted to be seen as religiously motivated with enough mental contortions to get to where you want to be. But it is a very twisted road. I would also note that the KKK was vigorously and publicly denounced and opposed by the bulk of our nation - Christians and white folks alike.
GA
1) When it was discovered that there was widespread child abuse in the Catholic Church, did you ask "Why are Christians not more vocal in denouncing child abuse?" And was it assumed that because not every Christian on the planet explicitly condemned child abuse in the Catholic church, that therefore most Christians support child abuse? No, because that would be absurd. So is it your expectation that every Muslim should condemn ISIS? If so, why?
2) Your question is frankly offensive to the thousands of Muslims who are not merely condemning ISIS (from a safe distance) but actually taking up arms against ISIS and resisting them.
3) How does an ordinary Muslim voice their condemnation exactly? Through the mainstream media? Which story do you think is considered more "newsworthy": a) 12 people shot dead by Muslim extremists in Paris b) A Muslim school teacher in Pennsylvania condemns Muslim extremism? Which of those stories do you think will make the 10 O'clock news? But just because you don't see it on CNN, doesn't mean it isn't happening. If you want a more realistic view of the world, look beyond mainstream media.
4) Let's not forget, one of the police officers who died in Paris was a Muslim. He died defending the right of a magazine to make fun of his religion. And the supermarket clerk in Paris who ushered several customers to safety was also a Muslim. Those are the actions of ordinary Muslims, and they say more than any number of verbal condemnations could.I agree completely. I hesitate to contribute more to this forum, as it somehow gives the impression that I think the question is worth asking. In fact, the question is badly formulated, and doesn't make any sense. dianetrotter seems to be genuinely curious, and I give her credit for that. However, in the US, we have the freedom to say whatever we want (within reason). We also have the freedom to NOT say anything. Freedom of speech, as well as freedom from speech, and the freedom to be left alone as long as we're minding our own business.
No Don. Her question isn't offensive. Trying to shame her for asking it - is.
As a society, we cannot move forward if we're afraid to ask questions. In light of the largest existing terrorist threat to our world (radical Islam), her question seeks analysis and honest discussion. Any Muslim who good and kind will not be offended. Only those who want to control the opinions and voices of others, will be offended.Blasphemy law in Iran
Iran's law against blasphemy derives from Sharia...
The law against blasphemy complements laws against criticizing the Islamic regime, insulting Islam, and publishing materials that deviate from Islamic standards
The courts have acquitted vigilantes who killed in the belief that their victims were engaged in un-Islamic activities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Iran
Mr. HowardBThiname, considering this, how do I determine what or who is "radical islam" and who isn't, when courts have acquitted vigilantes?"Any Muslim who is good and kind will not be offended". Once again, VERY reluctantly (because I am NOT Muslim) I hesitate to contribute to this forum. But I would suggest that there are many "good and kind Muslims" who are offended by caricatures of their prophet. I think you want to keep in mind the distinction between those who might feel offended about something, and radicals. I know some Hubbers who take offense at "The God Delusion". I have a strong suspicion that they have not read it, nobody has tried selling it to them personally, and I suspect they are offended by the mere idea of the title, and not the contents of the book. Am I comparing those folks to terrorists? Read me again. I am comparing those folks to people who get offended by ideas.
That's the thing about offensiveness. It's subjective. If you were a Muslim, risking yours and your family's life each day fighting ISIS, you may well be offended by being asked why you are not doing more to fight terrorism, especially if the person asking is (presumably) doing so from a position of relative safety.
Agreed. We also cannot move forward by remaining ignorant. This question demonstrates ignorance, and in my opinion there is no excuse for ignorance if you have access to the internet, which the OP evidently does. I genuinely hope comments in this thread relieve the OP of that ignorance.
More ignorance. For your information less than 2% of terrorist attacks in Europe are religiously motivated:
2013: 152 terrorist attacks in the EU, 2 religiously motivated.
2012, 219 attacks, 6 religiously motivated.
2011: 174 attacks, 0 religiously motivated.
2010: 249 terrorist attacks, 3 religiously motivated.
2009: 294 terrorist attacks, 1 religiously motivated.
And the US? FBI data shows that 6 percent of terrorist attacks between 1980 and 2005 are related to Islamic extremists. Since 9/11, Islamic extremists have claimed 37 lives in the US. In contrast, in 2013 alone there were approximately 14,000 murders in America. Comparing the same period since 9/11 there have been more than 190,000 murders in the US compared to the 37 committed by Islamic extremists.
So actually Europeans and Americans are far more at risk from Separatist groups like the FLNC (France), MPRF (Greece), FAI (Italy), ETA (Spain), IRA (Ireland) and each other, than we are from Islamic extremists. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of the narrative we want to peddle.
I'm sure it does, but nevertheless it demonstrates ignorance. The same ignorance you are displaying on the subject. There is a world of information at your fingertips. Why not use it?
Being offended by an ignorant question bears no relation to whether someone is "good and kind". Like I said, if your mother, father, sister, brother had just died fighting ISIS, perhaps you might take offense at being asked what you and your family are doing to stop terrorism, and justifiably so. Thinking outside that bubble of ignorance for one moment, and actually empathising with another group of people, who live in another place, under a different set of conditions may have produced the thought that perhaps some Muslims are in fact literally fighting terrorism, and dying for the privilege.
Freedom of opinion and voice includes the freedom to challenge a question, and tell someone that you think their question demonstrates ignorance, which is exactly what I have done. Unless of course you are one of those people who think freedom of thought and voice should only extend to those people who agree with you. If so, then that's a strange kind of freedom.Don W, I love it! I just got an email from Hub Pages that I have more than 300 responses to my questions. I am ignorant about many things. That is exactly why I asked this question. I can't understand that there is no accountability for these loose canons. I am amazed that a white kid in suburbia US would leave to join ISIS or that 2 blonde headed teenage girls would go there, get pregnant and then say they want to come home.
Good for you. If everyone had the honesty to acknowledge their own ignorance on a subject, there might be less spouting of nonsense. I too am ignorant of many things, and like you I admit that. I view that acknowledgment as a sign of strength not weakness. I try to use the means at my disposal to remove my ignorance as much as I can, and one of those means is the world wide web, if you can sift through all the bias, agendas and misinformation. My process goes something like this:
My first response to a subject is to always, always question the mainstream media's representation of it. The aim of mainstream news outlets is to make money for the shareholders of the corporations that own them. That aim distorts their representation of reality to a large degree. They tend to present events as linear narratives (stories) with a good guy and a bad guy. Reality is more nuanced than that, so unfortunately facts that do not fit the preferred narrative are often discarded.
My second response to a subject is to always question my own assumptions about it, and the assumptions of others. I find that necessary because I, like everyone else, am capable of bias. If a question like this pops into my mind the first thing I do is examine the question. What assumptions does it make? Why am I making those assumptions? Why am I asking the question in the first place? etc.
So when I asked myself the same question as you, "why are peaceful Muslims not more vocal in denouncing terrorism?" I also asked myself, "how do I know how many Muslims are vocal in denouncing terrorism? And how do I know how vocal they are?" I encourage you to ask the same questions.
I also asked myself, "why am I asking this question?" I don't know of any Christians in the Philippines who have vocally denounced the Ku Klux Klan, but that does not make me wonder why, and it does not make me think that Christians in the Philippines support the KKK (which as you know uses Christian symbols and identifies itself strongly with Christianity). So why am I asking this about Muslims? Why is my expectation of Muslims different? Where does that expectation come from? Again I encourage you to ask yourself the same questions.
Lastly I always look for raw data relevant to the subject. From looking at the news there is a perception that the US and Europe are threatened more by Islamic extremism than other forms of terrorism, and it's easy to assume that to be true. But what evidence is there of that? What does the data say? The data shows this is untrue. Other forms of terrorism are more widespread and more deadly in the US and Europe than Islamic extremism. So I encourage you to look for data, and if the data does not support what you think, by all means question the data, but also don't be afraid to question what you think.
For me all this adds up to a belief that a question can originate from a spirit of genuine enquiry, but be made up from a combination of ignorance, false assumption, bias, double standards and a false narrative perpetuated by the mainstream media. That isn't a personal attack (if it is then I'm also attacking myself). It's an observation borne from a process that experience has taught me can be very useful: examine the question before looking for an answer. The question itself can tell us a lot. Mostly about ourselves. Sometimes more about ourselves than the thing we are questioning. I encourage you to try it, and hope you accept my comments as positive, constructive criticism, which is how they are intended.
I would disagree that it stems only from ignorance. I think its a true and fair question! Its what we should all be wondering. Seems normal, rational, and logical that such question would follow. I see a different kind of ignorance, that could be equally cured by searching the same internet you mention.
Very few seem aware of some basic facts. Most are seeming to defend what they want to be true of all of this. I can only assume its that it is hard to face some facts, but its still no excuse. (If that is all it is. That is giving the benefit of the doubt.)
Terrorists would desire all of us too remain in ignorance. This suits those that want most of the worlds population to remain in ignorance. To NOT ask questions like the OP does, and even nearly scold for actually, a very good question. When I saw you break off into what you saw as ignorance, and what it possibly was driving the question, I thought we may have similar views. However it turns out my views are opposite of yours in many ways, yet what I think actually makes sense of what we are seeing, is a form of ignorance you don't even touch on.
People are seeming to be so emotionally and mentally fragile, to not even listen to the very words of the terrorists themselves when they give their reasons. Why lie at the point they are about to die anyway? They often want the credit, see themselves as martyrs, AND say why they actually do it. What would explain populations of people not wanting to believe them?! Yet this is what we see, this is what your post above shares in one of its set of statistics. Ignoring what is given as reasons won't ever make those reasons go away. It could feed the terror I think, to turn a blind eye, it helps them achieve their goals in free loving societies everywhere.
The kind of mentality I see being repeated by our leaders even, won't/doesn't shield you from potential threats, should it come into your own workplace or neighborhood. It only leaves everyone unaware until its too late. No more just taking people's words for things, I say. Far too many people are just saying all kinds of things, and while it tickles many people's ears, I find it not helpful, and hurtful.
Best tip I can give is to deeply search out these truths for yourselves. Don't take my or anyone's word for things. There is too much to lose. Perhaps this will help people to abandon some bad ideas.Oceansnsunsets, I am humbled. Thank you for your kind comments. The hub I'm putting up is under the approval process. I kind of recapped some of the discussion. When It is approved, I will post a link for those who care to discuss more.
Wow! the hub is ready for those who want to comment. Follow link
http://dianetrotter.hubpages.com/hub/Wh … t-16165531
I'm not sure why you place ignorance, and truth or fairness as opposites. They aren't. Someone can ask a fair question out of ignorance. Likewise someone can be truthful, and be ignorant of something. These things are not mutually exclusive. So you are mistaken if you think I am criticising ignorance. I'm not. I'm criticising the process by which we remove that ignorance. I'm suggesting that asking questions is not enough, because the questions we ask can perpetuate bias and false assumptions just as much as the statements we make. I'm suggesting that any useful process of enquiry starts with a critical examination of the question, and I'm criticising the thread author for not doing that, and thereby (in my opinion) perpetuating false assumptions. If anything, I'm criticising the author for not asking enough questions, not too many.
See my comment to dianetrotter above for the type of critical examination I'm talking about. I encourage you to answer the questions posed there too.Deleted
As you, I hope your hub generates some healthy discussion.
One point in your hub that I think is very relevant: Boko Haram, where is the outrage? Indeed. As well as asking why some Muslims have not denounced terrorism, I think it's very important to ask why it is that the deaths of 15 Europeans resulted in a million person march against Islamic extremism with world leaders in attendance, but massacres by Boko Haram in Nigeria didn't? And where were those marchers when the children were killed at a school in Pakistan by the Taliban? Are European lives of more value than African or Asian lives? Do we only care about Islamic extremism when affects us? Food for thought.Don W, I agree with you! I got a warning so I will change my pic on the Hub.
Don, I have not followed the story of Boko Haram, but I am going to find out as much as I can about it, as well as what dianetrotter has been trying to post about it. Compared to an admitted disinterest in Boko Haram, I was outraged by Charlie Hebdo in particular, not because of the number of people killed, and not because it increased any risk to me personally. I was appalled because it was carried out against journalists in particular, in order to silence them. And alas, at this point, it seems to be working.
Boko Haram: http://news.yahoo.com/tens-thousands-ra … 20363.html
In other cities in Syria, attacks aren't just against journalists. In some places, if you are caught wearing western jeans you will have your legs broken: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/17 … -fighters/
Because truth on a subject can help someone's true ignorance on a subject. Because fairness aids in what is just for all, which I hope is what you were after while calling some people ignorant, when many others asked the same question. I know we can have bias, and I sense that in you. Thus the fairness factor comes into play. So truth and fairness actually help in the very things you are seeming to be against, even when you say you yourself do it. It is good you clarify you weren't criticizing her at this point, even if at first you seemed to be, so that is something. Of course I would agree that any useful process of inquiry starts with a critical examination of the question, and I would add to all the points themselves being discussed. When something seems "off", it is a great thing to study up on the subject, which is something I have personally done, though not completely of course.
I am against perpetuating assumptions, as that doesn't help anyone. I see it totally, on BOTH sides. Some also assume the best, and worst about certain groups, and some of us here are trying to understand what would explain the realities we see. My bigger point, is that I am against ignorance on all sides of this discussion and there is a LOT of shaming going around, or finger wagging, at some of the very people trying to uncover the truths, the facts, that help avoid assumptions of people on all sides.I honestly can't tell if we agree or not, which is fine. Perhaps that's the sign of an open discussion. I think we do in places, and don't in others. So here are just some general points.
In order to make sense of what we are seeing in the world, we have to be sure the lens we are looking through is not cloudy, or at least be aware of what is distorting our view. I think we agree on that much.
In relation to Muslims, the preferred narrative of mainstream media is very apparent and very distorted. What was the last reference you saw/heard/read in the news about a Muslim, that was not related to terrorism? As far as the "news" is concerned Muslims are terrorists and do not exist outside of terrorism. Is that because none of the 1.57 billion Muslims in the world are involved in anything other than terrorism? Or is it because we just don't get to hear or see those things?
The fact is that news of Americans or Europeans being killed by Islamic extremists brings in more viewers/listeners/readers (clicks). Just look at the trending data. But as dianetrotter has pointed out, surely the massacre of 2000 people by Muslim extremists in Nigeria also qualifies as news. How much media coverage was there of that event, compared to the tragic deaths of 15 people in Paris? And did the deaths in Nigeria prompt the same reaction from politicians worldwide as those in Paris? Why not?
The point I am making (probably clumsily and probably in a more convoluted way than necessary) is that the preferred narrative is that Islam is bad, and Muslims are bad. I challenge that narrative because I believe it is a lie. I believe that some people are bad, and that some of those bad people happen to be Muslims, just as some of them happen to be Christians, and Jews and Buddhists and Sikhs and Hindus and atheists. My point in a nutshell is that we shouldn't let the distorted view of the mainstream media, and those with an agenda, distort our personal view of the world.I do agree, our lens has to not be cloudy to be aware of what may or may not be distorting our view. I am going way back however, not just looking at what the news brings me, for I already distrust a lot of that, and for good reason. The media, even conservative media seems to have its own views and distortions.
It is actually part of what you touch on, that leads me and some others to really find our for ourselves. News is almost always negative, of all cultures, where they don't show the equal "good" or indifferent things they do. This is a simple idea that makes sense to me. Why are we not hearing about how the Dutch are planting their tulip bulbs, or Eskimos fishing, or Iranians getting married this weekend, or some such random thing. That is how news works, as we often hear about the above and beyond "stuff."
if you are concerned about them not getting their fair share, I think you should rest assured actually. A lot of leaders and news outlets aren't willing to even call terrorism, terrorism. (Trying to call it something less, lest we give too much a bad name to it,, etc. So I am left to ask myself, and others are. That is, what explains this wanting to continually candy coat and cover up what we see and learn about?
We know there are plenty of the people in question, doing all kinds of non terrorizing activities, every single day. Sometimes we see news outlets leaving very critical data OUT of their news. So if it was just about getting clicks or viewers, then we would not see that.
You bring up a good point about the 2000 deaths in Nigeria, compared to 15 in Paris. It is even worse than we thought, or think, so often! I think its all awful, and all ought to be shared. Do people expect less violence on the streets of Paris, and in office buildings like those journalists were working in? Are there other reasons to consider as well, the attention given in one case and not another? If your personal neighborhood was hit, would you wonder at the locals talking about it day and night for the next several days,and their bias against all the others that didn't do it and were doing non harmful things in other parts of the world? I am asking for reasonableness and fairness.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't let the media distort my personal view of the world, for I care about all people very much. I think this discussion's crux, is surrounding views, that could be seen as good or bad views. (Putting people aside for the moment. Leaving them out of it.) If you are concerned about Islam being perceived as bad, or assuming the worst about anyone, do you not see the inconsistency in assuming many are just biased, maybe racist or hateful? (or whatever it is?)Thank you oceansnsunsets! I hate the "I'm ok! You're ok!" platitudes that ignore the fact that we have some real problems. Well, to go exchange the picture on my Hub. I've received a warning.
I don't accept your argument that the news is no more negative towards Islam than other religions or cultures. The bias is much worse. And not just within conservative media. I include the so-called liberal media in there also. Your complaint seems to be that some media are too willing to "candy coat" the issue. That is not my experience, but let's not talk in vague terms. Cite an example of this candy coating as you see it.
We seem to agree on the lack of coverage in Nigeria Vs. Paris, but for very different reasons. My concern is that it shows a disregard for the lives of non Americans/Europeans. Your concern seems to be that you feel the lack of coverage was a missed opportunity to show people how bad Islam/Muslims are.
As for the reaction to events in Paris. It was not just local people reacting to something that happened in their neighbourhood. Leaders from all over the world descended on Paris. Why did no international politicians fly to Nigeria to express their condolences and "unity" with the Nigerian president and Nigerian people? And why was the international media coverage of events in Nigeria shorter and less in depth?
I don't assume there is bias. I simply follow the facts. It is a fact that more terrorist attacks have been committed in Europe and the US in the last 15 years by non Muslims than by Muslims. It is a fact that more people were murdered in the US in non terrorist related attacks last year than in terrorist related attacks. In fact in 2013 you were just as likely to be killed by a toddler with a gun in the US (5 fatalities due to accidental discharge of a weapon) than you were to be killed by a terrorist attack (Boston bombing). Yet Islamic extremism is consistently and repeatedly characterised by mainstream media as the biggest threat to Americans and Europeans. That's not an assumption of negative bias. It is negative bias.
That's my view. What exactly is your personal opinion about Muslims and Islam? And what is your personal opinion on the relationship between ordinary Muslims and Islamic extremists?Don W, you express yourself and your ideas very well. Are you at all concerned about how your freedom to express those ideas might be changing, without you having a say in the matter? Would you like to have the opportunity to put your two cents in when those kinds of decisions are being made? Or are you disinterested on that matter? Do you think that's something for just the authorities to take care of, and there's nothing you can do about it? These are just my rhetorical questions, of course. But they do go into my own personal outrage calculus when comparing the attack on Charlie Hebdo to Boko Haram. It's not simply the head count. Although I am ignorant about Boko Haram at this point, I expect that once I find out more, I will have nothing original to add or contribute to the outrage against them.
I think you have misunderstood my points in part. I am sorry you disagree with what you think I said. I can agree to disagree on the points you and I disagree on.
I am for good ideas, and hate it when anyone is hurt by any bad ideas. That is a way to sum up what I think and believe. I personally care equally when people are killed whether in Nigeria or in Paris. I don't make the decisions on why news networks don't do more for one or the other. I would encourage it to be equal for all. I do know they covered the girls that were taken, in more detail from what I think is the same group. That hasn't been resolved from what I understand.
I don't feel comfortable sharing more on what you are asking about, sorry.Here's the latest news: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/missin … ts-n284456
Is that because you feel you will be censured by Hubpages if you express your true opinion?
I experienced the possible censure this past weekend but I made it!
Was that related to the image used in your hub, or was it because of the views you expressed. In my experience Hubpages is generally quite tolerant of different views as long as they are expressed in a way that doesn;t violate any of their policies.
It must have been because of the image. However, a hubber really lit into me for suggesting something. He said Hub Pages does not tolerate that so.......I dunno!
Probably worried that there are terrorists using the internet.
Yes, and we have seen how some have been very hurt for simply expressing their views. This should go without saying.
An interesting cut and paste, kind of suggesting my opinion is what I am referring to, and that it is possibly so bad it could be censured by HubPages. No, that is not the reason. Let me let you know first of all, that this isn't about my opinion, because those don't seem especially helpful. I am speaking of facts as I have researched and my and others simple observations. Here is where I get my facts from, so you will know. Anyone can research them, and then you will know where I am coming from. To remind you, I said I am for good ideas, and believe people are hurt by bad ideas, and that can sum up what I think and believe. As for good ideas, people can benefit and the world can be a better place when people embrace those, so it goes both ways and I think that logically follows.
Regarding these topics of current events and the thread here in particular, here are the things I get my facts from, to draw my conclusions.
- The holy book connected to a discussion.
- A prophet, his (or her) words, example and exhortations to his followers up until his (or her) death.
- What people say they believe in, what religion they believe in.
- Current events and historical events.
I think this is good for me and all of us to do with all things concerning religions. If you think there is a different or better way, I am open to that. I can't think of a better way personally. I've never been censured by HubPages for sharing any such facts, So HP is not my concern.Oh I see! You think if you state your true opinion of Muslims and Islam, that a Muslim extremist will track you down and do something horrible to you. 1) this is just a tiny bit over the top - I'm fairly certain that silencing a single user on the HubPages forum is not very high on the list of priorities for Muslim extremists; and 2) it represents exactly the kind of negative stereotyping and fear-mongering that I've been talking about.
I am fairly certain that if the terrorists will murder maintenance workers, "journalists" and cartoonists, they will murder anyone. But, Cartoonists? Really? What kind of Jerry Lewis terrorism going on there? They insult themselves.
Here we are again just as I predicted Don. Remember? I predicted this in advance when you and I discussed the Benghazi deal. Although it was based upon disinformation provided by Hillary and the Obama administration, the result was similar, in that people mocked mohammad and then later in Egypt, seven people were given a death sentence over it.
A death sentence, not by extremists, but by a court. What do you say Don? Is a court just a few extremists and not representative of a population that overwhelming supports sharia as in Egypt?
"Seven Coptic Egyptians living abroad were sentenced to death Wednesday by a court in Cairo for their connection to an inflammatory anti-Islam film, the prosecutor's office said". cnn.
Don, just as a hypothetical: if your neighbor was collecting a severed head and giving a reward for it and the reasoning he gave for it was because he claimed that the victim was writing poetry that wasn't too flattering and because he "thought he was out to get him" , do you feel that anyone should get a death sentence for telling the truth about your neighbor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition … _Ibn_UnaisYou have avoided the simply put terms I have shared again, and inserted your own view of what you interpreted me to have said. Instead of addressing the merits of my points themselves, you have done this on more than one occasion. I don't find that to be reasonable discussion. If someone doesn't seem to want to be reasonable, and keep on assuming the worst, while ignoring my main points then what is the point of me responding?
I disagree with a few things you have shared, and given my reasons, and even said I don't mind disagreeing. When someone engages in a strawman illogical fallacy, then says they made their point, the point was actually not made. It seems you might just be wanting to believe what you want about those that don't agree with your points. I think some have shown why they don't work, but you can disagree of course.
Edit: I find your response, to also not be one that seems to be fully aware of current and past events that many know about. With respect, I think you are being naive, or perhaps struggling with some realities, and I don't think you are alone. I do think you are wrong however as you likely think I am.
Don W asks Diane a very good question which gets to the very heart of something important about expressing yourself on HubPages. "Was [your Hub hidden] because of the image or because of the views you expressed?" Someone experienced told me that when presented with a request to censor something, HubPages tends to take action first, and then ask questions. I think that this method HubPages has welcomes those who are disingenuous, and wish to prevent someone from expressing themselves. They will use any excuse to temporarily silence you. I see HubPages as a microcosm in this respect. My cynical view of the real world is that freedom of expression belongs to those who can afford the most lawyers.
oceansunsets, please be perfectly blunt with us about your concerns and your hesitancy to discuss things. I think maybe I speak for Don W as well, but I don't know what the heck you are talking about. If it's some opinion that somebody somewhere once posted on the internet, maybe you can refer us to it. If it's something that's just in your head but nobody else's, then you can't really say we are being dishonest when asking you pointed questions. We can't read your mind.
Don W, and Diane, maybe I'm projecting a little or a lot, but I think the very short history of Diane's difficulty in publishing her Hub related to this Q&A is a textbook case of groupthink and the self-censorship of an organization.
I apologize for being so abstract on this page about Muslims and terrorism, but I really think the discussions on this page as well as Diane's Hub are a vivid illustration of the way HubPages works in terms of Diane's (and all Hubbers') freedom of expression and censorship, and some of the questions being discussed more abstractly on austinstar's Q&A "Je Suis Charlie - Is HubPages In Danger?"KU37, you articulate well! I think there are commenters who are zealous in their positions. Some are so caught up in their opinions that they consider the opinions of others to be offensive ... so they complain to HP. I don't know what process HP goes through to determine that our first amendment rights are infringing on the liberties of others.
I don't know how many have noticed but I don't easily get offended. Throughout life I have been through so much and had to realize there are things beyond my control. Therefore, I control all I can which is usually just my response.
Diane, as a reply to your "KU37, you articulate", I honestly think your Boko Haram image was a red herring. I'll go out on a limb and say that I think the debate on this page and the communications between you and HP parallel the workings of traditional media organizations when dealing with coverage of controversial topics. Here's my narrative: your Hub includes original ideas (in text) that a small vocal minority of the HP community wished to silence. They used any excuse to do so. They succeeded in silencing your ideas for two or three days, when this Q&A was very active and your Hub could have had many views. This is considered censorship in my book. One quibble I would have with your comment is that you refer to "first amendment rights". Most people in the US know this means "the legal right to free speech". HP is international, and we are talking about their norms and unwritten rules, and how they implement them. (Also, first amendment rights in the US are going by the lowest common denominator. Any small minority anywhere on the globe can silence speech in the US if they push the right (violent) buttons or if they can afford enough lawyers.
What is the data regarding the amount of people that die from the flu compared to deaths caused by the KKK? What is the data regarding the deaths caused by the KKK and the homicide rate of any given country? I think most of us can conclude from that data, is that no one is interested in any KKK apologetics any more than they want to hear terrorist apologetics.
I think it is a false dilemma and some kind of transposition fallacy, to devolve or reduce a discussion to a Muslim VS Muslim Extremist argument. Because if we "bait and switch" sharia/islam/mohammad with just muslims, then it appears to be a ruse to escape real dialogue addressing the real issues.
The questions I am concerned with are: Is sharia incompatible with human rights? Is mohammad a religious leader that could be copied, mimicked or followed and because of mohammad's own life that he led will it produce followers that cause harm and future harm because of mohammads example?
Don W, without any tu quoque arguments- Did mohammad give a reward of a rod or staff that has some special meaning in a hypothetical afterlife for a severed head? This is very relevant in whether a follower of mohammad today might use mohammads life as an example.You imply I have engaged in apologetics for terrorists. Please quote exactly where I have (and no, suggesting someone is demonstrating ignorance does not equate to defending terrorists).
Those figures were quoted in relation to the question of whether Muslim extremism is the biggest threat to Americans and Europeans. Not to the question of whether such terrorism is justifiable (it isn't). If someone suggested the KKK are the biggest threat to Americans, we would be right to tell them (based on those figures) that they are incorrect. Likewise if someone suggests that Muslim extremism is the biggest threat to Americans, it is right (based on the figures) for us to tell them they are incorrect.
You'd be surprised, but Christians in a Pentecostal/Baptist/Methodist church in New York for example, might not necessarily identify themselves as the same as members of the Ku Klux Klan. In fact many Christians would not consider members of the KKK to be Christians at all. Should we ignore that fact, and insist that the KKK and all Christians are the same? Or (being the smart people that we are) can we recognise that within religions like Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. there are different groups, denominations, factions, all with differing practices, beliefs, political aims etc. Do you understand that not every Jew is a proponent of Zionism for example? Do you understand that Protestants and Catholic Christians have fought wars against each other? It's idiotic to suggest that one tiny group that calls themselves Christian, like the KKK, represents all Christians. It's equally idiotic to suggest that ISIS and other extremist groups represent all Muslims. They don't. I know that ruins the simplistic us-good, them-bad narrative, but that's the reality.
Which interpretation of the hadiths and sharia law are you referring to? Shia or Sunni? Do you know there are differences? Do you know what they are? Do you know that Muslims can choose to adopt Sharia law in differing degrees depending on personal conscience (any Muslims feel free to correct me here, I'm not an expert). If you don't know these things, then again you are demonstrating ignorance of the subject, and again that's not terrorist apologetics, it's just a fact. To even begin to answer the questions you have asked, you need to relieve yourself of that ignorance.
For every example that can be given suggesting that Islamic teaching, or the Quran etc justifies extremism, there is a counter example. Either a different interpretation of the same thing, or a different example altogether that suggests the opposite. I am certain that the Quran, like almost every religious text, can be interpreted in many different ways.
These details are irrelevant to the main point which is, everyone who is against extremism are allies. Many Muslims around the world are against extremism. It is foolish to alienate would-be allies by putting them in the same category as extremists. In your view would the majority of Christians like to be referred to as a members of the KKK, or supporters of the KKK? If not, then why should ordinary Muslims like being referred to as extremists? They demonstrably aren't.
Not everyone who perpetuates this negative stereotype is doing so out of malice, that's obvious. I think such views can also be borne out of genuine lack of knowledge about Islam and Muslims, and an apparent lack of knowledge about how religions work in general. The idea that there is a single authoritative interpretation of the Quran, or the Bible, or the Torah etc. is ridiculous. The truth is, anyone can use any of those texts to justify just about anything. It would be a simple exercise to justify violence with all of them. It's also possible to condemn violence with all of them. And that is exactly what happens.
So the texts are not the issue in my view. I think mixing politics with religion is the issue. We saw exactly the same thing in Europe when Christianity and politics were mixed together in the middle ages. Theocracies simply do not work as a system of government. The actual religion that the theocracy is based on is irrelevant. The nature of people and the nature of religion, means that theocracies open the door to exploitation. People can interpret/misinterpret anything to achieve their own ends. They only require other people to believe them. Make no mistake, for those leading the extremists it is about political power. Only the fools who do their bidding by hurting themselves and others think is it about religion. I hope you are not so naive.-
Taking the life of those who abandon Islam is most widely supported in
Egypt (86%)
Jordan (82%).
Afghanistan (79%)
Pakistan (76%)
-Pew
86% of a population of 80,000,000 support "taking the life" of those who leave Islam and that's just one country <--------
No amount of shell gaming different denominations/beliefs changes these figures. Courts in various countries are sentencing people to death for blasphemy. Some country's courts even acquit vigilantes, namely Iran. ( I sure hope Iran don't have enough enriched uranium to make a bomb or two, because they allow people to kill other people and acquit them, over what? A cartoon? Someone write some poetry? Or a book? Someone going to get nuked over a comic book in the future?)
I am not even mentioning "stoning people" and the percentages that support that, or "cutting peoples hands off" and the support for that. I am not exactly sure why you seem to completely dance around the biographical history of mohammad. Is it because some people might see his life reads like Hitler's rise to power along with the macabre practices used then, that are the same practices used by terrorists today and that's an apologists nightmare or are you just afraid to talk about it, out of just plain fear, like 2 or 3 others have expressed on HP?
Do we just pretend these large percentages do not exist? How do we all not see the large protests, about a cartoon, just days after many were murdered? What do we believe? Rhetoric or our own eyes? 86% of a population of 80,000,000 support taking the life of those who leave Islam and that's just one country..86% of 80 million people in one country alone supports death for leaving islam and their courts are actually sentencing people to death.
What is there really to discuss here?
I hope to God that the smaller, minority % - escape for their lives.1) It is not 86% of Muslims in Egypt. It is 86% of the Muslims who were surveyed. In Egypt that was 1,798 people. The level of confidence that the the view of 1,798 people accurately represents the views of 80,000,000 is based on the assumption of a representative sample size. If a representative sample size was used (and the report says it was) then there should be 95% confidence level (plus or minus a margin of error) that those views are representative of the population. However, the report you quote also says: "In some countries, the achieved samples suffered from imbalances in the number of women or men interviewed". That's a big problem for this type of survey.
Such problems are not surprising, given the nature of the survey and the locations. However, gender imbalances result in selection bias because it means a non-random sample of the population is surveyed, i.e. there is a lack of representation/ over-representation of a group within the sample. Acknowledging this is important (to the reports credit, it does acknowledge it) because such bias undermines the surveys external validity, i.e. the ability of the results to be generalized to the whole population, which is exactly what you are doing. I would caution against making such generalisations about groups of people without considering (or mentioning) any of the above issues or caveats. But let's give the benefit of the doubt, and assume for sake of argument, there are no issues with the external validity of the survey.
2) Another issue is the fact that those surveyed were interviewed in person, in their homes. Bearing in mind that the Egyptian regime imprison journalists, ISIS behead people, and the Taliban kill school children in the countries you mention, do you think those environments are conducive to getting honest answers from ordinary people? I don't. I think there is a strong possibility that many of the people surveyed would be in fear of their lives were they to speak freely about many things, let alone Islam. One poster in this very thread is too afraid to give his opinions in this relatively anonymous online forum. How do you suppose the people who actually live in those countries feel? Do you think they are likely to share their true thoughts and feelings about their most personal beliefs, given what those regimes do to people who do so? If you are suggesting otherwise, please explain your methodology for distinguishing between answers given through fear of torture and death, and genuine answers.
To test my suggestion on this, we only need to make a comparison between Muslims in different places. What are the results of similar surveys in other countries (note: the same assumption that such surveys are externally valid still applies).
3) A study by the Pew Research Centre (the same group that produced the survey you quoted) found that a minority of the Muslims surveyed support severe criminal punishments in Southeast Asia (46%), Central Asia (38%) and Southern and Eastern Europe (36%), and that even smaller percentages in these regions (13% - 27%) say apostates should face the death penalty.
Which of these regions has the highest level of political freedom compared to the Middle East? I suggest it is South and Eastern Europe. And which regions have the majority of Muslims who are against the death penalty for apostasy (73 - 87%)? South and Eastern Europe. If the issue was Islam and Muslims, as you suggest, should we not expect to see roughly similar levels of support for those things in all countries, regardless of external conditions? And why is it that in the US the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject religiously motivated violence?
68% of the total foreign born Muslims in the US are from the Middle East, N. Africa, and Pakistan. Those are the same areas in which the survey you quote says Muslims mostly support severe punishments for apostasy. So Muslims in countries where regimes severely punish dissent, are mostly in favour of the same things the regimes are in favor of. And Muslims in a country where there is free speech overwhelmingly do not support religious violence. How so? Again, if the issue was Islam or Muslims, would we not expect location to have no significant impact on the levels of support for violence?
Also, if Muslims are the homogenous group you paint them to be, how is it possible that people in that group believe completely different things? By definition, that isn't possible. Could it be, as I said, because of the different groups, denominations, factions etc among Muslims? And could it be that those living in countries with more political freedom, are able to explore and express more moderate interpretations of their religious texts, and the hadiths etc. compared to those living in countries where doing so could result in death? Do you think that is a likely explanation for the difference in views expressed by Muslims in the US and Muslims in the Middle east for example? If not, and you insist that Muslims all believe the same, please account for the difference in survey results carried out by the same research centre that completed the survey you have quoted from. Those differences seem to stem from the level of political freedom held within the countries being surveyed.The poll does not support your "hoped for version" , so, dispute the polls accuracy or findings, but then use the same poll to ask us to believe that 13%-46 % is an acceptably low number? Then change directions and claim that everyone is under duress and lying. Based on what? Because that is what you would like? Have you considered how pitiful it is that a poll was created that actually asks people if they support death for leaving islam or death for insulting islam, chopping peoples hands off or stoning people in the year 2015, in the first place? But hey, the poll was skewed, the people were lying and heck 46% ain't bad. smh
I don't have a "hoped for version". I critically examine available data and draw conclusions from that. For that reason, it would be remiss of me not to look at the accuracy of the data you presented, and mention any issues I found there. That is exactly what I have done, and I would expect you to do no less with any data presented to you. I'm sorry the conclusions I have drawn do not agree with your view, but I believe the issues I have raised are objective observations. If you can address those observations objectively, then do so. If you need any further information from me (about sources of data etc) to help you do that, then I'm happy to provide it to you. That is what I believe honest, constructive discussion is all about.
I said quite clearly that I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to such surveys for the sake of argument. Personally, I think that making generalisations about the thoughts and feelings of entire groups of people on the basis of surveys like this, is problematic for all sorts of reasons. But even without those issues the data does not support your view. Let me reiterate: if all Muslims believe exactly the same things, then (assuming these surveys are accurate) we would expect to see similar levels of support for the same things regardless of location. But the very survey you have quoted from, and previous surveys, indicate that the views of Muslims are different depending on location. How is that consistent with your suggestion that all Muslims have the same views? In a nutshell: if the data is accurate, as you claim, then it falsifies your argument.
I think it is reasonable to suggest there is a strong possibility that ordinary Muslims living in countries with oppressive regimes or extremists groups like Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. would be reluctant to say something that the local regime or terror group would disapprove of. The fact that the majority of Muslims in countries with political freedom are overwhelmingly against religiously motivated violence supports that view in my opinion (though this is by no means conclusive proof). I also think we can deduce as much from what we know about what happens to dissenters in those countries, and what we know about the human desire not to be torchered and killed. I have no issue with you challenging my conclusion, and if you have any concrete evidence that does so feel free to present it. If not, then at the very least explain why you think it's not a reasonable argument.
Is all religiously motivated violence dreadful? Yes. But this still does not support the argument that all Muslims have the same views.
If by regime change you mean direct action, I'm not sure that is a good idea. History has shown that it's very difficult to get that right. I think ultimately the people of these countries will be the ones who effect regime change, but I think it will happen (is happening) in iterative steps. Countries with oppressive regimes will not suddenly become fully democratic. There will be stops and starts, and sometimes regression. I think we can play a part in that process though. Exactly how much of a part, and what that should look like, I honestly don't know.
I said "I think there is a strong possibility that many of the people surveyed would be in fear of their lives were they to speak freely about many things, let alone Islam". I stand by that opinion. What makes you confident this is not the case, and how can a research group distinguish between answers given through fear of death, and genuine answers? Can you explain why you don't think that is not an issue?
I think I already expressed my view on this, but I'm happy to repeat it. I do not think the Quran, Islam or Muslims are the issue. I think mixing politics with religion is the issue, as historical evidence tells us when we look back at Europe in the middle ages. A theocracy in my view, is not a form of government that is conducive to a plural society living harmoniously. I think the actual religion the theocracy is based on is irrelevant. History tells us that theocracies open the door to exploitation. People can interpret/misinterpret anything to achieve their own ends, whether it be the Bible, the Quran, or the Talmud. All that is required is for other people to believe them. That's just my view though, and I recognise that others have different views on the pros and cons of theocracy vs. democracy etc. But I do think the issue is theocracy vs democracy, or separation of religion and state. I do not believe religious leaders should wield political power. The nature of religion makes such a combination the perfect instrument of abuse. Believing that there should be a death penalty for apostasy is one thing, but actually being able to make that the law of the land is entirely another. I believe that is the issue."all Muslims have the same views" interesting strawman. If I multiply the percentage of people that support sharia as the law of the land (which is what the next figure is derived from) x times the percentages of people that support death for leaving islam - in all of those countries they did support it ( majority or not ) x times, the actual muslim population in those countries excluding other beliefs, just a quick ballpark is over 300,000,000 million people, spin it anyway you like it.
As I mentioned something similar to Quill, even if it was 300 thousand and it was the 18th century, you would still be crunching numbers of an indefensible, immoral result.Briefly from my point of view, Don W's methods of inquiry are what I would call scientific. Don's view of the world therefore represents reality to a high degree, since he has become very informed as well. The methods of inquiry of Phoenix V, on the other hand, are what I would call dishonest. In fact, there is no inquiry there at all. Phoenix V, in I'm guessing 100% of his posts (I'm not going to re-read) uses a fallacious tactic. Starting from his conclusion, he will refer to some vivid detail or other (some people will illustrate their point with a picture, a headline, a fancy sweeping scary graphic flying across the screen. This pretty much hijacks any kind of critical thought). Phoenix V's tactics are very effective. He succeeds and he continues and he succeeds some more. I learned a lot from reading both of your posts, but I honestly doubt you're changing anybody's minds. Don W, some of your posts are valiant attempts to remedy this. They could serve as fodder for a high school civics teacher for many weeks, maybe under the heading of "understanding advertising."
Again, apologies for being abstract on this very specific page.Well Thanks KU37, I appreciate it and I appreciate the candor, no matter how misguided. My stance has been this: "The poll speaks for itself". The end.
No amount of fuzzy math will bring back the dead of those that are killed for leaving islam by individuals or that are sentenced to death for leaving islam by various courts in various countries and those that support it all. I was just glad to have the opportunity to raise awareness of the cold hard facts, all along the way.I highly recommended a recent interview between Jon Stewart and Mike Huckabee on The Daily Show. I think it is very pertinent to this forum for the fact that it defends Don W's position on Muslims and violence, and because it vividly demonstrates the invalid method of thinking (often accidental, sometimes extremely self-aware) of many commenters here who would disagree with Don W. That position is this: the true way to look at the world is "us versus them", good guys vs. bad guys. Huckabee is proposing that "us versus them" is reality. Huckabee covers many topics in the short interview, even the topic of his own hypocrisy. My sense is that every single utterance he made, regardless of how much I agree or disagree with them, and the precise wording of these utterances, were carefully chosen and pre-tested by political pollsters to calculate their effect.
It's a worrying trend that complex issues are dumbed down to the point where everything is about attention-grabbing statistics, headlines, and sound bites. This is purely speculation on my part, but there seems to be no tolerance for nuance or complexity. I'm worried by it, but also fascinated by it as a social phenomenon. I wonder if the emergence of the web as such a dominant means of communication has influenced the way we think about things.
I think the tendency to fit things into narratives is an old one, and is related to our evolutionary development, and happens at a completely subconscious level. I think it's a side-effect of language skills and pattern recognition, which are both important traits for survival. We tend to categorise, and put things in neat, conceptual boxes. Narrative is an extension of that in my view. It allows us to provide structure and recognisable patterns to things that would otherwise be random events in the world. I think human beings have a deep-rooted, primitive dislike of disorder, because that implies lack of control. We are more comfortable when things have a beginning, middle and end; when we have a recognisable hero, and villain etc. I think this is just how human beings operate. I think the fact that events in the world are described by the media as "stories" is a reflection of that tendency.
But a problem arises when events in the world don't easily fit into a narrative structure; when there is ambiguity, and complexity. That's when the artificial construct of events as "stories" begins to break down. Acknowledging that Muslims are a multi-faceted, diverse, heterogeneous social group makes it difficult for us to cast Muslims as bad guys, which in turn makes it difficult for us to maintain a simplistic narrative (and feelings of control). So nuances, and complexities are discarded and the social group we call Muslims gets turned into one, single homogenous entity; a lump of people who all think, and feel the same, enabling us to say "Muslims are bad". For some people that is a much more palatable state of affairs than having to deal with the ambiguity and complexity of reality, and in a strange way is less frightening. Being able to categorise things and order things means we are in control, in an existential sense. Not being able to do so, I believe, triggers that deep-rooted fear of disorder and chaos. The feeling that events in the world are being done to us, rather than us having control over what happens in the world.
Only speculation of course, just thinking out loud, but very interesting to think about.DonW, the idea of looking for cause and effect in all kinds of things, is a good thing. It seems this is an elaborate way of being unhappy that Phoenix has shared what he has, that many seem to not know about.
These are very tough topics! Can you give an example of how Phoenix or anyone else you take issue with, are not showing tolerance for nuance or complexity as you put it? Doesn't this type of post above, show that you are judging the intentions in his mind of what is not being said, and then running with that? As for social phenomenons, that is one also. .
I worry about the social phenomenon of people trying to silence people in various ways, for instance. What often comes with this, are realities that some don't accept. When the given reasons often offered up don't give sufficient answers to human dilemmas, we are very fair to ask, "Hey, what explains this?" I would have expected more positive feedback from people who care about these big issues, to welcome those that want to discuss it.
I hope that since the ideas some have assumed about me, and I believe Phoenix also have been put to rest, I hope this puts your mind at ease. No one is looking to blame innocent people that I have seen here. To be honest, i that is what is being assumed, and it seems to me to be in some posts, then that is just a put down at some point.
If it seems that way, then you are mistaken. These are thoughts I have been contemplating for a while. They haven't been specially created as an elaborate way of criticising your view.
I believe many of our behaviours and attitudes stem from biological imperatives that helped our ancestors survive. And I believe there is a tension between some of those imperatives and the way we live modern life. A simple story structure was once a good way to make sense of the world and impart knowledge. But simple stories are not always an effective way for us to manage the complex social problems of modern life. Sometimes we have to resist the tendency to reduce things to a simple narrative, accept that something is complex, and manage that complexity as best we can.
Yes:
When examining complex social issues, statistics are the beginning of the journey, not the end.
The above post is me speculating on a theme, triggered by something KU37 said. I though I made that clear by saying: "Only speculation of course, just thinking out loud, but very interesting to think about." Apparently not clear enough. Any responses to PhoenixV have been directly based on the comments he has made and the arguments he has presented.
If you interpret disagreement, and criticism as people trying to "silence" you, then that is a problem for you, because in any public discussion, your views are likely to be disagreed with and criticised. That does not constitute being "silenced". It constitutes discussion. I have seen no one on this thread trying to silence anyone else. I have seen agreement, disagreement, criticism and debate; All things I would expect to see in such a discussion. Unless you can point to an example of what you mean, then I'm sorry but I don't know what you are talking about. If you need encouragement to share your view, then I encourage you to answer the 6 questions posted above.
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but some of your comments are too vague. I genuinely have no idea what the above means, or what it refers to. That is not me trying to silence you, I just don't know what you are trying to say. If it's possible, please be more direct, as that will help prevent any misunderstandings.Now Don, you are just quote mining out of context of the entire thread. In context you love statistics and quote them often, until you don't like the results. In response to a gratuitous advocate that claimed your inquiry was scientific, and so I gave a blunt response. Throughout the thread I have exhaustively correlated the poll, quite frankly, to the obvious. Good ideas that can be backed up by facts, will always triumph over bad ideas and tactic.
Do you really want to go through that Pew research document to show all the key points it makes about Muslims. I'd be happy to, because you are doing a lot of cherry picking from that survey. As others have pointed out a detailed look (assuming it's accurate) shows that it does not support your view.
I think statistics can be very helpful, but the stats I have presented relate to objective things: number of religiously motivated terrorist attacks etc. These are things can be objectively verified. The stats you have presented can't be. How we can we verify that the opinion of a man in a village in Afghanistan is a genuine opinion, and not based on fear of the local Taliban? Don't get me wrong, Statistics have there place, but we have to be cautious with statistics about people's beliefs and attitudes because they can be influenced by so many different factors.I disagree that I was doing a lot of cherry picking. I was just extracting and extrapolating enough data to show that large portions of a population support blasphemy and apostasy laws. I think statistics are helpful too, unless I am debating someone that has a tendency to just make up random numbers.
EDIT
Not to mention I felt like I was being very generous considering the poll was limited to those countries and did not survey, from recollection, other countries such as India or Ethiopia and just guessing dozens of other countries with Muslim populations that would have voted one way or another regarding support of those laws.
Very well put. Based on reading their comments here, I think Don W and dianetrotter are exemplary US citizens. They both appear to recognize that the US bears some responsibility for what is happening outside our borders. They both make an earnest attempt to stay informed and inform others of the real dangers and consequences. They both appear to recognize the proper responsibilities of citizens and the proper responsibilities of the government. When we construct a narrative (we're all human beings, after all) to describe what happens in the world, I think it's important to remember what the government's proper role is. Yes, it's true, "the terrorists could be coming for you next!" But using that kind of thinking together with simplistic slogans from US founding fathers could lead you to want to hire a 24-hour watch around your house armed with bricks, in case some vandal would think to throw a brick through one of your windows. US citizens need to acknowledge the government's role, realizing that the government is not all-powerful. Citizens are also responsible for questioning the government's workings and how the government carries out their responsibilities.
Sorry for the abstract, dry and somewhat naive civics lesson. But this stuff bears on how we deal with Muslims and terrorism. And there are feeble indications that some of this old civics stuff is still working.
You are doing exactly what some in the do. Looking at a number and accepting it with no critical evaluation because it fits the simple narrative you want to peddle. With all due respect, "The poll speaks for itself. The end." is frankly an idiotic (and worrying) stance. This is not a story. People are not characters, that neatly fit into roles of good guy and bad guy. No matter how much you may want that to be the case, the truth is that reality is often contradictory, difficult, and messy, and getting accurate information about what people think is an incredibly difficult problem in its own right.
Instead of tackling that, you and some elements in the media prefer to over-simplify a complex social issue and cram it into an easily digestible narrative. I can see the benefits of that. It cuts out all the messy nuances associated with reality, it allows people to avoid doing difficult, boring things like thinking etc. But unfortunately it won't actually help us solve problems. If history is anything to go by, polarization and oversimplification is likely to create more problems than it solves.
Anyway, here is a summary of the issues with your view in a quick and easy summary:
- You insist that extremism is inherent in Islam, yet refuse to explain why beliefs change depending on location (I've asked several times for your explanation of this, to which you have not responded).
- You ignore the fact that the majority of people fighting extremists (and dying) in the middle-East are Muslims.
- Among the various interpretations of Islamic texts and teachings, you seem to have arbitrarily decided that the most narrow violent interpretation is the Muslim interpretation, despite the fact that some actual Muslims say that it isn't their interpretation.
- You say the majority of Muslims support Sharia. Okay. I have asked which particular interpretation of Sharia, which is the only way to know what those people are actually supporting (again, you have made no response to that question).
- You do not discuss or even acknowledge that there are different sects, denominations, groups within Islam that are actually pacifist, like the Islamic pacifist movement that dates back to the 19th century. How is a pacifist Islamic group possible if Islam is inherently violent? I strongly suspect that you will not address that question either.
- You do not acknowledge that there are a plethora of cultural, socio-economic and political factors that cause young men and women to choose to fight with religious extremists (it's not all about religion).
- You ignore the fact that many extremists are actually ignorant about their own faith, as other Muslims continually point out.
- You believe that "The poll speaks for itself. The end." is a useful response to complex social issues. It isn't.
Well Don, do you think the United States and some allies oughta do some regime changes over there? You suggest they were in fear for lives, and they were so afraid they lied and voted to kill people who left islam or kill people that insulted islam - all against their will. Maybe do some regime changes that fall above the acceptable 46% who voted for death for leaving islam? Free them people? Free them from what? Regimes, islam, sharia or some combination?
Perhaps when they are in different countries with higher levels of political freedom they are lying there because they suspect that those countries will not turn a blind eye to extreme violations of basic human rights and those that support it. Aint that good for the goose if we are all just speculating and making excuses anyway?
80 million is about 5% of the estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. {1}
On the question of death for those who leave Islam, the survey results from Egypt are emphatically inconsistent with the results from all of the other Muslim regions surveyed. Others have already shown that this could not occur if all Muslims held the same beliefs.
Only the four highest results from among the 20 different Muslim regions are listed in the comment above: Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. The data from the other 16 Muslim regions show that the responses from Egypt are extraordinary and extreme when compared to those from all other Muslims. {2}
Other than the four countries above, Malaysia and the Palestinian Territory are the ONLY other regions in which the majority of Muslims responded in favor of the death penalty for leaving Islam (62 and 68%).
The majority of Muslims in ALL of the other 14 regions and countries are opposed to the death penalty for leaving Islam.
Within the six highest results, 68% is the median for Muslims in favor of a death penalty. Within the six lowest results, 87% is the median for Muslims who spoke out [u]against]/u] the death penalty.
The attitudes expressed in Egypt are not universal throughout Islam nor are they representative of the attitudes and beliefs of all Muslims in the world.
{1} http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … ght-think/
{2} http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- … be-applied See Penalty for Converting to Another FaithEgypt is just one country that overwhelmingly supported death for leaving islam. There were many others, so no, it's not just 5% of the entire muslim population. The results on Egypt were not extraordinary as you claim, because Jordan had 82%, Afghanistan had 79% and Pakistan had 76% with a population of over 182 million people, albeit a sampling. Regardless, even if the highest number was only 5% and the date was the 18th century, you would still be crunching numbers of an indefensible, immoral result. This is 2015 "AD" not 2015 "BC"
If someone murders someone for criticizing, making cartoons or writing mocking/poetry etc about mohammad, aren't they just following in mohammad's own footsteps?
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killi … y_Muhammad
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition … bn_%27AtikPhoenixV, I'd like to know if there are Muslim resources that refute these sites or can address from another point of view. What do you think can be done to stop the terror and bloodshed?
-
A majority of Muslims favor sharia as the law of land in Afghanistan (99%), Iraq (91%), Niger (86%), Malaysia (86%), Pakistan (84%), Morocco (83%), Bangladesh (82%), Egypt (74%), Indonesia (72%), Jordan (71%), Uganda (66%), Ethiopia (65%), Mali (63%), Ghana (58%), and Tunisia (56%).[114] Among regional Muslim populations elsewhere, significant percentage favored sharia law: Nigeria (71%), Russia (42%), Kyrgyzstan (35%), Lebanon (29%), Kosovo (20%), Tanzania (37%).[113] In Muslim-majority countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Lebanon and Turkey, 40% to 74% of Muslims wanted sharia law to apply to non-Muslims as well.[113] A 2008 YouGov poll in the United Kingdom found 40% of Muslims interviewed wanted sharia in British law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
According to the Constitution of Egypt, the state religion is Islam. The foundation of legislation is Sharia.
Blasphemy law in Egypt
In Egypt, the law against blasphemy is one of the instruments which the government and the Sunni majority use to persecute Egyptian minorities who do not subscribe to Sunni religious views. The persecution may involve surveillance, harassment, prolonged detention, mistreatment, torture, and the death penalty.
In November 2012, seven Egyptian Christians were sentenced to death for their role in the anti-Mohammad movie Innocence of Muslims.
In 2012, the authorities arrested two Coptic Christian children (aged 9 and 10) for allegedly tearing pages of the Quran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_EgyptPhoenixV, I see the statistics. I doubt that many of them felt they could be honest. Support Sharia Law or get killed along with the Christians. It seems so futile.
Yes, coercion would be a motivating factor to support something that you secretly do not support. However, once someone was in a country like France, a person would be more free to make a choice and be under less duress or fear. But in the recent case, instead, some chose to personally take it upon themselves to kill people for insulting mohammad. That is the exact opposite of what we would expect, if we assume they felt like they could not be honest, out of fear.
We see it as terrorism. It is an assumption that those that support sharia, grew up with sharia or were exposed to sharia, feel that giving the death penalty for insulting or criticizing mohammad is not okay.
Because all the terrorists exist due to political reasons. It is not for the general public (peaceful Muslims) to take into their own hands.
The governments sell weapons to these terrorist groups who kill innocent people because of foreign policies, invading Muslim countries for oil and other resources, and i think there is a bigger hidden agenda to all of this.
The CIA created Al Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups, they funded them and now they can't control them. Now the general Muslim public is getting blamed or being told to sort the problem out. How can this be possible? The powers that governments, especially USA, have overpowers anything else in the world.
What the Muslim public can do is live peacefully, show people what the real Islamic religion is and the true teachings of Islam. Muslims can do more to show their support in the country they are living in but sometimes or nearly always, innocent Muslims are attacked for the shortcomings of other.More peaceful Muslims are being killed than anyone else.
There are 2 types of Muslims, Extremists Muslims and Law -abiding Muslims. Extremist Muslims commit acts of atrocities in the name if their prophet Muhammad and scream and shout the name Allah in disregard to the teachings of the Koran. They take matters into their own hands inciting terror and fear in the hearts of people, eventually killing everyone that's within their vicinity. Their ideology is based on inflicting destruction and turmoil in the best ways possible and get rewarded in paradise, but the truth of the matter is what would the prophet do? Law-abiding Muslims are those that adhere to the the teachings of the prophet Muhammad and follow through them with the Koran faithfully. They are the ones that love Islam as their religion and proud of it. They want to be accepted and wanted by their communities to do great things to benefit themselves and the community as a whole, but with their other brothers and sisters desecrating Islam and waging a horrific battle in countries such as Iraq, Syria anf Nigeria, its become a never-ending challenge for them every day. I personally love Muslims and I love Islam,
because they are kind-hearted, intelligent and hardworking individuals that should never be discriminated. The extremists or radical Muslims as a lot of people prefer to call them are lost; lost in the sense that they have interpretated the Koran and Muhammad's teachings wrongfully or were coerced by individuals that were already radicalized.Thank you for your comments Thrall. I keep the television on 24/7 trying to keep up with as much news as possible. I'm now watching where Western women and other Muslims are leaving their families to join ISIS .... leaving their children behind. This speaks volumes to the children left behind. I wish one of them would describe the end result that is not violent death for everyone who is not with them.
Part of it is fear, but I think part of it is also because they see Christians as infidels, and don't care enough to get involved.
I think if we can each obtain peace within ourselves, we can bring peace to the world
Perhaps sections of the Kuran that deal with the violence that is going on could be put on social media, posters made, etc. If peace loving Muslims are not committing violent acts (if they are not called for in the Kuran), can they truly be Muslims?
There are three ways to become Muslims as far as I understand. Maybe I am wrong.
1. Born of Muslim parents
2. Converted to Islam through some process or ceremony or
3. Forced to at the threat of death.
Christians use the Bible to address tenets of the faith. Muslims should be able to do the same thing. I'm basically talking to myself here because I can't figure out the anger and need to kill other people without going back to Isaac and Ishmael.Isaac and Ishmael didn't try to kill each other (or any of their six other brothers) and both showed up together to bury their father Abraham in Hebron. Some of their descendants even intermarried.
Sibling rivalry, even when kids have the same parents, can be deadly. When ancestors pass on the view of their parents, hatred takes on intensity. There is less and less interaction which each generation. All that is there is the "reasons" for the hatred and resentment. I'm dealing with it in my family.
Just wanted to correct you. Number 3. Forcing Islam is wrong. Not how it works, and they do not become muslims as God knows what is in the hearts.
An answer to your main question. What can we do to stop it.
My answer would be to educate everyone around us as best as we can. To enforce education where it is denied. teach people how to think independently.
I personally argue for Islam on these forums then also argue against the people here who show the slightest signs of ignorance
arguing on both sides does leave you standing alone most of the time, but you also learn a lot from it. It sure is worth it.But history shows it works, they may not be hard core muslims, but if muslims remain in power, the next generation turns out to be hard core muslims. Your tradition it self says that many a person converted to islam just to save their skin.
i know a lot of families where the previous generation was hard core and the next generation isn't.
it works both ways.I'm curious, what is your point in saying that? You will hope for the best, and we will see how it pans out? They may be the type to force conversion or die, be hardcore, or they may not? I think this is a good example of where we need to test all things that people say.
"Test things people say?" What does that mean? Are you referring specifically to akrsys' statement that they know a lot of families where the previous generation was hard core and the next generation isn't? oceansunsets, how would we go about testing that statement? Are we suggesting that arksys does NOT know a lot of families? What exact test are you suggesting, and how should we carry it out?
No, not testing that statement, but a prior one in that discussion, where they took issue with #3 of Diane's points.
dianetrotter wrote:
"Perhaps sections of the Kuran that deal with the violence that is going on could be put on social media, posters made, etc. If peace loving Muslims are not committing violent acts (if they are not called for in the Kuran), can they truly be Muslims?
There are three ways to become Muslims as far as I understand. Maybe I am wrong.
1. Born of Muslim parents
2. Converted to Islam through some process or ceremony or
3. Forced to at the threat of death.
Christians use the Bible to address tenets of the faith. Muslims should be able to do the same thing. I'm basically talking to myself here because I can't figure out the anger and need to kill other people without going back to Isaac and Ishmael."
To which Arksys said,
"Just wanted to correct you. Number 3. Forcing Islam is wrong. Not how it works, and they do not become muslims as God knows what is in the hearts.
An answer to your main question. What can we do to stop it.
My answer would be to educate everyone around us as best as we can. To enforce education where it is denied. teach people how to think independently.
I personally argue for Islam on these forums then also argue against the people here who show the slightest signs of ignorance
arguing on both sides does leave you standing alone most of the time, but you also learn a lot from it. It sure is worth it."
Arksys was giving a correction about how Diane was "wrong" ,saying that it isn't how it works, to force conversion with threat of death, and added, that such a conversion wouldn't work anyway, as God knows the hearts, showing it would be futile anyway. (To which I would add, then why force people as some have, over history, if its all for naught anyway? It add more on top of what was already so bad.)
So BuddiNsense said,
"But history shows it works, they may not be hard core muslims, but if muslims remain in power, the next generation turns out to be hard core muslims. Your tradition it self says that many a person converted to islam just to save their skin."
To which Arksys said, "i know a lot of families where the previous generation was hard core and the next generation isn't.
it works both ways."
So the original correction from Arksys, needed to be double checked for accuracy, and turned out that Diane Trotter was right. Thus my responses.
You will come to learn this of me, also. I hopefully say things that can also be tested for accuracy. I find that far too many people in this world, just say stuff. They say all kinds of stuff. Especially in forums, but its getting worse in the real world too and at the highest levels of governments even. Anyway, it was easiest to go get the quotes, since you didn't seem to know what I was referring to, and it was from a couple of days ago. Just an interesting exchange to me. This lines right up with what a lot of our discussion has been about, in the form of an example, kind of.
Yes it does show that forcing people to convert works, or at least sometimes it does. Sometimes, and I can think of two cases where it didn't help the person, and they were beheaded anyway. So it doesn't always save them.
Yes, God knows their hearts.
I know a few muslim born and converted
Yet today they have given up the faith being muslim.It"s written they must be killed. They doing well without the religion.
There a chance from any religion someone may go insane. Look at America.Castlepaloma, I'm sure most Muslims don't agree with the nut jobs. They are so interwoven into society that they can't be identified. That is very scary.
Diane 21% of the global population is estimated to be Muslim so extremists are less than one percent. The people carrying out these acts are not representatives of the Muslim religion because the Religion has been historically very tolerant. What captures the attention is media coverage which makes it appear more rampid than it actually is .
The attack is Paris in the name of a God was just a group of murderers similiar to when some crazy shoots people in a school, universally these actions are deplored there is no need by the Muslim community to acknowledge that these people represent even an fraction of their religion.
I can tell you that in the entire history of the human race no group that had sent its adherents to commit suicide attacks has ever been sucessful. From the ancient assassins to the kamikaze pilots of Japan they generated terror but in the end were destroyed. Sending your most devoted to die is not a viable strategy either for success or recruitment.RoadWarrior, I am reeling from the reports of what Boko Haram is doing in Nigeria. It amazes me that a person can tie a bomb to a child to use as a human killing device. I do understand that media coverage of these things increase their impact; however, shouldn't we know? What can we do? If you do nothing, then they come for us? We have many brilliant people in this world. Does anyone have a solution for peace and goodwill for every human being.
Diane,
Africa has its own mountain of troubles which dwarf anything we experience. Groups such as the Lords Liberation Army which employ children soldiers to slavery and racial genocide it will take time to stop them but they will be stopped.
Certain acts are universally deplored and do not provide a basis that a certain religion is toxic for history shows all religions have been used to murder others in their name.
I can tell you there has been never been a life made better, a cause justified, and a people vindicated through mindless slaughter of innocent strangers somewhere else. Study the impact of Gandhi and Martin Luther King vs. radical Islam and you will note peaceful civil disobedience has succeeded where violence only marshaled the forces against the group.
I will leave you with the ultimate historical example. The Jews of Palestine committed numerous acts of terror against both the Roman Government and its representatives. These acts resulted in reprisal after reprisal culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem itself. The Jews never earned either home rule nor freedom. their martyrs forgotten. Yet a simple carpenter's son from Galilee who preached peace and love with only a dozen disciples acting without the benefit of media, Facebook or even a smart phone changed the entire world. That same Rome who executed him declared Christianity the Official religion of the entire empire 300 years later.
Terrorism is not a strategy for success just desperation.I'd be interested in a one on one conversation stating why it is in my best interest to become a Muslim and hear the virtues of Sharia Law extolled. Maybe someone will see the thread and address it for me.
Then I would suggest you come up with a new question that does not contain an implicit assumption. I mean, honestly, use the FREAKIN golden rule, and ask yourself the question with the word Muslim replaced with X. Realistically, if you get something like that in your email inbox, is that going to get excited about making a contribution, or would it get you more excited about deleting the email?
What can peaceful Muslims do to help stop terrorism?
Stop being overtly religious and encourage others to do so.Observant Muslims need to do what many other observant faithful have had to do for centuries: Clean house. The problem with terrorists has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with lust for power. Here's why: Back in the 11th Century, Genghis Khan, born in what is now Siberia, to Mongolian parents, rose to become the "Scourge of God" in Asia. For nearly 30 years, Khan plundered and pillaged all of Asia and as far west as Spain in his far reaching conquests.
His lust for power had nothing to do with religion. In fact, he practiced NO religion and ordered his armies to do the same. Khan, like all men who lust for power, believe they are gods. In order to acieve this autonomous power, it's necessary for these mentalities to present themselves first, as men of peace and superior intelligence. A two-faceted version of super ego. As centuries rolled by evil men learned how easy it is to become a magnet for the weakest minds and the least powerful. Few dictators take the time or trouble to be religious. In fact, they can't afford the luxury of bowing to the Divine because their super egos disallows it. They believe they are divine and therefore, privileged to exceed all boundaries and limits of civilized behavior.
If Muslims really are faithful, they must recognize that hidden behind the walls of their Mosques are men who lust for power. These men are no different than the secrecy of the Roman Curia in the Catholic religion, the Knights Templar or Opus Dei.
Secrecy is the operative that keeps lustful men from revealing their real agenda: Power. So it is, that like Catholics, Buddists and many other religions, Muslims need to take a far sharper view of what some Imams are really "teaching." It's as simple as asking yourselves, "What would Mohammed do?"
Would Mohammed have murdered innocent people? Would Mohammed have approved of men who use Islam to rise to power? WWMD...that's the only way, Muslims will ever stop these terrorists from desecrating their religion. Shine a light on the Imams who are calling in armies of young men and women for no reason other than lust for power. The real jihad must come from within to restore Islam.Ewent, you share, "Secrecy is the operative that keeps lustful men from revealing their real agenda: Power. So it is, that like Catholics, Buddists and many other religions, Muslims need to take a far sharper view of what some Imams are really "teaching." It's as simple as asking yourselves, "What would Mohammed do?"
Would Mohammed have murdered innocent people?"
I think the last two sentences, the last two questions there are key in all of this. What would he do? I know I have studied it, and encourage others to also. We each need to truthfully seek out the answers to these questions.Actually, what Muhammad did to inaugurate his new religion is not exactly an example 'to help stop terrorism':
"Muhammad gained few followers early on, and met hostility from some Meccan tribes.
"After eight years of fighting with the Meccan tribes, Muhammad gathered an army of 10,000 Muslim converts and marched on the city of Mecca. The attack went largely uncontested and Muhammad took over the city with little bloodshed. He destroyed the pagan idols in the city and sent his followers out to destroy all remaining pagan temples in Eastern Arabia." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MuhammadAs I pointed out, Asia has always been a major battleground as has Europe. Using the example of Meccan tribes to point out that Mohammed, the prophet, might be a terrorist of old is like saying the warrior tribes of Israel with the Prophet Isaiah were somehow more entitled to restore peace in their lives. How many times has England gone to battle with the French? The Spanish? For that matter, how many centuries have the Russians suffered through Civil War?
It is MEN...who create wars. It is time some MEN learned to value peace and all that it can portend. When MEN fight over land or other valuable natural resources, they prove only that their only recourse to get their way is to fight. How many of the wars in history, other than WWII were fought for true defense? Was Viet Nam? Was Iraq?"How many of the wars in history, other than WWII were fought for true defense?"
Most of them. WWI was defense. Iraqis fought America for their country. Kuwait was defensive. The middle east defended themselves in the crusades. The Falkland islands was defensive. Nearly every war had a defensive side.Iraq was not fought to defend the US in any way. What precisely did the US have to do with Iraq other than the obvious need to secure oil interests? To say all wars are fought for defense is erroneous. That's reaching too far to continue militancy and endless war.
As I recall, it was the illustrious military genius in WWII and Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who, in his final address to the nation at the close of his presidency warned of "the buildup of the military industrialists." Please reread his speech. It's obvious some want to pretend that there is no "War for Profit." That can be easily proven by the 35% of annual US tax revenues that end up for "defense."
I suggest you read the wonderful non-fiction book by John Prados, "Safe for Democracy, The Secret Wars of the CIA" if you want to get to the bottom of how some wars are really instigated by militant warmongers like Frank Wisner.The Iraq war was to invade the country so that USA could secure the oil and the future resource in Iraq where in river Euphrates there will a wealth of gold uncovered when the river dries up. Everyone (the whole world) will fight for it, and out of every 1000 people who fight for the gold in river Euphrates, only ONE will come back alive.
The USA know that Islam is the true religion but choose not to accept it, but the prophecies made by prophet Muhammad over 1,400 years ago are coming to pass and the river euphrates is one of them.
Research it.So Miah should be all become Muslims. I am not trying to be sarcastic I want to understand. What will being a Muslim mean for our future?
If you are interested in religion, are already a Christian or a Hindu or a Jew, look into the old bible or look on the internet to read proof that prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was prophecised to come after Jesus. In the bible this bit about Muhammad (Ahmed) was erased. You will not read about Muhammad (peace be upon him) in the bible.
If you look into Islam deeply enough in regards to the One God (Allah) who is the creator and who has no partner or equals, you may understand that Islam is the true religion. Religion exists because it was decreed by Allah.
If you want to learn more about Islam you search for Dr Zakir Nayik on Youtube and watch many of his talks which explain many things in Islam.
If you read about the minor and major signs before the end of the world, which were prophecised by Muhammad (peace be upon him) over 1,400 years ago, you will realise that most of the signs have already passed and only a dozen of the minor signs are left to pass. Then we move on to the major signs, which will happen like pearls dropping off a string (sayings of the prophet). One after another, we will not be able to think what is happening.
The time is coming closer and closer. I recommend you read about the 'minor and major signs' before the end of the world. Also look into the the amazing revelations in the quran which scientists have found out about recently but were revealed over 1,400 years ago.
Islam is not a violent religion, ISLAM IS PERFECT, HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT. It is we who make Islam 'look' like it's a bad religion, but in fact if there were no good Muslims left on this earth, then the end times would have already started.
Thank you for your question and if you would like any further information, please let me know.As if you had seen the original bible to know what was written in it!! Do not talk about things which you have no idea about, people call it a lie.
That is purely your conjecture who know no other religion. All religious fanatics say the same.
Why didn't god decreed to have one religion?
Still the world is here without any problem
Islam is no better than any other religion.
If islam is perfect it should have been able to prevent the violence, and I have to admit that the majority of violence today is in its name, so what good is it doing?It is useless speaking to an ignorant, blind and deaf person (in Islam) like you. There is no point in talking to you as you simply exist here like a parasyte.
Look into the links i have provided and then make your mind up instead of blabbering on with pointless gibberish before you even looked at what i have provided.
Because you know nothing about other religions other than the lie perpetrated by your coreligionists doesn't mean all are like that.
According to your tradition your prophet caused the killing of the rival poets, attacked the Meccan tribes, killed three Jewish tribes in Medina, sent people to attack Byzantium..... Out of the "rightly guided" Khalifs two were murdered, fellow muslims murdered Ali's sons Hasan and Husayn......... Is this tradition I am ignorant about?
Or historically, none of you know anything about the prophet other than that which was written a hundred years after his death by Ibn Ishaq, the true copy of which is not available. Shahi Bukhari who first collected tens of thousands of hadiths rejected the majority of it as forgeries. The Umayyids and Abasids and later Khalifs usurped power by rebellion, warfare, treachery and tyranny, is that I am ignorant of?
The theology of your religion is not much different from its elder cousin, Christianity. In fact yours is similar to the Arian "heresy", Arianism adapted for a tribal people. A religion that allow men to have four wives at a time is perfect for an uncivilized tribal, but how is it perfect for a modern man who understand it as part of being his animal self, and distances oneself from polygamy to be more humane?
As hubpages already deleted the links, I can't quote it. The site you provided is full of ridiculous nonsense and the hubs are nothing but a rehash of that nonsense. Is that the evidence that your religion is perfect?
"Are they waiting for anything except the Hour, to come to them suddenly? But its Signs have already come!"
1400 years passed since then without the world ending.
Like i have already mentioned in Part 1, ONLY ALLAH KNOWS WHEN THE WORLD WILL END.
Then goes on explaining the signs, being unable to see the contradiction.
Time will pass rapidly:
And the proof is a feeling, time has not changed in the last few millenia!!
There Will Be 50 Women to 1 Man
The ration of male to female is 1:1 with a slight male preponderance now. In ancient time, there was a female preponderance as males die in wars. And there never can be a female male ratio of 50:1 unless someone selectively kill all males, but as is evidenced by muslim countries and other backward nations, it is females that are killed.
Wine (Khamr - intoxicants, alcohol) will be drunk in great quantities
From the birth of agriculture, there is no difference.
"4. Violence and Killing Will Increase (Harj)'
Compared to the ancient and medieval times violence has actually decreased.
And the rest of the nonsense are not even worth commenting.
GMiah...So what you are saying is that only YOU are infallible? Only YOU know the Bible and religion? Isn't that just a tad too prideful. Check out the Biblical saying. "Pride goeth before a fall." I suggest you be a little more open minded and not so dictatorial about your beliefs if you don't want others to inject your controlling attitude into their opinions of YOUR religion.
You say “Islam is the true religion. Religion exists because it was decreed by Allah.” have you forgotten that the Torah and the Ingil are both books revered in Islam and not just the Qur’an?
We Muslims are not the only ones who practice a “true” religion. We are “People of the Book” read Al-Ikhlas - Surah 112, and understand what it says.
In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.
Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
He begetteth not nor was begotten.
And there is none comparable unto Him.
And not well “Allah, the eternally Besought of all!”Thank you Twilight! It was thought that there were no Muslims on this discussion. Thank you for your participation!
I don't believe any prophet would expect women to walk around in black death shrouds simply because weak males cannot control their urges. I also do not believe any prophet would expect women to be inferior to males. I realize some Muslim men are control freaks. I also realize WHY they are control freaks...loss of power. That isn't religion. It has nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with male ego.
No other religions attempt mass conversion. There's an old saying, "Misery loves company." Some men in the middle east set themselves up for the sexual frustration they deserve. It's why the youngest ones become terrorists. They haven't seen a woman's face their entire lives. How pathetic does it need to get?Islam does not say that women are inferior to men. They are equal, and in fact women have a higher status than men in Islam. If you look into it you will understand. It is mad men who abuse the Sharia law who give a bad name to the rest of the men.
Stoning to death is allowed in Islam to anyone who commits adultery, whether it be a man or a woman. But there are strict rules around stoning to death which many Muslim countries do not adhere to. There has to be at least four witnesses of seeing adultery taking place with their own eyes, and any below that number is not valid. So the person involved will not be accused of adultery. This makes it really difficult because if you were to have 4 witnesses then you would have to be involved in an orgy or do it in a public place.
Islam has it laws a foundations in place, in the Quran, in the hadiths (sayings of the prophet) but it is us humans who break the rules and abuse them.Where's the rest of my reply? Out of context much?
The rest of your fanatical reply isn't necessary. A fanatic is a person who gone far beyond the sane, rational point of possessing reason. If you live in MY country, you live by the US Constitution. So all of your blather in your posts and your need to prove your male superiority isn't cutting it.
If you are an American, you have the right to practice your religion as you see fit. You do NOT have the right to ram it down anyone else's throat. Men like you are stuck in a backward age and refuse to accept that this is not the 1600s.
So tell us...Does Allah demand women walk around in those black death shrouds so little men like you won't be tempted? Then why would Allah bother to create a gender with faces if they are never to be seen?
Sorry, you are not convincing me that your male superiority is superior...just too backward in this day and age of enlightment. The sole purpose of human existence is to become more enlightened...not to be mashed into some shapeless form by men.
And, stop pretending that you can quote Allah..You have not met Him and if you keep trying to force others to believe as you, what will you really have gained except unwilling converts willing to lie to you to make you believe they fall for your religious mularkey.G Miah, I think there is a system of allowing a few characters only. If you guys want, I can change this into a Hub. Then you can give lengthier responses.
I am sorry Ewent but i don't agree with you. I have Catholics and Jews knocking on my every week asking me to convert to their religion. Even if i tell them not to knock again, politely, they come back or post leaflets through. So you're saying it's just Muslims who are trying to mass convert people?
Islam holds the highest respect for women because heaven is under their feet, the mothers feet for their children if they deserve it.
I cannot answer for the dogs that treat women badly, and i do not support it because it is not in my religion.
Muslim women cover themselves so that men don't get to see their body, the shape of the body, their legs or their arms. It is meant for humility of the woman, and the women choose to wear it except a few who do not. It is not a necessity to wear the black burqa unless it is the law of the country, and most Muslim countries have the law in place. If you look into cases of rape within those countries that have sharia law, you will notice that rape is one of the least crimes committed.
It's no point talking to ignorant people who know what they're talking about except of what they know which they see and hear on CNN or FOX News. Finally, Allah said:
Translation:
Say: "O disbelievers! 1 I do not worship those whom you worship.2 Nor are you worshippers of Him Whom I worship.3 Nor am I a worshipper of those whom you have worshipped. Nor are you worshippers of Him Whom I worship.4 For you is your religion and for me is mine. (see Quran, 109).I don't believe you have many of the more than 78.2 million US Catholics knock on your door. More specifically, I am certain not many Jews convert. Being Jewish isn't just a religion. It's an identity that cannot be changed. Being a Muslim is not an identity as you are attempting to make it.
And, I'd bet my last dollar that all of those Catholics and Jews you claim are "converting" are young men, that men like you lure for the sheer control you hope to exert.
When you convert all 78.2 million Catholics to Islam, let me know. Till then, your claims are lies and you'd best get yourself to your prayer mat and ask forgiveness for your prideful boasting and altogether deceptive claims.G Miah, I have had Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door every week. In all my years, one Catholic came to my door. 2 Black Muslims came once when they were trying to raise money to build a "Black" hospital in the City.
My church has visitors' cards. When people complete the card, the people are given a call to see if they would like a visit.
I find that people who "force" others to join their religion or "make fun" of people who are not in their religion, there is no benefit to anyone. The problem is that many people don't know what their religion says. In Christianity, acceptance of Christ is an individual choice that one makes.
Islam is not the only true religion. There is NO true religion. Men establish religions in order to maintain male superiority over all living things. In other words, men want to be gods. Doesn't happen though does it?
Every religion on the planet is based on the human instinct of right and wrong. So you sir are wrong. You are free to believe yours is the only right religion. But, I will never convert to Islam. I do not believe that Mohammed ever intended women to be stoned in 2014 for adultery while the men who committed adultery with these women get off scott free. That's more of a male excuse using Islam to allow men to do that which they know is sinful and get away with it.
Your posts are rude, pointless and biased. When bias exists in communication such as yours, it is a tactic of you to try to control the world around you. Narcissism is not what Mohammed would have promoted. Sorry.
Ewent I believe you are confusing Genghis Khan with Attila the Hun. The Mongols made it only as far as Hungry but retreated afterwards and never returned. Attila Made it as far as Spain and he was Godless. In fact, Genghis Khan and the Mongols were very religious they worshipped the eternal blue sky and Genghis consistently prayed and gave offerings.
The Mongols revered religion and under Kublai Khan they allowed practice of all major religions. I agree religion has been the weapon wielded to gain power over the people. There is a film the Book of Eli the plot is that a power mad leader wants to get a copy of the Bible to control the minds of the masses.I stand corrected. My maternal grandmother, many generations removed is a descendant of Attila the Hun.
Interesting fact about the Quaran. It wasn't written, as some Muslims like to say, by Mohammed. It was written by scribes, in the same way much of the Holy Bible was written on the Dead Sea Scrolls of the New Testament was written by the apostles.
The writing of Quaran, not unlike that of Joseph Smith's Mormon Tablets, was based on visions these men had. So, Mohammed, Joseph Smith and St. Paul, were visionaries whose visions were documented by scribes, men who saw value in documenting visions.
The writing of the Quaran by scribes has been proven by Middle Eastern scriptologists whose experience in ancient writings is far superior to most of us.
If Muslims are honest, they will have to admit as many Catholics and Jews have had to do that what men write as scribes is as fallible as it will always be, given the human propensity for fallibility.
What can peaceful Muslims do to help stop terrorism? For one, I would suggest that rioting in the streets of Paris right now is not a good idea:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … sacre.htmlIt would appear that they have gotten over their grief for those that were killed.
Many think 9/11 was an inside jobs . Although still blaming it on just Muslim to create fuel for the war machines.
Pakistan I believe.
"Meanwhile funerals for four of his colleagues - the victims of the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris last week - were held in France today. " - Daily Mail
These folks don't look like they are afraid or disagree with anything that happened. They look angry and the banner suggests they want more people to die. I admit I am not an expert on islam or sharia, but I am not blind.
Image search "those that insult islam"PhoenixV, what was your thinking when you decided to submit the particular photo above? Did you come across any other photos of "peaceful Muslims" (the topic of this Q&A)? How many other "peaceful Muslims" do you know of who did not have their photo taken on that day? You point out that you are not blind. Yet you have chosen only to post a photo of one particular mob, and stop there. Would you like to submit a comment or photo that represents the views of Muslims that are not in that photo, so that we might have a more balanced understanding of the "peaceful Muslim" world? Or not?
As a matter of fact I did try image searches for opposing views and other similar search terms. http://tinyurl.com/q4qyl7h but I could not find large groups of muslims protesting against blashemy laws or apostasy laws.
Large groups of people out protesting and insisting on death for cartoonists during the funerals of the last victims, sort of refutes an unsupported theory that everyone that voted in a poll supporting blasphemy laws, were all lying.
I have no interest in doing what I feel would be public relations for islam or mohammad. If I were convincing, someone might join it and then decide to leave and then get killed or someone might actually follow in the footsteps of mohammad.Breaking News! This just in from July 3, 2014. It's a video from the Yarmouk Camp in Syria, which houses Palestinian refugees. It's difficult to know the precise context of the video. I don't know what questions prompted this response from the young man, but I like to imagine that they are the same kinds of questions that many people on this page have been asking. That's why I find it fitting to post it here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A2WcEAWen4
If the link gets redacted, search for "Yarmouk refugee camp" on youtube.And how many major news outlets have shown this? I suspect very few. It isn't "newsworthy" enough. Only videos of Muslims holding/killing hostages is newsworthy apparently. It's a perfect illustration of how things that appear in the mainstream media tend to fit a particular narrative, and things that don't fit get discarded. Thank you for sharing a bit of reality.
According to the BBC, although Yarmouk "is identified as a camp, there are no tents or slums in sight. It is a residential area with beauty salons and Internet cafes." It has hospitals and schools and has been part of the municipality of Damascus since 1957. The chaos which is happening now is because of the civil war in Syria which has affected all of Damascus and most of Syria. Damascus was bombed again just a few hours ago.
All major news sources in the free world have written about the crisis caused by the Syrian Civil War and about ISIS:
Syrian refugees in Turkey:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/n … ees-turkey
Syrian refugees in Jordan:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … order.html
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/201 … -in-jordan
Syrian refugees in Lebanon:
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast … story.html
And then there are the two million Iraqi external refugees and another two million internally displaced Iraqis. It's starting now in Nigeria with 200,000 refugees.
It's as I said before: "Most of the victims of terrorist attacks are fellow Muslims."There should be some way to elevate dialog on this. I can't get those images out of my mind. I watched CNN coverage of Doctors without Borders, Journalists without Borders and Save the Children. I'm signing up to support the Vets with my $19 per month donation.
The world can no longer adequately assist all of the people displaced by Islamic terrorism.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), more than 3.8 million Syrians have fled to the neighboring states of Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. Another 7.6 million Syrians are displaced inside the country.
In Iraq there are 3.3 million displaced people within the country (600,000 from other countries and the rest are Iraqi nationals).
There are more than 1.1 million Somalis displaced internally and nearly one million refugees living in neighboring countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia, and Yemen.
In Nigeria where fighting continues against Al-Qaeda, there are 1,192,060 displaced persons.
We have not seen such a crisis for humanity since World War II. In fact, Islamic terrorism looks more and more like the start of World War III.You are so right. I try to do what I can within my family structure. I pick a couple to help hoping they will then help others. Unfortunately, some don't catch the vision.
It looks like Jordanians are upset that ISIS has not produced the Jordanian pilot. I think they have killed him or tortured him very badly, otherwise they would show him. Jordanian Sunnis are now taking pause. This should be infectious. There are Muslims, with power, who have turned their heads while the monster grows.Diane, ISIS killed the pilot. They savagely burned him alive:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … pilot.htmlI know. They say the King knew, or suspected, he was dead already. He wanted the people to understand that ISIS was not about Islam but savagery so he started demanded that he be seen. This is so awful. I was numbed when I saw the cage and part of what they did. They are not human. They are monsters.
Hopefully, peaceful Muslim leaders will speak out, use social media and do everything they can to show what animals they are.
I am praying that there will be Muslim leadership in denouncing them. It will require visuals and video so people can understand.There is a forum going on now (in Arabic). This is a quote from the link I posted:
"Just ten minutes after the deeply disturbing video of Moaz al-Kasasbeh's execution was released, a checklist of justifications for the barbaric act was published on a jihadi forum.
"The post, published on the pro-ISIS Al-Platform Forum, was written as a guidance to supporters who might be questioned over the merits of the act under Islamic principles.
"In the post, entitled 'Moaz Was Burnt Alive, Below Is the Islamic Justification for Such an Act', it gives a list of points, before saying: 'This is what you should say if confronted about these actions.'
It says that people were 'going to ask themselves whether or not this is approved by religion', vocativ reports.
"It then adds: 'Most scholars think nowadays it is fine to burn the victim.'
The post does not provide any religious basis for the execution. Other forum members later joined in with their own religious justifications."
I doubt that other Islamic religious views would be allowed on that forum. But, I agree with you that other Muslims need to speak out. It must be remembered that the pilot they killed was a fellow Muslim.Jordan has hanged two prisoners from death row. At least they had a trial and were sentenced to death. Writer, this is going to get real ugly. It is an opportunity for peaceful Muslims to speak up. I sure hope they step up to the plate.
'Peaceful' Muslims are being slaughtered and forced out of their homes. ISIS now controls 1/3 of Syria and 1/3 of Iraq. It has eyes on Jordan. Millions of people are living in tents in the bitter cold, without adequate food supplies and medical care. The situation is well-past the 'speaking out' level and requires military action with full resolve.
And their target is also the West. You are the target. If you do not fully understand what this enemy is capable of, watch this video starting at about 15 minutes in:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/403058397700 … show-clips
This video is being shown on large outdoor screens to children all over Raqqa, the ISIS headquarters in what used to be Syria. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … lames.htmlWriter, I saw the burning last night and was telling my husband how awful it was. He asked to see it today. It has been removed from YouTube. I can understand that it is very difficult for the family.
It's awful how that little kid has been taught to think it is entertainment. So we know where he will be in 7 or 8 years.
United Arab Emirates have pulled out, supposedly because they don't think they will have back up. Some are saying it is a political move because so many people support UAE. The leaders want to hold their positions of power. I can't consider them peaceful because to do nothing when you can do something makes you "one of them."Let's not be too hasty to judge the UAE. It has temporarily "suspended flights", not abandoned the cause nor its place in the cohalition. One of the main reasons is that the UAE wanted a search-and-rescue base closer to the theater in Northern Iraq instead of in Kuwait. (That certainly makes more sense to me!)
You can imagine the difficulty of coordinating a military operation with multiple countries, multiple commanders and multiple military strategies. And, behind it all, is the UAE's further complaint that the US has allowed Iran to play an increasing role in the coalition's efforts. (I have to agree with the UAE's position on that, too.) The Saudis object to this as well.
The UAE volunteered for the coalition even before Obama presented the idea at a NATO summit. It conducted more air strikes in the initial stages of the operation than any other country. One of the most notable, historically, was a strike by a UAE F-16 pilot who is the UAE's first female fighter pilot. (This tells you much about the nation's cultural practices of civil rights.)
In response, the US has already begun to establish the requested search-and-rescue facility in northern Iraq. On the greater issue of Obama's support for Iran:
"The four Gulf Arab participants in the US-led group entertain profound reservations on another score: Iran’s increasing involvement in the US-led war on ISIS and the growing operational coordination between the two powers – especially in the Iraq arena – compared with Washington’s dwindling cooperation with the Gulf participants.
"It is feared in Riyadh – and not just in Abu Dhabi – that the joint US-Iranian war effort against the Islamic State is providing a screen behind which the Obama administration is opening doors for Iran to advance its regional aspirations.
"They are adamantly opposed to Obama’s policy in this regard and are loath to lend their air strength for its support. Therefore the entire Gulf component, and not just the UAE, may be quietly taking its leave of the US-led coalition against ISIS." Source
If Obama doesn't get his act together, this will go down as his worst foreign policy failure and a US defeat in the fight against Iranian-backed Islamic terrorism.Ah! Thanks for the information. That brought to mind the WH trying to work a deal on the WMD's that Israel is concerned about.
I have a cousin teaching in Abu Dhabi and want her to be safe.
Thank you for the enlightenment!Your cousin is probably making a high salary. It is a very wealthy country, but way to close to Iran.
No country is safe from this kind of terrorism. A 9/11 event can happen anywhere and at anytime. This is a global threat.
Obama is content to allow Iran to retain its nuclear reactors and its thousands of centrifuges. Iran doesn't need ICBMs to reach Israel.
It needs them to reach America. This is what the Iranian desire "Death to America" is all about.This is what 'peaceful' Muslims can do to help stop terrorism. It was hastily put together, but Jordan released its own video in response to the barbaric burning of its pilot, First Lt. Moaz al-Kasasbeh, captured by ISIS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtc3I67Xgls
The video is in Arabic, but it opens with these words, “This is the beginning — you will know who the Jordanians are! We will be faithful to our hero the martyr Moaz. We will continue our fight, sacrificing everything to defend the true values of Islam.”
In the video, a Jordanian pilot holds up a message to ISIS from the Quran: "And do not think that God is unaware of what the evildoers are doing."
In the payload of the fighter jet is a bomb with this message:
A squadron of jets then takes off and bombs the sh*t out of ISIS training centers and weapon storage sites in Syria. Then, dozens of Jordanian jets flew to Iraq and did the same thing. These were the first air attacks on Iraqi soil against ISIS.
Jordan King Abdullah II said Jordan's response "will be harsh because this terrorist organization is not only fighting us, but also fighting Islam and its pure values."
Jordan is acting alone, without the US-led coalition. It is exhibiting leadership by a king who was a military general before he rose to the position of leader of his nation, as opposed to Obama who has no military experience whatsoever.
You can read more about the air attacks here.
do they have any names of the scholars or any information how the scholars came to this conclusion? it just doesn't make sense.
It was posted on the Arabic language site alplatformmedia.com (also known as al-Minbar al-'Ilami al-Jihadi).
This site supports ISIS and is not representative of traditional Islamic views. It is a terrorist site. Most Muslims do not accept their views at all.
Yes but look at the difference in coverage. How many headlines have been dedicated to the news that Muslim terrorists have burned a hostage? Why is that event more newsworthy than the outpouring from the young man in the video above? Is shock value the criteria used to determine if something is news? If so why?
I think it's because shocking events are more dramatic, which translates into more viewers/readers/listeners. News outlets are owned by corporations. Giving a fair and balanced view of reality is not the main priority of those corporations, creating profit for shareholders is. Therefore I believe mainstream media is intrinsically biased towards showing events that will gain the largest audience. The result is a distorted view of reality which is skewed towards drama, shock value and violence. I believe this contributes to a heightened sense of fear and paranoia in some sections of society.Don't you think it's because burning another person is such a horribly heinous crime, and not because of the sensationalism?
It was definitely a heinous crime, and I think it was right to report it. But why so much coverage relative to other topical events in the region? Is the amount of coverage an event receives in the news determined by how violent it is? If so, that means the most violent events will receive the most coverage. That makes the news no more that a showcase of violent events. That is not an accurate reflection of reality. It's a distortion of reality, and it makes some people understandably afraid and paranoid. That fear and paranoia can be (and has been) exploited for all sorts of purposes.
The signing of major peace treaties makes the news, too. There just hasn't been one of those recently.
And another thing. Even with the tendency towards giving more coverage to violent events, there also appears to be bias shown in the coverage of violent events committed by Muslims vs. violent events committed by non Muslims. But we don't have to speculate about that.
On Jan 17 2011 a bomb was found in Spokane, Washington. It was set to go off during the Martin Luther King Day parade, and consisted of shrapnel dipped in rat poison(1). It was described by the FBI as “a viable device that was very lethal and had the potential to inflict multiple casualties.”(2) Another official told the Associated Press (1/19/11), “They haven’t seen anything like this in this country.... This was the worst device, and most intentional device, I’ve ever seen.”(3)
The bomb was planted by a white supremacist called Kevin Harpham who intended to "hurt parade participants"(4)
A few months earlier on May 1st 2010 a bomb was found in Times Square. It consisted of "fireworks, gasoline, propane tanks, and fertilizer" (5). That bomb was planted by Faisal Shahzad, an American Muslim, in revenge for US drone strikes(6)
According to the Nexis news media database(7) the bomb planted by Faisal Shahzad (which according to reports could not have detonated due to the fertilizer used) received 14 times more coverage than the Spokane bomb, which was described as a viable device. Also, the Times Square incident had 49 mentions on evening news programs compared to the Spokane incident which had only 3 (ABC News did not mention the Spokane bomb at all).
It was also reported that the Spokane bomb received a third less coverage than the November 2010 FBI sting operation in Portland which used a fake bomb to catch a Muslim teenager. In that case there was zero chance of a bomb exploding. There were 420 mentions of that incident in the news media the week after it happened, compared to 139 for the Spokane incident, where there was a strong chance that the bomb would have detonated and caused mass casualties had it not been discovered(8).
What do the two incidents that received more coverage have in common? They were perpetrated by Muslims. So I think there is a tendency for the media to give more coverage to violent incidents. But these violent (or potentially violent) incidents, the two involving Muslims received more coverage than the one involving a non-Muslim.
This is an example of media bias which (intentional or not) helps perpetuate a specific narrative about a specific group of people. This type of bias is not obvious, which is part of the problem. People just don't know what they don't know. Such bias is insidious as it is very subtle but has harmful effects.
(1) http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/03/1 … m-harpham/
(2) http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/ … omb19.html
(3) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mlk-parade- … new-to-us/
(4) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … =140265871
(5) http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0510/ … its-C-team
(6) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre … ing-matter
(7) http://www.nexis.com/
(8) http://www.salon.com/2011/02/19/spokane_mlk_bomb/
I just shared this on my Facebook page. It is heartbreaking and I am crying. Please, please, everyone post this on social media. Maybe news media will then consider it worth covering.
Islam is the religion taught in its fundamentals by all the prophets. It is the religion which the first human being was instructed to follow. It is the religion of Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad and all other prophets (peace be upon them all) throughout the existence of human beings.
From the world view of Islam, most of the world's major religions originated in the pure religion of Islam itself and only through the teachings being lost, forgotten or wilfully corrupted have these religions changed. Judaism claims special status for the Jews as the chosen people - a status which cannot be acquired except through birth [1] and which makes a Jew superior to any non-Jew (goyim) whatever their beliefs. Christianity insists that you must believe in various doctrines which form the foundations of what is distinctively 'Christian' belief in order to be 'saved' (i.e. that Jesus (peace be upon him) died to atone for the sins of Mankind, that Allah is a trinity etc.). This doctrine, the (Catholic) church itself admits [2], didn't develop until several hundred years after Christ and so cannot possibly have applied to those before Jesus nor to his early followers. In contrast to this, Islam has at its core, a simple message which applies to all human beings before Muhammad (pbuh) and all after his time:
"...And they say: "None shall enter paradise unless he be a Jew or a Christian." Those are their (vain) desires. Say: "Produce your proof if you are truthful." Nay whoever submits his whole self to Allah and is a doer of good, he will get his reward with his Lord; on such shall be no fear nor shall they grieve."
Qur'an 2:111-112
The word used in this verse for 'submits' is 'aslama'. It is from this verb that the word 'Islam' comes as 'the submitting'. Islam is a word that doesn't have any connection with an area or a particular character from history, it is the one and only truly universal religion and fittingly it has a truly universal name:
The word "Islam" means voluntary submission to the will of Allah. The Quran has not been changed in over 1,400 years, not a single dot.A contributor to this discussion, GA Anderson maintains:
You say “If those are the examples that you see as relevant, them (sic) why didn't you ask what white people are doing to stop them?”
Is he one of those narrow people who think that Islam is the province of funny little people in strange clothes? Foreign chaps with brown faces?
Perhaps I should say, to him and to others of that ilk, “Get a grip, GA, and open your mind. I am a Muslim but I do not conform to your stereotypical concept of one. I am a white British subject who just happens to think that Islam is the religion that mirrors my beliefs more than Christianity. I embraced Islam many years ago, but I don’t think I am a better than any non Muslim, neither do I condone the atrocities committed by Boko Haram nor ISIL. Neither would I like to live under Sharia Law.
My opinions and worries are shared with me by many of my Islamic friends, whether they be from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Australia or whether they are simply British Muslims who have been born here of Muslim parents or have become Muslims since adulthood.
Not one of me friends and acquaintances think this excuse for “Jihad” is valid or even honest, but apart from that there is little that can be done about it apart from being ready to expose any rabid fool who takes up arms against the country that he loves... in this case, Britain.
Please note, I was drawn to this discussion by a friend on HP, KU37. My first response to him was:
“I don’t think that there is anything that they can do; there’s very little than anyone can do when a certain group... or even an individual, have/has made up their/his minds/mind that a certain situation is wrong.
Sorry about the slashes and changes of case, but I think you know what I mean.Why would you not want to live under sharia law.
I would hate to live under Sharia law because I believe, as most right thinking people must believe, that religion and my relationship with God is my concern and the concern of none other.
Who has the right to tell me when, and if, I should go to the Mosque?
Who can force me to pray five times a day? God sees me, and as I believe in Him, I do what I think He will approve of.
It's one of those things that fall under the banners of Integrity, Honesty and that old fashioned concept of Human Rights.I am guessing that if you object to being told where to pray, or how much to pray, you would also object to apostasy laws, blasphemy laws and other aspects of sharia? Regardless, you seem to be suggesting that sharia is inconsistent with Human Rights?
A Theocracy can never be a good thing if it takes away the element of choice.
I live in a country that has a State Religion; the head of the State is the Queen. She is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but it is a titular leadership. She is the secular head and her duties are largely ceremonial.
However, this country, in historical times had what might have been termed a Theocracy, and many cruelties and ghastly practices were levelled against, not only Christians of other sects, but also, against Jews. This attitude continues in other parts of this world, and not least of them are countries which maintain they are Islamic. I wouldn’t want to be a citizen in those countries anymore than the many millions who do live there should want to be. It’s axiomatic.Earlier I believe you wrote " Islam is the religion that mirrors my beliefs more than Christianity.".
Isn't it true that Jesus led a non-violent life? Can you say the same for mohammad?Mohammad (pbuh), please note, it's a proper noun, so should be capitalised, started off a peacefully as Isa (Jesus) (pbuh), but the Quraysh, a tribe to which he belonged, made it very hard for him; constantly trying to do him harm. Eventually he took up arms to fight for what he thought was right. It was either fight, or be wiped out.
Just as Jesus did in the Temple when he saw that the money lenders were going beyond the boundaries that had been placed upon dealing within the Holy Places.Earlier you wrote that you were muslim, yet you would not want to live under sharia. During that exchange someone wrote: "Stoning to death is allowed in Islam" then they gave some rationale. My question then is, if they do not differentiate between islam and sharia, why should I, or you?
If someone follows Jesus example, and then they could go overturn some tables, at some place because they felt that the place was taking advantage of widows with little money and turning a house of worship into a monetary foreign exchange and that would be a rationale. For me it would be like someone overturning the tables of money at a TV evangelist place, and I would probably send money to get them out on bail.
This is a far cry of a comparison, of overturning tables of money at a house of worship and sending people out to behead people and bring back their head to mohammad so they can be rewarded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition … _Ibn_Unais Or having other people killed for reasons that included writing poetry that offended mohammad. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition … bn_%27Atik
There is a difference between overturning tables and any rationale and beheading people and retrieving the head for a reward and whatever rationale that comes with that.
If we build a religion around one, well we have to worry about the furniture, if we build a religion around the other, well we get yesterday, todays and tomorrows news story and it aint pretty.I am aware that my spell checker tries to capitalize mohammad. I make a deliberate effort to use lower case, because I do not want to give any deference to a man that gave rewards for decapitated heads. I do that because John the Baptist was beheaded, and so because of my personal religious beliefs and feelings, in that regard, and because I find that giving rewards for decapitated heads, to be personally repugnant to me as well, I do not use uppercase.
After killing ibn Khalid, he cut off his head, brought that to muhammad,[3] muhammad gave him his staff as a reward...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition … _Ibn_UnaisThe above proves that you know little about the Prophet.
Also, I am afraid, you don't really understand why Jesus overturned the tables. Look that up before you start telling me that Mohammad ordered heads to be returned.
By the way, I should imagine that you don't understand why it is haram in Islam to show depictions of what the Prophet looked like. This was because pictures and statues of Jesus had become items of “idolatry” and you must know that it is one of the Commandments that “You should have no graven images before me” - That’s God speaking, if you wonder who I was quoting.
So Mohammad didn’t want to become a prophet who was eventually mistaken for anything else.
Can you imagine people thinking that a good man was Son of God or worse, God Himself? Believe it or not, this has happened in the past.
Have a look also, and see if you can discover what Mohammad did when the Muslims eventually took control of the Ka'aba in Macca. The Muslims were destroying and pulling down all the graven images and religious artefacts that had been there for many, many years. he found a picture, not only of Jesus, but his mother Mary the Virgin. While the destruction was going on around he, he stood with his hands protecting tehse two artefacts, preventing their destruction, because, in Islam both Jesus, who is known in my religion as the Christ and Mary, his blessed mother, are revered and loved.Did mohammad give his staff as a reward for Khaled bin Sufyan Al-Hathali's decapitated head or not?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expedition … _Ibn_Unais
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nadb … mp;f=false
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaled_bin … Al-Hathali
Thank you KU for bringing Twilight to the discussion!
Greetings Twilight Lawns,
It looks as if you are relatively new to these forums, so welcome aboard.
Perhaps it is your unfamiliarity with the general flow of forum threads that might explain your difficulty following a thread of comments and responses. It is the most generous reasoning I could come up with for a response that identifies me by name, takes one sentence of a lengthy comment out of context, and then proceeds to call me narrow minded, and presumes to know what I think about Muslims; "... is the province of funny little people in strange clothes? Foreign chaps with brown faces?"
As for the "open mind" part, I hope I will always be open to new perceptions and other points of view. And I hope you will someday be blessed with that same attitude. I accept your unsolicited description of your "Musliminity," (sp?), but I do try to stay away from stereotyping people as much as I can. I am confident that once you see the proof of your erroneous attribution, you may feel the same urge.
To the point of your misunderstanding, (to folks who are familiar with my forum activities, I hope they won't see your mistake as unflattering as it looks - I do look forward to your growth and future participation in these forums), and because you are new, I will do the work of showing you the error of your comment instead of asking you to go back and do it for yourself...
The response you cherry-picked this line from, "...If those are the examples that you see as relevant, them (sic) why didn't you ask what white people are doing to stop them?", was a direct response to a comment by Millionaire Tips. Who wrote:
You can read his full comment here: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126749? … ost2695912
I responded to his comment, (not the OP's main question), with this;
This is apparently the response that you misunderstood. If you would like to see the full context of that response, you can read it here: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126749? … ost2696866
To which Millionaire Tips responded;
again, you can read his full comment here: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/126749? … ost2696953
...and that was the trail of our exchanges concerning a tangent of the OP.
I hope you can now see that my response that appeared to offend you was not addressing the OP's "Muslim" question at all. I am sure that upon review of this new perspective you will see your misstep.
BTW, these forums have been kinda bare of the type of political threads I typically participate in, so thanks for providing the opportunity to make a contribution. I look forward to more lively exchanges with you.
GAGosh!
And all I had planned for that day was to do a little writing, watch some television, and perhaps put my feet up in front of the fire.
I am not, may I hasten to add, a deeply thinking person; neither do have any firm political leanings, so to become embroiled in a series of responses, thinly veiled insults (not from you, by the way) and counter responses was far from my itinerary.
So perhaps I should just mind my own business and float through life in the semi-disjointed manner which has been my wont until recently.
Good luck in your endeavours.
Ian (vaguely on the sidelines)Hmm... I had an itinerary once, but I didn't feed it right so it found a new home.
Good luck to you too.
GAYou have a remarkably verbose way of saying "please keep out". I am impressed.
I suspect there is some sarcasm in there somewhere.
You are right in your observation that I can be a bit wordy, (too verbose?), but you are wrong in your interpretation. In plain speak I was taking someone to task for making unfounded accusations about me, but I was also doing it nicely, and included an invitation for further participation.
So I am puzzled that you were left with the impression of "keep out." I will try to be less circumspect next time. Or this time even. Hopefully this response will leave you with the impression that I am inviting you to elaborate on what part of my comment gave you that incorrect impression.
GA
To know if something is wrong or not, we have to go to the core of it. To its very base ideas, leaders, their teachings, and examples. We don't rely simply on possible heretic of a religion to be the thing that we use as a lens, like so many want to do on occasion. This is how we can define a heretic vs a true believer though of a said religion.
Once we are willing to get to the more simple learning of things in this manner, what seems confusing or cloudy, is made abundantly clear. Then, what we are seeing in our realities around the world, (including silence), is made more than abundantly clear.
As with political ideas and all other kinds of ideas, when something is good or true at its base, it doesn't need any distorting, covering up, or twisting. It stands on its own as a pure and good thing. Its the "standard", so to speak. We need to double check the standard in all of these cases, if we truly want to understand things. I am not sure all want to.
Some people embrace what turns out to be good ideas, and on the flip side, some embrace what turn out to be not be pure and good ideas. Yet we all want want our ideas to be pure and good. This is what drives what I say above.Thank you oceansnsunsets! I admit that I am looking for simple answers.
Sure thing, Diane. While this difficult topic is not the most pleasant at times, I think its good we are talking about all of this stuff. I think its educational, and can make sense of what we are observing in our world. I think you are being helpful and positive, in a rather difficult subject. (As far as what I have read anyway.) I for one, appreciate it!
Thank yo oceansnsunsets! I will work on it! I love discussion.
My heart goes out to the poor guy who is getting 50 lashes every week until he gets 1000. At least they skipped this week.
Thanks. Watching the news on all these things gives us an insight on what and how we portray Muslims in society. They should not be condemned in this manner and the issue of Western women joining extremist is deeply alarming and disheartening at the same time because they are vulnerable and feel that they are needed by such people.
If I were predisposed to engage in theatrical, cerebral, rigmarole, it would be more befitting to discuss it with a Producer or Director. I do not need to stand over roadkill with a magnifying glass and a pair of tweezers to deduce the problem.
What I suggest is a Gopro and an extended vacation to middle east countries that support sharia, while they keep a daily journal of how they tell everyone they are leaving islam and are converting to Christianity. The rest of us will look forward, with great anticipation, to that civics lesson on the nightly news.I have been reading along, and paying attention to all of this. It almost is concerning to a point I haven't really felt before. Let it be known, that are some of us that see the simple points you have been making, that need no defense whatsoever. They are just facts, that have a simple cause and effect manner to them, that makes sense to the honest, and logical, reasonable mind.
One could spend some time asking ourselves what would explain this very odd response we see from some. As for being born into a freedom loving country, with citizens and hopefully leaders that think fairly, I am thankful and know I have benefited. We know its so easy to talk big, and say all kinds of things. Truth is, what you are saying is inherently true, and people won't go and get a Gopro, and take an extended vacation to those places that enforce the laws you mention, because they already know the truth. I wonder if some look inward, to why they seem to be defending something so dark and immoral as we are talking about, yet we see it. Its alarming to me.
The best I can conclude, is that people cannot handle the truth of the links you have shared. You often didn't expand upon the information already online on sites like Wikimedia. So I can kind of "get" that we will try to embrace other possibilities as true, ANYTHING other than what it seems to be. Yet if it is how it looks, then those truths, actually explains all the questions that are naturally arising. Some don't want to see it. Some would rather engage in obvious mental gymnastics and contortions of thought, to seem to defend something they say they don't defend. Another thing unable to be admitted very likely. Even take offense that it is being observed, and responded to. I can only hope that my comment can be one to help encourage people to be more honest with something that they don't want to be true, but that is.
Thank you for backing your points with facts, links, statistics, and more so good reasoning and logic, and not mere assertions and poor arguments.. Its a tough situation, and not pleasant, admittedly. What doesn't help, is the embracing of what turns out to not be true.
One last thing, if you were so wrong, it would have been just easier to show or explain how you were wrong in what you were saying. I never saw that, and for a reason I think. Wanting someone to be wrong in what they are saying, doesn't work. If this mentality continues, I am concerned of what the result will be. If the truth is so offensive, why not truly try to address the problems, rather than go after a person looking at it squarely? If this thought is so upsetting, how am I wrong in saying some seem to not be able to handle the truth?Oceansunsets, after closely reading a couple dozen of your posts it is starting to vaguely dawn on me what you are talking about. Please allow me to attempt to put words in your mouth, and then offer observations. You are saying that the terrorists who make spectacular attacks (including the one on September 11, 2001 - yes! it can happen here in the US!) are doing so because of what they learned from studying Islam. You are saying that a deep study of Islam will reveal to anyone who is curious the cause of all of our modern problems. Don W has made many posts -- some brief, some longer -- which explain why this kind of thinking is flawed, misleading, and leads to a very skewed understanding of our complex modern world. I agree with his posts and I don't think I can improve on them. It seems to me that you would do better making a "deep study" of Don W's posts before you go further into "deep study" of Islam.
Some people love statistics. Until the stats and a thousand youtube videos shows the obvious and then it suddenly becomes too complex an issue to rely on statistics.
I don't think that is totally keying in on what I think. Thank you though for attempting to understand. I think my point of view on things is a fair one, and is partly borne out of those that go after my own religion, Christianity. Often, to critique it, people go after heretics of what Christ taught through teachings and example. After pointing out people in history or currently that went opposite of his examples and teachings they might say, "See why your religion causes so many problems?" Where if they had stuck to his actual teachings and example, the "measuring stick" as it were for Christianity, they wouldn't ever be murdering, be bigoted hypocritical or hateful, and the world would be a much better place. Its more of a "problem solving set of views." Even, among people that think totally opposite of each other. I mean a pluralistic world, where many beliefs can live side by side peacefully.
So I am not being inconsistent when I suggest that maybe answers can be found from educating ourselves more, on any religion. I think that is a good idea. Don't you? Wouldn't everyone?
Were there any particular comments you thought were especially compelling to you that I ought to look at, from DonW, that have to do with how I should rethink things? I am open to that.I think Don W has at least a half a dozen on this page explaining why it is a problem when you try to explain events in the modern world free from facts. He suggests that instead of looking at the world from the point of view of say, a left-handed Mormon juggler and part-time dentist, you first make an attempt to remove your biases. oceansunsets, are you aware that you have biases? They are very apparent in what you write. Specifically, you have biases as a Christian. You may not be conscious of them, or you may be explicitly stating that you are using them as a measuring stick. It does not matter whether you are right or wrong, or how much you believe you are right or wrong. The fact is, growing up as a Christian, or coming to Christianity as an adult causes you to look at the world through a certain kind of prism, and make the world appear a certain way. I refer you to Don W's posts which are very clear and well articulated.
If you think that my ideas here are "twisting" in some way, please let me know exactly which ideas you think are "twisting".I have seen most of his posts I believe. I seem to be the one that is in favor of facts, from where I stand. Thus the reason for my above response. I have supported facts, that myself and others have shared. Its the opinions and assertions, I am less fond of. As an example you portray my views as looking at the world like a left handed mormon juggler and a part time dentist but I have shown the opposite to be true. I am looking at what I think is about the most fair view put out, and so you need to make your case I think. Just stating that me looking at the facts as I have just shared how I do, is anything like you portray there is unfair, not accurate. We all have points of view, sure! Show how my supposed biases are hindering my views? Usually, its really easy to see where and how someone does that, if they are. So please back up your claims. His posts to me, and many others, seem to be just from someone taking a side. I don't prefer skewed views of things, and you maybe didn't know this about me.
So I take what you have said of me to be very serious. Please explain how my lens is clouded, if we can't use facts in our fact finding, to illuminate? If you really think I have done that, please show how I have used things other than facts? You say its very clear to see. So it should be easy Thank you.I see many of your replies to PhoenixV which seem to indicate that you are reading his comments as facts. The ability to use Wikipedia and type in "Sharia Law", and copy and paste does not make PhoenixV any kind of expert on the matter of Islam, nor does it make his findings "true" or "right" by any stretch of the imagination. He made a suggestion about living abroad with a GoPro, which is apparently some sort of camera, in order to reach a true understanding of the modern world. I would refer you to any number of autobiographical bestsellers written by Americans in occupied Muslim countries to get a better understanding than that. Pardon the sarcasm here, but I'm guessing that if the autobiographies were written by someone who only traveled back and forth from their quarters to their job at the HQ Burger King, and spent all their spare time Googling "Muhammed", it would not be a very compelling book, let alone a bestseller.
It seems that you are taking issue with what Wikipedia has to say. Have you considered rebutting anything provided from Wikipedia? Have you considered that the reason that you take exception with Wikipedia, is that your own beliefs or position (whatever that might be) may not have as much substance or merit, as you thought, so you are angry with the copy - paste -messenger? I intentionally use Wikipedia for many reasons...
I see it like this: I am presented with a strawman of- "All muslims are being stereotyped based upon extremists involved in isolated events." I see this as a tactic, to oversimplify the issues, so an opponent can hopefully characterize someone as islamophobic and dismiss the debate. However, islamophobia is a misnomer or a sort of "catch-all" phrase, which can then be used to potentially label someone a bigot just because they criticize islam, by insinuating they don't like muslims, instead. Islam is a religion, not a person.
In fact I have focused primarily on islam and almost entirely on sharia. I have shown polls regarding the support of apostasy laws and blasphemy laws. I have focused on the court systems that convict or sentence people for apostasy and blasphemy laws. Speculatively, I can understand that some might become frustrated because a hypothetical strawman strategy is not playing out, as hoped for.
By focusing on sharia, we can dispel the first part of the strawman of "all muslims etc" because sharia does not equal muslims. By focusing on sharia and the court systems in islamic countries, I believe we can dispel the last part of the strawman/claim of just "extremists involved in isolated events" because court systems are heavily ingrained in the system and mirror, to an extent the culture.
There was a claim earlier in the thread regarding the polls, where people were possibly lying in the polls and out of fear they supported immoral things, when in reality they did not ie. they were under duress and so they overwhelmingly, in several countries, supported death penalties for leaving or insulting islam.
This is an admission by the claimant, that they know that these laws are immoral. But instead of acknowledging that and discussing a mutually beneficial remedy or common ground, they revert back to the strawman and it becomes a burden of proof for them to show that everyone is under duress, with a confirmation bias, in my opinion, so then they can imply the populace gave no support and have no culpability.
You see, "Agreeing that death penalties for leaving or insulting islam is a bad thing " and going from there does not work well when the strawman angle is "all muslims etc", - plus acknowledging that these laws are bad, opens the door - that laws mean courts and courts mean that the support for those laws are more ingrained in the populace than wants to be admitted.Your seven-paragraph post above is quite nuanced and informative. I lack the time, energy and interest to research all that stuff. I pointed something out to you a couple weeks ago, when you first posted on my forum titled "Paris attack 1/7/15". Your first post, as a reply to nothing in particular other than the title "Paris attack 1/7/15" was little more than a copy/paste of two paragraphs from wikipedia (a very well-vetted and reliable source I agree) which appeared to be the results of your search for the terms "Sharia" and "blasphemy", and I would hazard to guess that you selected only the most vivid and interesting resulting two paragraphs. That post was not nuanced. That post was not informative. That post was dishonest due to your method of inquiry, and as effective politically as a "Breaking news!" headline on CNN.
Besides critiquing the use of Wikipedia and extolling the virtues of cultural diversity, what can we do to end apostasy and blasphemy laws, today? Any ideas?
EDIT
Because, in my opinion, that is What peaceful Muslims can do to help stop terrorism.I love Wikipedia. I haven't seen their articles on Islam, Mohammed, and Sharia, but I'm guessing they go on for page after page after page.
Finally, after seeing dozens of rhetorical questions from you disguised as genuine questions, I must admit that I think you are now asking good-ish questions. First of all, I would suggest you think about the poll of Muslims you're so fond of quoting. What kinds of questions did they ask in that poll? "Please check one: a) peaceful b) violent". Imagine being asked a poll question like that - "please check one a) peaceful Christian or b) violent Christian". I looked at the Pew poll of Muslims a few weeks ago, and although it was on a single page, the page was very long. I'm going out on a limb and suggest that the questions they asked were much more subtle and revealing, and to try to tease out "peaceful" vs. "violent" from all that data is a non-starter.
The reason I think you're asking good-ish questions is because it's important Americans understand the Muslim world, because we're on the same planet, we have interests in their regions, and we have responsibilities for the "blowback". I'm imagining that by using the term "blowback", you might be tempted to say I'm being un-American, or that I'm blaming the victim. I think what I'm doing by using the word "blowback" is recognizing a very real aspect of the modern world, and one that is more urgent for Americans to understand than that of apostasy and blasphemy laws.I think the most urgent thing for everyone on the planet is to stop killing people for trying to leave islam or killing people for insulting mohammad, so I guess we can agree to disagree. I do not want to understand it. I want it to stop. When that stops, then maybe some of the extracurricular terrorism will stop too.
If you claim you do not want to understand it, then you appear to have done an awful lot of research in vain. Other folks do still want to understand it, even though we might not have first-hand access to the opinions of Muslims. dianetrotter asks why in the world people in the US or Europe would want to go join ISIS. That strikes me as a much more obvious and urgent question than those questions you have come up with after putting some singular events under a microscope and distorting them.
What is there to understand? Do you think that I need a anyones opinion on whether death for leaving islam or death for insulting mohammad and any bystander, is wrong? Right now Japan is mocking the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria all over twitter. That probably won't sit well with the terrorists who are perpetually humiliated. I don't think Japan really cares about ISIS' opinions. They are laughing at them. Some coward that kills bunches of civilians over an insult of mohammad could start a war. People might not want that, but it is better than living with terrorists.
PhoenixV, stop looking away from the shiny objects just for a second. Stop making a fetish of Islam. These people are human beings. Read what G Miah wrote. Read what twilightlawns wrote. Do they really strike you as robots ("Must Kill! Allahu Akbar! Must Kill!")? Do you think they are just a couple data points to be put into some category in a poll?
Sorry, but I gotta go here: PhoenixV, do you think the US is zero for ten in terms of foreign policy mistakes since, say, 1948? Do you really think we can do no wrong? Do you think "learn from our mistakes" means apologizing for interning Japanese Americans during WWII? And since then, we're cool with the world, and the world is cool with us? We have a lot of good karma built up with areas we backed up during the Cold War, such as Eastern Europe. That is hard to deny. We have a lot of good karma with other areas in exchange for hard cold cash. What about the Muslim world in general? Not so much good karma. I'm speaking very high-level here, and way out of my realm of knowledge, so I'm sure you can dismiss it all away a strawman or whatever. Have at it.Also, PhoenixV, you wrote, speaking of some human activity or other, "I do not want to understand it. I want it to stop. When that stops, then maybe some of the extracurricular terrorism will stop too." You need to be less passionate in your way of thinking, PhoenixV. You need to understand and accept your limitations. You might "want" something very badly, but you do not have the power to make it stop and stop once and for all and forever. The best you can do is to make it less likely to happen in the future. That is the way the real world works.
So far you have avoided answering the questions I have asked. If you don't know the answers there's no shame in saying so, but at least address what I consider to be reasonable questions about the view you hold:
1) If extremism is inherent in Islam, why do beliefs change depending on location?
2) You talk about Muslim support of Sharia. Okay, but which interpretation of Sharia? This is important because without knowing that, we don't know exactly what people are supporting.
3) If Muslims want the same in terms of Sharia etc. then why do you think the majority of people currently fighting ISIS in the middle-East are Muslims?
4) What makes you such an authority on Islam that you are able to decide which interpretation of Sharia law or Islamic texts is the Muslim interpretation, even though Muslims themselves have different views as to the correct interpretation?
5) If Islam is inherently extremist, how is it possible that Islamic pacifist groups exist that date back to the 19th century?
6) When trying to determine what ordinary people think about religion, politics etc. in countries with oppressive regimes and extremist groups, how can we distinguish between genuine views, and views that are based on fear due to the brutality of the local regime/extremist group?
Make no mistake, I think these are difficult questions to answer, but that's exactly why it's important not to ignore them. If we hope to find effective long-term solutions to social problems, our level of enquiry can't just stop when the questions get too difficult. That is exactly what oversimplification is. The way you address the above questions, or whether you address them at all, will say a lot about the view you hold.1. I can speculate that as they get further away from drinking directly from the poisoned well of blasphemy laws and apostasy laws and into countries that support basic human rights, in those regards eg not killing people for what they believe or not killing people for criticizing islam, it becomes an antidote to the desensitization of those atrocities. Or it could be that they know that the other countries will not tolerate it, so they adapt a public view that is not consistent with their private views. That speculation however does not change the mass amounts that do support the laws, according to polls, their court systems and videos and current events that attest to that.
2. Red herring and division. It is the blasphemy laws and apostasy laws that are much of the issue, although cutting peoples hands off for petty crimes, stoning people to death and death for homosexuality are also problems, as well as many others. Which groups of people want sharia to settle civil disputes and which versions of sharia they want or don't want, is irrelevant. It is the courts that adjudicate the above extremism, and/or the populace that do the trials and sentencing in their back yards or out in a field and all the people that support those things, that is relevant.
3. "Muslims want the same in terms of Sharia etc" You are just compounding fallacies now. Internal civil disputes or infighting, assumes ideological differences regarding blasphemy laws and apostasy laws. Two guys get drunk and fight in a bar. How is this possible if they both believe in less taxes?
4 More red herrings. I am an expert on death for insulting mohammad and death for leaving islam is evil. That is my expertise.
5. Number five is an excellent opportunity to illustrate a point. If islam does not have "any" intrinsic morally objectionable aspects, then pacifist groups or movements would not even be required. Right? There is no need for a pacifist version of Gandhi. There is no need for a pacifist version of Jesus, but in my opinion there is a need for pacifist version of mohammad.
6. Is just an admission on your part that any punishment for apostasy, whether it is upheld in courts or sentencing is done, in some field, by locals, is evil. Compulsory belief is the core of much of the problem. I have addressed this in many posts already. Polls, courts and video evidence does not suggest duress that would discount the reality of what we can all see. When someone insults mohammad with a cartoon or a campy youtube video we see death sentences and mass protests. Get real.
Now you will answer my questions and they all pertain to my answer to number 5. And to refresh your memory
5. Number five is an excellent opportunity to illustrate a point. If islam does not have "any" intrinsic morally objectionable aspects, then pacifist groups or movements would not even be required. Right? There is no need for a pacifist version of Gandhi. There is no need for a pacifist version of Jesus, but in my opinion there is a need for pacifist version of mohammad.
According to contemporary or near contemporary biographers. If any:
1) How many people did mohammad order to be killed in total?
2}How many people did mohammad specifically have assassinated?
3} How many prisoners of war were executed under the direction of mohammad?
4} How many prisoners were held for ransom? Sound familiar?
You cannot control armies, or be a general or a warlord, and claim persecution or justification that involve ransoms, executions or beheadings/trophies of prisoners. These are all crimes and war crimes indicative of a warlord.
Bad religious leaders that are venerated are like bad ideas, they give fruition to bad results.PhoenixV, you appear to be impressing some people with the sheer length of your comments. Honestly, I do not intend to be rude here or dismiss or twist any of your facts. I am not going to dispute any of the quotations you picked out from some very very very long articles on Wikipedia. But if that is really the way you reach conclusions from your facts, then I honestly don't see how you ever figured out how to work a computer.
I have seen people unhappy with Phoenix's posts, that contain facts from sites that are from other sources. I can respect that he uses facts like those, because people can't make as poor of arguments and allude to all kinds of put downs etc, and need to make their cases (if they disagree, against another source.) Yet you seem to have still found a way to use ad hom, even personal attacks in your responses.
For many of us, we have been here a while, and some even longer on others sites before coming here, so those types of "rebuttals" are seen for what they are. It is what some people pull out when they have nothing else with which to respond, but seem to still want to respond negatively somehow.
You comment on his sheer length of comments, but lets not forget he got heat also for short ones, shorter responses not so long ago either. Like the "polls speak for themselves." He got heat for that, and put down there too. Some can't stomach the treatment, but he seems to think this information is important enough to try and ignore such tactics. Its not easy to not return in kind, and yet he has not! So it can't be that. Its not fair to go after the messenger. Its better to be honest, which reminds he me was accused of being dishonest too, without being shown how. Never mind all the accolades given to others while this is occurring....I saw it all. Saying you don't intend to be rude, then proceed to do so, is taking any steam out of arguments you might have had, can you see why? People reaching conclusions based in part on facts on sites like Wikipedia (which you claim to love in another post), seems like it can be a good thing, no? You admit to not even wanting to dispute or respond, and yet you seem unhappy enough to say, "But if that is really the way you reach conclusions from your facts, then I honestly don't see how you ever figured out how to work a computer."
That kind of response is sophomoric at best. Uncalled for. My question to help point this back into a good direction is, why the hard time with such facts, that this is the kind of results they spur on? Why are facts, so unsettling? This isn't the fault of Phoenix, or the many writers on Wikipedia or other numerous sources. Kudos to the strong people that stand up for the good, and against the bad, especially in face of treatment they don't respond in kind with.
Truth is funny this way. If you are on the wrong side of it (which is part of the whole debate), then it can be frustrating, maddening, and people want to do other things to perhaps silence it, and force other views instead. Why not rather hold views that equally hold their own ground, seem to not have the need to be defended by anything other than sheer facts, logic and reasoning? This would be a better way I think. If the goal is to encourage others to see him as incredulous, you sent a different message with that post there, and some others. I appreciate your kinder words to me in a recent post than had been coming before hand, but it was high time I spoke up here.To reiterate, what I am about to say is not twisting. This is not meant to call anybody a liar about anything. This is not meant to apologize for terrorists. Terrorism is very bad, and we all understand that it's a complex issue.
Please refer to the comments above by twilightlawns, explaining her outlook on life, as it informed by Islam, but not defined by Islam. Do you see how she was stumped and silenced by PhoenixV at the end of the interaction? Do you see how he finally won the debate and proved her wrong? He asked her this:
"Did Mohammad give his staff as a reward for Khaled bin Sufyan Al-Hathali's decapitated head or not?"
That was his final debating point, to which she had no answer. Does that really impress you in some way? Do you now discount everything else she wrote? Do you honestly think this is an important question for us to be discussing in order to better understand the very complex Muslim world? I assure you that it would be easy-peasy for me to find something seemingly odd or strange in the Old Testament about revenge, and ask you a similar question. The context of the question might be on a forum about drones and how the US uses drones in Pakistan. Note that the Old Testament is a very very long document (much longer than the Koran). That would not be me twisting. That would not be me accusing Christians of anything bad or the US of anything bad. I am simply pointing out to you that PhoenixV's methods are not a very helpful way of debating. It does not help us understand anything meaningful or pertinent to today's problems. There may be some irrational people in the world who think about Khaled bin Sufyan Al-Hathali and decapitation all day long. I suggest that those irrational people are not part of twilightlawn's life, since she's a normal person. It's clear that PhoenixV has searched the vast internet for just those facts which suit his conclusion and biases.
I refer you to some statistics Don W lists on his comment above (which starts with "That's the thing about offensiveness.") Those strike me as much more meaningful statistics than PhoenixV's, because Don W has made an attempt to remove his biases and look at the big picture. Don W is not twisting or distorting or deflecting anything. PhoenixV is distorting.If you think it is irrational to think about decapitation, what do you think about someone that actually did it or gave a reward for it? The islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is probably executing people and extorting people from Japan right now. They want ransom. Executing prisoners and/or demanding ransom. Ransom and beheadings. Convert or die. These are the similar type of things that I posted from Wikipedia about the life of mohammad.
PhoenixV, I know you are fond of Wikipedia. Me too. Something just occurred to me that I thought I would share with you, illustrated and documented with a copy/paste from Wikipedia and a link. If I had a graphic and sound effect to go along with it, it would be an image of a drone way up high in the sky, and the sound of its faint whir. This is the kind of image that strikes fear into the heart of Muslims (according to the latest Pew polls, 100% of Muslims are human) in certain areas of the globe. It has very much to bear on how the questions that dianetrotter and oceansunsets have been asking on this page, with genuine curiosity and humility. Questions about Muslims, terrorism, and what American citizens should do about it. I did not come up with this contribution by keeping CNN on 24/7 to learn about the latest outrage against humanity. I did not come up with this contribution by doing any specific targeted hunt through Wikipedia. I am the kind of person who tries to learn from his mistakes. These are the first paragraphs of a very long article about the 9/11 report. This is the famous report that was published in 2004, after a review of intelligence failures on behalf of the US government following the attacks by terrorists on the US on September 11, 2001.
Quote begins:
The commission interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents, including some closely guarded classified national security documents. The commission also relied heavily on the FBI's PENTTBOM investigation. Before it was released by the commission, the final public report was screened for any potentially classified information and edited as necessary.
After releasing the report, commission chair Thomas Kean declared that both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were "not well served" by the FBI and CIA.[1]
End of quote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report
More than happy to answer:
1) 45
2) -3
3) 897
4) 345,000,000
I don't think the answers to those questions are relevant at all, but I didn't want to not answer, so I just chose some random numbers. Hope that's ok. As for your answers:
1. So you acknowledge it's possible for a Muslim not to support violence. But if being Muslim is the same as supporting violence, as you claim, then the very existence of Muslims who do not support violence is an impossibility according to your view. So which is it, are there Muslims that don't support violence, or is Muslim/Islam/violence all the same thing? You can't have it both ways.
Note: according to your favorite survey, some of the countries that have the least support for violent punishment (including the death penalty for apostasy) are Muslim majority countries, which discounts the idea that Muslims there are merely presenting a public view for the sake of fitting into society.
2. Knowing exactly what Sharia is definitely matters. If you don't know what it is, how can you say if it's good or bad? Interpretations of Sharia are not just about choosing whether it covers civil disputes. 52 of the 57 countries that make up the Organization of Islamic Cooperation do not allow amputations, stoning etc under Sharia law*. Does that mean Sharia law is great? No. Does that mean Sharia law has no issues? No. Does that mean those countries all observe human rights? No and those things need to be addressed. But they can't be addressed by people who don't even know the basic facts about Sharia, the places, and the people under discussion.
*Yes those are statistics, no they are not the same as the Pew stats. Why? Because they are not about thoughts, attitudes and beliefs, which are subjective, and can be influenced by local environments; And because they are not based on representative sampling. The sample size equates to 100% of the total. There are 57 countries, and we can objectively verify that 52 of them do not allow specific types of criminal punishments.
3. So you accept that different denominations, factions and groups exist within Islam, and you accept that different groups have different ideas and interpretations of Islam, so much so that it can cause conflict between the different groups. Good, that's a start.
4 You have asked questions about what Muhammad did and didn't do (including the four questions above) presumably because you believe the life of Muhammad is relevant. Therefore interpretation and knowledge of the Quran are very relevant. So I ask again, what gives you the authority to decide how the Quran (including events in Muhammad's life) should be interpreted and applied to the modern world, when Muslims themselves disagree that?
5. Strawman. When did I say that Islam doesn't have any morally objectionable aspects? If I did, quote me. In my view Islam (like all organised religions) has many objectionable aspects. But that doesn't give us license to ignore facts and make unfounded generalisations.
No need for a pacifist version of Jesus? Now you're just being silly. Christianity has been used to justify the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the atlantic slave trade, racial segregation, homophobia, sexism and all manner of other things. But that isn't the point. The point is that Christianity has also be used to condemn all of those things too. See how that works? The nature of religious texts means they can be used to justify virtually anything. The Quran is no different. It can be used to justify violence, and to condemn violence. It is not unique in that regard.
6. Is just an admission on your part that any punishment for apostasy, whether it is upheld in courts or sentencing is done, in some field, by locals, is evil. Compulsory belief is the core of much of the problem. I have addressed this in many posts already. Polls, courts and video evidence does not suggest duress that would discount the reality of what we can all see. When someone insults mohammad with a cartoon or a campy youtube video we see death sentences and mass protests. Get real.
It's not an admission of anything. Of course punishment for apostasy is wrong. I find the idea abhorrent. Is it hard to understand that I can highlight false generalisations and inaccuracies about Islam, without being a supporter of Islam and certain Islamic practices? I am a supporter of reason.
In any oppressive regime, the court system is part of the apparatus of oppression. In fact it is usually one of the main apparatus' of oppression. The fact that much of the human rights abuses inflicted on ordinary Muslims are done so through the court system (which is an apparatus of the regime) strengthens the argument that Islam is used to justify political oppression. Ordinary Muslims do not want political oppression, as we saw during the Arab spring.
Do many muslims support violence? Yes, and that is an issue. But it is a flat out lie to say that all, or even the majority of Muslims support violence. That lie is what I am objecting to. The reason I'm not also objecting to stoning, death for apostasy, terrorist attacks etc in this thread, is because I believe it goes without saying that any reasonable person would condemn those things.
Your view of Muslims is based on hostage videos, anti American protests, and terrorist attacks. Throw in a survey with a headline-grabbing number and viola, a perfect recipe for fear. And I understand that, because those things are frightening. But none of that is an excuse for us to abandon reason, which you are in danger of doing.I think the historical life of mohammad is highly relevant. I am glad you are objecting to "all muslims support violence". It would be an admirable thing to do, if someone was actually saying that.
I took the time to address your points one by one, but you conceded or surrendered the debate by just choosing random numbers.The terms "surrendered" and "conceded" suggest that you believe this is some kind of competition. It isn't. It's a discussion about a complex and serious social issue. The answers to your questions do not support your position, do not seek clarity of mine, and provide no additional useful information. Therefore they serve no useful purpose that I can see in this discussion. I do not believe those questions were asked in the spirit of genuine enquiry, and while you are perfectly entitled to ask them, I am entitled not to take seriously questions that appear to be no more than a gimmick.
I'm sorry you feel disappointed that I refused to participate in that particular charade, but if that is the level of discourse you are aiming for, then I think it is fair to say that our ideas of what constitute a sensible and honest discussion are irreconcilable.
Let me back up a minute here to the original post. Many here are keeping that in the back of their mind while conversing, or at least I am. I have seen several people including yourself, assuming Phoenix is wrong somehow for posting some basic known facts about the things he has, yet without making a case for it. I want to be abundantly clear on something, I don't like simple "side taking". Its the easy way out, and doesn't help in discussions. Some have simply taken sides against him, without fair explanation, other than his style of delivery that you think is too "newsflashy". I think some things expressed cloud our view on things, while other things expressed help to illuminate what is happening in reality. Here is one twist, since you asked. You have taken what are simple, unable to be refuted well known facts that mirror the beginnings of the view in question, and are saying what you say above, that he is claiming to know as much as someone that has lived in that religion or region for a very long time. And kind of poo pooed the reason he brought up go pro as well. It was to illuminate how easy it is for any of us here to talk big, but won't put the money where our mouth is. To kind of put down instead, make him look like he doesn't know what he is talking about. It missed the point on purpose or by accident. You didn't show he was wrong, but simply lodged a complaint. Isn't it how this works, that you think he is wrong, then he goes and shows how he might be actually right? And vice versa?
The truth is, I think he is one of the few talking about the things that do matter here, and why take a side against him, and not ask questions if they arise? Are the facts he is "copy pasting" wrong? If so, can you correct the errors? They may be wrong, but are they? If they are true, then why take any issue whatsoever with them? You are clear now at least, that no one here is extrapolating beyond the facts. (Unless you or others are still.) So this supports my idea, that some seem to struggle with the reality of some of the views, Let us go after the right things.
Sometimes, not even the more well versed authors want to talk about the tough issues. I didn't make up this thread, or any of the closely related several others. He didn't either, if I am not mistaken. Aren't people free to post here, what they think are the pertinent issues? I find the negativity toward those willing to talk about real changes for real issues, alarming. Not helpful. Diane and so many are concerned about terror, and want to talk about it. Phoenix really is talking about it, I can't say the same for those that are having issue with him. They and you seem to want him to be quiet. Why assume the worst about those that simply are talking about it, As if they are doing something bad, or lumping everyone together?
He didn't ever claim to be an expert. You have said now many bold things. He does want to share some facts, and why not applaud him for that? Or applaud anyone that does that?
As for your other point, I think we are in a time of many hotly contested topics. You seemed at first happy to defend people that wanted to voice concerns including journalists, even when they did so in very poor taste, none of which has been done on HP. I respected that. Since then though, the tone has been a bit different from you.
Everyone has opinions, and assertions, beliefs, preferences, "takes on things", etc. We don't need more of that now. We haven't covered the core basics yet. The items that we can all agree on, haven't been covered in here, and often not on news or in articles. There is rhetoric often, but we need to deal in facts because life is reality and facts. We don't get to argue with those. The facts might explain what we see. Why don't you want to talk about this if you do not? I don't condemn all for what a few do. Yet it has been suggested I do, and of Phoenix as well. This is unfair. That is a distortion. We are talking about different things, in different categories. Actions are one thing. Ideas and beliefs another. Responses of all kinds are another. I am glad that your prior comment about me being biased to the point you said I was, turns out to maybe not be totally true. No proof has been given.
So in short, we don't need more commentary, we need more of the core of the ideas. So my response showed my observance that someone was actually doing that. My response to your fist two sentences, isn't a fact a fact, and isn't what is true, true, and right, right? This is easy to show wrong if someone was wrong, counter with the correct fact. Its not a stretch of my or anyone's imagination then, is it? I am sure Wikipedia has had to be corrected before. Is it wrong in these cases? So now I am left to wonder what you think i am doing wrong? We can't just want education of people for certain "approved of things" but some things can't be talked about. Isn't that a smaller version of what brought all of this up in the first place, ironically?Oceansunsets, I am going to give you an analogy. This will not directly address your questions. However, it might make you think about the way you think about things. Do you ever turn on the local news? Have you noticed how they often show fires that have happened that day? Do you think those fires are real fires or made-up fires? I think they are probably real fires. (Similarly, I think that PhoenixV's citations are probably real and true citations from ancient texts.) Now do the fires they show on your local TV news (very true and real!) fires affect you somehow? Do they make you feel frightened? I would suggest to you that no matter how you might feel about these (very true and real!) fires, focusing in on them specifically (how many people died, how many were saved, how long it took to put out the fire) is not going to help you understand what you need to do in order to prevent fires. Will we be able to put a stop to fires once and for all? Clearly we won't.
I don't know if you are very good with analogies, oceansunsets, but that's really the best I can do.Oceansunsets, I am going to admit something personal to you. I love to hear the sound of my own voice. With that in mind, I would like to continue with my analogy of fire=terror, because I am finding it to be a very fruitful analogy. I think that PhoenixV is like the camera crew at the local TV station. He's aware of the danger of fires, and wants to inform people about them. He gets rewarded when he finds a fire to report on and people watch the footage he shoots. Is he going to take footage of some house three blocks over, which is not on fire? That would be pointless. Who would pay to see that? Nothing is going on over there. Oceansunsets is the TV viewer who tunes in every night to the news, and wrings her hands with fear when she sees the house on fire in a neighboring town. That could have been my house! Oceansunsets and PhoenixV are in a discussion about the very real and very true danger of fire. You both have theories about fire, based on your views. You seem not to be very concerned that fire can be used in very positive and helpful ways. You are focused on the destructive nature of fire, and you wonder if maybe all our troubles with fire are due to the evil matches, or the evil arsonists, etc. Don W and myself have a more detached view of fire, and the dangers it holds. We see the nightly news, but we're interested in the weather and sports and find the local reporting rather pointless. It's "news", sure. But it's not "news you can use". There's a rather dry boring discussion on TV on Sunday morning about fire prevention. That's the kind of TV show Don W and myself might tune in to see. It does not get very good ratings, which is why they put it on Sunday morning. But there's a reason they refer to it as "public service" programming. It addresses the issues of fire PREVENTION in a realistic way, which is much more important, but much less visually exciting than nightly news.
I find it incredibly interesting to note that a lot of the people insisting that is acceptable to demonize Islam based on the actions of its most extreme adherents are many of the same people who insist that it's both unfair and irrational to blame Christianity for the actions of its own extremists. It seems like little more than a culturally biased double standard. Yet they insist that violent members of Christianity are not real Christians, etc. While simultaneously claiming that what they know or understand about Islam is the correct interpretation, despite what actual non violent Muslims say to the contrary. Why is it acceptable for us in the west to decree what the true interpretation of Islam is because of what extremists say? Are we then going to accept whatever interpretation of our culture comes from another part of the world as absolute fact in return? If, for example, African Muslims decreed that Christianity was violent and oppressive due to the actions of some Christians in central Africa, should that be what Western culture a accepts?
Well first, there is a difference in people of a faith doing wrong and people doing wrong in the name of a faith. I got a kick out of some of the responses to Rupert Murdoch's "Moslem" tweet, such as who asked if all Christians should be responsible for the Christian that rear ended him last week. First, that Christian did not rear end him in the name of the religion, second it is not a worldwide epidemic. Atheists don't let Christian ever forget the Crusades even though that was a thousand years ago, so I think it is hypocritical that one should criticize Christians for holding another religion responsible for their actions. When it came out that Catholic priests were molesting children, people held the church and its patrons responsible and rightly so. I am Catholic, so I should know. It is up to us to make a change. I feel the same way about Islam. Its patrons are responsible to make a change.
Second, the scale of actions you are talking about here differ greatly, i.e. worldwide terror versus people behaving badly.I like the way you stated that. I haven't been able to articulate it as well.
When people need to twist and distort things, and make it about something that it is not, then you know there is a problem. I find that not feeding this mentality is the best I can do, since the reason, logic and fair way of attempting to discuss things has failed.
The very strong need to continually demonize one group, while giving a free pass and even defense of all the other ideas, is plain, is black and white. As always, what is said to have occurred, has to have actually occurred in the manner specified, for it to be true. You can't just take anyone at their word anymore, and have to test everything.
None of this has been about interpretations only. Everyone has those. This is why Phoenixv's manner is so important, and carries so much weight. He isn't relying on simple put downs, and examples and assertions that don't pan out. Some don't have that luxury, and have a view that isn't given the benefit of the doubt. So the game portion of it all, is skipped. I had to speak up, because not many are wiling to stand up in such a manner. There is but a handful on this site, Cjhunsinger is another (a bold atheist on this site), that I have seen be able to address these issues squarely on. Trying to make it about other issues than the ones brought up so far, using links, reasoning, and logic, facts, etc, would have been answered if it could.
I support the fair people, no matter what their personally held views. They help me to grow and think better, and test the parts of my own views that may be lacking. It just holds more weight to me, the way I see it, for the reasons I have given.Brunei is the latest Muslim country to enact a law that makes apostasy a crime punishable with death. In Iran Hossein Soodmand, who converted from Islam to Christianity when he was 13-year-old, was executed by hanging in 1990 for apostasy.-wiki
Blasphemy law in Iran - Individuals are subject to surveillance by the "religious police," harassment, prolonged detention, mistreatment, torture, and execution-wiki
Seven countries still retain capital punishment for homosexual behavior: Afghanistan, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen. -wiki
Courts are not rare random extremists.
Why a fellow human being, or a fellow Christian or someone that supports LGBT would make arguments or excuses, while people died under the direction of courts, while claiming its all just an aberration, is beyond me.I think I will bookmark this post for future reference, where a Christian on Hubpages vocally and publicly objected to all of the above and to Capital Punishment for homosexual behavior in Afghanistan, Mauritania, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Yemen, to the deafening silence of everyone else.
Courts are not rare random extremists. Those pesky statistics...PhoenixV, I want to give a frank and civilized reply to your posts. Your posts remind me of the "Breaking News!" announcements on CNN in the weeks and months following the disappearance of the plane in 2014. "Breaking News!" implied some sort of urgency, and curious viewers woke up and paid attention. The viewer was led to expect that something new and interesting had just been discovered. However, time after time it turned out that nothing had happened, other than possibly one commenter making an observation about another commenter. Your "breaking news" findings of Islam may be "breaking news" to you. But you are not Muslim, and somehow I doubt you have spent much time looking at the many Hubs on HubPages that have been written about Islam. By Muslims. Using standard English punctuation and capitalization.
You are certainly entitled to you opinion Mr. KU37 and speaking of opinions, would you consider various courts in various countries and all the logistics and personnel involved in all those court systems eg clerks, judges, arbiters, prosecutors, witnesses, officers etc etc etc, are all just a "lone gunman" type thingy?
Also I am wondering why there is not a mass exodus or why we are not seeing 60 million people, just as an example ...escaping from that country if they do not support their own laws, morally?
If the United States Courts were executing people for leaving Mormonism, I would be in Bimini yesterday.To your first question, "would you consider various courts..." you can refer to the comments on this page of user twilightlawns. Your question about "mass exodus" appears on its face of to reveal some ignorance about the large numbers of people in recent years leaving their countries and the reasons they have for leaving their countries.
Oceansunsets, you have made frequent references to "twisting". Please provide an example from this page of "twisting". If there is no twisting on this page, please copy/paste some other example, like this:
Here is what I mean by twisting:
<<text>>
Thanks.oceansunsets, an experience from my own life just occurred to me that might resonate for you. Years ago I wanted to teach English to students in Czechoslovakia, but I was woefully unprepared, having never taught before. I got a job which would start in a week where I would interact with students who knew no English. I was determined to prepare myself to teach. I bought books about the Czech language, and studied hard to work out the codes of their pronunciation and spelling and how each sound correlated to sounds in English. Armed with that knowledge, I became confident that I was ready to teach. Of course, when I got to the classroom it was a complete disaster. I was completely unprepared. I had never even heard of the concept of a "lesson plan". The only students I could reach were those who already had some English. Can you see how this relates to your methods? You feel that by studying the basic underlying principles of Islam, that will somehow open the door to your full understanding of Muslims, the same way that understanding the underlying principles of Christianity defines and determines your current world view.
In your comparison, you seem to suggest I am the equivalent of the completely unprepared assuming person there. Where total disaster ensued for the assumptions you had about teaching English in a foreign country I can't see how that relates to my methods, because I am not assuming anything but some core, "known by all people", facts. My points can be made on the items that the two sides of the extreme we are talking about, have in common. As vastly different (and I admit they are vastly different!) people are, the extremist vs the peaceful and loving person, do they not hold a very small amount in common, because of their belief? I am speaking of like one or two things, they might hold in common, if they say they follow a particular religion. Therefore, I am actually not attempting by any stretch, something like you attempted to do in teaching English to those people. I am talking about simple black and white ideas they both share.
So thank you for sharing these things, because it helps me to get more of a pulse on where our misunderstandings of things are, or your assumptions of me. You assumed much more than seems warranted, and thus the benefit of these discussions. I do want to learn more, but I don't' technically need to, to make the points I have been making all along. Let me be clear, I am not laying at the feet of the loving and peaceful, the crimes of any extremists.
Many people major in religion in colleges and universities around the world. They can share some core basics, even come up with a short list, if you will, of things that the wider range does hold in common. The short list isn't therefore in error, because the totality has not been revealed at the same time, that encompasses all there is to know of all groups in any religion. So this is why that at first glance that may make sense to say what you say above, but its not actually something that "follows." All in my opinion of course, and if I am understanding you correctly.
Edit: I am also only realizing how little you think of my thought processes, lol. There also might be some assumptions. If you want to know anything, please ask, and if I am able or comfortable, all things considered, I will answer. For someone like me that loves to discuss philosophies and ideas, this isn't easy for me, and I understand will frustrate some people.I am hearing things from you now that resonate with me. I see now that you acknowledge the Muslim world is very diverse. I would refer you to the posts of twilightlawns and G Miah and suggest that there are many things in their modern-day living and backgrounds that contribute to their world view, in addition to their practice of Islam. It sounds to me like you are an active Christian. But similarly, you are defined by your written scriptures alone. Your life is an accident of genetics, upbringing, geography, educational opportunities, etc. etc. In short, you are a complex human being.
Finally, I would refer you back to the brief yet profound comment on this page by mohammedimrankhan.
KU37, here is part of how I view ideas and philosophies of people. Each of us has a philosophy in or of life. Part of it is formed from how we grow up. As we grow older, we can choose our own views, or philosophy in life, if the one we have handed down to us may be an erroneous one. Our philosophy Its what we have chosen to make the most sense of the world, its realities, etc. If I have any flaws in my views, I want to know. This is why I test my own the hardest of all. I think whatever is actually true, regardless of what anyone believes, will stand on its own without contortion or manipulation, tactics, force, etc. Goodness, morality, and truth, logic, and reason, are all things I believe in,and not just for me, for I think all people. Most people esteem these things. Our own philosophies of the world might line up easily with those things, If or when they seem to not be, as some will sometimes assert onto others, we can test this I believe, for validity. This is how we know someone is truly using biases or not, and believe me, I have seen my share. This is what truly hinders people from seeing things for what they are. This is part of what hurts us personally in life, and as societies I think. (it made the other post too long, so I am putting it in its own area.)
Okay. Let's assume you don't have the inclination or ability to do the kind of research Don W suggests. Let's assume you only have access to three or four TV channels that give you news about the Muslim world, none of which show Muslims' day-to-day problems. Let's assume you have no interest in opinion polls, and lack the ability to understand them. Let's assume that you only have enough energy to scroll up and down this page, and that you can read and comprehend English. There are plenty of voices on this page giving you info about Muslims. I would suggest that they are not representative of Muslims in general for the simple fact that each of them expresses themselves well in English. Now if you were to compare the views of G Miah, PhoenixV, and twilightlawns, for example, would you agree that they represent different viewpoints? If so, it would appear that there are three or more different ways of viewing the Muslim world. Are you suggesting that two or more of them are not representing themselves honestly, and there is actually only one way of understanding the Muslim world? Do you think that somehow you can find out exactly what that one single way is by studying ancient texts? Knowing nothing else about G Miah, PhoenixV and twilightlawns, and assuming each of them is being genuine, how can you account for the fact that their views differ? Which of their views is the view of the one true Islam? I would suggest to you that the Muslim world is not monolithic, but very diverse. There are many many more than three views of the Muslim world, since there are 1.8 billion Muslims. Personally, I would value the viewpoints of G Miah and twilightlawns over that of PhoenixV for the obvious fact that they identify as Muslims.
Does none of this make any sense to you, oceansunsets? Am I "twisting" something? If so, what?
The best advice I can give for a public relations campaign is to address the problems as opposed to whitewashing them.
I think people take American's at least, to be very stupid. More is going on than meets the eye when people whitewash problems, instead of addressing them. They are taking their listeners to not be very intelligent, and they are admitting something needs to be whitewashed because its not defensible on its own merits. People see through this. So its best to do what you said in the first place. Unless of course they really support the thing. So they want to pass it on through by whatever means necessary.
From what I understand going way back, it wasn't always forced, peaceful means were attempted first. People didn't want it. Then other means came into play.This manner of thinking is simplistic. The facts are not false, but the conclusions are simplistic. This thinking fits well with the narrative of "Us versus Them" that is perpetuated by corporations, politicians, and the media. This same "Us versus Them" narrative shared by many honest well-meaning people who do not have the energy or inclination to see that "Us versus Them" is not a useful or helpful representation of our complex modern world.
Which part of my conclusion do you think is too simplistic, and adding to an us vs them mentality, exactly?
People want me to be pushing an us vs them mentality, but if you notice, I am speaking in ideas, good ideas vs bad ones, ones with merit vs those without merits.
I have nothing to do with how a person chooses their religion or view or philosophy, but THEY do. If there are commonalities, and then a group can be seen and put themselves under a certain "title" or religion, then again, they did that. I don't do that, and any possible blame can't be shifted and put at my feet. "Too simplistic" is another way of saying you think I am therefore wrong, yet you say the parts themselves were true. I can write very long posts, to the point people complain. I see this similar to how I see others getting critiqued here. For side, unrelated issues like "too short", or "too long", "too simplistic", "too expanded upon", etc. I went back and looked at what you were responding to there. I don't know what you disagreed with but you seem to want it to have no merit. Maybe it doesn't, but we don't know why you think so, I guess is my point.
Edit: So rather then us vs them, I look at it like ideas vs other ideas. The things we each choose, and maintain going into the future.After reading very many of your posts that lacked any apparent conclusions, it seemed finally that you were acknowledging that you had a standpoint based on "right" Christian thinking and "right" Western values. Thinking, values, ideas. That is the very definition of "Us versus Them" thinking. You are whitewashing ideas. Briefly worded ideas as well as verbose ideas. Bible versus Koran. "Ideas versus other ideas" = "Our ideas versus their ideas" = "Us versus Them".
If you have an example of something I wrote on this page that you consider "whitewashing", please let me know. I may have done it, because I'm only human.
As Don W and I mentioned elsewhere, many of the debaters here adopt this "Us versus Them" kind of thinking through no fault of their own. Don W discussed why many humans want or need to do this. "You're either for us or against us", "Good guys versus bad guys". This is a narrative, and although it may be based on true facts, it is just a story. No more, no less. A story on CNN, after all, is just so many words attempting to describe complex factual events. As for factual events, well, there is no shortage of factual events. In this day and age we have facts coming out our ears. True facts, true facts, and more true documented facts. CNN, like pretty much everybody else, is interested in those vivid "newsworthy" facts in particular. As for "stories", some stories are true, some are fiction. I think of the TV show Gunsmoke. Please do not label me as ridiculing anyone or dismissing anyone's ideas or being anti-American because of this comparison. I think it is a very apt comparison. Hour-long TV shows like Gunsmoke or Star Trek were very carefully and intentionally written, mainly in order to entertain, but also to inform and enlighten, and Gunsmoke educated a lot of people about the true facts and realities of the pioneers of the American West, because it was based on the lifestyle that really happened there. Another thing Gunsmoke did that you might not have given much thought to, is it provided a way for Americans to think about their own very difficult and controversial history, and tie it up into a neat sixty-minute package. Whitewash, if you will. A Gunsmoke episode might be very complex, but (I'm guessing) the viewer was always left with a sense that justice had been carried out, and the bad guys never got away with it. Pretty much the same deal with most Star Trek episodes. I'm suggesting that the history of the American West was actually much messier (and bloodier) than that, and it would take much longer than just sixty minutes to reach a more nuanced understanding of our own history.I think you may be jumping ahead again in your assumptions about me. I am often not at all talking about Christianity, or Western values. I am talking about human, moral ideas, logical, factual things. You seem to want to pin me down, on something every last one of us does, and then label it "us vs. them mentality." That is your applied definition, but it doesn't mean its accurate of my views or a correct definition necessarily. I know that is how you think about it though now. It might be an oversimplification of my views on that. Lets not pretend that any single person here doesn't hold views they do, because they think they are the best views. Yet many are diametrically opposed. Thus we can discuss.
I am not as impressed with Don's posts as you are. I am not taken in by them, for I don't find them to be compelling. Comments like, "through no fault of their own", makes it sound like its a sociological or psychological handle on what is going on here, but I don't think that is accurate. All of history is "just a story!" You say the "narrative" is based on true facts, but just a story, no more, no less. I think this is wished to be true, by those that think that. Trying to act like things are too nuanced or complicated social issues to be commented upon, is not fair. We can very fairly observe what we observe, and then wonder about those realities. Look for a cause and effect, and actually be really caring about people and our societies while doing so.
As for shows like Gunsmoke what the writers may have been attempting to do with or to their audience, I would say most people that watched it might have been attracted to some justice over looking at the messier parts. That would be unfortunate. Most I think knew it was for entertainment, or interest. Not as a documentary on history. This is why honest teachers and self driven students ongoing teach and learn what the real actual history is. I assure you, I am not one that is so easily "self tricked." What does Gunsmoke have to do with the abundance of documented facts coming out of our ears, as you said.
Sadly, I don't think our history is pristine, and I am consistent I think when I say, that people in the past chose poorly at times, and those ideas were embraced and they get what comes with that. It can hurt people, and this is what i am saying. People don't have to have a perfect past, or a horrible past, to make good choices going into the future. I can be fair about my own imperfections and that of my own country's history. People are still talking about it, many write about it on HP, and we talk about it in forums, etc.
So anyway you say at one point in the above post, "whitewash if you will." What do you mean in that case?I find Don W's posts compelling because they correlate highly with the way I think about things. He has gone much further than me in that respect. I will put my cards on the table about my thinking. My thinking is informed primarily by my parents who instilled a sense of civic pride and civic responsibility in me first of all above everything. They were also Christians, and I adopted much of my moral outlook from Christianity. I think I share many other "Western values" with oceansunsets. I also was trained in science. I do not say this to put myself over anyone else, or to feel superior to anyone else, or to polarize myself away from anyone else. I'm just telling you how I think. Scientists try first and foremost not to fool themselves. The scientific method is all well and good, but if you don't know how to look at the data dispassionately, you will quickly reach the wrong conclusions and make yourself believe them. You only find out later that they are the wrong conclusions, sometimes to great embarrassment. You learn from your mistakes, or you don't survive. That goes for life in general, as well as an informed view of history. As far as Muslim thinking, I would generally agree with user Ewent who argued with G Miah on this page. At one point she said that observant Muslims need to clean house. Admittedly, this is oversimplifying and generalizing and summing up an entire population. But I think she makes a compelling point. Frankly, I find G Miah's opinions on this page mostly alien to my way of thinking, and although I value his opinions, I did not personally reach out to G Miah. Ewent is looking at world history, and observing global trends. She observes that it took the Western world many bloody centuries of infighting to get to where we are today. She points out that religion was often the stated cause of bloodshed, but usually it was just used as an excuse. Much of the Muslim world missed the "Enlightenment" period and other historical periods the West went through. As a result, today in many countries, Muslims are under a great state of stress. Culturally, economically and politically. The populations are being presented with the internet and their kings and princes have no way to preserve the status quo. This is by no means an original observation, but much of US foreign policy since September 11, 2001 has had an additional unsettling effect on Muslim populations. I think much of the conversation on this page must be completely redundant, since very few of the "facts" from today's headlines are substantially different from the "facts" that were apparent ten years ago. Although there has been no repeat of 9/11, the frequency and severity of terrorist attacks has increased across the world. What can we do about it? Study the Koran in search of boogeymen? That could help, but it is primarily a distraction. Not only does it distract from realistic solutions, it also ignores the dangers of terrorism that is carried out by unhinged people who do NOT presume to speak for Muslims. I think we want to try to look closely at how groups like ISIS and other violent groups are recruiting. If you don't want to talk to them personally, that makes sense. Neither do I. But they live in the real world, the same as we do. And I think the economic and political conditions they live under might have much more of an impact on their lives than religion does. I am not going to proclaim my views here as some silver bullet or even internally consistent. I just think they might represent the kinds of things they talk about in the State Department. This page on the other hand, looks like it's 90% white Americans who don't get out much, talking to each other. Not stupid, but to some extent ignorant. And I will join the chorus of others here who admit their ignorance.
When I said "whitewash if you will", I was using "if you will" in its obsolete sense. "If you want to". In other words, "if you want to refer to it as whitewashing, be my guest."I appreciate you sharing how you came to your thinking, that is very interesting.
Yes, leaving out as much passion on this as possible is good, I agree,
I agree 100% we learn from our mistakes or we don't survive. Some are not surviving, as we see.
I find it interesting that you said Muslim world missed the "Enlightenment" and other historical periods the West went through. That is an interesting point to me a good one I hadn't ever really thought of before. If its true it causes a great deal of stress for them today, what can be done to remedy that part of it? How to remedy that, if possible, or bridge any gaps? You also said that Kings and princes having no way of preserving the status quo, and what do you think of that? If the populations do have internet, is that a bad thing and do you support the Kings and princes maintaining the status quo?
ISIS just beheaded another civilian today, a man from Japan. It is threatening to behead another Japanese hostage if Japan doesn't fork over $200 million dollars. This is how peaceful Japanese citizens have chosen to help stop terrorism: http://goo.gl/LmZNJH
To add to my last post above, and since I demand this of myself (that what I say can stand up to scrutiny, that my ideas hold merits hopefully on their own.) I hold myself to my own "rules" in debate and discussion, you may now see why I don't like it when people twist or distort what I have communicated, often into a strawman that isn't reflective at all of what I have said, then make an elaborate case against me, that isn't based in truth, but in something that was twisted or distorted. Its like cheating to win, as I see it. If cheating to "win" is allowed, then the wins always go to the biggest bullies, willing to use the most tactics as their morals allow for. Sometimes, this behavior is allowed by whatever authority is in place. Then people suffer, or to avoid suffering, are really silenced. If they are tough people, the pressure can be magnified, etc.
Thus why I think some use bullying on such a grander scale, its attractive to some, sadly. Our ancestors knew this well, and fought way too hard to create countries for people to be free in, for it to be lost so easily. Thus people are speaking up. People seem to be tired of it.That sounds uncharacteristically belligerent from you. Out of a sense of frustration and impatience, I have voiced anger on this page generally, and at dianetrotter in particular. I'm a human being. I have an agenda. I am thin-skinned and sometimes I'm too sensitive.
Here's something oceansunsets wrote that I took offense to, even though she may not have meant anything by it personally:
"I think people take Americans at least, to be very stupid."
I inferred this to be a rather pandering kind of statement, meant to appeal to people who might identify themselves as "smart but uneducated". I find this sort of formulation to be very divisive. We already have enough "Us" and "Them"s. We're discussing things with each other and trying to get somewhere. There's no reason for us to further add to the polarity between ourselves.How do you get that from that post, that I am being belligerent? That quote is taken out of context, and not even in the post above, for people to fairly evaluate it, or check for personal attribution or not. So let me clear it up, it wasn't personal to anyone. It is a view I hold, and have heard others say. People in Europe have said it of us, many countries have people more than willing to chime in on that view. Its not new either, and its not me pandering to uneducated but smart people. I wonder about Americans even at times. I have had some jaw dropping moments in recent years, like in election years, etc. I get more and more discouraged with my fellow countrymen, to be honest.
I see this as an attempt to help push the view that you want me to be seen as an "us vs them" mentality and after I have already corrected that idea. That is the farthest from what I want, actually. I want peace, and I believe we can live in a pluralistic society where people of multiple religions can live along side each other. I think that is a very good view! My religion reflects this also, and can be seen in Jesus also. You are wrong about me, and I am glad to clear this up again. My views and ones I uphold, lead away from divisiveness actually. Using arguments like this seem to be divisive, if you ask me, and I am actually one of the ones looking forward to good in the future.
Anyway, you said that post..... so I read it again and its actually a pretty calm post. So you being a bit confusing. Maybe you meant to respond to a different one?Okay I'll ramp down if you ramp down. We have to work together here and listen to each other.
I was simply asking why you said such things to me, and encouraging peace and working together. This post here from you, implies I was ramping things up along with you.
I suppose I am glad you want to ramp things down, its the saying I need to that implies something about me which I find unfair . Of course views can be discussed calmly and logically, reasonably. That and the fact I want to listen and respond fairly is something I have been pushing all along. I will continue on in this manner, and its why I ask many of the questions I have been. I am not wanting to ramp things up with anyone. No hard feelings. Working together is all I am wanting, and hope the whole world wants.If you carefully read what I said about your "offensive" quote, you will see that I used the word "infer" rather than the word "imply". That means the offense was in MY head, and not in yours. I also explicitly spelled out that you may not have meant anything by it personally. I chose my words carefully. We have many things we can agree on here. We're all human beings and can get caught up with emotion. We can hastily read or write something that leads ourselves and everybody else down the wrong track. Also, most of all, the final sentence of your post ("Working together").
ISIS just beheaded another man: the Japanese journalist Kenji Goto who leaves behind a wife and an infant daughter born in October.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … stage.html
Why did ISIS kill him? Because it wanted the release of a female suicide bomber who was arrested after an attack on three hotels in Amman, Jordan, in 2005, which killed 60 people attending a wedding.
Most of the victims of terrorist attacks are fellow Muslims.Piers Morgan just posted this message to Muslims after watching the video of the Jordanian pilot being burned to death by ISIS:
"ISIS are a bunch of glorified school bullies, albeit on a grander scale of viciousness.
They survive and thrive purely through fear and threats.
"Sometimes the only way to deal with a school bully is to thump him on the nose.
"This particular thump though, has to come from Muslims; those hundreds of millions of Muslims who’ve had enough of seeing Islam’s name and reputation being desecrated in this way.
"And the thump has to be hard enough militarily, financially and politically to ensure ISIS is cornered and isolated like a diseased rat wherever it tries to operate.
"If any Muslim remains in any doubt as to whether this is the right time to stand up and cry ‘NOT IN MY NAME OR MY RELIGION!’ then I suggest they too watch the video of Lieutenant al-Kasabeh being burned alive.
"He could be YOU.
"This is YOUR war."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z3Qji7ADGK
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook"What can peaceful Muslims do to help stop terrorism?"
Diane, they can do two things that would help.
1) Spread the word that the real terrorists are the American psychopathic elite. We have evidence that many of the crises in the Middle East have been started by America and their Western allies. Many of the boogie men have been CIA fronts, as Al Qaeda was in 1980s Afghanistan. 9/11 was perpetrated by the bankers and other corporate leaders through their puppets in government. How do we know this? The evidence is overwhelming. But here's a tidbit:
World Trade Center 7 (WTC7) fell at perfect free fall for the first 8 floors of collapse. Free fall means zero resistance. You have to know that the building was made of solid steel supports and solid steel never offers zero resistance. Steel would have slowed down or stopped the collapse. But something removed the steel support, eliminating all resistance.
In the NY, 9/11 dust, researchers found tons of iron microspheres -- a known byproduct of thermitic reaction. Thermite is used to cut through steel like a hot knife through soft butter. Also, nano-thermite (high tech incendiary explosive) was found in the dust, proving that this very expensive and rare, manufactured substance was used to bring down all 3 buildings.
Mayor Giuliani, a former federal prosecutor, knew better, but he allowed the destruction of crime scene evidence, cleaning up the 9/11 destruction starting immediately after the tragedy -- more than 400 days before the official investigation began.
The top military officers responsible for the massive security failures on 9/11 were given promotions instead of courts martial.
And the NIST scientists investigating the WTC7 collapse started their timing artificially early when they took the average rate of collapse -- effectively committing scientific fraud to hide the free fall acceleration. When finally forced to admit to free fall, they glossed over it as if such a fact were consistent with office-fire-induced collapse.
NIST still refuses to release their numbers on the analysis of the collapse. Architects and engineers could help make buildings safer if they had that information -- and if the NIST scientists were telling the truth about why WTC7 collapsed. Hiding their numbers and analysis details is at least very unscientific and highly suspicious. It smacks of cover-up, as do some of the other items mentioned above.
More than 3 dozen military exercises were planned for the day of 9/11, effectively crippling the response capabilities of the US military.
A few weeks before 9/11, the procedures for hijack response were changed so that approval of military response had to go through Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense. On 9/11, Rumsfeld was studiously unavailable. Later, he made himself available for a Pentagon lawn photo-op, joining others to carry a stretcher of the wounded. A few weeks after 9/11, the procedures for hijack response were changed back to the longstanding procedure used for years before 9/11.
The security set-up in the WTC was arranged by a company run by Wert Walker III, a distant cousin of George W. Bush, and by Bush's younger brother, Marvin.
WTC7 was largely a government building with offices of the SEC, IRS, other government agencies and especially the 2nd largest office of the CIA. It takes months to prepare a building of that size with controlled demolition. The CIA either would have known about this, or they were incredibly incompetent.
More scientific data and analysis can be found at http://AE911Truth.org.
2) The second thing peaceful Muslims can do to help stop terrorism is to do what Christ suggested -- to love others as if they were themselves and to wish for them everything that they desire. This makes turning the other cheek effortless. And such unconditional love will heal the world of all that is wrong with it. Love without self-concern is what makes civilization possible. Otherwise, we get only wailing and gnashing.It would be interesting to see architects with differing opinions discuss this. What you suggest may well be the way it started; however, there are peaceful Muslims who disagree. If they know this was an American conspiracy, they should expose it.
not to forget the muslim terrorists were busy drinking alcohol in a bar the night before the attack ... didn't make sense... I've mentioned this before but very few american's see this point of view. you have hit the source of the problem but the people never believe this. from various interviews found on youtube ... i could gather that osama was killed around or before 2001. the most annoying thing was that they said they found him 2 hours away from where i live... I'm sure that many people including a lot of muslims in this world wanted to see the dead body of osama bin laden, because he was made to be the reason of the war on terror. I would have definitely wanted to see his body if no one else did, and why did they just kill him and throw him in the ocean overnight? did he have Ebola?
your second point sounds all good and we have similar beliefs to what Christ teaches in Christianity, but you also have to understand how difficult a situation it is when people are pointing fingers at you and looking at you with hatred and are not prepared to listen to you... how do we go about this? just saying love them with all your heart does not cut it for me... when there are so many attacks on muslims for being a muslim, there must be another way.
Related Discussions
- 559
Islam, is it a violent religion?
by thirdmillenium 7 years ago
Does Islam contain some doctrines that make it mandatory for all Muslims to kill/destroy/annihilate followers of other religions/atheists/agnostics? Some say it does. Some others say it was not originally in the text but had been stealthily inserted later by religious fanatics.
- 23
All muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims. What do you think
by navneetjha 9 years ago
All muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims. What do you think?I know its bit sesitive issues. However I was thinking why most of the terrorists in the world are muslims? Is it something to do with their faith which is rigid and do not change with time. For example, in my religion...
- 27
Did Muhammad EVER teach its Followers to KILL people?
by CutterM 12 years ago
What's up with all the trolls on HP today? Sheesh.
- 35
Why Liberals Hate Conservatives even more than ISIS?
by Jack Lee 6 years ago
A personal analysis of the current state of the Democratic party which has been taken over by extreme liberal progressives like Elizabeth Warren...They demonize Conservatives and mock them and spew lies about them.They say conservatives are dumb, bigoted and selfish and even evil...as they...
- 61
It's 9/11 and War is Declared against the Islamic State
by Writer Fox 9 years ago
Obama has declared open war on ISIS/ISIL."We will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists," Obama said from the White House. "I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL [Islamic State] in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my...
- 80
Do we think of 'Muslim' at the same time as we think of 'Terrorism' ?
by Sushmita 9 years ago
I was checking out this Hub on Whoopi Goldberg and 'The View' and came upon Whoopi and Baver walking out of the show, on the remark of Bill O'Reilly that 'Muslims killed us on 9/11'. I then went looking and found another clip on Utube a talk radio program clip of David Pakman...