jump to last post 1-25 of 25 discussions (304 posts)

What can peaceful Muslims do to help stop terrorism?

  1. dianetrotter profile image82
    dianetrotterposted 2 years ago

    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.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. dianetrotter profile image82
            dianetrotterposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. dianetrotter profile image82
                dianetrotterposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                It's a vicious cycle.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  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.

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
          oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. dianetrotter profile image82
            dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. G Miah profile image83
              G Miahposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              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.

            2. G Miah profile image83
              G Miahposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              Sorry i thought you were talking about the guy on the floor who apparently got shot in the head with an AK47.

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
        oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        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.

      3. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. Writer Fox profile image79
          Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. dianetrotter profile image82
            dianetrotterposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            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.

          2. arksys profile image92
            arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            some really good info there writer... thanks for sharing.

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        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.

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It's growing, too.  A hopeful sign for the survival of Islam.

    3. 61
      mohamedimrankhanposted 24 months ago in reply to this

      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.

    4. Pam Ryan profile image59
      Pam Ryanposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Many will be afraid that they are putting targets on their backs.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          There is a price for freedom, and a very high one sometimes.  Yet...those unwilling to pay that price will not have freedom, either.

          1. Sed-me profile image81
            Sed-meposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            What price are you personally ready to pay?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              Look up Patrick Henry and what he had to say about it.  I agree with him.

              1. Sed-me profile image81
                Sed-meposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. GA Anderson profile image86
                  GA Andersonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  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?

                  GA

                  1. Sed-me profile image81
                    Sed-meposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    Im 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.

    5. oceansnsunsets profile image87
      oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      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?

    6. KU37 profile image79
      KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Agree
        If no Muslims have an opinions here. I'm out.

      2. Millionaire Tips profile image88
        Millionaire Tipsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          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.

          GA

          1. dianetrotter profile image82
            dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            Excellent 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.

          2. Millionaire Tips profile image88
            Millionaire Tipsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            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?

            1. GA Anderson profile image86
              GA Andersonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              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

    7. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. KU37 profile image79
        KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

        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.

      2. HowardBThiname profile image88
        HowardBThinameposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. PhoenixV profile image78
          PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          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?

        2. KU37 profile image79
          KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

          "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.

        3. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. KU37 profile image79
            KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

            +1

            1. dianetrotter profile image82
              dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. Don W profile image84
                Don Wposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                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.

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
            oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. dianetrotter profile image82
              dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. dianetrotter profile image82
                dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                Wow!  the hub is ready for those who want to comment.  Follow link

                http://dianetrotter.hubpages.com/hub/Wh … t-16165531

            2. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. dianetrotter profile image82
                dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                Deleted

                1. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. dianetrotter profile image82
                    dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    Don W, I agree with you!  I got a warning so I will change my pic on the Hub.

                  2. KU37 profile image79
                    KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    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.

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    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?)

          3. PhoenixV profile image78
            PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. PhoenixV profile image78
                PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                -


                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. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image78
                    PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    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

                  2. PhoenixV profile image78
                    PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    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?

                  3. PhoenixV profile image78
                    PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    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?

                2. Quilligrapher profile image90
                  Quilligrapherposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  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.
                  http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
                  {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 Faith

                  1. PhoenixV profile image78
                    PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    Egypt 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"

    8. PhoenixV profile image78
      PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      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_%27Atik

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        PhoenixV, 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?

    9. PhoenixV profile image78
      PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      -





      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_Egypt

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        PhoenixV, 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.

        1. PhoenixV profile image78
          PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          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.

    10. G Miah profile image83
      G Miahposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        More peaceful Muslims are being killed than anyone else.

    11. 60
      Thrall Starkhavenposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        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.

    12. MonkeyShine75 profile image80
      MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      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

  2. Castlepaloma profile image23
    Castlepalomaposted 23 months ago

    Duck tape your house,
    The Muslim Are Coming|||

  3. Castlepaloma profile image23
    Castlepalomaposted 23 months ago

    Duck tape your house,
    The Muslim Are Coming|||

    1. BuddiNsense profile image60
      BuddiNsenseposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Should .. . .

  4. dianetrotter profile image82
    dianetrotterposted 23 months ago

    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.

    1. Writer Fox profile image79
      Writer Foxposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        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.

    2. arksys profile image92
      arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. BuddiNsense profile image60
        BuddiNsenseposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. arksys profile image92
          arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          i know a lot of families where the previous generation was hard core and the next generation isn't.
          it works both ways.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
            oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. KU37 profile image79
              KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

              "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?

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                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.

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
            oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            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.

    3. Castlepaloma profile image23
      Castlepalomaposted 23 months ago

      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.

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        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.

    4. RoadWarrior2166 profile image60
      RoadWarrior2166posted 23 months ago

      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.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        +

      2. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        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.

    5. RoadWarrior2166 profile image60
      RoadWarrior2166posted 23 months ago

      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.

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. KU37 profile image79
          KU37posted 23 months ago in reply to this

          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?

    6. Jomine Jose profile image79
      Jomine Joseposted 23 months ago

      What can peaceful Muslims do to help stop terrorism?
      Stop being overtly religious and encourage others to do so.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        good idea

    7. Ewent profile image82
      Ewentposted 23 months ago

      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.

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
        oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. Writer Fox profile image79
          Writer Foxposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          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/Muhammad

          1. Ewent profile image82
            Ewentposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            As 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?

            1. Castlepaloma profile image23
              Castlepalomaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              Agree

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              "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.

              1. Ewent profile image82
                Ewentposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. G Miah profile image83
                  G Miahposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. dianetrotter profile image82
                    dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    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?

                    1. G Miah profile image83
                      G Miahposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                      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.

                    2. Ewent profile image82
                      Ewentposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                      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?

                  2. Castlepaloma profile image23
                    Castlepalomaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    Wise thing to do is to
                    abolish religion

                    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                      Castlepalomaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                      Agree

                  3. Ewent profile image82
                    Ewentposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    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.

                    1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                      Castlepalomaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                      agree

      2. RoadWarrior2166 profile image60
        RoadWarrior2166posted 23 months ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. Ewent profile image82
          Ewentposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          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.

    8. Writer Fox profile image79
      Writer Foxposted 23 months ago

      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.html

      1. PhoenixV profile image78
        PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        It would appear that they have gotten over their grief for those that were killed.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image23
          Castlepalomaposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Many think 9/11 was an inside jobs . Although still blaming it on just Muslim to create fuel for the war machines.

      2. PhoenixV profile image78
        PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/15/24B8C58000000578-2911717-image-m-12_1421335429374.jpgPakistan 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"

        1. KU37 profile image79
          KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          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?

          1. PhoenixV profile image78
            PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. KU37 profile image79
              KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Personally, I find what you are doing abhorrent.

            2. KU37 profile image79
              KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. Don W profile image84
                Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. Writer Fox profile image79
                  Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  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."

                  1. dianetrotter profile image82
                    dianetrotterposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    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.

                    1. Writer Fox profile image79
                      Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                      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.

                  2. Don W profile image84
                    Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    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.

                    1. dianetrotter profile image82
                      dianetrotterposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                      Sadly, I agree with you Don.

                    2. dianetrotter profile image82
                      dianetrotterposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                      Sadly, I agree with you Don.

                    3. MonkeyShine75 profile image80
                      MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                      Don't you think it's because burning another person is such a horribly heinous crime, and not because of the sensationalism?

                2. dianetrotter profile image82
                  dianetrotterposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  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.

    9. G Miah profile image83
      G Miahposted 23 months ago

      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.

    10. Twilight Lawns profile image83
      Twilight Lawnsposted 23 months ago

      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.

      1. PhoenixV profile image78
        PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Why is that, exactly?

        1. Twilight Lawns profile image83
          Twilight Lawnsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Why is what, exactly?

          1. PhoenixV profile image78
            PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            Why would you not want to live under sharia law.

            1. Twilight Lawns profile image83
              Twilight Lawnsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. PhoenixV profile image78
                PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                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?

                1. Twilight Lawns profile image83
                  Twilight Lawnsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image78
                    PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                    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?

                    1. Twilight Lawns profile image83
                      Twilight Lawnsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

                      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.

      2. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Thank you KU for bringing Twilight to the discussion!

      3. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        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.

        GA

        1. Twilight Lawns profile image83
          Twilight Lawnsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          Gosh!
          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)

          1. GA Anderson profile image86
            GA Andersonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            Hmm... I had an itinerary once, but I didn't feed it right so it found a new home.

            Good luck to you too.

            GA

            1. KU37 profile image79
              KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

              You have a remarkably verbose way of saying "please keep out".  I am impressed.

              1. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                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

                1. KU37 profile image79
                  KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Been there done that.

    11. oceansnsunsets profile image87
      oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago

      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.

      1. dianetrotter profile image82
        dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Thank you oceansnsunsets!  I admit that I am looking for simple answers.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
          oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          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! smile

          1. dianetrotter profile image82
            dianetrotterposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            Thank yo oceansnsunsets!  I will work on it!  I love discussion.

    12. dianetrotter profile image82
      dianetrotterposted 23 months ago

      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.

      1. 60
        Thrall Starkhavenposted 23 months ago

        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.

      2. PhoenixV profile image78
        PhoenixVposted 22 months ago

        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.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
          oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          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?

          1. KU37 profile image79
            KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              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.

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. KU37 profile image79
                KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                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".

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. KU37 profile image79
                    KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    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.

                    1. PhoenixV profile image78
                      PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this



                      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.

                      1. KU37 profile image79
                        KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                        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.

                      2. Don W profile image84
                        Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                        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.

                    2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                      oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                      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?

                      1. KU37 profile image79
                        KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                        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.

                      2. KU37 profile image79
                        KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                        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.

      3. JMcFarland profile image92
        JMcFarlandposted 22 months ago

        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?

        1. 0
          TheBizWhizposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. dianetrotter profile image82
            dianetrotterposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            I like the way you stated that.  I haven't been able to articulate it as well.

      4. oceansnsunsets profile image87
        oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago

        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.

        1. PhoenixV profile image78
          PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. PhoenixV profile image78
            PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            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...

          2. KU37 profile image79
            KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. PhoenixV profile image78
              PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              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?

              1. PhoenixV profile image78
                PhoenixVposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                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.

              2. KU37 profile image79
                KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                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.

        2. KU37 profile image79
          KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          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.

          1. KU37 profile image79
            KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. KU37 profile image79
                KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. KU37 profile image79
                  KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Correction:  I meant to write "But similarly, you are NOT defined by your..."

      5. oceansnsunsets profile image87
        oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago

        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.)

        1. KU37 profile image79
          KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

          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?

        2. PhoenixV profile image78
          PhoenixVposted 22 months ago

          The best advice I can give for a public relations campaign is to address the problems as opposed to whitewashing them.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
            oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. KU37 profile image79
              KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

              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.

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                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.

                1. KU37 profile image79
                  KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    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?

                    1. KU37 profile image79
                      KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                      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."

                      1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                        oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                        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?

                        1. KU37 profile image79
                          KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                          Oceansunsets I am going to perfectly frank and honest.  You urgently need to check HubPages to see if those last four questions have already been asked.  If not, ask them and I am there.

        3. Writer Fox profile image79
          Writer Foxposted 22 months ago

          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

        4. oceansnsunsets profile image87
          oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago

          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.

          1. KU37 profile image79
            KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

            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.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              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?

              1. KU37 profile image79
                KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Okay I'll ramp down if you ramp down.  We have to work together here and listen to each other.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  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.

                  1. KU37 profile image79
                    KU37posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    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").

        5. Writer Fox profile image79
          Writer Foxposted 22 months ago

          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.

        6. Writer Fox profile image79
          Writer Foxposted 22 months ago

          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

        7. lone77star profile image90
          lone77starposted 22 months ago

          "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.

          1. MonkeyShine75 profile image80
            MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

            People, and their conspiracy theories.

          2. dianetrotter profile image82
            dianetrotterposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            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.

          3. arksys profile image92
            arksysposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            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.

         
        working