Is the Obama Presidency advancing Islam?
As the President of the United States continues to refuse to identify on going acts of Islamic terrorism with Islam; is his refusal to do so a direct or tacit approval or support for the religion of Islam and Sharia law over the Constitution?
The president of the United States has on several occassions voiced his support for Islam, "And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Cairo University on June 4, 2009
" When I became the NASA Administrator, [President Obama] charged me with three things.-----and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering." NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, 2010: Speaking with Al-Jazeera,
"[Our effort] has to start major efforts to delegitimize ISIS’s claim to some religious foundation for what it’s doing and begin to put real Islam out there and draw lines throughout the region." Secretary of State John Kerry, 2014:
“The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer” Barack Obama
"We will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities” Barack ObamaNo, the trouble makers are radicals, they and their violence must be dealt with harshly. They are sects, only
There is no reason to attack Islam generally, a faith that millions of the world's people are affiliated with. I expect my president to avoid petty forms of bigotry and stereotyping. Are there strident and extremist Christian sects out there?Credence
I do not believe that there was any mention of attacking the whole of Islam. My references, quotes, indicate that Obama has an agenda that will assist in the advancing of a particular religious mind set, that being Islam. Would you care to address that point and avoid making a argument that does not exist.
To deal with your point of,"-- and their violence must be dealt with harshly--", he is not dealing with it harshly. His response to Isis has been no more than tokenism.
To your point in comparing the radicals of Islam to those of current Christians, can you point to any news events that would support this? If not than you simply have another invalid point.
Being an Atheist, I have no value and less respect for theisms, of any description or for secular deities such as a Stalin.In your first paragraph, you said that the president refuse to identify ongoing acts of terrorism with Islam. So what is behind it, are you not saying that they are one in the same? The idea that Mr. Obama is somehow promoting or excusing the extremists is just so much nonsense. Is that a fair ly evaluated conclusion to what you are saying?
What do you consider a harsh adequate response by the President, violate the first amendment and put all Americans practicing Islam in jail? That does not sound much like Mr. "All AMERICAN to me. Sounds like 100 percent right wing.
I did not say that Christian sects have risen to the outrage found in Islam extremists. But there are plenty that don't adhere to "Christian principles"' having agendas that promote anything but. That is evident to anyone with a head on his or her shoulders, atheist or not.Credence
You seem to be of the same mind as Neville Chamberlaind. Good luck with that.
I hope you will not mind one more point before I go.
I was surprised by this statement from you because so many examples are available online. I gather you never looked for them. The Klu Klux Klan, for one, remains to this day the epitome of America’s Christian Terrorist groups.
In addition, the Army of God (AOG) is a Christian terrorist organization that sanctions the use of force to combat abortion in the United States. A branch of the Army of God admitted responsibility when Michael Bray and two others planted bombs at seven abortion clinics in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D.C.. The group also claimed responsibility for Eric Robert Rudolph's nail bombing of abortion clinics in Atlanta and Birmingham. Mr. Rudolph, as you probably know, is now serving life without parole for a long list of terrorist attacks committed in the name of Christianity, most notable, Atlanta’s Centennial Olympic Park bombing in 1996 that resulted in two people dead and 111 injured.
{1}{2}{3}
Thank you for your patience. Hope you had a very pleasant evening.
{1} "Terrorist Organization Profile: Army of God". National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.
{2} "3 Men Charged in Bombings Of Seven Abortion Facilities". The New York Times. January 20, 1985.
{3} "Army of God letters claim responsibility for clinic bombing". CNN. February 2, 1998.Quilligrapher
How do these organization, as heinous as they are, compare with the international threat of Islamic Terrorism?Islamic terrorists are similar to Christian and Jewish terrorists. They are all individuals, secular extremists acting alone or in tandem, who justify violence and murder by professing it is the will of their gods. All terrorists display a depraved indifference to life.
Your analogy is akin to comparing the number one with the number one million and reaching the conclusion that because both are numbers they are the same, of the same value and with the same impact.
.Cj, it is not often that I take issue with Obama. But there was A recent article where the president chided his European allies to do a better job assimilating Muslims.
I certainly do not believe that assimilating Muslims is the problem. The terrorist create an atmosphere of fear subverting democratic institutions and inhibiting freedom of speech and expression by all.
This is the wrong thing said at the wrong time to our grieving European friends.Muslims are not to be discriminated against, but I don,t want them coddled either. Their intolerance can be no more assimilated than that of anyone else. .
"Neville Chamberlain"? I think that your comparison of him to me is a biT strong.Credence
I have enclosed a Pew research poll that provides information about those Muslims (% wise) from around the world that are not interested in assimilation, but the establishment of Sharia Law. A similar poll was conducted recently in America with interesting results. Easily researched.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- … -overview/
By the way democracy is not freedom and with reference to Chamberlain, I hope it was a bit strong."By the way, democracy is not freedom". ?? I thought that Democracy was a component of a free society, elaborate please.
Quite frankly, I don't care if they want to assimilate or not, anymore than the Amish. But they will obey the laws of our secular authorities and not unlawfully impose their beliefs on others or be subject to arrest. There are a lot of things extremists prefer, but the difference between their preferences and the reality on the ground is a chasm.
Thanks for the link, in any case, but I don't care what they want or believe. They are free to believe what they want, but don't bother me with it. The moment they cross the line, we are going to have problems.
But just for fun, what is your sane, rational solution to all of this outside of attacking the status quo? What do you think the President and the Government should do in response to the rising threat of extremists?Credence
Democracy can be a component of a free society, but of itself, it is majority or mob rule and such is never indicative of freedom. History shows that the majority, as mobs, can be swayed and controlled by a very few.especially when that majority becomes dependent on those few or fearful of those few.
The democracies of Italy and Germany come to mind as, both Hitler and Mussolini were brought to power through the democratic process. The list of failed democracies is quite long and a quick Google search will give an indication.
For America, it is the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers, three distinct and "equal" branches of of government, which embodies a Constitutional Republic, which equates to a free society.
Currently we seem to have an Administration that does not recognize the co-equal branches of government or is a failed leader, in that, he cannot bring the branches together.
Below are a few quotes that speak to the weaknesses of a democracy, which, I think, is an insightful look at human nature and the idea of something for nothing.
"Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide." John Adams
"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty."
Plato
"Democracy is the only road to socialism" Karl Marx
The quote by Marx is interesting and I would suggest a reading of his reasoning for the statement.
In any case, that is some of my thinking as to why democracy is not freedom and, I would agree with Marx and with that agreement this quote comes to mind, "As democracy is the only road to socialism is socialism then the road to Marxism and totalitarian rule"?Interesting, CJ, I always suspected an undercurrent of discontent from the Right much along the line of argument you present here. An underlying resentment that " the people" have too much power and are to be considered 'rabble' relative to that handful of "virtuous souls" who we are to intrinsically trust to protect us from our own excess...
While Hitler used the democratic process in Germany to rise to power, once there he promptly dismantled it as a dangerous check to his ambition as a tyrant. So, democracy in itself is not to blame.
I do not agree that President Obama is the great usurper, whose sole purpose is to undermine the principle of "Separation of Powers".
Conservative are unhappy perhaps, but since when has all three branches agree on anything? You have a GOP dominated congress, with an executive that comes from the Democratic party. Better they debate and come to compromise than let the prime objectives of either side take hold without challenge, right?
I am humbled to dare to question the wisdom of one so fundamental to the founding of the Republic as John Adams. Can we even consider the possibility that he was in error? Two centuries attest to the fact that it is certainly is taking a long time for the democracy Adams warned about to self destruct.
Would you prefer a return to the divine right of kings? What is the alternative to democracy? Do we let the richest rule, perhaps the whitest, perhaps the most virtuous, as defined by whom? This is the 21st century, I cannot abide with having a handful of tyrants rule over me without my consent. So, are you suggesting an alternative the democratic ideal, if so, what is it?Credence
"An underlying resentment that " the people" have too much power and are to be considered 'rabble' relative to that handful of "virtuous souls" who we are to intrinsically trust to protect us from our own excess."
I am in awe at your ability to twist what has been said to accommodate your own values.
Hello again, Mr. Hunsinger. I trust you are doing well this evening.
I truly do not care what or whom you chose to fear. I gain nothing by changing your mind. With all due respect for your personal worldview, I would like, if I may, to address two of the issues advanced within this thread.
First, this thread begins with an effort to portray the President’s repeated calls for tolerance as a sinister agenda designed to provide “tacit approval or support for the religion of Islam and Sharia Law over the Constitution.” What should be obvious is clearly not obvious to everyone. The quotes do not refer in any way to Sharia Law or to our Constitution so, clearly, this claim is only useful as a baseless attack on the President. {1}
Secondly, the extreme ideology of a minority of Islamic terrorist does not represent the thinking of all the followers of Islam. One post in this forum implies that Muslims are substantially more interested in installing Sharia Law than they are about assimilating in their host countries. It is a tad baffling to see this assertion accompanied by a link to a Pew Research Report that has nothing to do with assimilation and everything to do with the attitudes of Muslims who are living in their home countries. While the survey does not support the false claim about assimilation, it does, in fact, establish that the stated conclusion about attitudes toward Sharia Law is flawed as well. {2}
The report cited is based on surveys taken over several years and is limited to 39 countries that are home to three-quarters of the world’s Muslim populations. The report does not contain any data regarding Muslims that immigrated to other countries. The report does, however, contradict the assertions we often hear that Islamic beliefs are broadly and uniformly held by all Muslims. Actually, this report reveals significant variations in attitude toward Sharia Law and even greater inconsistencies regarding other moral interpretations of Islam.
Does widespread agreement exist among Muslims on any aspect of Islam? The answer is a qualified and very limited “Yes.” The Pew Report states “Muslims around the world overwhelmingly agree that in order for a person to be moral, he or she must believe in God. Muslims across all the regions surveyed also generally agree that certain behaviors – such as suicide, homosexuality and consuming alcohol – are morally unacceptable.” {3} Never the less, finding widespread agreement becomes far more difficult when discussing most other moral issues including divorce, birth control and polygamy.
Among the large percentage of Muslims that speak out in favor of Sharia Law, most of them (from 51 and 64%) think it should apply exclusively to Muslims. {4}
Furthermore, disagreement among Muslims is even more widespread over which aspects of Sharia should be applied in their own society. While most favor religious interpretations in family and property matters, far fewer endorse the severe punishments dictated in criminal matters like those calling for whippings or cutting off hands. The survey results published by Pew also show that Muslims disagree by a wide margin over how they interpret certain aspects of Sharia, including whether divorce and family planning are morally acceptable.
The lesson to be learned from this Pew Research Report is that the opinions of all Muslims are consistently inconsistent regarding the role Sharia Law should play in the society in which they live. In most countries, the results closely track the present and historical impact Islam has had within the surveyed countries. Obviously, not all Muslims in the world live under mandatory Sharia Law. A diligent analysis of the survey’s data confirms that most Muslims living under Sharia Law support it while most Muslims that do not live under Sharia Law are far, far less enthusiastic about change.
To underscore this point, Pew researchers found less than 30% of all Muslims in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Tajikistan, and Lebanon say they support replacing existing laws with Sharia:
“In some countries where Muslims make up more than 90% of the population, relatively few want their government to codify Islamic law; this is the case in Tajikistan (27%), Turkey (12%) and Azerbaijan (8%).” {5}
In addition, Pew points out “Muslim scholars and jurists continue to debate the boundary between sharia and fiqh [the human exercise of codifying and interpreting the moral principles in the Quran] as well as other aspects of Islamic law.” Hence, Pew data indicates that Islamic beliefs are not broadly and uniformly held by all Muslims. {6}
In all of the global regions surveyed, more than 90% of Muslims felt religious freedom in their countries was a “good thing” for all citizens. With the exception of South Asia, more than half of all Muslims worldwide is in favor of democracy over a strong leader. According to the Pew Report, “Given a choice between a leader with a strong hand or a democratic system of government, most Muslims choose democracy.” {7}
In the final analysis, we all need to be concerned about radical terrorist of all stripes including the Christian and Jewish varieties. At the same time, it is important that rational observers exercise critical thinking skills and continue to point out that there is a vast difference, a chasm, to borrow from Credence2’s post, between the relatively few Islamic extremists and the 1.8 billion law abiding, non-violent Muslims in the world. Nor should anyone surrender to an irrational, unsupportable fear that 6.9 billion non-Muslims worldwide are about to have their legal traditions overturned by a handful of barbaric terrorists.
{1} http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2694988
{2} http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- … -overview/
{3} Ibid. See Faith and Morality.
{4} Ibid. Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia. See chart in "Should Sharia Apply to All Citizens?"
{5} Ibid. See Regional Differences
{6} Ibid. See Sharia
{7} Ibid. See Democracy and Religious FreedomMy Dear Mr. Quilligrapher
Your exercise in Islamic apologistics is for your benefit alone. Hopefully, you are right.
You might ask yourself however, how many Islamic terrorists did it take to shut down America on 9/11 or effectively shut down Boston and Paris? What percentage of Islam was represented in these events?
That you would compare, the organizations you have, with the nightmare of Islamic extremism is patently absurd. I, however, would rather be wrong.and again that you are right would make me very happy.Good point. We can thus safely conclude that because .0000001% of muslims participated in the 9/11 attack it is clear that all muslims would have if they could. The sample size of .0000001% is sufficiently large to make the connection.
wilderness
What justification do you have to make such a false assumption?Isn't that what your were saying? That because there was such a huge number involved in the 911 attacks that it means all Muslims support it?
--------------------------------------------------------
Credence2 - "Are there strident and extremist Christian sects out there?"
I did not say that Christian sects have risen to the outrage found in Islam extremists. But there are plenty that don't adhere to "Christian principles"' having agendas that promote anything but.
----------------------------------------------------------
Quilligrapher - The Klu Klux Klan, for one, remains to this day the epitome of America’s Christian Terrorist groups. ...In addition, the Army of God (AOG) is a Christian terrorist organization
------------------------------------------------------------
promisem- Those same few seem to forget the millions who have died over the centuries at the hands of Christian extremists,
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quilligrapher - Islamic terrorists are similar to Christian and Jewish terrorists.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quilligrapher - In the final analysis, we all need to be concerned about radical terrorist of all stripes including the Christian and Jewish varieties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(hopefully I attributed these quotes correctly, there were so many...)
The apologetics are very interesting. They are mostly tu quoque fallacies while alluding to bigotry, stereotyping (ironically) and intolerance.
What seems odd about it Mr. Cjhunsinger is that you are not even Christian. There seems to be plenty of stereotyping of Christians all throughout their apologetics. Because quote "we have to be concerned about radical terrorists of all stripes" ( but specifically references 2 and leaves out others, zero non-beliefs or other ideologies at all ). In fact the stereotyping seems almost desperate and seems to be the meat and potatoes of their arguments, while conversely suggesting everyone else is stereotyping. What explains that?
Now, on intolerance, nothing is more intolerant than blasphemy laws, apostasy laws or intolerance of homosexuality in islam.
Today in most of the Islamic world homosexuality is not socially or legally accepted. In some of these countries, Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen, homosexual activity carries the *** death penalty **** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam
But here I am a Christian, speaking out against it, objecting to it, yet all we hear from the apologists is mostly crickets or indifference.
What explains this?Where do you get the idea that the Christian faith is under attack? I am opposed to all forms of extremism and their adherents, introducing intolerance and violence to pluralistic societies regardless of the banner that they raise.
Phoenix
Yes, I am very much an Atheist, but first I am an American. I define an American as one who holds first and foremost The Bill of Rights and the Constitution.as the ultimate position in human achievement to date..
The position that some have taken here is a form of Chamberlain apologetics and appeasement, and mimics his position and rhetoric on the advancement of Nazi Germany.
Make no mistake as I have a great disdain for all forms of theism as all are problematic. Equally, I possess the same disdain for a secular deification of government, which is no less problematic in terms of a totalitarian attempt to rule.
To directly answer your closing question, perhaps, it is forty years of government sponsored guilt and the absurd proposition that America, her founding, history and culture are an evil in the world and must be stopped and or diminished to a third world status. Perhaps, a fluff and puff feel good altruism with promises of a Utopia, if only America did not exist..Mr. Cjhunsinger you have an astute grasp of history regarding Chamberlain and not only does it apply here, it would appear that it also applies to current political leaders and government officials, in my opinion.
You seem to be the only Atheist, that is not doing islamic apologetics. The other devout anti-theists, (besides one that is markedly inconsistent in their freedom of expression angle and another who gives a very small and insignificant, token response) seem to be doing obvious islamic apologetics as both you and I and others have noticed.
Seriously, I could make more sense of this thread, if you edited the title from: Is the Obama Presidency advancing Islam? To : Is the Obama Presidency advancing Islam and how can we use it as an opportunity to express disdain, for anyone that ever labeled themselves a Christian, since time began" Now don't get me wrong Mr. Cjhunsinger, I can already hear some countering with: "We're not attacking Christianity, you're just playing the victim". But that is not my point.
I am pointing out the bizarre inconsistency of anti-theists seemingly doing islamic apologetics, which would include to a large extent sharia. Their claim, possibly, could be, they are the "Don Quixotes of Intolerance", when even Hellen Keller could see that sharia can arguably be the most intolerant injustice system, that history has ever known, along with the inconsistent application of tolerance in light of a myopic view of Christianity, expressed ad nauseam.
Now Mr. Cjhunsinger I am not going to insult your intelligence by flattering you like some sycophant, but I believe you do have a grasp of history and I consider you unbiased, at the very least you are true to your atheism. In fact, you and I could probably agree that, strikingly, you are one of few, that is true to your atheism and consistent. I am not an atheist, but I concede you are "ideologically speaking" an "honest" atheist.
Having said that, and in response to your "government sponsored guilt theory", (which I find suitable in an interesting way) I was wondering if you could give me two seconds of consideration?
Devout Anti-theist Islamic Apologists, makes for strange bedfellows. Could this be a a clue, to Christianity being true, in its claims, even though I am painfully aware of.... even though I know that would be an "astounding affront to your sensibilities" - could you at the very least see my point?
Phoenix
To be quite honest, I am taken aback by your comments and your sincerity. In my life as an Atheist, I have been called a great many things, usually in the monosyllabic style. My life has been threatened, as well, my wife and children. I have also been beleaguered by atheists, who have labeled me a theistic apologist. So, I do thank you for your kind comments.
Your point of being true to my Atheism, in comparison to others of such a persuasion, is a point I would like to elaborate on.
Many who identify as Atheists have a tendency to deify Man in the form of a government. I think this is done to replace or supplant the conventional god beliefs and still retain the façade of being Atheist. This is not Atheism, but rather a form of secular spirituality or secular deity worship. History is replete with such human gods from the pharaohs to Caesar to the Hitlers and Stalins and possibly Obama.
I like your suggested edit, but to change it now and I don’t know that I can, would not be fair to those who have answered in accord with the original question.
I am never affronted by sincerity, which I believe prompts your question. No, I do not think that is the case, but I do understand your question and I have an empathy with your position.
About 55 years ago, I was struggling with the choice of pursuing a life as a Jesuit priest or a life absent a god and the Catholic Church. For some time I would attempt to justify all things to what I thought was true Christianity, aside from Catholicism or other Christian sects, but I could not deny my sense of reason to make that puzzle work. For those, like yourself, who can and still retain a sense of humanity, I think it speaks well to to best of a religious philosophy.I have read before where you alluded to the deification of men or government and I am glad you elaborated on it, because now I see and understand your position on that better and believe it is conceivable.
I assure you that in this case I am not trying to rationalize my personal beliefs or make the puzzle work in that regard. What I am is completely baffled at the complete 180 degree change of people that spend the majority of their time on the forums, regardless of the forum topic, whether it be about auto parts or cookie recipes, expounding on their belief that faith, religion and specifically Christianity is the bane of their personal universe. The most regular and most severe complaint being that it sounds like they all live in Salt Lake City based on the voluminous, daily visits by missionaries on bicycles that come to scourge them with religious tracts.
Then to the bewilderment of anyone not in a coma, when current events, delivers us all the topic of islam/sharia with it's death for leaving it, death for insulting it or death for homosexuality is inexplicably given a free pass by comparison. Hardly a whimper out of them. So that is why I speculate on a spiritual alliance of sorts, of a spiritual axis and allies. I feel like Poland facing a Molotov/ribbentrop pact and I cannot reconcile that absurd contradiction of idealogical difference in my mind.Let us be honest. If two drunken rednecks stumbled past a Methodist Church on their way to beating up a gay person outside of Starbucks, it would be claimed they were devout Episcopalians closely adhering to some verse in Leviticus, when we all know that they probably could not even spell "Leviticus".
Most Mainline Protestants Say Society Should Accept Homosexuality
VS
The death penalty for homosexuality is currently in place in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan, Mauritania, Sudan and northern Nigeria.
Not to mention stoning, cutting off hands, death for leaving islam or death for insulting islam, what do we hear from the purported defenders of tolerance?
Phoenix
"Christianity is the bane of their personal universe." Regarding this passage. I think that it is more than Christianity that is the target of their venom, it is America, her history, heritage, culture and success.
Christianity, the Judeo/Christian belief system, and America are historically and inextricably intertwined, so for some, if Christianity is made to look bad, so to is America.
Some have said that Islam is being used as a pawn to destabilize the Western world under the guise of freedom of religion, political correctness, multiculturalism, tolerance and diversity and quite honestly, I don't know that I can disagree with that.
As a questioning sort, I would want to know why the three words, multiculturalism, tolerance and diversity are so much in our vocabulary and so much apart of our lives. Where did they come from and why have they become the definitive answer and, seemly, the goal of Western governments?
Perhaps, this may answer your, "--bewilderment--". In the new world, " 2+2=5", George Orwell, 1984
There are not many quotes by Teddy Roosevelt that I admire, but this one says it all and, I think, best describes our current path as a nation.
"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities. - Teddy Roosevelt,
.If I was going to create a think tank, you would be on it. You have a unique and persuasive perspective on things. I think you are on to something. It is like they want to dissolve nationalism and blend the ingredients no matter how opposed to liberty some of the ingredients are to obtain a mush that can be centrally controlled.
Phoenix
This is another reason for the attack on Christianity in America, as the majority of Christians are avid Americans respectful of the Constitution.
I have come to realize that anything promoted of defended by multiculturalism, diversity and tolerance is being exploited as a wedge between peoples as a line of division and separation in the advancement of
a deified secularism and a "global community." absent of the Constitution.
Thank you for your prompt reply. Your perspectives on this subject are meaningful to me so please continue.
Being reasonable is far more important than being right. Credible facts in the defense of the President's many calls for tolerance, coupled with research that shows how all Muslims have been falsely demonized by comments in this thread, qualify as "Islamic Apologetics." I have no problem with your assessment or with responding to conjecture with factual statements. Whether they are "for [my] benefit alone" shall remain a conclusion you will need to prove. We are, after all, not the only people observing this dialog.
Believe me, Sir, I do not wish to insult you or your beliefs. You just have not offered any justification that leads me to the same exaggerated conclusions that you seem to embrace. Please tell us "how many Islamic terrorists did it take to shut down America on 9/11 or effectively shut down Boston and Paris?" As for your second question, "What percentage of Islam was represented in these events?", I really do not know what is meant by "represented in these events." However, unanswered questions are poor substitutes for a clearly stated position. Why not simply say what you think and provide convincing justification?
You are, without any doubt, welcome to believe I am absurd for comparing the Klu Klux Klan to Islamic Jihad. I am happy to leave you the task of ranking the threat of terrorists according to an unknown yet greatly inflated number of people you assume are secretly cheering somewhere in the world. Meanwhile, I will continue to measure terrorists' threats on a factual scale of how successful they are at spreading terror. By my reckoning, Mr. Hunsinger, more blacks in the South lived with the fear of lynching after the birth of the Klan than live with the fear of a pressure-cooker bomb today.
I hope you enjoy your evening, Mr. Hunsinger. Shall we agree to disagree again on another day?Instead of talking about "Islamic apologetics" why don't you address the points Quilligrapher made? As far as I can see, his post refutes your entire argument. All you have come up with in reply is to label him with something I assume you think is derogatory. I think that says a lot about the strength of your argument. Address the points raised if you can, or accept your argument has been refuted; Doing neither indicates that your view can't stand to a even minimal scrutiny from any objective, rational person.
Quilligrapher, your response is fair, rational and informative. Well said.
What an excellent idea.
In other words, marshall the ire of billions of sensible Muslims against the minority of extremists. Sounds smart to me.
I found it rather annoying when I was in the middle east , especially in the morning, but it does have a ghostly, ethereal feel to it which I guess some people like. No accounting for taste.
Actual personal interaction between people is one of the best ways to foster understanding. The realisation that someone is preoccupied with making a living, keeping their kids safe, enjoying whatever spare moments they have to relax etc. just like you, makes the differences seem smaller and much less significant. The same is true in the other direction. Again, seems like a good idea to me.
Not really.Greetings, CJ. Hope all is well with you these days.
I thank you for providing five quotes to support your claim. Each of these quotes contains a message of tolerance. Not one, however, supports your rhetorical inference that the President supports Islam over our Constitution. That interpretation is not remotely implied in any of your examples.
Actually, the President’s agenda is clear. He has consistently urged Americans, and the world, not to allow acts of terrorism by a small number of radical extremists to result in widespread intolerance of the Islamic faith and billions of non-violent, law-abiding Muslims.Quilligrapher
I am fine. Have we had a previous conversation?
If one of us can be right, I hope that it is you.
I am still trying to find the negative connotation about Islam and wanting to explore ways of better understanding it as you describe in your post. Are we to group the terrorists in with these statements? The terrorists ties to the Islamic religion are for personal gain and assimilation of recruits. They espouse some phrases of the Koran and ignore others that counter their actions. The best you might be able say about the terrorists is that they are hypocrites in their teachings and beliefs. Your post only furthers and agenda of hating Obama and tying terrorists to him. Believe me there are many other things about Obama to criticize that are no where near the stretch you make here.
rhamson
I have noticed that there are two types of people who like to use the word hate. There are the theists and those who those who really do not have an argument.
As I told Quilligrapher, I would prefer your sentiment correct and mine wrong.rhamson
A further note reprinted from Claudio Di Gregorio, Je suis Charlie. Lawyer on Quora
I find extraordinary the nerve of Muslims who, in spite of all the violence we witness every day in the Middle East, in Europe and elsewhere, imperturbably tell us - kuffar (unbelievers) - that within Islam there is no command to kill Christians, Jews or apostates.
Like so many Christians who never read the Bible, perhaps they say this because they have never read the Quran or the Hadith (sayings and acts of Muhammad as compiled by his followers), so I suppose a little reminder would be appropriate:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And al-fitnah (temptation, trial, sedition, civil strife) is worse than killing...
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". ("To join companions" means to believe in the Trinity.)
Quran 3:56 states that "those who reject faith" will be "punished with terrible agony in this world."
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna and religion should be only for Allah"
Quran 8:67. "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land".
Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them."
Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination."
Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..."
Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way"
HADITH:
Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."
Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power."
Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah."
Furthermore: the punishment for apostasy (abandoning Islam) is death, as it appears in holy texts (Sahih al-Bukhari 69:22: "Allah's Messenger said, "If anyone changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." -see also Bukhari 52:260) and it has been recognized publicly by imams even today, so if the preceding verses were not clear enough, rest assured that when the Christian or Jew is a former Muslim, then killing him/her is clearly a duty for all loyal Muslims, just because this person abandoned Islam.
These killing commands are not followed solely by gangs of crazy extremists in deserts. They are being applied today by Sharia (religious) courts. A nice example:
Meriam Yehya Ibrahim Ishag is a Sudanese woman. Her father is a Muslim, her mother is an Orthodox Christian, which according to Islamic jurisprudence, made Ishag Muslim. However, as Ishag's father was not present for Ishag's childhood, Ishag was raised as an Orthodox Christian.
Ishag married a Christian man from South Sudan in 2013. This was enough to get her charged with adultery, because according to the Sudanese interpretation of sharia law, marriages between Muslim women and non-Muslim men are not valid. Again, Ishag does not consider herself a Muslim, and it does not appear that she ever practiced Islam. This does not matter in the Sudanese court system.
During the adultery trial, Ishag declared herself to be a Christian. This got her charged with apostasy, which carries a death sentence in Sudan. She was found guilty on both counts, and sentenced to death. The execution was scheduled to take place two years later, as she was pregnant at the time. Luckily for her, international pressure managed to get her expelled to Italy, not before her own family tried twice to secure she would be executed. Unluckily, due to teh harsh conditions of her imprisonment, her child was born with disabilities.
Ibn Kathir (1302 CE, Islam's greatest commentator on the Quran) says: "Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizyah, they should be fought till they are killed." and also: "Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers.”
(Another nice reason for killing is blasphemy. Yosuf Islam, formerly Cat Stevens, endorsed thus Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie: "Under Islamic Law, the ruling regarding blasphemy is quite clear; the person found guilty of it must be put to death".)
Psychology could easily explain all these killings, as the Quran teaches that infidels are pigs, dogs, unclean, folk without intelligence, the worst of creatures, etc. Christians are disbelievers (98:5-6) and blasphemers (5:17, 5:73) who have invented a lie (10:68-69) by ascribing partners to Allah (ie. the Trinity). Inventing a lie about Allah is the worst of sins (7:37, 29:68) and for this reason Christians are condemned to Hell (10:70). Jews are wicked (4:160-162); so wicked, in fact, that they have somehow managed to do the impossible (18:27) and alter the word of Allah (2:75). Jews are “fond of lies” and “devour the forbidden” (5:42). Ayatollah Khomeini, who dedicated his life to studying Islam, said that non-Muslims rank somewhere between "feces" and the "sweat of a camel that has consumed impure food." In number of pages dedicated to Jews, the Quran is more antisemitic than Mein Kampf and, in proportion, is twice as violent as the Bible. For example, infidels are promised (or threatened with) Hell, Fire (as in hell) and Doom 359 times in the Quran, which also includes almost 500 favorable references to violence.
Consequences are evident. When you think in this deprecatory manner about others, and when Jihad (holy war) is a duty predicated not only in the holy books but by contemporary imams, scholars and teachers, killing infidels is nothing in your mind.
So the answer to the question is yes, there are plenty of justification within ancient and contemporary doctrinal Islam for the killing of Christians, Jews and apostates.
Note: After this comment we should expect Muslims' weirdest rationalizations, twisted explanations and accusations that I am putting things "out of context". I'm ready.
One can't help but ask one of my favorite questions, especially surrounding the tougher subjects, and that is, "what would explain that?" Does anything literally explain, all the examples you give? Each person has to answer, and not wanting to assume here.
I wonder how much it costs (including salary) for some kind of Public Relations campaign involving a Government Employee regarding the presenting of a Religion in its best light,(assuming the best) according to them?
Of the quotes you offer I only read that Obama wishes to direct efforts for inclusion and tolerance with Muslim counterparts. You just wish to mish mash it altogether with radical inferences.
In my humble opinion, this is the sort of spinning one experts to listen to on ultra-right wing talk show radio channels – Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage etc. Obama has done a lot to fight terrorism including the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the systematic elimination of terrorist leaders throughout the Middle East and Africa using drones and special forces. But when you have 1.6 Billion Muslims in the world, describing terrorism perpetrated by radical Muslims as “Islamic terrorism” is something you would expect from the most careless of leaders. Even George W. Bush was at pains trying to explain that America was not at war with Islam but only with terrorism. Will the use of the “Islamic terrorism” guaranteed?
By the way, if you try to have an open mind, you will find out that Obama has been as protective of the Jewish and Christian faiths as he been of Islam. Protect the religious rights of all Americans is a responsible thing to do.
- promisemposted 9 years ago
0Every president should advance every religion in America. That is what they are supposed to do to protect freedom of religion according to the Constitution.
And any president should support Islam as a whole in this country when it is under assault by extremists who blame it for the actions of a radical few.
Those same few seem to forget the millions who have died over the centuries at the hands of Christian extremists, some of whom slaughtered Muslims during the Holy Wars. Obama is clearly not prejudiced against any religion.
I think that is a good thing.Obama would not say something like " you are not even Christian".
This is also a very very good thing--because he is President to all of us, not just those he shares a religious faith with.
Related Discussions
- 23
All muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims. What do you think
by navneetjha 10 years ago
All muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are muslims. What do you think?I know its bit sesitive issues. However I was thinking why most of the terrorists in the world are muslims? Is it something to do with their faith which is rigid and do not change with time. For example, in my religion...
- 80
Do we think of 'Muslim' at the same time as we think of 'Terrorism' ?
by Sushmita 9 years ago
I was checking out this Hub on Whoopi Goldberg and 'The View' and came upon Whoopi and Baver walking out of the show, on the remark of Bill O'Reilly that 'Muslims killed us on 9/11'. I then went looking and found another clip on Utube a talk radio program clip of David Pakman...
- 2500
I agree with Ben Carson, no muslims as president.
by Susie Lehto 7 years ago
IT WAS OBAMA who on ABC News referenced - "My Muslim faith."IT WAS OBAMA who gave $100 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to re-build foreign mosques.IT WAS OBAMA who wrote that in the event of a conflict -"I will stand with the Muslims."IT WAS OBAMA who assured the Egyptian Foreign...
- 142
Who is responsible for the Orlando attack on American soil?
by Jack Lee 8 years ago
Who is responsible for the Orlando attack on American soil?When will America wake up to the threat of ISIS and the attack on our homeland? Over 50 people have been killed. Will the White House finally recognize the real threat? And call it by its name? Extreme Islamic terrorist. Will the LGBT...
- 72
Not all muslims are terrorists...but why are all terrorists muslims?
by world of the wise 8 years ago
Please help me answer that question, its the home work for my kid and she is about to bo back to school
- 196
Labelling Muslims as Terrorists
by Rishad I Habib 13 years ago
"Muslims are Terrorists!" - its a line that I often find visible in a vivid way now a days. Many Hubbers here use these two words interchangeably so often that even being an atheist I have started to feel empathy for those Muslims who has nothing to do with terrorism. Theres approximately...