Why aren't Muslims speaking out? Options

[radhikaeatsraman]

I was having a discussion with my uncle and my father about the current situation with terrorism and the Middle East. During the discussion, I kept emphasizing that the majority of Muslims are good people and probably don't support terrorists and their actions. But then they said that they're all keeping quiet, and that by doing that, they're indirectly supporting it. By ignoring it, it's going to continue.

Then, they went on to say that in order for the terrorists to commit these acts, they need money for weapons and other equipment. Who provides it? Right after 9/11, millions of Muslims across the US were caught having connections to al-Qaeda, and many of them are in prison for it.

So why aren't "good Muslims" speaking out? Is it because of fear, or are they quietly supporting it?

[*CrackedRearView*]

It would be unfair (and quite illogical) to say that they're supporting it quietly, but then again we can't postulate as to why they wouldn't speak out and be 100% accurate.

It could be that they're afraid, but it could also be a social thing. From what I know, Muslims are generally quiet, keep-to-yourself kind of people (it's just a more that is written in their social structure), but I really have no idea.

Either side could be negated.

[sadolakced acid]

do you fault christians who don't speak out about pedophile priests?

[Comptine]

Then, they went on to say that in order for the terrorists to commit these acts, they need money for weapons and other equipment. Who provides it? Right after 9/11, millions of Muslims across the US were caught having connections to al-Qaeda, and many of them are in prison for it.

Many of the millions of muslims that were imprisoned were wrongfully so under the Patriot Act. Many of the terrorist groups get big money from oil and political ties. Also, individuals invest a great deal into their cells/groups. It's not like they have like donation tins that fellow Muslims put money in. The connections that Muslims were arrested for were rather stupid. They were suspected because one of their relatives was part of al-Qaeda or they lived in the same neighborhood or they were friends. Also, when the government arrested one person who was suspected, they would also arrest many of their immediate family members. That how the number of suspects became millions of Muslims.

It's impossible for average/normal Muslims to support the radicals. I have a friend who was harassed and tormented because people called her a terrorist.

It's hard to speak up in any group that's based on a strong idea or culture. For instance, the Japanese and Germans. The Japanese military slaughter millions of Koreans and Chinese in the most inhumane ways. That doesn't mean all Japanese supported that kinda of brutality (although many grew up not knowing about it so when Japan is accused of it, many Japanese deny it). Nazis killed millions of Jews but not all Germans supported it. And Muslims do go against it. After 9/11, many Muslims became more open about their religion and culture to teach what Islam was about.

[*CrackedRearView*]

Many of the millions of muslims that were imprisoned were wrongfully so under the Patriot Act. Many of the terrorist groups get big money from oil and political ties. Also, individuals invest a great deal into their cells/groups. It's not like they have like donation tins that fellow Muslims put money in. The connections that Muslims were arrested for were rather stupid. They were suspected because one of their relatives was part of al-Qaeda or they lived in the same neighborhood or they were friends. Also, when the government arrested one person who was suspected, they would also arrest many of their immediate family members. That how the number of suspects became millions of Muslims.

It's impossible for average/normal Muslims to support the radicals. I have a friend who was harassed and tormented because people called her a terrorist.

It's hard to speak up in any group that's based on a strong idea or culture. For instance, the Japanese and Germans. The Japanese military slaughter millions of Koreans and Chinese in the most inhumane ways. That doesn't mean all Japanese supported that kinda of brutality (although many grew up not knowing about it so when Japan is accused of it, many Japanese deny it). Nazis killed millions of Jews but not all Germans supported it. And Muslims do go against it. After 9/11, many Muslims became more open about their religion and culture to teach what Islam was about.

Yes, but don't be ridiculous. What's our alternative? Let the cells multiply and unify?

Guilty by association works with me if it'll keep my little brother's school from getting bombed.

[*kryogenix*]

do you fault christians who don't speak out about pedophile priests?

Didn't they have a meeting in the Vatican about the sex abuse scandals? The Catholic Church is not afraid to defrock priests.

I've heard nothing on the news about Muslim clerics condemning the riots. Neither have I heard of many clerics condeming terrorism. They issue fatwahs against people who write books, but when someone commits a terrorist act, nothing is done.

Muslims in the west are treated much better than Christians in the middle east.

Can we really say Islam is the religion of peace then?

[Comptine]

^ Islam is a peaceful religion like nearly all the other major religions. How people interpret the religion is an entirely different story. Christians have radical, bible swearing followers that attack 'heretics'. Most Muslims I meet are extremely kind and speak out little about terrorism because they view it as a shameful mark on their religion. Only the younger generations speak out (in America) because they grew up with a diverse culture and learn to debate and stand up for their opinions. However, most of the older generations grew up knowing the fear of terrorism and the backlash. While I think the majority should be more vocal, I can see why they are hesitant to speak out.

CrackedReadView, I agree about attacking the cells and ending terrorism but not at the cost of violating civil liberties. There is no use to arrest and contain entire families. These people are not allowed to consult with a lawyer or know their charges or communicate with anyone outside of the prison. Many of them are kept in isolation. I can understand arresting one family member and keeping a tab on the others. By blind going in guns blazing, we stoop to the terrorists' levels and fuel their hatred. I don't want our country to have to apologize and pay compensation 40 years from now like they did for the Japanese internment camps. There's a difference between taking precautions and taking ignorant measures.

[sadolakced acid]

Didn't they have a meeting in the Vatican about the sex abuse scandals? The Catholic Church is not afraid to defrock priests.

I've heard nothing on the news about Muslim clerics condemning the riots. Neither have I heard of many clerics condeming terrorism. They issue fatwahs against people who write books, but when someone commits a terrorist act, nothing is done.

Muslims in the west are treated much better than Christians in the middle east.

Can we really say Islam is the religion of peace then?

last i heard, the catholic church had decided to defend the pedophile priests.

they've probably changed, but it doesn't affect my point.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Uh, people who speak out against the terrorist next door are going to get killed.

[radhikaeatsraman]

But if every average Muslim spoke out and banded together, the minority would eventually die out.

[Spirited Away]

They do speak out. MPAC, MAT, the Free Muslim Coalition and CAIR, among many other organizations have spoken out against terrorism. Obviously, the media emphasizes more on the fundamentalist aspects of Islam and terrorism, and consequently, non-Muslims understand so little about how true Muslims feel about terrorism.

It isn't easy to just "speak out". There are many, many Muslims in the US with families in countries that house terrorists. Do you recognize the possible dangers one's family is in when one speaks out? Though to my understanding, more and more Muslims are pulling together to take a stronger stance against terrorism. They are taking a lot of risks.

[sadolakced acid]

the fact that hamas got elected should say that yes, they do indeed support some terrorists.

and yes, the war on terror is in the mind of every young muslim who thinks he has seen too many iraqis being abused by US soldiers, or who thinks that the US shouldn't be in muslim land.

this isn't something that the bush admin. seems to know. they think america's face is bush and condelezza rice. these are the faces of america's government... the real face of america are the american tourists, and the american soldiers, as well as the american movies and american music videos.


sure, sometimes there are tourists who know the local culture and are observant, and when soldiers give aid, like in the tsunami relief, they are generally met with gratitude.

but there are arrogant tourists, there are abusive soldiers, american movies and music videos make all americans look like 1920s gangsters or 2000s gangbangers. (hip-hop/ rap)

years later, in history books, will this be the era or hiphop diplomacy?

forigners are probably more likely to watch the latest 50 cent music video about raping women or something than to watch bush's state of the union adress.

and this will have resounding consequences.

[EddieV]

This is something I have to talk to my girlfriend about, she's Muslim, I want to hear her side of the story.

[ComradeRed]

I was having a discussion with my uncle and my father about the current situation with terrorism and the Middle East. During the discussion, I kept emphasizing that the majority of Muslims are good people and probably don't support terrorists and their actions. But then they said that they're all keeping quiet, and that by doing that, they're indirectly supporting it. By ignoring it, it's going to continue.

Then, they went on to say that in order for the terrorists to commit these acts, they need money for weapons and other equipment. Who provides it? Right after 9/11, millions of Muslims across the US were caught having connections to al-Qaeda, and many of them are in prison for it.

So why aren't "good Muslims" speaking out? Is it because of fear, or are they quietly supporting it?

Here's why: No one gives a crap.

Just like for most political issues, you have your extremists on either side, and then you have your moderates. They want to end terrorism in the sense that I want a private jet... it would be a great thing, sure, but I'm not going to go out of my way to get it. And why should they? What would you think of a Muslim standing in front of your town hall denouncing terrorism?

[ComradeRed]

I am against terrorism.

I'm glad we cleared that one up.

[*kryogenix*]

Here's why: No one gives a crap.

Just like for most political issues, you have your extremists on either side, and then you have your moderates. They want to end terrorism in the sense that I want a private jet... it would be a great thing, sure, but I'm not going to go out of my way to get it. And why should they? What would you think of a Muslim standing in front of your town hall denouncing terrorism?

As American citizens, they should care.

[ComradeRed]

It's a collective action problem. The cost to you of doing something far exceeds the benefit to society of doing it (in fact, society might hate you for it... don't we think people like Michael Moore are annoying?)

Most people have political ideas--but they want to see them implemented in the sense that they want a Lexus--it would be nice, but not worth the cost of doing it.

[d00kie]

good muslims are speaking out people just decide to listen to all the bullshit people say muslims are making books organizations and efforts to reach out to people but they are being discriminated by uneducated people who decide what a muslim is for themself ISLAM means peace any scripture if interperated improperly can seem to promote violence but if read in actual context u would see the similarities of all religions including islam because every religion has the same essence of a superior being and people are try to speak out but the government is surpressing them by saying bullshit and saying stuff that isnt even true about muslims they arent violent they dont do drugs and dont drink alcohol it is part of their ethics that is what they are taught and people who abuse their religion as their cover up destroy its name and arent true believers people seem to want to hate because others are there are over 70 kinds of muslims but u only hear of one kind the suni's and they are one of many just like baptisits are one of many but the overall purpose of the religion and belief of the religion is the same and people who distort that distort GOD'S message nothing more and nothing less...

[*kryogenix*]

First of all, learn to use punctuation.

good muslims are speaking out people just decide to listen to all the bullshit people say muslims are making books organizations and efforts to reach out to people but they are being discriminated by uneducated people who decide what a muslim is for themself

Apparently, the minority is speaking louder than the majority right now.

ISLAM means peace

I thought Islam meant submission...

any scripture if interperated improperly can seem to promote violence

Really?

We know that Muhammad was a caravan raider. There are suras in the koran that seem to promote violence.

but if read in actual context u would see the similarities of all religions including islam because every religion has the same essence of a superior being and people are try to speak out but the government is surpressing them by saying bullshit and saying stuff that isnt even true about muslims they arent violent they dont do drugs and dont drink alcohol

Can you substantiate this accusation?

it is part of their ethics that is what they are taught and people who abuse their religion as their cover up destroy its name and arent true believers people seem to want to hate because others are there are over 70 kinds of muslims but u only hear of one kind the suni's and they are one of many just like baptisits are one of many but the overall purpose of the religion and belief of the religion is the same and people who distort that distort GOD'S message nothing more and nothing less...

So why does Islam try to conquer other religions?

[edit]

Talk about coincidence. Hours after I made this post, look at what the featured article of Wikipedia is.

[d00kie]

My bad Salam means peace, which is part of the religion . Muhammed was not a caravan raider, he was married to a rich traider named katijah who owned a caravan. He lead his followers away when the Arabs attacked and had no choice but to fight. Also what religion has not faught a battle? By the way religious battles are in almost every religion. Muslims promote non violence. Hazrat Ali met the man that was going to kill him and Muhammed told him this. Ali said that if that is what GOD wants than he shall kill me. He did not once think of killing the man to save his life. The man later murdered Hazrat Ali by stabbing him in the heart. Muhammed believed in peace and did nothing to force others to convert. Many people did acts of violence against him but he never took revenge on those. The muslims take their religion seriously and if anyone abuses it they follow up by non violent demonstrations rather than outraged fights.

[*kryogenix*]

My bad Salam means peace, which is part of the religion . Muhammed was not a caravan raider, he was married to a rich traider named katijah who owned a caravan.

See the wikipedia article.

Muhammad turned to raiding caravans bound for Mecca. Caravan raiding (al-ghazw) was an old Arabian tradition; Muslims justified the raids by Meccan's confiscation of all their property left at Mecca and the state of war deemed to exist between the Meccans and the Muslims. Secular scholars add this was also a matter of survival for the Muslims. They owned no land in Medina and if they did not raid, they would have to live on charity and whatever wage labor they could find, both of which were in short supply in the small oasis.

In March of 624, Muhammad led some 300 warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Meccans successfully defended the caravan and then decided to teach the Medinans a lesson. They sent a small army against Medina. On March 15, 624 near a place called Badr, the Meccans and the Muslims clashed. Though outnumbered more than 3 times (1000 to 300) in the battle, the Muslims met with success, killing at least forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom; only fourteen Muslims died. This marked the real beginning of Muslim military achievement.

He lead his followers away when the Arabs attacked and had no choice but to fight. Also what religion has not faught a battle? By the way religious battles are in almost every religion. Muslims promote non violence. Hazrat Ali met the man that was going to kill him and Muhammed told him this. Ali said that if that is what GOD wants than he shall kill me. He did not once think of killing the man to save his life. The man later murdered Hazrat Ali by stabbing him in the heart. Muhammed believed in peace and did nothing to force others to convert. Many people did acts of violence against him but he never took revenge on those. The muslims take their religion seriously and if anyone abuses it they follow up by non violent demonstrations rather than outraged fights.

It's not just the matter of the Muslims acting violent, it's the fact that Muslim leaders aren't getting enough publicity in condemning these attacks. Either they're not making strong condemnations, or the media isn't covering them as much.

But if the media isn't covering them, why aren't they complaining?

[d00kie]

im sorry i took what u said a little offensively my bad um well u see the shia's have a spiritual leader called the Imam and he has won many humanitarian awards and has helped many countries around the world including America. In fact he helped in Katrina. See i think the thing is that Muslims try to speak out and work to make the world a better place quitely.

[Spirited Away]

Islam itself is not violent, Islamic fundamentalism is, and Islamic fundamentalism combined with extermist Arabs... well, you all know well the consequence. Interpretation of the holy text, depending on political ideals or the lack thereof and culture, is the main cleavage.

Islam "[tries] to conquer" other religions as much as Christianity tried, and is still trying, to conquer. These two religions' history of intolerance and tolerance is almost similar. Muslims practice belief in human justice, love and freedom as much as Christianity and Judaism. Again, we mustn't confused them with fundamentalists or else, to be fair, we'd have to mix Christians with radical Christians.

The question of why Muslims aren't speaking out enough reminds me of something and the point is to compare the questions of the why's. After 9/11, there was a wave of violence against Muslims and Arabs throughout the US. President Bush made a point that these attacks are inhumane. Of course, many Americans find these attacks to be wrongful as well, but why didn't they speak out enough?

For the record, I don't know how much is "enough" or how much a few of you expect these Muslims to speak out, but I do agree that they do need to sound their intolerance of extremist Islam a little louder. In my opinion, ONLY THE MEDIA can aid them in this. And then the question is, why don't they complain about the media not broadcasting enough. My answer: how loudly do they need to complain about the media to get coverage?

[*kryogenix*]

Islam itself is not violent, Islamic fundamentalism is, and Islamic fundamentalism combined with extermist Arabs... well, you all know well the consequence. Interpretation of the holy text, depending on political ideals or the lack thereof and culture, is the main cleavage.

I'd like to believe this, but at the moment, I'm not sure.

Islam "[tries] to conquer" other religions as much as Christianity tried, and is still trying, to conquer. These two religions' history of intolerance and tolerance is almost similar. Muslims practice belief in human justice, love and freedom as much as Christianity and Judaism. Again, we mustn't confused them with fundamentalists or else, to be fair, we'd have to mix Christians with radical Christians.

Remember, Islam started out with nothing. They had to conquer Mecca to get started. Christianity was an underground group for the most part until the Roman Empire embraced it.

Maybe you are referring to the crusades as evidence of Christian conquering. I don't agree with killing in the name of God, but to say that the Christians were barbaric attackers is misleading.

Outside of the crusades, how much of Christian conquering was religiously motivated rather than nationalistically motivated?

The question of why Muslims aren't speaking out enough reminds me of something and the point is to compare the questions of the why's. After 9/11, there was a wave of violence against Muslims and Arabs throughout the US. President Bush made a point that these attacks are inhumane. Of course, many Americans find these attacks to be wrongful as well, but why didn't they speak out enough?

People did speak out. If I remember correctly, Rudy came on the TV and addressed the issue and told people not to beat up random arab people on the street.

For the record, I don't know how much is "enough" or how much a few of you expect these Muslims to speak out, but I do agree that they do need to sound their intolerance of extremist Islam a little louder. In my opinion, ONLY THE MEDIA can aid them in this. And then the question is, why don't they complain about the media not broadcasting enough. My answer: how loudly do they need to complain about the media to get coverage?

I would think that Al Jazeera would want to help the peaceful Muslims get their voice heard, but I haven't heard anything about them yet. In fact, some of what Al Jazeera runs is what sparks violence in the first place.

How come Muslims can gather millions to protest against Israel, but they can't protest the violence on part of fellow Muslims?

Not only this, but why aren't peaceful Muslims reaching out to the violent ones and telling them they are interpreting the Quran incorrectly?

[Spirited Away]

1. I'd like to believe this, but at the moment, I'm not sure.
Remember, Islam started out with nothing.
2. They had to conquer Mecca to get started. Christianity was an underground group for the most part until the Roman Empire embraced it.

3. Maybe you are referring to the crusades as evidence of Christian conquering. I don't agree with killing in the name of God, but to say that the Christians were barbaric attackers is misleading.

4. Outside of the crusades, how much of Christian conquering was religiously motivated rather than nationalistically motivated?

5. People did speak out. If I remember correctly, Rudy came on the TV and addressed the issue and told people not to beat up random arab people on the street.
I would think that Al Jazeera would want to help the peaceful Muslims get their voice heard, but I haven't heard anything about them yet. In fact, some of what Al Jazeera runs is what sparks violence in the first place.

6. How come Muslims can gather millions to protest against Israel, but they can't protest the violence on part of fellow Muslims?

7. Not only this, but why aren't peaceful Muslims reaching out to the violent ones and telling them they are interpreting the Quran incorrectly?

1. What is there to not believe? Do you consider all Muslims violent or condone the kind of violence terrorists have subjected the world to?

2. One religion, with the advantage of a democratic society, won majority by conquering politics and the other, in a society with no semblence to democracy, by conquering Mecca. Two distinct societies, two distinct strategies that reflected their political environment (or lack of one). When in Kansas, do as Kansians do (or something like that).

3. You don't think the Crusades was barbaric? Well, here's another Christian's take on the Crusades. According to that, the words "evil" and "horrors" were more accurate. Of course to be fair, there were horrors committed on both sides, but one side was quite persistent and came back for more. Come on, you know which one.

4. I honestly don't know but I'm going to attempt a smart-mouth answer. For the most part, I'm sure Christian conquests are religiously motivated, but I'm also sure that political motivation had, perhaps still has, something to do with it. As for nationalistically motivated, the Arab culture had a lot to do with it. I've seen the phrases "Arab conquest of the Middle East" and "Islam conquest of the Middle East" being used interchangebly (depending on the source, of course) and that confuses me because again, being Arab had a lot to do with what you see as religious conquest motivated by nationalism.

Nationalist conquerors, namely the Umayyads, emphasized Arab authority among Muslims. You can read some background here and here. The point being that the culture of nationalism may have served as the motivation in their conquests more so than Islam was because there was a period in which rulers weren't so interested in the religion itself. "The empire built from these conquests was Arab rather than Islamic" [source], and so we mustn't think that all conquest in the name of Islam had been for national gains, whatnot.
I hope this softens your view a bit.

5. And as I've said before, Muslims spoke out, too, in general. But you know what, they have no "Rudy" to speak out for them. I will quote loosely, as my memory isn't so great (burned out, you understand), from an opinion piece for the Houston Chronicle, dated February (forgot date, don't sue) 2006, that "Muslims have no Martin Luther King, nor a Mahatma Ghandi to speak out for [them]". The writer continues that this "Dr. King" of the Muslims will have to know sacrifice--I think he/she means here a violent death or certain dangers, and as he must know no compromise--in the sense of not giving up civil liberties. And because they don't have a "Rudy" or a "Dr. King", the best we're going to get is scattered voices, until a "Rudy" or "Dr. King" unites and strenghtens them.
I'm a little curious as to why you haven't heard from your local Muslims because the article I read was the third of which I've read in our town's Chronicle. I'm sure there are more because the three articles were from the only three newspapers I picked up thus far this year.

6&7. Both good questions, but here's another attempt at a smart/dumb-mouth answer because I don't want to admit that I don't know. The next time I see an infamous serial killer on the verge of killing crashing his plane in a woman in an alley, I'll walk up to him and present my moral ideals. I hope you, and others, see the comparison.


Okay, alright, I'm not going to lie, I don't know much about Islam aside that there are different groups who claim to represent it. I've seen violent Muslims on TV and then my one of my best friends since 8th grade is a Muslim. I'm on good terms with her parents, too, and one of them's a Muslim (obviously) from Jordan. Her Dad hasn't flown a plane into my living room yet for being a heathen and even invites me over for Mom's special Thanksgiving dinner. If you're confused, her Mom's a Catholic who still goes to Church every week. I digress. Yes, I don't know much about it, but I'm not going to judge Islam as a whole based the actions of the violent-prone, just like I'm not going to judge Christianity as a whole based the words of the idiotic-few.

Kay, I've said enough. Until next time.

This post has been edited by Spirited Away: Mar 31 2006, 03:10 PM

[*swtcherriipie*]

I was having a discussion with my uncle and my father about the current situation with terrorism and the Middle East. During the discussion, I kept emphasizing that the majority of Muslims are good people and probably don't support terrorists and their actions. But then they said that they're all keeping quiet, and that by doing that, they're indirectly supporting it. By ignoring it, it's going to continue.

Then, they went on to say that in order for the terrorists to commit these acts, they need money for weapons and other equipment. Who provides it? Right after 9/11, millions of Muslims across the US were caught having connections to al-Qaeda, and many of them are in prison for it.

So why aren't "good Muslims" speaking out? Is it because of fear, or are they quietly supporting it?

To be honest with you i dont frown upon ALL muslims for something one did. Its just not right. I also find it wrong that the "GOOD" muslims arent speaking up and yelling at the world for being so IGNORANT! Seriously people are so close-minded and introverted towards muslims and not only muslims but middle eastern people EX. pakistan iraqui israeli... It really dose hurt me to see what this world has come to.

[innovation]

Just a few points.

(a) "Islama" means submission; "salam" means peace. They come from the same root, but essentially, at the very core of Islam is complete submission to God's will. Peace, however, is emphasized throughout the Qur'an.

(b) Regarding the term "Islamic fundamentalism"- I've spoken to Muslims who object to the association between terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. The purpose of Islam, they say, is to follow the beliefs set forth in the Qur'an. Essentially, every true Muslim is "fundamental"--as in, they don't pick and choose what beliefs and rituals they follow for their own convenience.

© A lot of Muslims aren't actively combating the terrorist movement simply because they're not activists. I would say that about 20% of the population makes a deliberate effort, other than voting, to influence political decisions. It's the same with the Muslim population-- some are activists; most are not. It's not that Muslims "keep to themselves" any more than the rest of the population.

(d) The activeness of the Muslim population also depends on your geographic location. For example, I live in the DC area, so there are a lot of interfaith councils (even within my own high school) in which Muslims speak out against terrorism and emphasize the importance of peace. Once again, there are more activists in this area, and thus, there are more Muslims who are active in combating terrorism.

(e) Fear could also be an issue.. There was a Middle Eastern woman from California who criticized Islamic policies in an interview. She has received multiple death threats from officials and clerics in Islamic nations.

Personally, I don't think that Muslims are any less active than the rest of the population. I'm not exactly an expert on Islam, and I can't read Arabic, so unfortunately, I can't obtain a true understanding of the Qur'an in context... I realize that some Qur'anic suras contain controversial material, but that's something I need to investigate further before making a definite conclusion about the true nature of Islam.

[Spirited Away]

Just a few points.

(b) Regarding the term "Islamic fundamentalism"- I've spoken to Muslims who object to the association between terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. The purpose of Islam, they say, is to follow the beliefs set forth in the Qur'an. Essentially, every true Muslim is "fundamental"--as in, they don't pick and choose what beliefs and rituals they follow for their own convenience.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

[*kryogenix*]

1. What is there to not believe? Do you consider all Muslims violent or condone the kind of violence terrorists have subjected the world to?

I'm sure I said it before, I don't hate Muslims, nor do I think all Muslims are violent. I have a Muslim friend that decided that he wanted to join the Airforce after 9/11.

I've come across this website, and it's led me to question how peaceful Islam really is. Check out how many civilians Islamic terrorists have killed this year (1,822) compared to the number of civilians that US soldiers have colaterally killed (23). But who is portrayed as the bad guy around the world? Why does the US military get accused of killing civilians and babies when the Islamic terrorists get only a slight condemnation?

2. One religion, with the advantage of a democratic society, won majority by conquering politics and the other, in a society with no semblence to democracy, by conquering Mecca. Two distinct societies, two distinct strategies that reflected their political environment (or lack of one). When in Kansas, do as Kansians do (or something like that).

Who is better, the person who convinces someone by using facts and historical events, or a person that holds a sword up to your throat and threatens to kill you if you don't convert?

3. You don't think the Crusades was barbaric? Well, here's another Christian's take on the Crusades. According to that, the words "evil" and "horrors" were more accurate. Of course to be fair, there were horrors committed on both sides, but one side was quite persistent and came back for more. Come on, you know which one.

I'm not saying the Crusades were barbaric. I'm saying the Christians were not the aggressors. The Crusades were by no means an unjustified offensive war. Muslims were waging war and attacking pilgrims (just a tidbit, the Stations of the Cross were made because it was impossible to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land due to the Muslims).

Calling the Christians evil for launching the Crusades would be like calling the Allies evil for undertaking the invasion of Normandy (trying to tiptoe around a Hitler reference to avoid invoking Godwin's Law ).

4. I honestly don't know but I'm going to attempt a smart-mouth answer. For the most part, I'm sure Christian conquests are religiously motivated, but I'm also sure that political motivation had, perhaps still has, something to do with it. As for nationalistically motivated, the Arab culture had a lot to do with it. I've seen the phrases "Arab conquest of the Middle East" and "Islam conquest of the Middle East" being used interchangebly (depending on the source, of course) and that confuses me because again, being Arab had a lot to do with what you see as religious conquest motivated by nationalism.

Nationalist conquerors, namely the Umayyads, emphasized Arab authority among Muslims. You can read some background here and here. The point being that the culture of nationalism may have served as the motivation in their conquests more so than Islam was because there was a period in which rulers weren't so interested in the religion itself. "The empire built from these conquests was Arab rather than Islamic" [source], and so we mustn't think that all conquest in the name of Islam had been for national gains, whatnot.
I hope this softens your view a bit.

It's funny that you mention this, because Islam is trying to appeal to African Americans when Arab Muslims viewed Africans as second class. I have my doubts that they were motivated by nationalism simply because a fundamental part of Islam is sharia rule. Just because the Umayyads were elitists doesn't mean that religion had little to do with it.

5. And as I've said before, Muslims spoke out, too, in general. But you know what, they have no "Rudy" to speak out for them. I will quote loosely, as my memory isn't so great (burned out, you understand), from an opinion piece for the Houston Chronicle, dated February (forgot date, don't sue) 2006, that "Muslims have no Martin Luther King, nor a Mahatma Ghandi to speak out for [them]". The writer continues that this "Dr. King" of the Muslims will have to know sacrifice--I think he/she means here a violent death or certain dangers, and as he must know no compromise--in the sense of not giving up civil liberties. And because they don't have a "Rudy" or a "Dr. King", the best we're going to get is scattered voices, until a "Rudy" or "Dr. King" unites and strenghtens them.
I'm a little curious as to why you haven't heard from your local Muslims because the article I read was the third of which I've read in our town's Chronicle. I'm sure there are more because the three articles were from the only three newspapers I picked up thus far this year.

I'm unsure what you mean by a "Rudy." If you mean a leader figure with political power, then who is Louis Farrakhan? I think he's too busy being anti-semitic and racist to complain about Islamic terror.

Or do you mean a "Rudy" as in a moderate leader? What about the Council on American and Islamic Relations (CAIR). Their goal is to promote understanding of Islam in America. Funny thing is, they've been criticized as having connections to terrorism.

Not too many Muslims live around here (a good friend who was Muslim converted to Christianity when we were in elementary school), but as I said earlier, my friend who wanted to join the Airforce is one of the nonviolent Muslims.

So the question is, who will stand up for Islam?

6&7. Both good questions, but here's another attempt at a smart/dumb-mouth answer because I don't want to admit that I don't know. The next time I see an infamous serial killer on the verge of killing crashing his plane in a woman in an alley, I'll walk up to him and present my moral ideals. I hope you, and others, see the comparison.

The next time I see a serial killer killing a woman in the alley, I'll call the police.

The next time Islamic riots occur, the good Muslims should inform their governments and clerics and authorities. Unless, the authorities tend to side with the rioters. Muslim countries boycotted Denmark over the cartoons. If the good Muslims truly are in the majority, why aren't they being represented in the government?

Okay, alright, I'm not going to lie, I don't know much about Islam aside that there are different groups who claim to represent it. I've seen violent Muslims on TV and then my one of my best friends since 8th grade is a Muslim. I'm on good terms with her parents, too, and one of them's a Muslim (obviously) from Jordan. Her Dad hasn't flown a plane into my living room yet for being a heathen and even invites me over for Mom's special Thanksgiving dinner. If you're confused, her Mom's a Catholic who still goes to Church every week. I digress. Yes, I don't know much about it, but I'm not going to judge Islam as a whole based the actions of the violent-prone, just like I'm not going to judge Christianity as a whole based the words of the idiotic-few.

Kay, I've said enough. Until next time.

I'm not going to judge any religion based on the actions of a minority. I'm going to judge a religion based on what they teach. I think Islam gives too much leeway for violence, especially since the Koran commands Muslims to slay the infidels and conquer the world. Christianity does not teach people to bomb abortion clinics. Given the oppressive nature of many Islamic governments and the history of Islamic violence, forgive me if I'm a little worried.

[*Teenage Mutant Ninja Meg*]

I would think that a lot of Muslims do not support terrorism, and are just afraid to speak up. If you look at the Holocauste, people were basically forced to be Nazis because they were too afraid to say no.

[sillakilla220]

i'm sorry kiddo i dont wanna burst your fantasy-bubble, but american soldiers have killed way more than 23 civilians. all i can say about that site is it is a straight up lie and propaganda that has obviously worked its purpose on u. how could we only kill 23 civilians when we were initially bombing whole f**kin cities?

a person that holds a sword up to your throat and threatens to kill you if you don't convert?

ahhh u must be talkin about the indians and africans deemed savages who the white man had to save by converting them to chrisitanity, otherwise killin them?






well i wont pick u apart piece by piece but overall it seems u are pretty defensive of chrisitanity. this is fine, only it seems u dont really have a strong grasp of history. christians have had their share of slaughtering ppl just as muslims have and so on... islam gets a bad rap for spawning terrorists n wat not but christianity has spawned such violence as the KKK and hitler it just depends how u look at it

[*kryogenix*]

i'm sorry kiddo i dont wanna burst your fantasy-bubble, but american soldiers have killed way more than 23 civilians. all i can say about that site is it is a straight up lie and propaganda that has obviously worked its purpose on u. how could we only kill 23 civilians when we were initially bombing whole f**kin cities?

Post a legitimate source and I'll admit I made a mistake. I think you're misreading what I'm saying. What I said was this year, US forces are responsible for 23 civilian casualties. A lot of what you are probably reading says "after the US invasion, x amount of civilian deaths occured" when the majority of the deaths were caused by insurgents.

Back up your arguement with facts, or is this one of those subjective topics that can't be backed up?

ahhh u must be talkin about the indians and africans deemed savages who the white man had to save by converting them to chrisitanity, otherwise killin them?
well i wont pick u apart piece by piece but overall it seems u are pretty defensive of chrisitanity. this is fine, only it seems u dont really have a strong grasp of history. christians have had their share of slaughtering ppl just as muslims have and so on... islam gets a bad rap for spawning terrorists n wat not but christianity has spawned such violence as the KKK and hitler it just depends how u look at it

How about YOU learn your history? Christianity was brought to Egypt by Mark (one of Jesus' disciples) in 60 AD. The king of Ethiopa made Christianity the official religion of the Ethiopian Empire. It was initially introduced by the Portuguese and he embraced it. Remember, this was even before the Roman Empire became Christian, so the Christians were being persecuted themselves. It wouldn't have been wise for them to be starting wars. In fact, Christianity was doing just fine for several centuries until the Muslims started conquering North Africa. Much, much later on, the White Man™ came in and started converting using force, but how much of this was connected to the Catholic Church (which is the Christianity that I'm defending).

And ROFL at saying Christianity spawned KKK and Hitler. The KKK persecuted Catholics. Let's see you explain how Christianity spawned Hitler. Just because Hitler was baptized Catholic (but not practicing) doesn't mean it's part of Catholic doctrine to do what he did. However, it's written in the Koran to slay the infidels.

OMG WHATEVER PROPAGANDA THAT YOU LISTENED TO OBVIOUSLY WORKED. STOP LISTENING TO STRAIGHT UP LIES OMG!

[*mipadi*]

It would seem that the coalition is responsible for more than 23 civilian deaths.[1]

[*CrackedRearView*]

When in Kansas, do as Kansians do (or something like that).

Dammit, why do we always have to bring Kansas into this?

[sillakilla220]

Post a legitimate source and I'll admit I made a mistake. I think you're misreading what I'm saying. What I said was this year, US forces are responsible for 23 civilian casualties. A lot of what you are probably reading says "after the US invasion, x amount of civilian deaths occured" when the majority of the deaths were caused by insurgents.

Back up your arguement with facts, or is this one of those subjective topics that can't be backed up?
How about YOU learn your history? Christianity was brought to Egypt by Mark (one of Jesus' disciples) in 60 AD. The king of Ethiopa made Christianity the official religion of the Ethiopian Empire. It was initially introduced by the Portuguese and he embraced it. Remember, this was even before the Roman Empire became Christian, so the Christians were being persecuted themselves. It wouldn't have been wise for them to be starting wars. In fact, Christianity was doing just fine for several centuries until the Muslims started conquering North Africa. Much, much later on, the White Man™ came in and started converting using force, but how much of this was connected to the Catholic Church (which is the Christianity that I'm defending).

And ROFL at saying Christianity spawned KKK and Hitler. The KKK persecuted Catholics. Let's see you explain how Christianity spawned Hitler. Just because Hitler was baptized Catholic (but not practicing) doesn't mean it's part of Catholic doctrine to do what he did. However, it's written in the Koran to slay the infidels.

OMG WHATEVER PROPAGANDA THAT YOU LISTENED TO OBVIOUSLY WORKED. STOP LISTENING TO STRAIGHT UP LIES OMG!

i dont need a legitimate source to back my claims its just common sense, logic and a grip on reality that leads me to my conclusion. i kno u won't take it as a sufficient answer but it is wat it is. i don't need some stupid f**kin online web-site to tell me that US soldiers have killed more than 23 civilians this year. im not condemning US soldiers, or saying that we are evil for doing it, but if u believe that we aren't killing our fair portion of innocent ppl then u should wake up.


your pathetic attempt to insult my observation on arguments that were going nowhere on an extremely subjective topic in another thread has nothing to do with this argument, quite futile really


i see yur ready to break out the history book on this one and i dont feel like looking up every single point like u are prolly doin just to prove u wrong. Muslims may not be the most peaceful religion but thats their choice. not every faith will be perfect, the protestant reformation was started over the rampant corruption takin place in the catholic church, not to mention the church's dirty little not-so-secret-anymore secret of the disgusting relationship alot of priests have had w/ their choirboys



im not saying christianity is directly responsible for hitler and the KKK but the same can be said for islam and terrorists. u find it ridiculous to associate the religion of kkk members or hitler w/ their heinous actions, yet just b/c terrorists follow islam and claim religious reasons its their faith. i suppose u havent heard of religious extremists?

[*kryogenix*]

It would seem that the coalition is responsible for more than 23 civilian deaths.[1]

The statstic I stated was the number of civilians killed colaterally by US forces this year. Not for the duration of the war. Not from the entire coalition.

Even if you use the number that some of these groups are putting out, they still show that the Iraqi insurgency is doing most of the killing.

i dont need a legitimate source to back my claims its just common sense, logic and a grip on reality that leads me to my conclusion. i kno u won't take it as a sufficient answer but it is wat it is. i don't need some stupid f**kin online web-site to tell me that US soldiers have killed more than 23 civilians this year. im not condemning US soldiers, or saying that we are evil for doing it, but if u believe that we aren't killing our fair portion of innocent ppl then u should wake up.

your pathetic attempt to insult my observation on arguments that were going nowhere on an extremely subjective topic in another thread has nothing to do with this argument, quite futile really

Learn how to argue. You can't argue without facts to base your arguement on. If you try to argue without any concrete facts, people will just laugh at you.

see yur ready to break out the history book on this one and i dont feel like looking up every single point like u are prolly doin just to prove u wrong. Muslims may not be the most peaceful religion but thats their choice. not every faith will be perfect, the protestant reformation was started over the rampant corruption takin place in the catholic church, not to mention the church's dirty little not-so-secret-anymore secret of the disgusting relationship alot of priests have had w/ their choirboys

Just because it's their choice doesn't make it right. The Protestant Reformation (which wasn't really a reformation at all, as much as it was a schism, but I digress) changed things for the worse, not for the better. But this isn't the topic for it, so search for my "Questions for Protestants" topic if you'd like to continue arguing the matter.

And yes, the Church has had its share of scandal. But it's clearly been blown way out of proportion. I wouldn't doubt that the ratio of molesting priests is lower than the ratio of molesting teachers, yet people are calling for death to the Catholic Church, but not to education. Weird, huh?

We've even had some terrible Popes in the past. Pope Alexander VI was a really, really bad Pope. He had a bunch of children, among other crazy things. But for some reason, he made no ex cathedra statements that harmed Catholic Doctrine.

The important thing to take out of this is that none of this is in Catholic Doctrine. There is no "Thou shall molest" commandment. However, the Koran states: Fight and slay the Unbelievers wherever ye find them. Seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. Sura 9:5

im not saying christianity is directly responsible for hitler and the KKK but the same can be said for islam and terrorists. u find it ridiculous to associate the religion of kkk members or hitler w/ their heinous actions, yet just b/c terrorists follow islam and claim religious reasons its their faith. i suppose u havent heard of religious extremists?

Hitler didn't kill because his religion (or lack thereof) told him to. He killed because he was a maniac. Similarly for the KKK, they didn't do what they did because their religion told them to.

However, Islamic extermists are using using that quote as an excuse to kill people. We have Muslim clerics who have said that the only way to peace is for the world to accept Muslim rule. Why are these people leaders of a supposedly peaceful religion?

[sillakilla220]

I wouldn't doubt that the ratio of molesting priests is lower than the ratio of molesting teachers, yet people are calling for death to the Catholic Church, but not to education. Weird, huh?

do u have a legitimate source for this? Learn how to argue. You can't argue without facts to base your arguement on. If you try to argue without any concrete facts, people will just laugh at you.

There may be a higher ratio, i'm not gonna say one way or another cuz i wouldnt know, yet its not about numbers b/c teachers aren't supposed to take a vow to honor the Church's code, which I'm pretty sure condemns the molesting of little boys. Dont bring teachers into it anyways we're talking about priests, so you're really reaching on that one.

Just because it's their choice doesn't make it right.

I never said it was right, i just said its their choice and who are we to say whether or not its wrong? Yeah in THE BIBLE it says violence is wrong, but so wat? How can you use the standards of your religion to judge someone else, it just makes no sense.


Besides, i guess you are choosing to neglect the famous Angel of Death which god sent on the Egyptians... i'm sure most have heard of it, it was what spawned the holiday passover... so this wasn't god condemning violence? Sure it may not be written in the bible, but violence is used in christianity all the time... protestants used to kill witches in early america in the name of the bible, "heathens" and "savages" who wouldn't convert were slayed...

[innovation]

Soon, I will be interviewing an imam at Georgetown University, and I'm planning to respectfully raise some of these questions. Not knowing the entire Qur'an is essentially detrimental to me, the inquirer, since Muslims often respond to controversial passages by arguing that they are taken out of context. However, since I don't know the passages in context, I have no way of further investigating these issues..

In addition, here's a question:
Do you believe that some of the Qur'an's meaning is twisted through translation?

[*kryogenix*]

do u have a legitimate source for this? Learn how to argue. You can't argue without facts to base your arguement on. If you try to argue without any concrete facts, people will just laugh at you.

I knew you were going to try to pull this one.

So let's see you justify your claims with some kind of source, instead of using the "it's all subjective" arguement.

There may be a higher ratio, i'm not gonna say one way or another cuz i wouldnt know, yet its not about numbers b/c teachers aren't supposed to take a vow to honor the Church's code, which I'm pretty sure condemns the molesting of little boys.

And it's not against a teacher's contract to molest children? Both contracts forbid it.

Dont bring teachers into it anyways we're talking about priests, so you're really reaching on that one.

I was defending against the statement you made against priests, which is a very common misconception. I was putting things in perspective, to correct some of the propaganda you may have heard.

I never said it was right, i just said its their choice and who are we to say whether or not its wrong? Yeah in THE BIBLE it says violence is wrong, but so wat? How can you use the standards of your religion to judge someone else, it just makes no sense.

God's laws apply to everyone, believer or unbeliever. As an analogy, pretending the police aren't there doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to you.

Besides, i guess you are choosing to neglect the famous Angel of Death which god sent on the Egyptians... i'm sure most have heard of it, it was what spawned the holiday passover... so this wasn't god condemning violence? Sure it may not be written in the bible, but violence is used in christianity all the time... protestants used to kill witches in early america in the name of the bible, "heathens" and "savages" who wouldn't convert were slayed...

First of all, you're confusing justice with violence for the Angel of Death. Second, you neglect that it is God who decides if we live or die. We don't decide, which is why murder is condemned.

Finally, I don't think I can, nor do I want to) defend what the Protestants did. It doesn't really affect my belief because I am not a Protestant, and I believe the Protestants are wrong on issues outside of what they did to the Native Americans.

Soon, I will be interviewing an imam at Georgetown University, and I'm planning to respectfully raise some of these questions. Not knowing the entire Qur'an is essentially detrimental to me, the inquirer, since Muslims often respond to controversial passages by arguing that they are taken out of context. However, since I don't know the passages in context, I have no way of further investigating these issues..

I looked at Sura 9:5 and the surrounding verses, and it looked pretty much in context to me. I checked out some Islamic websites that say that the context is in wartime, but doesn't this justify jihadists who are declaring holy war on the infidels?

In addition, here's a question:
Do you believe that some of the Qur'an's meaning is twisted through translation?

Possibly. I don't know Arabic either, so I can't read the real Koran. But I've checked out various websites offering different translations, some offering side by side translation, and all pretty much say the same thing (although some say it in "nicer" words, the main idea is the kill unbelievers or enslave them).

Thanks for passing on these questions!

[innovation]

How does Islam define "unbelievers"? I'm pretty sure that there is another passage in the Qur'an that acknowledges Christians and Jews as fellow "People of the Book." Did this tolerance decline throughout history?

[*kryogenix*]

How does Islam define "unbelievers"? I'm pretty sure that there is another passage in the Qur'an that acknowledges Christians and Jews as fellow "People of the Book." Did this tolerance decline throughout history?

I googled for "Islamic Dictionary" and came up with this from the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Da‘wah and Guidance Website.

He who does not believe in Allah or His Messenger (PBUH)or denies any of the five pillars of Islam
‏كافر : من لا يؤمن بالله ولا بمحمد رسول الله , أو من ينتقص من مقام الله تعالى ورسوله أو ركن من أركان الإيمان

(interesting note, I was trying to highlight the Arabic, but forgot that Arabic reads right to left, so I was sitting there for a few seconds trying to highlight it left to right).

So apparently, by that definition, I am an infidel since I do not believe that Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him, as he is regarded by Muslims) as a prophet of God.

[TeeNage_WasTeLan...]

So let's see you justify your claims with some kind of source, instead of using the "it's all subjective" arguement.

I'm sorry but to me a special report defending Catholic Priests that is done by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights doesn't prove to be a legitimate source. It may be true that they use numbers, but the data is a little skewed. For example, they do not cite a consistent source throughout the report. They also jump around in years; when talking about teachers they use numbers from 1986 and 1994. Its a nice little essay you dug up but would you really expect a report by the same ppl verifying priests nasty habit?

But all of this is besides the point anyways. You are right about teachers not supposed to touch students but who is held in higher esteem? Not all teachers are religious, priests have a very distinct order of living. Teachers shouldn't even be brought into this argument, so you are saying since priests don't molest boys as much as teachers its not so bad? hmm...

I was putting things in perspective, to correct some of the propaganda you may have heard.

I love how you try to twist someone's words against them when it doesn't even make sense. You were putting what into perspective? That according to a Church-related group priests aren't 'as bad' of molesters as teachers? Here's some perspective, if it happens once or twice it could be considered isolated incidents. It's a trend though, which has to lead one to ask what the problem is, there is certainly no mention of touching little boys in the Bible.

God's laws apply to everyone, believer or unbeliever. As an analogy, pretending the police aren't there doesn't mean the law doesn't apply to you.

This is exactly the point I think Silla was trying to prove. God's law TO YOU applies to everyone, even if they don't believe it. But if someone doesn't believe in God then that's their opinion and you should respect it, you can't expect them to follow the laws of a faith they don't follow. I don't mean to bust your bubble but you don't have proof that your God exists. No one does of any religion. It's not like ignoring the police because there is no definitive God. How are you gonna compare God to the police? That's a horrible analogy.

I'm not saying that Muslims killing other ppl is right and justified, I'm saying that for you to sit there and condemn another's religion is just ignorant. Especially when every faith has it's faults.

[innovation]

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear Allah, and know that Allah is with those who restrain themselves. (Al-Baqarah 2: 190-194)

Clearly, Muslims are not pacifists, and they are willing to wage war in order to ensure the survival of their faith and their people. However, Islam itself is not deliberately militant, either. This passage seems fair (parts of it even reflect the norms of modern diplomacy), but it relies too much on human judgment to decide when violence is appropriate and when it is not. For example, what is "oppression"? What constitutes the end of "tumult and oppression"? When does one "transgress limits"?

Thus, if one judges Islamic militancy by this passage, it's really human judgment that is flawed, not Islam itself. This reliance on human judgment is rather surprising, however, since Islam emphasizes the flawed nature of human beings by asking its followers to submit to the word Allah without question.

[*kryogenix*]

I'm sorry but to me a special report defending Catholic Priests that is done by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights doesn't prove to be a legitimate source. It may be true that they use numbers, but the data is a little skewed. For example, they do not cite a consistent source throughout the report. They also jump around in years; when talking about teachers they use numbers from 1986 and 1994. Its a nice little essay you dug up but would you really expect a report by the same ppl verifying priests nasty habit?

Before I answer, please drop the charade with your account and save yourself some embarassment. You're not fooling anyone.

The facts in that document speak for themselves. They use the data that is available, YOU can make the comparisons using the various data they give. Data is data, who uses the data has no bearing on whether the data is truthful or not. It's how the data is used, and the comparisons in that article look valid to me.

But all of this is besides the point anyways. You are right about teachers not supposed to touch students but who is held in higher esteem? Not all teachers are religious, priests have a very distinct order of living. Teachers shouldn't even be brought into this argument, so you are saying since priests don't molest boys as much as teachers its not so bad? hmm...

Wasting your arguement on a strawman, I see.

Your arguement:

...not to mention the church's dirty little not-so-secret-anymore secret of the disgusting relationship alot of priests have had w/ their choirboys

My rebuttal:

...it's clearly been blown way out of proportion

You're twisting my arguement into a strawman. Debate MY rebuttal, not something that you're trying to put in my mouth.

I love how you try to twist someone's words against them when it doesn't even make sense. You were putting what into perspective? That according to a Church-related group priests aren't 'as bad' of molesters as teachers? Here's some perspective, if it happens once or twice it could be considered isolated incidents. It's a trend though, which has to lead one to ask what the problem is, there is certainly no mention of touching little boys in the Bible.

See arguement above. I already said it was wrong, and the Church is not denying it is wrong, but you're misrepresenting my position.

This is exactly the point I think Silla was trying to prove. God's law TO YOU applies to everyone, even if they don't believe it. But if someone doesn't believe in God then that's their opinion and you should respect it, you can't expect them to follow the laws of a faith they don't follow. I don't mean to bust your bubble but you don't have proof that your God exists. No one does of any religion. It's not like ignoring the police because there is no definitive God. How are you gonna compare God to the police? That's a horrible analogy.

You state that if someone refuses to believe in a law (or in the enforcer of a law), they should not have to follow it because it's their own opinion. Think about this one for a second. If you don't agree with the law, or with the person who makes/enforces/interprets the law, do you have the right to ignor the law? Absolutely not.

Just like the person in the analogy, your refusal to accept the legitimacy of established law does not make it any less legitimate. Even if a person doesn't believe that dealing drugs is illegal, or that the police doesn't exist, at the end of the day, the person is going to be in jail.

I'm not saying that Muslims killing other ppl is right and justified, I'm saying that for you to sit there and condemn another's religion is just ignorant. Especially when every faith has it's faults.

Argumentum tu quoque. This does not address the arguement at hand, but instead condemns the person arguing. Is it wrong for smokers to tell kids not to smoke because the are guilty of what they are trying to prevent?

Furthermore, if you think the Catholic faith has faults, start a new topic arguing them, or you can argue them here.

[innovation]

Don't make me go fallacious on YOU.

[TeeNage_WasTeLan...]

You state that if someone refuses to believe in a law (or in the enforcer of a law), they should not have to follow it because it's their own opinion. Think about this one for a second. If you don't agree with the law, or with the person who makes/enforces/interprets the law, do you have the right to ignor the law? Absolutely not.

Just like the person in the analogy, your refusal to accept the legitimacy of established law does not make it any less legitimate. Even if a person doesn't believe that dealing drugs is illegal, or that the police doesn't exist, at the end of the day, the person is going to be in jail.

The argument on priests' pediphila is irrelevant. Let's do away with that and focus on this.

Basically you are completely ignoring any possibility that the God outlined in Christianity may not actually exist, that its possible there is another god in another religion. So to me, this analogy you give is not really too efficient. It has glaring flaws. The God you follow is not definitive. Government is. You cannot sit there and say that God is the same as government, because what if Christianity is wrong? What if Islam really is the governing religion of life? Then I guess according to you, you've been breaking laws your whole life and at the end of the day you are going to jail. You can't decide what government to follow in a country but you can decide what religion you do, and each religion has its own set of laws. Just like you wouldn't expect someone living in Bangladesh to follow American laws, you shouldn't expect someone who follows Islam to practice Christian beliefs.

[*kryogenix*]

Don't make me go fallacious on YOU.

Sorry! I forgot to respond to your post. Ok here I go:

Clearly, Muslims are not pacifists, and they are willing to wage war in order to ensure the survival of their faith and their people. However, Islam itself is not deliberately militant, either. This passage seems fair (parts of it even reflect the norms of modern diplomacy), but it relies too much on human judgment to decide when violence is appropriate and when it is not. For example, what is "oppression"? What constitutes the end of "tumult and oppression"? When does one "transgress limits"?

Thus, if one judges Islamic militancy by this passage, it's really human judgment that is flawed, not Islam itself. This reliance on human judgment is rather surprising, however, since Islam emphasizes the flawed nature of human beings by asking its followers to submit to the word Allah without question.

Which brings us back to the topic at hand. If human judgement is relied upon to guide Islam, then why aren't Muslim leaders being more vocal against Islamic terrorism? I can't understand how Islamic leaders can issue death sentences and launch boycotts over books and cartoons, but sit there when people make their faith look bad.

The argument on priests' pediphila is irrelevant. Let's do away with that and focus on this.

Good call, it was a mistake for you to bring it up to begin with.

Basically you are completely ignoring any possibility that the God outlined in Christianity may not actually exist, that its possible there is another god in another religion.

I know God exists because I can talk to God through prayer. Although I have absolutely no way of proving this to other people, it's proof enough for myself to know that there is one true God.

So to me, this analogy you give is not really too efficient. It has glaring flaws. The God you follow is not definitive. Government is. You cannot sit there and say that God is the same as government, because what if Christianity is wrong? What if Islam really is the governing religion of life? Then I guess according to you, you've been breaking laws your whole life and at the end of the day you are going to jail. You can't decide what government to follow in a country but you can decide what religion you do, and each religion has its own set of laws. Just like you wouldn't expect someone living in Bangladesh to follow American laws, you shouldn't expect someone who follows Islam to practice Christian beliefs.

How can a god be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. if he is not the one true God?

I could try to refute Islam, which would be out of scope for this topic, but I'll leave it at this. Muslims believe, although Jesus is not God, that Jesus is one of God's greatest prophets. However, Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. How come one of God's greatest prophets contradict Islamic teaching?

The problem with your statement about my analogy (and what you're failing to see) is that God is universal. It doesn't matter if you believe in him or not, He is still your God. If I was to sit here and claim that where I am sitting is an independent country and can claim my own laws, I could still get arrested for breaking US laws even though I claim that I'm part of my own country.

Oh, one more thing, your private message to me:

hey choir-boy, you should brushen up on your debate skills. You wouldn't be able to argue a priest into jr.high boys locker room. Seriously, I've been looking at the arguments you composed against everyone in the muslim thread and you contradict yourself, make invalid points, and ignore valid points made by others. I didn't want to air this out on the thread but I had to say something b/c you are a joke. Pray that you never get into a public debate because I fear you will be humiliated.

So let's see the mistakes here. You open up with an ad hominem. You say I should "brushen up" my debating skills. You claim I contradict myself and ignore points made by others, even though I do my best to quote other people and address each point they make.

In fact, I think that YOU are the one guilty of what you are accusing me of. You (sillakilla420) are hiding behind another user. I already warned you to drop the act.

So, I'll give you the honor of asking the other posters here who is making better points between the two of us.

[innovation]

Sorry! I forgot to respond to your post. Ok here I go:

Well, no, it's not that. I just wanted to use the word "fallacious" because you were practically screaming "FALLACY!" at the top of your lungs.

I was talking to my friend yesterday (she's Muslim), and she said that one looks toward the hadith for specific examples of how Muhammad handled certain situations, so Islam isn't completely reliant on human judgment. She said that in Islam, if someone attacks you physically, you fight back physically, as well. But if someone attacks you verbally or politically (e.g. Muhammad cartoon controversy), you should use your passion and your words to defend yourself and your faith.

By the way, I took Intro to Logic at Johns Hopkins two summers ago, and we did indeed enjoy screaming "FALLACY" all over campus.

[TeeNage_WasTeLan...]

You say I am SillaKilla? Haha. Why just because I am continuing an argument that he stopped? I can't agree with another member? If I am really SillaKilla why wouldn't I just use that account?



This argument is pointless. I am going to stop because I don't want to argue with someone who's opinion cannot be changed. You are obviously a stout Christian very devoted to your religion. You keep repeating the same things without ever addressing what I really stated. You won't even admit that there's a possibility that God doesn't exist. All you say is you know it because "you pray to him". Well, if I pray to a mythical god and I believe he responds to me that doesn't mean that he really exists. I actually am a Chrisitian too, but I am willing to accept that there may be alternative supreme beings. I don't BELIEVE that there are, I'm just open to the fact that it is possible. Let me ask you this... did you really CHOOSE to follow Christianity, or is it just the religion you were raised to follow? Be honest too, because I'm curious.


You 'warned' me? What is that supposed to mean?

[innovation]

Since when did this turn into a theological debate?

Kryo, you're using lingo like "staw man" and "ad hominem abusive." Okay, you know your fallacies, but other posters might not. It seems as if you're trying to intimidate through the use of language so that you come out on top. But if you really wanted sillakilla, teenage wasteland, and the rest of the members to understand and adopt your point, you wouldn't be so impatient and quick to apply this lingo.

Teenage_Wasteland, there's no need to start attacking kryo's religion and/or challenge his personal faith like you did. That's just crossing the line. There's a distinct difference between respectfully questioning what one doesn't understand about a faith and just being offensive. You say that his "argument is pointless;" so why are you still attempting to rebut it?

We're talking about the application of religion, not whether or not a religion proclaims the truth. And questioning kryo's personal connection to his faith? That's even more irrelevant. This whole thread is disorganized and basically messed up. Here is the conclusion that I've drawn from reading these posts:

1. Proclaimed followers of both Christianity and Islam have committed immoral acts.

2. The Qur'an specifically mentions situations in which violence is acceptable; the Bible does not.

3. "Peaceful" Muslims generally do not speak out against terrorism because (a) they're afraid, and (b) they're just not politically active.

Please post if:
A- You would like to challenge one of these conclusions,
B- If you would like to draw a new conclusion, or
C- Bring up a new relevant point.

[TeeNage_WasTeLan...]

I didn't challenge his faith. I am just posing the possibility that it may be false. I follow the same faith! You are right though, the use of such fallacies is pretty absurd. I am well aware what ad hominem and straw man are as well as several other ones too but that doesn't mean I should point them out as soon as they arise. Its just stupid. I said this argument was pointless b/c it was just going around in circles.

[innovation]

I didn't say that he shouldn't point out fallacies. A fallacious argument should be uncovered. However, if his intention was to make you understand his point, he would've been more diplomatic and less of a militant intellectual.

[*kryogenix*]

You say I am SillaKilla? Haha. Why just because I am continuing an argument that he stopped? I can't agree with another member? If I am really SillaKilla why wouldn't I just use that account?

I suspected you were sillakilla420 after observing several common factors that are associated with ghost accounts. I asked a member of the staff do a check (since I believe having duplicate accounts is against the rules), and indeed, your IP addresses matches with sillakilla420. If you would like concrete proof of this, I can ask a staff member to show everyone. I don't understand why'd you do something like that, unless you wanted to make it seem like there were people other than yourself standing up for your ideas.

This argument is pointless. I am going to stop because I don't want to argue with someone who's opinion cannot be changed. You are obviously a stout Christian very devoted to your religion. You keep repeating the same things without ever addressing what I really stated.

You 'warned' me? What is that supposed to mean?

You're getting it all wrong. I'm not changing my opinion simply because you are not convincing me. I've had my position on certain issues changed over message board posts before. Just because you haven't presented a good arguement doesn't mean that I'm stubborn. You've been doing this the entire debate; when you fail to present a good arguement, you start attacking me instead of the arguement. That's not how it works.

You won't even admit that there's a possibility that God doesn't exist. All you say is you know it because "you pray to him". Well, if I pray to a mythical god and I believe he responds to me that doesn't mean that he really exists. I actually am a Chrisitian too, but I am willing to accept that there may be alternative supreme beings. I don't BELIEVE that there are, I'm just open to the fact that it is possible.

How can you be open to other gods when God gave us the first commandment? Second, this arguement does not work in this scenario because Allah is the same god as the Christian and Jewish God.

Let me ask you this... did you really CHOOSE to follow Christianity, or is it just the religion you were raised to follow? Be honest too, because I'm curious.

Yes, I chose Catholicism. I didn't choose when I was baptised, my sponsors chose for me. But when I went through the sacrament of Confirmation, I made the choice on my own.

Why do you think I try to study theology so much? This doesn't happen unless you are constantly questioning and testing yourself.

Kryo, you're using lingo like "staw man" and "ad hominem abusive." Okay, you know your fallacies, but other posters might not. It seems as if you're trying to intimidate through the use of language so that you come out on top. But if you really wanted sillakilla, teenage wasteland, and the rest of the members to understand and adopt your point, you wouldn't be so impatient and quick to apply this lingo.

I'm sorry, I suppose I'm giving him too much credit. Those terms are pretty much understood by the Debate regulars, but I got too caught up in the arguement to realize he's a new guy. I guess the fact that he called me a kid made me think he was older and therefore more mature and wiser. I guess I was off.

Quite frankly, I'm tired of sillakilla420. His posts are rude, pretentious and convoluted. I can speak calmly to yourself and most of the other posters here, but either he's trolling on purpose, or he just doesn't know how to carry out a civil debate.

3. "Peaceful" Muslims generally do not speak out against terrorism because (a) they're afraid, and (b) they're just not politically active.

a) I've asked this question, and it's been left unanswered. Why are Muslims afraid to stand up against radical Islam? If the leadership and the majority are against it, what need is there to be afraid?

b) There are politicall active Muslims, but I don't think they're doing anything about it. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Louis Farrakhan is a powerful Muslim leader, but instead of being a good role model, he's a controversial figure.

[TeeNage_WasTeLan...]

I'm sorry, I suppose I'm giving him too much credit. Those terms are pretty much understood by the Debate regulars, but I got too caught up in the arguement to realize he's a new guy. I guess the fact that he called me a kid made me think he was older and therefore more mature and wiser. I guess I was off

It's not too hard to figure out what a "straw man" is. Even if I didn't know what that is it doesn't take a genius to figure it out


From my few posts I didn't intend to "attack you" since that's how you feel. I'm open to other Gods because it makes sense. I don't worship any other gods, but I know there is a possibility the God we worship does not exist. I also have respect for others beliefs, which it appears you don't. What if the Bible had said 'Kill the unbelievers'? Would you follow this rule stated in the Holy Book, or would you go against it? I mean you are a devoted follower, and since you say "You can't just not follow the law because you don't agree with it" I guess that means you would have to follow it too.

[innovation]

a) I've asked this question, and it's been left unanswered. Why are Muslims afraid to stand up against radical Islam? If the leadership and the majority are against it, what need is there to be afraid?

The leadership isn't necessarily against it. Dr. Sultan (from CA) spoke out against Islamic militancy through an interview, and she has received multiple death threats from clerics and other Islamic leaders.

b) There are politically active Muslims, but I don't think they're doing anything about it. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Louis Farrakhan is a powerful Muslim leader, but instead of being a good role model, he's a controversial figure.

Well, you have to realize that it's very difficult to actually initiate something, since many Islamic nations (e.g. Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.) are closed societies in which the people have little political efficacy. The first step to reducing the indoctrination of Muslims into militancy is literacy. Next, the international community must pressure Islamic governments to provide their citizens with civil and political rights. Because it's so difficult for other nations to intervene, however, the empowerment of civil society is crucial in producing change--but currently, millions remain illiterate (i.e. unable to read the Qur'an), are deprived of their basic human rights, and are basically indoctrinated into obeying the clerics through public education, suppression of the media, etc. The creation of a more open society in which citizens themselves are empowered (think Orange Revolution) is a vital prerequisite to reducing the prevalence of Islamic militancy.

There is some progress, however. According to the Washington Post, the number of Muslims who support terrorism/Bin Laden has declined. However, more Muslims feel that religion is playing an increasing role in politics--and they see this as a good thing. But this doesn't mean that they support the clerics, or that they support terrorism. According to the Post:

The survey results indicate that growing numbers of Muslims differentiate between what they consider the peaceful influence of Islamic values in politics and the use of religion to justify attacks. "The people who see Islam playing an important role in political life are the ones most worried about extremism," Kohut said.

In summary, Muslim support for terrorism is decreasing, but regime change and the establishment of an open society are still critical to reducing terrorism.