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?

[innovation]

Don't make me go fallacious on YOU.

[*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.