CDZ Muslim Terrorism versus Islamopohobes

[Foxfyre]

A Muslim woman wearing a hijab is no different from a Christian woman wearing a cross - a reflection of their faith. Hijab isn't even common to all Muslim cultures. One thing I wonder though - if a Muslim woman did not choose to wear one, would you even know she was Muslim?

I want to add something here - the only poll I've seen that comes close to supporting what you claim is the one Donald Trump cited, but the actual poll is here: Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad and it's methodology (unlike Pew) has been heavily criticized.

A woman wearing a hijab is following her religious beliefs in the same way as a Jewish man wearing a kippa. None of that is indicative of "support" for Sharia as law of the land or Halakha as law of the land.

If this was directed to me, no, I went to look for my prior source, and it was Pew. I don't know what source Trump was using and I didn't hear him say that.

If you can find a Pew source indicating a larage number of American Muslims support Sharia as the law of the land I would be very interested in reading it.

Again that is what is implied by those who think the Qu'ran is the literal word of God/Allah. And that 'word' commands Sharia Law as most Muslim interpret the Qu'ran supplemented by the Hadith. Again I think that will be on or close to Page 29 of the Pew study I posted.

Although the Qur’an is the basic source of Islamic jurisprudence, it is not intended as a legislative text. The majority of the Qur’an’s 6,239 verses are metaphorical, allegorical, and historical passages, as well as statements of moral principle and religious injunctions. The number of verses dealing specifically with legal issues, however, is usually estimated between just 200 and 500. Given the dearth of legal content in the Qur’an, sharia is normally supplemented by records of the customs and sayings (hadith and sunna) of the Prophet Muhammad. The authority for this practice stems from the Qur’an itself, which in several verses instructs Muslims to obey both the teachings and the practices of the Prophet.​

Reclaiming Tradition: Islamic Law in a Modern World | International Affairs Review

Again, that is NOT the same as saying that they want Sharia to be the Law of the Land. Even in the Pew Polls - there were significant portions of Muslims (and in non-western countries) who disagreed with that. So assuming that American Muslims would want that makes no sense - it's sheer speculation.

I never said all Muslims wanted that. I said a substantial number of American Muslims wanted that. And that is what you initially challenged me on. I think I have made a pretty good case for my point of view. So far nobody has provided any credible source to rebut it. If somebody does have a good rebuttal though, I will graciously concede the point. But not my belief that most of Islam would install Shariah law given opportunity to do so. The number of American Muslims is still too small that they will seriously push for Shariah courts. But should those numbers substantially increase, I think we would start seeing those requests.

 

[alpine]

To me the question is not "to compromise or not to compromise"

Because it seems to me we already did compromise, greatly.

This is very obvious in this NSA situation.

If we have not compromised, if we have not clicked that checkbox that comes along with every step you are taking in your online world, you pretty much couldnt have functioned in this todays society.

So we have created this giant tool that makes us much more efficient, functional and analytical.

In my opinion; if there is a security weakness in this country, it is not because we are willing or not willing to compromise, it is because we cant use the tools available to us, wisely and properly.


Take ISIS for instance, could not have existed w/o internet....

We compromised because it was easy and people chose safety over liberty. So yes, the compromise already happened. ISIS integrated the internet, it would have existed without it.

We compromise when we're afraid and 9/11 made us feel very vulnerable and very afraid. It's the same way, I suspect people felt when the Japanese were interned. People were willing to support invading Iraq primarily because the shadow of 9/11 was still hovering over us. And...the results are very very scary in my opinion.

I disagree though, on ISIS. Unlike prior groups like AQ - ISIS grew via the internet - it created sophisticated marketing and recruitment schemes that could invade literally every cell phone without the knowledge of family. ISIS success is in large part due to the internet and social media and it is frightening because we don't have a good plan to deal with it. Authorities working with Muslim communities are attempting to combat it through social media and counter propoganda....but is that enough? It's one of the most complex threats to face us because it is not amenable to conventional warfare alone.

Terrorism and counter-terrorism may sound like terms we have been together for a long time, but in fact it has not been too long, these 2 spiraled into an evolutionary arms race.

The rise of organized terrorism was one of the side effects of the cold war in 1970-80 era, and the battleground was europe.

While left-wing terrorism was reigning throughout the cities of europe, europeans felt helpless. European police force was inadequate to challenge this new form of highly organized and advanced terror groups. It was traffic cops with 6 shooter revolvers, chasing after terrorists with military grade firepower and training.

This have given rise to the new counter-terror police in europe.
RAID in France, GSG in Germany, SBX in UK...
While doing so, europe did not have to compromise, but just advance its capabilities.

And now we have a new form of threat coming into our way.
A terror using our own information infrastructure, against us.

And we will have to study and learn new ways how to stop them,
rather than looking to "compromise" in the first opportunity...

 

[Mudda]

Like I said, go ask a few Muslims if they'd prefer the US be under sharia, you'll have your answer. The fact is, you won't find a Muslim who wouldn't prefer sharia over anything else, it's a central core element of their faith. Now you know. Glad I could help.

What percentage of Christians would prefer Biblical law to secular law? This desire is not unique to muslims.

100% of muslims prefer sharia. Christians who want to live under bible law are not many, and only the kooks.

Source?

The koran. Sharia is a central part of being a Muslim.

Following Halakha is a central part of being Jewish. Does that mean that 100% of Jews prefer Halakha over the Constitution?

Like Sharia, Halakha was compilated in another era, and calls for such punishments as stoning for adultry, even though that is no longer practiced.

Most religious people have found ways to reconcile their religious beliefs to the ethics of a modern society.

Jews are civilized, Muslims aren't. Muslims want to live under sharia and you should not try to rationalize away everything they do because other religions have managed to become civilized but Islam has not.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The majority of Christians disavow affiliation with Westboro. .

.....and Wetstboro-like attitudes reflect MAINSTREAM Islamic belief.

Apologists for Islam like to indulge in specious equivalencies, but the range of attitudes expressed vis a vis Christians and Muslims are not the same. Islam is magnitudes more conservative, magnitudes more fundamentalist, magnitudes more literalist and as it comes with its own legal system, magnitudes more political.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Whenever dishonest apologists compare Christianity to Islam,. they rely on a number of ruses. These, collectively represent Tu Quoque fallacies -- the old, "Well, THEY do it TOO" arguments similar to those children offer their mothers to try to justify bad behavior. I can just envision the fists balling up as they pout "Well, Christians do it TOO", whereupon they seize upon three different strategies to support Islam through false equivalences.

The first of these dishonest ruses has to do with degree. If, say, 67% of Muslims believe in killing apostates, in order to defend this barbarity, they will report quite smugly that Christians do it too. Of course, the percentage of Christians might be 0.2%, but who cares, right? All that matters is the defense of Islam.

The second of these dishonest ruses has to do with magnitude -- the comparison of something disgusting with something merely irritating. If apostates are killed by Islam, then just dredge up the notion of some Christians shunning theirs and voila' their apologists work is done. Or even better -- if Muslims are mass murdering as many people as possible, let's just dredge up Westboro Baptist and act as if those nuts are as bad.

The third ruse involves a bizarre notion that some rift in the fabric of space and time has created two distinctly different time lines. When Muslims are rampaging across the globe doing as Mohammad did, they love to point out how Christians did some naughty things 400 years ago (and who WEREN'T doing as Jesus did). Like, yeah -- that sure makes the point, doesn't it?

What is at work here is a form of dogmatism instead of open-mindedness. Instead of indulging in an honest examination of the differences between the two religions, not only in terms of doctrine, function and behavior of the adherents, but also in the relative lives of two prophets involved, they simply decide they absolutely MUST defend Islam, and so retrofit all their arguments in reverse in order to pick and chose bits that defend. In essence, they are acting like the most rigid religious Christian fundamentalist who doesn't actually read Jesus teachings, but just picks and chooses this little bit or that little bit lifted from the O.T. to justify whatever it is they wish to justify.

Christianity and Islam are not the same, and those who attempt to create false equivalencies do so because they have an Islamic agenda to promote. WHY they do this is anybody's guess as it probably arises from some psychological need or another, but it sure isn't rational, that's for sure.

 

[Mac1958]

Whenever dishonest apologists compare Christianity to Islam,. they rely on a number of ruses. These, collectively represent Tu Quoque fallacies -- the old, "Well, THEY do it TOO" arguments similar to those children offer their mothers to try to justify bad behavior. I can just envision the fists balling up as they pout "Well, Christians do it TOO", whereupon they seize upon thee different strategies to support Islam through false equivalences.

The first of these dishonest ruses has to do with degree. If, say, 67% of Muslims believe in killing apostates, in order to defend this barbarity, they will report quite smugly that Christians do it too. Of course, the percentage of Christians might be 0.2%, but who cares, right? All that matters is the defense of Islam.

The second of these dishonest ruses has to do with magnitude -- the comparison of something disgusting with something merely irritating. If apostates are killed by Islam, then just dredge up the notion of some Christians shunning theirs and voila' their apologists work is done.

The third ruse involves a bizarre notion that some rift in the fabric of space and time has created two distinctly different time lines. When Muslims are rampaging across the globe doing as Mohammad did, they love to point out how Christians did some naughty things 400 years ago (and who WEREN'T doing as Jesus did). Like, yeah -- that sure makes the point, doesn't it?

What is at work here is a form of dogmatism instead of open-mindedness. Instead of indulging in an honest examination of the differences between the two religions, not only in terms of doctrine, function and the relative lives of two prophets involved, they simply decide they absolutely MUST defend Islam, and so retrofit all their arguments in reverse in order to pick and chose bits that defend. In essence, they are acting like the most rigid religious Christian fundamentalist who doesn't actually read Jesus teachings, but just picks and chooses this little bit or that little bit lifted from the O.T. to justify whatever it is they wish to justify.

Christianity and Islam are not the same, and those who attempt to create false equivalencies do so because they have an Islamic agenda to promote. WHY they do this is anybody's guess as it probably arises from some psychological need or another, but it sure isn't rational, that's for sure.

The "why" is the fascinating question to me.

I think you presented a pretty good theory on another thread.

I would post a link to it, but I might get in "trouble."


.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Whenever dishonest apologists compare Christianity to Islam,. they rely on a number of ruses. These, collectively represent Tu Quoque fallacies -- the old, "Well, THEY do it TOO" arguments similar to those children offer their mothers to try to justify bad behavior. I can just envision the fists balling up as they pout "Well, Christians do it TOO", whereupon they seize upon thee different strategies to support Islam through false equivalences.

The first of these dishonest ruses has to do with degree. If, say, 67% of Muslims believe in killing apostates, in order to defend this barbarity, they will report quite smugly that Christians do it too. Of course, the percentage of Christians might be 0.2%, but who cares, right? All that matters is the defense of Islam.

The second of these dishonest ruses has to do with magnitude -- the comparison of something disgusting with something merely irritating. If apostates are killed by Islam, then just dredge up the notion of some Christians shunning theirs and voila' their apologists work is done.

The third ruse involves a bizarre notion that some rift in the fabric of space and time has created two distinctly different time lines. When Muslims are rampaging across the globe doing as Mohammad did, they love to point out how Christians did some naughty things 400 years ago (and who WEREN'T doing as Jesus did). Like, yeah -- that sure makes the point, doesn't it?

What is at work here is a form of dogmatism instead of open-mindedness. Instead of indulging in an honest examination of the differences between the two religions, not only in terms of doctrine, function and the relative lives of two prophets involved, they simply decide they absolutely MUST defend Islam, and so retrofit all their arguments in reverse in order to pick and chose bits that defend. In essence, they are acting like the most rigid religious Christian fundamentalist who doesn't actually read Jesus teachings, but just picks and chooses this little bit or that little bit lifted from the O.T. to justify whatever it is they wish to justify.

Christianity and Islam are not the same, and those who attempt to create false equivalencies do so because they have an Islamic agenda to promote. WHY they do this is anybody's guess as it probably arises from some psychological need or another, but it sure isn't rational, that's for sure.

The "why" is the fascinating question to me.

I think you presented a pretty good theory on another thread.

I would post a link to it, but I might get in "trouble."


.

Well, you have my approval, anyway!

 

[pillars]

I never said all Muslims wanted that. I said a substantial number of American Muslims wanted that. And that is what you initially challenged me on. I think I have made a pretty good case for my point of view. So far nobody has provided any credible source to rebut it. If somebody does have a good rebuttal though, I will graciously concede the point. But not my belief that most of Islam would install Shariah law given opportunity to do so. The number of American Muslims is still too small that they will seriously push for Shariah courts. But should those numbers substantially increase, I think we would start seeing those requests.

Here's what you said:

And inside the USA here is a tremendously detailed study by Pew--the comparison of how many think the Qu'ran is the literal word of God/Allah is on I think Pg 29 or close to that. And that would be a good reflection of those that support Sharia law.
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

Then you attempted to imply that all muslim women wear hijab, which also means that they support Sharia law. That part was pretty amusing. You provided zero evidence of these claims, even when asked.

Further, when making an affirmative claim, i.e., that the majority of Islamics in the U.S. support sharia law, the burden of proof is on the affirmative. In other words, it is your responsibility to provide evidence that supports your claim, rather than expecting people to disprove it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[pillars]

Christianity and Islam are not the same, and those who attempt to create false equivalencies do so because they have an Islamic agenda to promote. WHY they do this is anybody's guess as it probably arises from some psychological need or another, but it sure isn't rational, that's for sure.

Christianity springs from Judaism, which had a quite well documented (in the Bible) history of murdering people and stealing their land. And Christians have engaged in that pattern for at least a thousand years, as well, forcing people to convert at the point of a sword and stealing their land.

So, when you draw from historical sources to say that Islam is intolerant and conquest driven, it is quite reasonable to point out that you hold Islam to a different standard than you hold Judaism and Christianity, which have a thousand year history of conquest and intolerance.

Do I think that Christians pose the immediate threat that Muslims do? Not precisely in this time frame.

But for me, as a non-Christian living in the U.S., Christianity causes far me and my neighbors more discomfort and problems for me than Islam does. Christianity is responsible for my state's dreadful laws discriminating against gays and lesbians. It's responsible for incursions into women's private lives and attempts to force women to conform to a particular form of behavior around unplanned pregnancies. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, both candidates for the presidency, support making abortion not just unavailable, but ILLEGAL, with criminal penalties. Christians have been responsible for bombing abortion clinics, shooting abortion providers, terrifying women attempting to receive reproductive services, and other acts of terror.

It's interesting to me how many conservative Christians are oh so concerned about Islam's dreadful record on human rights, women's rights and gays and lesbians, without realizing that just because we aren't KILLING gays and lesbians in this country doesn't mean that we have been particularly tolerant and accepting of gays and lesbians. And even though the government isn't killing people for being gay, or prosecuting them for sodomy much anymore, gays, lesbians and transvestites are often the target of violent crimes in the U.S., merely for being gay, lesbian or transvestite. And sodomy laws are still on the books in many southern states, and are used to prosecute gay men criminally, in essence for being gay men. 12 states still ban sodomy a decade after court ruling

No, we aren't hanging many gay men for being gay, but we are no beacon of tolerance and light. Westernization is still a process, and in some ways, we lag behind other western nations in terms of protecting human rights, and the majority of that has to do with fundamentalist Christian influence.

So, thanks for sharing, but I'm going to continue to point out the hypocritical nature of some of your proclamations about Islam, in light of the standard you hold other religions to.

Do I want Muslims running things in the U.S.? Hell no.

But I don't particularly want Christians running things according to their archaic beliefs, either.

And as a resident of North Carolina, fundamentalist Christians are currently making the lives of many people in my state more dangerous and difficult, which goes beyond unpleasantness.

So, they are a larger concern to me than Muslims.

 

[Foxfyre]

I never said all Muslims wanted that. I said a substantial number of American Muslims wanted that. And that is what you initially challenged me on. I think I have made a pretty good case for my point of view. So far nobody has provided any credible source to rebut it. If somebody does have a good rebuttal though, I will graciously concede the point. But not my belief that most of Islam would install Shariah law given opportunity to do so. The number of American Muslims is still too small that they will seriously push for Shariah courts. But should those numbers substantially increase, I think we would start seeing those requests.

Here's what you said:

And inside the USA here is a tremendously detailed study by Pew--the comparison of how many think the Qu'ran is the literal word of God/Allah is on I think Pg 29 or close to that. And that would be a good reflection of those that support Sharia law.
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

Then you attempted to imply that all muslim women wear hijab, which also means that they support Sharia law. That part was pretty amusing. You provided zero evidence of these claims, even when asked.

Further, when making an affirmative claim, i.e., that the majority of Islamics in the U.S. support sharia law, the burden of proof is on the affirmative. In other words, it is your responsibility to provide evidence that supports your claim, rather than expecting people to disprove it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

And if it gives you pleasure to read into my posts what isn't there, have a ball and a pleasant day. I prefer not to play that game.

 

[saveliberty]

Repeating the same point is not really moving the topic forward. It becomes deflection.

Earlier someone pointed out that there is not a hierarchy in Islam. Actually there is and it is remarkable how organized it is when a religious edict or fatwa is issued.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whenever dishonest apologists compare Christianity to Islam,. they rely on a number of ruses. These, collectively represent Tu Quoque fallacies -- the old, "Well, THEY do it TOO" arguments similar to those children offer their mothers to try to justify bad behavior. I can just envision the fists balling up as they pout "Well, Christians do it TOO", whereupon they seize upon thee different strategies to support Islam through false equivalences.

The first of these dishonest ruses has to do with degree. If, say, 67% of Muslims believe in killing apostates, in order to defend this barbarity, they will report quite smugly that Christians do it too. Of course, the percentage of Christians might be 0.2%, but who cares, right? All that matters is the defense of Islam.

The second of these dishonest ruses has to do with magnitude -- the comparison of something disgusting with something merely irritating. If apostates are killed by Islam, then just dredge up the notion of some Christians shunning theirs and voila' their apologists work is done.

The third ruse involves a bizarre notion that some rift in the fabric of space and time has created two distinctly different time lines. When Muslims are rampaging across the globe doing as Mohammad did, they love to point out how Christians did some naughty things 400 years ago (and who WEREN'T doing as Jesus did). Like, yeah -- that sure makes the point, doesn't it?

What is at work here is a form of dogmatism instead of open-mindedness. Instead of indulging in an honest examination of the differences between the two religions, not only in terms of doctrine, function and the relative lives of two prophets involved, they simply decide they absolutely MUST defend Islam, and so retrofit all their arguments in reverse in order to pick and chose bits that defend. In essence, they are acting like the most rigid religious Christian fundamentalist who doesn't actually read Jesus teachings, but just picks and chooses this little bit or that little bit lifted from the O.T. to justify whatever it is they wish to justify.

Christianity and Islam are not the same, and those who attempt to create false equivalencies do so because they have an Islamic agenda to promote. WHY they do this is anybody's guess as it probably arises from some psychological need or another, but it sure isn't rational, that's for sure.

The "why" is the fascinating question to me.

I think you presented a pretty good theory on another thread.

I would post a link to it, but I might get in "trouble."


.

The 'why' is interesting to me too. I would like to know where Dog's theory is, but if it would break rules to post it. . . .I'll just speculate on that. . .

But invariably those who defend Islam so passionately are the ones who most often--not always but most often--are hyper critical to the point of dishonesty re Christianity and also re those who are realistic about the intentions of militant Islam. They cannot see that feelings and attitudes about individual Muslims and Islamic intentions are entirely two separate things and are not related to each other.

And the 'why' it is important for them to do that, I don't know. But it certainly does affect our national policy, creates pressure to increase danger to U.S. citizens by bringing in large numbers of unvetted refugees. And they will not admit or see how easy it would be for al Qaida or ISIS or any other terrorist group to infiltrate those refugees. They would put their loved ones and ours at higher risk all in the name of political correctness. And they will not acknowledge the poor status of human rights and the imposition of Sharia law in essentially all predominantly Islamic countries that exist. There might be one or two exceptions, but I cannot name any.

But yes, "why" is that the case?

And I don't know how we have a discussion about this topic unless that reality is included.

 

[saveliberty]

It is easy to think something far away is better than what you know. Grass is greener theory. Amazing how many more times the sheriff department pulls over drivers than the State Police or FBI. Oh that's right, they are right here.

If you sneeze I might say God bless you, sorry it makes you feel uncomfortable. Allah Akbar does kind of roll off the tongue.

 

[saveliberty]

I consider Muslims civilized, so that point earlier bothered me. Not sure you can even say they are less so. Culturally they may be backwards.

 

[Carla_Danger]

This thread is about three types of hate, yes three. The first two are in the title, the third will be that which will most likely display itself in the thread. The CDZ rules state the title should not be inflammatory, this title implies two opposing positions exist. I am looking for a discussion about how to deal with the threat of terrorism in the West created by Muslim terrorists, while not allowing fear of all or a large proportion of Muslims to injure a generally free society. I am hoping we do not get a display of how opposing views on a subject let hate of the opposition get in the way of working together. Much the same as why we have hate blocking a better world outside the CDZ. I hope that is clear and folks can stay on topic.

When will you reveal this third form of hate?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am looking for a discussion about how to deal with the threat of terrorism in the West created by Muslim terrorists, while not allowing fear of all or a large proportion of Muslims to injure a generally free society.

The only way for this to occur, in my opinion, is to stop making broad generalizations about muslims, while focusing on specific individuals and groups within Islam that display risk factors typical of making the transition to supporting or engaging in terror. I think that we have considerable history at this point for identifying those risk factors, and that it is possible to leave the majority of muslims alone while focusing on the small percentage who will engage in criminal activity. This is exact same approach we take to Christian hate groups, anti-government militia groups, and other kinds of criminal organizations, and it's an approach that we should continue.

I will be honest, I think the U.S. federal law enforcement agencies have actually done an exceptional job with this issue. That's why we have had so few terror attacks here.

What disturbs me is the amount of fear-mongering and flogging of this issue by islamophobes who are politically motivated, and trying to use fear to mobilize the populace.

Correct.

In addition to stop making broad generalizations about Muslims, stop trying to ‘blame’ Islam as a religion for the acts of terror committed by individuals alone.

Terrorist who are incidentally Muslim have misappropriated and perverted the tenets of Islam in an effort to justify and conceal their criminal acts – again: the blame rests solely with the terrorists, not the religion they claim to practice.

 

[saveliberty]

This thread is about three types of hate, yes three. The first two are in the title, the third will be that which will most likely display itself in the thread. The CDZ rules state the title should not be inflammatory, this title implies two opposing positions exist. I am looking for a discussion about how to deal with the threat of terrorism in the West created by Muslim terrorists, while not allowing fear of all or a large proportion of Muslims to injure a generally free society. I am hoping we do not get a display of how opposing views on a subject let hate of the opposition get in the way of working together. Much the same as why we have hate blocking a better world outside the CDZ. I hope that is clear and folks can stay on topic.

When will you reveal this third form of hate?

It was mentioned in the OP, it was revealed periodically in the thread.

 

[Carla_Danger]

This thread is about three types of hate, yes three. The first two are in the title, the third will be that which will most likely display itself in the thread. The CDZ rules state the title should not be inflammatory, this title implies two opposing positions exist. I am looking for a discussion about how to deal with the threat of terrorism in the West created by Muslim terrorists, while not allowing fear of all or a large proportion of Muslims to injure a generally free society. I am hoping we do not get a display of how opposing views on a subject let hate of the opposition get in the way of working together. Much the same as why we have hate blocking a better world outside the CDZ. I hope that is clear and folks can stay on topic.

When will you reveal this third form of hate?

It was mentioned in the OP, it was revealed periodically in the thread.

Care to be more specific?

 

[saveliberty]

Correct.

In addition to stop making broad generalizations about Muslims, stop trying to ‘blame’ Islam as a religion for the acts of terror committed by individuals alone.

Terrorist who are incidentally Muslim have misappropriated and perverted the tenets of Islam in an effort to justify and conceal their criminal acts – again: the blame rests solely with the terrorists, not the religion they claim to practice.

The solution will involve the active participation of Muslims. Being an apologist, denier or justifier in no way helps work to a solution. What was your intention in making your comment?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SAVELIBERTY SAID:

“Personally, I find Muslims as a whole to be intolerant of many basic Western thoughts.”

And a Muslim who finds Christians as a whole to be intolerant of Muslims and Islam would be likewise wrong.