Why some Muslims can't say Yes or No

[theliq]

Please TYPE IN........emma alberici interview with wassim doureihi on youtube

Sorry but I have no LINK.....very interesting interview....steve,

 

[Pogo]

What do you mean "can't say yes or no"? What's saying yes or no have to do with religion?

Arabic (which I understand is not "Muslim") definitely has the words.

 

[theliq]

What do you mean "can't say yes or no"? What's saying yes or no have to do with religion?

Arabic (which I understand is not "Muslim") definitely has the words.

?????Have U seen the interview !!!!!!steve....if you have what do you mean

 

[The Professor]

Please TYPE IN........emma alberici interview with wassim doureihi on youtube

Sorry but I have no LINK.....very interesting interview....steve,

Here's the link:

 

[theliq]

Please TYPE IN........emma alberici interview with wassim doureihi on youtube

Sorry but I have no LINK.....very interesting interview....steve,

Here's the link:

You Bloody Diamond.....Proff.,Steve

 

[emilynghiem]

This isn't just a Muslim issue, but happens with politics in general, and is especially noticeable when issues of personal and political beliefs get mixed together.

A lot of politicians can't answer questions with a simple yes or no if they are loaded and need to be clarified. That's what goes wrong with loaded bills in Congress that can't be passed with a simple yay or nay because of garbage added to them.

More reason to keep personal and political beliefs OUT of public policy if we want things to be nice and neat where they can be voted on with a yes or no.

That means NO social legislation, no marriage or abortion debates, no area that requires more explanation than just a yes or no. Get govt out of all that, and just keep personal issues for people and states to discuss and decide on a local level where people and groups can answer for themselves.

Then you won't see this problem so much of putting people on the spot in public, holding them to yes or no, when the problem or policy at hand has much deeper complex implications than that.

 

[Mac1958]

Wow, this guy has absolutely no interest in actually answering questions.

Of course, he answered them indirectly, with this obfuscation.

I suspect there are some here would like his performance.
.

 

[theliq]

This isn't just a Muslim issue, but happens with politics in general, and is especially noticeable when issues of personal and political beliefs get mixed together.

A lot of politicians can't answer questions with a simple yes or no if they are loaded and need to be clarified. That's what goes wrong with loaded bills in Congress that can't be passed with a simple yay or nay because of garbage added to them.

More reason to keep personal and political beliefs OUT of public policy if we want things to be nice and neat where they can be voted on with a yes or no.

That means NO social legislation, no marriage or abortion debates, no area that requires more explanation than just a yes or no. Get govt out of all that, and just keep personal issues for people and states to discuss and decide on a local level where people and groups can answer for themselves.

Then you won't see this problem so much of putting people on the spot in public, holding them to yes or no, when the problem or policy at hand has much deeper complex implications than that.

I agree to a degree but in the end it is either agree or disagree...Ya or Na...st

 

[theliq]

Wow, this guy has absolutely no interest in actually answering questions.

Of course, he answered them indirectly, with this obfuscation.

I suspect there are some here would like his performance.
.

A lot of Pollies(Politicians) but then most are good at it....just not to this extent.st

 

[emilynghiem]

This isn't just a Muslim issue, but happens with politics in general, and is especially noticeable when issues of personal and political beliefs get mixed together.

A lot of politicians can't answer questions with a simple yes or no if they are loaded and need to be clarified. That's what goes wrong with loaded bills in Congress that can't be passed with a simple yay or nay because of garbage added to them.

More reason to keep personal and political beliefs OUT of public policy if we want things to be nice and neat where they can be voted on with a yes or no.

That means NO social legislation, no marriage or abortion debates, no area that requires more explanation than just a yes or no. Get govt out of all that, and just keep personal issues for people and states to discuss and decide on a local level where people and groups can answer for themselves.

Then you won't see this problem so much of putting people on the spot in public, holding them to yes or no, when the problem or policy at hand has much deeper complex implications than that.

I agree to a degree but in the end it is either agree or disagree...Ya or Na...st

Then you need to spell the question out in a specific context
that doesn't imply or implicate any other issue or context.

When crossing over from one context or culture to another,
this may take more effort, even if it seems ridiculously simple.
It may not be. Where multiple and diverse cultures are involved.
Words and contexts in politics and religion carry greater implications
than appear on the surface. It takes a lot more work to make sure people are trying communicating eye to eye where minds are meeting.

Or else you WILL get this -- a bunch of running around in circles...

 

[theliq]

This isn't just a Muslim issue, but happens with politics in general, and is especially noticeable when issues of personal and political beliefs get mixed together.

A lot of politicians can't answer questions with a simple yes or no if they are loaded and need to be clarified. That's what goes wrong with loaded bills in Congress that can't be passed with a simple yay or nay because of garbage added to them.

More reason to keep personal and political beliefs OUT of public policy if we want things to be nice and neat where they can be voted on with a yes or no.

That means NO social legislation, no marriage or abortion debates, no area that requires more explanation than just a yes or no. Get govt out of all that, and just keep personal issues for people and states to discuss and decide on a local level where people and groups can answer for themselves.

Then you won't see this problem so much of putting people on the spot in public, holding them to yes or no, when the problem or policy at hand has much deeper complex implications than that.

I agree to a degree but in the end it is either agree or disagree...Ya or Na...st

Then you need to spell the question out in a specific context
that doesn't imply or implicate any other issue or context.

When crossing over from one context or culture to another,
this may take more effort, even if it seems ridiculously simple.
It may not be. Where multiple and diverse cultures are involved.
Words and contexts in politics and religion carry greater implications
than appear on the surface. It takes a lot more work to make sure people are trying communicating eye to eye where minds are meeting.

Or else you WILL get this -- a bunch of running around in circles...

Considering this Gentleman(NOT) wants to bring in Sharia Law into Australia and is head of an Islamic Cult,Which Influences young men to fight in Battle Zones.Islamic..then simple questions should be asked and Answered clearly and openly...He deliberately avoided every question,you and he may think its OK to Fanny Around like this,muddying the water...You may wish to explain what commentary the interviewer SHOULD have done in this instance,or myself for that matter,to this self confessed supporter of ISIS and provider of young men to fight with them.

Let me tell you Emily....None of these overseas impressional fighters will never be able to return to this country....therefore what would you do to people like this Guy....the purveyor of young men to fight,who incidentally have a shelf life of 16 weeks when they get to the Battle Zones,your platitudes and attitude are incapable of comprehending the implications.

You are one of these self-righteous,self opinionated people who just argue for the sake of being arguementative,we will gladly pay his are fare to the US and let him live in your community.Maybe that is Clear Enough Context For You...st

 

[emilynghiem]

This isn't just a Muslim issue, but happens with politics in general, and is especially noticeable when issues of personal and political beliefs get mixed together.

A lot of politicians can't answer questions with a simple yes or no if they are loaded and need to be clarified. That's what goes wrong with loaded bills in Congress that can't be passed with a simple yay or nay because of garbage added to them.

More reason to keep personal and political beliefs OUT of public policy if we want things to be nice and neat where they can be voted on with a yes or no.

That means NO social legislation, no marriage or abortion debates, no area that requires more explanation than just a yes or no. Get govt out of all that, and just keep personal issues for people and states to discuss and decide on a local level where people and groups can answer for themselves.

Then you won't see this problem so much of putting people on the spot in public, holding them to yes or no, when the problem or policy at hand has much deeper complex implications than that.

I agree to a degree but in the end it is either agree or disagree...Ya or Na...st

Then you need to spell the question out in a specific context
that doesn't imply or implicate any other issue or context.

When crossing over from one context or culture to another,
this may take more effort, even if it seems ridiculously simple.
It may not be. Where multiple and diverse cultures are involved.
Words and contexts in politics and religion carry greater implications
than appear on the surface. It takes a lot more work to make sure people are trying communicating eye to eye where minds are meeting.

Or else you WILL get this -- a bunch of running around in circles...

Considering this Gentleman wants to bring in Sharia Law into Australia and head of a Islamic Cult,Which Influences young men to fight in Battle Zones.Islamic..then simple questions should be asked and Answered clearly and openly...He deliberately avoided every question,you and he may think its OK to Fanny Around like this,muddying the water...You may wish to explain what comm

I didn't say it was okay.
I am saying when you mix religion and politics, beliefs with public policy, you are going to muddy the waters. Then you can't see clear.

So if you want transparency, don't mix personal/relative issues with public policy IN THE FIRST PLACE. Keep govt NEUTRAL where we don't introduce complications. Keep all the religious and political beliefs in private with groups that can tend to their own.

 

[theliq]

This isn't just a Muslim issue, but happens with politics in general, and is especially noticeable when issues of personal and political beliefs get mixed together.

A lot of politicians can't answer questions with a simple yes or no if they are loaded and need to be clarified. That's what goes wrong with loaded bills in Congress that can't be passed with a simple yay or nay because of garbage added to them.

More reason to keep personal and political beliefs OUT of public policy if we want things to be nice and neat where they can be voted on with a yes or no.

That means NO social legislation, no marriage or abortion debates, no area that requires more explanation than just a yes or no. Get govt out of all that, and just keep personal issues for people and states to discuss and decide on a local level where people and groups can answer for themselves.

Then you won't see this problem so much of putting people on the spot in public, holding them to yes or no, when the problem or policy at hand has much deeper complex implications than that.

I agree to a degree but in the end it is either agree or disagree...Ya or Na...st

Then you need to spell the question out in a specific context
that doesn't imply or implicate any other issue or context.

When crossing over from one context or culture to another,
this may take more effort, even if it seems ridiculously simple.
It may not be. Where multiple and diverse cultures are involved.
Words and contexts in politics and religion carry greater implications
than appear on the surface. It takes a lot more work to make sure people are trying communicating eye to eye where minds are meeting.

Or else you WILL get this -- a bunch of running around in circles...

Considering this Gentleman wants to bring in Sharia Law into Australia and head of a Islamic Cult,Which Influences young men to fight in Battle Zones.Islamic..then simple questions should be asked and Answered clearly and openly...He deliberately avoided every question,you and he may think its OK to Fanny Around like this,muddying the water...You may wish to explain what comm

I didn't say it was okay.
I am saying when you mix religion and politics, beliefs with public policy, you are going to muddy the waters. Then you can't see clear.

So if you want transparency, don't mix personal/relative issues with public policy IN THE FIRST PLACE. Keep govt NEUTRAL where we don't introduce complications. Keep all the religious and political beliefs in private with groups that can tend to their own.

Read the rest of my text.....and in response to this post..there is no complication with ISIS....we are either vigilant or we are in danger of having our heads cut off...We are dealing with Madmen here....and as a footnote,they don't give a Rats Ass about anyone and Happily Slaughter Muslims and all who stand in their way...steven

 

[theliq]

This isn't just a Muslim issue, but happens with politics in general, and is especially noticeable when issues of personal and political beliefs get mixed together.

A lot of politicians can't answer questions with a simple yes or no if they are loaded and need to be clarified. That's what goes wrong with loaded bills in Congress that can't be passed with a simple yay or nay because of garbage added to them.

More reason to keep personal and political beliefs OUT of public policy if we want things to be nice and neat where they can be voted on with a yes or no.

That means NO social legislation, no marriage or abortion debates, no area that requires more explanation than just a yes or no. Get govt out of all that, and just keep personal issues for people and states to discuss and decide on a local level where people and groups can answer for themselves.

Then you won't see this problem so much of putting people on the spot in public, holding them to yes or no, when the problem or policy at hand has much deeper complex implications than that.

I agree to a degree but in the end it is either agree or disagree...Ya or Na...st

Then you need to spell the question out in a specific context
that doesn't imply or implicate any other issue or context.

When crossing over from one context or culture to another,
this may take more effort, even if it seems ridiculously simple.
It may not be. Where multiple and diverse cultures are involved.
Words and contexts in politics and religion carry greater implications
than appear on the surface. It takes a lot more work to make sure people are trying communicating eye to eye where minds are meeting.

Or else you WILL get this -- a bunch of running around in circles...

Considering this Gentleman wants to bring in Sharia Law into Australia and head of a Islamic Cult,Which Influences young men to fight in Battle Zones.Islamic..then simple questions should be asked and Answered clearly and openly...He deliberately avoided every question,you and he may think its OK to Fanny Around like this,muddying the water...You may wish to explain what comm

I didn't say it was okay.
I am saying when you mix religion and politics, beliefs with public policy, you are going to muddy the waters. Then you can't see clear.

So if you want transparency, don't mix personal/relative issues with public policy IN THE FIRST PLACE. Keep govt NEUTRAL where we don't introduce complications. Keep all the religious and political beliefs in private with groups that can tend to their own.

Read the rest of my text.....and in response to this post..there is no complication with ISIS....we are either vigilant or we are in danger of having our heads cut off...We are dealing with Madmen here....and as a footnote,they don't give a Rats Ass about anyone and Happily Slaughter Muslims and all who stand in their way...steven FCUK TRANSPARENCY WE KNOW WHERE WE STAND WITH THESE PEOPLE and the Guy in the vid., as cultured as he sounds is a Typical Exponent

 

[theliq]

This isn't just a Muslim issue, but happens with politics in general, and is especially noticeable when issues of personal and political beliefs get mixed together.

A lot of politicians can't answer questions with a simple yes or no if they are loaded and need to be clarified. That's what goes wrong with loaded bills in Congress that can't be passed with a simple yay or nay because of garbage added to them.

More reason to keep personal and political beliefs OUT of public policy if we want things to be nice and neat where they can be voted on with a yes or no.

That means NO social legislation, no marriage or abortion debates, no area that requires more explanation than just a yes or no. Get govt out of all that, and just keep personal issues for people and states to discuss and decide on a local level where people and groups can answer for themselves.

Then you won't see this problem so much of putting people on the spot in public, holding them to yes or no, when the problem or policy at hand has much deeper complex implications than that.

I agree to a degree but in the end it is either agree or disagree...Ya or Na...st

Then you need to spell the question out in a specific context
that doesn't imply or implicate any other issue or context.

When crossing over from one context or culture to another,
this may take more effort, even if it seems ridiculously simple.
It may not be. Where multiple and diverse cultures are involved.
Words and contexts in politics and religion carry greater implications
than appear on the surface. It takes a lot more work to make sure people are trying communicating eye to eye where minds are meeting.

Or else you WILL get this -- a bunch of running around in circles...

Considering this Gentleman wants to bring in Sharia Law into Australia and head of a Islamic Cult,Which Influences young men to fight in Battle Zones.Islamic..then simple questions should be asked and Answered clearly and openly...He deliberately avoided every question,you and he may think its OK to Fanny Around like this,muddying the water...You may wish to explain what comm

I didn't say it was okay.
I am saying when you mix religion and politics, beliefs with public policy, you are going to muddy the waters. Then you can't see clear.

So if you want transparency, don't mix personal/relative issues with public policy IN THE FIRST PLACE. Keep govt NEUTRAL where we don't introduce complications. Keep all the religious and political beliefs in private with groups that can tend to their own.

Read the rest of my text.....and in response to this post..there is no complication with ISIS....we are either vigilant or we are in danger of having our heads cut off...We are dealing with Madmen here....and as a footnote,they don't give a Rats Ass about anyone and Happily Slaughter Muslims and all who stand in their way...steven FCUK TRANSPARENCY WE KNOW WHERE WE STAND WITH THESE PEOPLE and the Guy in the vid., as cultured as he sounds is a Typical Exponent

 

[theliq]

This isn't just a Muslim issue, but happens with politics in general, and is especially noticeable when issues of personal and political beliefs get mixed together.

A lot of politicians can't answer questions with a simple yes or no if they are loaded and need to be clarified. That's what goes wrong with loaded bills in Congress that can't be passed with a simple yay or nay because of garbage added to them.

More reason to keep personal and political beliefs OUT of public policy if we want things to be nice and neat where they can be voted on with a yes or no.

That means NO social legislation, no marriage or abortion debates, no area that requires more explanation than just a yes or no. Get govt out of all that, and just keep personal issues for people and states to discuss and decide on a local level where people and groups can answer for themselves.

Then you won't see this problem so much of putting people on the spot in public, holding them to yes or no, when the problem or policy at hand has much deeper complex implications than that.

I agree to a degree but in the end it is either agree or disagree...Ya or Na...st

Then you need to spell the question out in a specific context
that doesn't imply or implicate any other issue or context.

When crossing over from one context or culture to another,
this may take more effort, even if it seems ridiculously simple.
It may not be. Where multiple and diverse cultures are involved.
Words and contexts in politics and religion carry greater implications
than appear on the surface. It takes a lot more work to make sure people are trying communicating eye to eye where minds are meeting.

Or else you WILL get this -- a bunch of running around in circles...

Considering this Gentleman wants to bring in Sharia Law into Australia and head of a Islamic Cult,Which Influences young men to fight in Battle Zones.Islamic..then simple questions should be asked and Answered clearly and openly...He deliberately avoided every question,you and he may think its OK to Fanny Around like this,muddying the water...You may wish to explain what comm

I didn't say it was okay.
I am saying when you mix religion and politics, beliefs with public policy, you are going to muddy the waters. Then you can't see clear.

So if you want transparency, don't mix personal/relative issues with public policy IN THE FIRST PLACE. Keep govt NEUTRAL where we don't introduce complications. Keep all the religious and political beliefs in private with groups that can tend to their own.

Read the rest of my text.....and in response to this post..there is no complication with ISIS....we are either vigilant or we are in danger of having our heads cut off...We are dealing with Madmen here....and as a footnote,they don't give a Rats Ass about anyone and Happily Slaughter Muslims and all who stand in their way...steven FCUK TRANSPARENCY WE KNOW WHERE WE STAND WITH THESE PEOPLE and the Guy in the vid., as cultured as he sounds is a Typical Exponent

 

[emilynghiem]

This isn't just a Muslim issue, but happens with politics in general, and is especially noticeable when issues of personal and political beliefs get mixed together.

A lot of politicians can't answer questions with a simple yes or no if they are loaded and need to be clarified. That's what goes wrong with loaded bills in Congress that can't be passed with a simple yay or nay because of garbage added to them.

More reason to keep personal and political beliefs OUT of public policy if we want things to be nice and neat where they can be voted on with a yes or no.

That means NO social legislation, no marriage or abortion debates, no area that requires more explanation than just a yes or no. Get govt out of all that, and just keep personal issues for people and states to discuss and decide on a local level where people and groups can answer for themselves.

Then you won't see this problem so much of putting people on the spot in public, holding them to yes or no, when the problem or policy at hand has much deeper complex implications than that.

I agree to a degree but in the end it is either agree or disagree...Ya or Na...st

Then you need to spell the question out in a specific context
that doesn't imply or implicate any other issue or context.

When crossing over from one context or culture to another,
this may take more effort, even if it seems ridiculously simple.
It may not be. Where multiple and diverse cultures are involved.
Words and contexts in politics and religion carry greater implications
than appear on the surface. It takes a lot more work to make sure people are trying communicating eye to eye where minds are meeting.

Or else you WILL get this -- a bunch of running around in circles...

Considering this Gentleman wants to bring in Sharia Law into Australia and head of a Islamic Cult,Which Influences young men to fight in Battle Zones.Islamic..then simple questions should be asked and Answered clearly and openly...He deliberately avoided every question,you and he may think its OK to Fanny Around like this,muddying the water...You may wish to explain what comm

I didn't say it was okay.
I am saying when you mix religion and politics, beliefs with public policy, you are going to muddy the waters. Then you can't see clear.

So if you want transparency, don't mix personal/relative issues with public policy IN THE FIRST PLACE. Keep govt NEUTRAL where we don't introduce complications. Keep all the religious and political beliefs in private with groups that can tend to their own.

Read the rest of my text.....and in response to this post..there is no complication with ISIS....we are either vigilant or we are in danger of having our heads cut off...We are dealing with Madmen here....and as a footnote,they don't give a Rats Ass about anyone and Happily Slaughter Muslims and all who stand in their way...steven FCUK TRANSPARENCY WE KNOW WHERE WE STAND WITH THESE PEOPLE and the Guy in the vid., as cultured as he sounds is a Typical Exponent

Dear theliq with religions and political religions,
that's why govt's need to have strong Constitutional principles and enforcement.

if you let political cults hijack and takeover govt
WITH NO RESPECT FOR DUE PROCESS AND
SEPARATIONS OF POWERS/CHECKS AND BALANCES
you will get a chaotic oppressive mess. that's why the Founders
took the core principles of democratic self-government
and wrote those into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

With Islam in particular, the TRUE and Complete teachings CALL FOR believers to respect ALL sent by God, all prophets and laws,
which means the BIBLE the TORAH and the QURAN,
the Jewish, the Christians and the Muslims.

The truly faithful Muslims embrace and respect all laws and all people under these laws.
And since the Muslims following the Bible also are THEREBY called to civil obedience to secular laws and institutions, the true believers will obey civil authority and will comply as part of their faith.

It's the lawless antichrist approach that takes laws and 'twists' them to be self-serving for personal or political control.

So to check against such abuses BEFORE they escalate, this requires correction and enforcement using either the principles and laws in the Constitution for secular matters and audiences, or the principles and laws in Christianity and the Bible to rebuke believers.

This is most effectively done "one on one," in addressing the specific person directly, in order to stay within that context and make corrections using that framework. Then you will get a straight answer and can formulate a solution, by addressing that context.

It's when people come at each other from different contexts,
it's too easy to talk past each other and never see eye to eye.
And once an issue gets politicized and past the point of negotiation, we lose that window we could have used to communicate; and then we are stuck with just war strategies and attacks back and forth.

The solutions I am talking about are on the level of PREVENTION

theliq you are talking about afterwards, when the attacks and oppression have escalated to invoke military intervention.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

That means NO social legislation, no marriage or abortion debates, no area that requires more explanation than just a yes or no. Get govt out of all that, and just keep personal issues for people and states to discuss and decide on a local level where people and groups can answer for themselves.

Oh, not this again!

It's the LEFT that molds new social law. The conservatives only REACT (such as the left changing the def of marriage. Legalizing the murder of the unborn).

I'm sick of the libertarian going after the Conservative for the sins of the left.

The truth is the lib(ertarian) agrees with the immoral lib(real).

 

[emilynghiem]

That means NO social legislation, no marriage or abortion debates, no area that requires more explanation than just a yes or no. Get govt out of all that, and just keep personal issues for people and states to discuss and decide on a local level where people and groups can answer for themselves.

Oh, not this again!

It's the LEFT that molds new social law. The conservatives only REACT (such as the left changing the def of marriage. Legalizing the murder of the unborn).

I'm sick of the libertarian going after the Conservative for the sins of the left.

The truth is the lib(ertarian) agrees with the immoral lib(real).

???
I don't find true libertarian Constitutionalists agreeing with either the left or the right as long as the marriage laws are still imposed through govt. The true Constitutionalists are asking to remove marriage from govt and just keep neutral "civil union" contracts.

Same with health care through federal govt.

I see people of all parties demanding their own "religious freedom" or "freedom of choice" when it comes to THEIR political beliefs.
but all seem to fall short when it comes to respecting the same of others.

So no, I don't think any one person or set of principles agrees fully with any other person or group "on all points."

Because some people and groups may ALIGN here and there,
is that what gives you the impression that they are enforcing
either one side or the other? Somehow I don't think it's clear cut.

 

[theliq]

I agree to a degree but in the end it is either agree or disagree...Ya or Na...st

Then you need to spell the question out in a specific context
that doesn't imply or implicate any other issue or context.

When crossing over from one context or culture to another,
this may take more effort, even if it seems ridiculously simple.
It may not be. Where multiple and diverse cultures are involved.
Words and contexts in politics and religion carry greater implications
than appear on the surface. It takes a lot more work to make sure people are trying communicating eye to eye where minds are meeting.

Or else you WILL get this -- a bunch of running around in circles...

Considering this Gentleman wants to bring in Sharia Law into Australia and head of a Islamic Cult,Which Influences young men to fight in Battle Zones.Islamic..then simple questions should be asked and Answered clearly and openly...He deliberately avoided every question,you and he may think its OK to Fanny Around like this,muddying the water...You may wish to explain what comm

I didn't say it was okay.
I am saying when you mix religion and politics, beliefs with public policy, you are going to muddy the waters. Then you can't see clear.

So if you want transparency, don't mix personal/relative issues with public policy IN THE FIRST PLACE. Keep govt NEUTRAL where we don't introduce complications. Keep all the religious and political beliefs in private with groups that can tend to their own.

Read the rest of my text.....and in response to this post..there is no complication with ISIS....we are either vigilant or we are in danger of having our heads cut off...We are dealing with Madmen here....and as a footnote,they don't give a Rats Ass about anyone and Happily Slaughter Muslims and all who stand in their way...steven FCUK TRANSPARENCY WE KNOW WHERE WE STAND WITH THESE PEOPLE and the Guy in the vid., as cultured as he sounds is a Typical Exponent

Dear theliq with religions and political religions,
that's why govt's need to have strong Constitutional principles and enforcement.

if you let political cults hijack and takeover govt
WITH NO RESPECT FOR DUE PROCESS AND
SEPARATIONS OF POWERS/CHECKS AND BALANCES
you will get a chaotic oppressive mess. that's why the Founders
took the core principles of democratic self-government
and wrote those into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

With Islam in particular, the TRUE and Complete teachings CALL FOR believers to respect ALL sent by God, all prophets and laws,
which means the BIBLE the TORAH and the QURAN,
the Jewish, the Christians and the Muslims.

The truly faithful Muslims embrace and respect all laws and all people under these laws.
And since the Muslims following the Bible also are THEREBY called to civil obedience to secular laws and institutions, the true believers will obey civil authority and will comply as part of their faith.

It's the lawless antichrist approach that takes laws and 'twists' them to be self-serving for personal or political control.

So to check against such abuses BEFORE they escalate, this requires correction and enforcement using either the principles and laws in the Constitution for secular matters and audiences, or the principles and laws in Christianity and the Bible to rebuke believers.

This is most effectively done "one on one," in addressing the specific person directly, in order to stay within that context and make corrections using that framework. Then you will get a straight answer and can formulate a solution, by addressing that context.

It's when people come at each other from different contexts,
it's too easy to talk past each other and never see eye to eye.
And once an issue gets politicized and past the point of negotiation, we lose that window we could have used to communicate; and then we are stuck with just war strategies and attacks back and forth.

The solutions I am talking about are on the level of PREVENTION

theliq you are talking about afterwards, when the attacks and oppression have escalated to invoke military intervention.

Excellent Post in the main Emily steve..