CDZ Muslim Terrorism versus Islamopohobes

[saveliberty]

Coyote's point still stands. The majority of Christians disavow affiliation with Westboro. Even though the majority of Islamics aren't terrorists and aren't loyal to them, you still hold them accountable for terrorism in a way you do not hold Christians responsible for Westboro.

Oh I think the Baptists should be held accountable. Of course they may have and Westboro just refuses to drop the name. Time to Google again. Yes, unaffiliated. So no Christian group can discipline them, all they can do is counter protest, which they do.

 

[Coyote]

Okay. I doubt anybody who sees it as I see it would be a 'credible expert' on this subject in many eyes. Not that I ever claimed to be an expert. But do feel free to post your evidence to rebut my view that the Qu'ran, supplemented by the Hadith, is the basis for Sharia Law. I really doubt you will find much though.

Why would I need to rebut that? My agreement will still not make your position logically coherent.

Let's start here: I am not quibbling with experts, I am expressing that your opinion on the subject is not very convincing without evidence.

And instead of providing evidence of your original claim, you have fallen back on ergo decedo fallacy. That is your choice, but it does not further your argument.

I agree that the Quran is the basis for sharia law, but believing the Quran is the inspired word of God does not equate to wanting to make it law in the U.S.

Your position is an appeal to probability fallacy, and thus, also does not make your case. You want to say if A is true, B must also be true, but A and B are not necessarily one and the same.

Out of curiosity, do you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God? If so, do you believe we should use Old Testament legal codes as the basis for law in the U.S.?

You don't seem to see it, but that's the same logical correlation you are drawing.

Most of the guidelines indicated in the Sharia law are sourced from the Quran which is the Holy Scripture for Islam followers. The other basis for the Sharia law is the actual practice of the prophet Muhammad as indicated in the Sunnah.

All moral and/or religious codes associated with Sharia law were established after the death of Muhammad. In the past, Muhammad’s ways were revered and deemed as the perfect example for Muslims in terms of a way of life and practices. The word “sharia” itself literally translates to “pathway to be followed.” With this concept, Islam followers are to follow the path of righteousness as demonstrated by the practice of Muhammad. Aside from Muhammad’s life, the Quran also lends various provisions and guidelines to Sharia law. The Quran is touted as the word of God, and so many cultural laws and standards are based on this particular book.

Read more: What is Islamic Sharia Law | What is? http://www.qwhatis.com/what-is-islamic-sharia-law/#ixzz49FjeOMbs

Confirms both parties agreement on origin.

If Muslims want Sharia Law in the US they are super stealthy, because google was no help in finding where real attempts have been made to establish courts in the US.

Exactly...it's a bogeyman.

 

[saveliberty]

I still see these side arguments as avoidance to creating solutions. Excuses and blame never solved anything. Endless arguing is the road to ruin.

 

[saveliberty]

Exactly...it's a bogeyman.

Really? Another religion gets thrown in the mix?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote's point still stands. The majority of Christians disavow affiliation with Westboro. Even though the majority of Islamics aren't terrorists and aren't loyal to them, you still hold them accountable for terrorism in a way you do not hold Christians responsible for Westboro.

Oh I think the Baptists should be held accountable. Of course they may have and Westboro just refuses to drop the name. Time to Google again. Yes, unaffiliated. So no Christian group can discipline them, all they can do is counter protest, which they do.

See...I don't think so. For example - politicians can't control who endorses them, religions can't really control who claims to be of the faith - they can marginalize them and denounce them, excommicate them (depending on the faith) - but that's it. To expect more is unfair.

 

[Coyote]

Exactly...it's a bogeyman.

Really? Another religion gets thrown in the mix?

The Eternal Shrine of the Beneficent Bogeyman?

 

[saveliberty]

Coyote's point still stands. The majority of Christians disavow affiliation with Westboro. Even though the majority of Islamics aren't terrorists and aren't loyal to them, you still hold them accountable for terrorism in a way you do not hold Christians responsible for Westboro.

Oh I think the Baptists should be held accountable. Of course they may have and Westboro just refuses to drop the name. Time to Google again. Yes, unaffiliated. So no Christian group can discipline them, all they can do is counter protest, which they do.

See...I don't think so. For example - politicians can't control who endorses them, religions can't really control who claims to be of the faith - they can marginalize them and denounce them, excommicate them (depending on the faith) - but that's it. To expect more is unfair.

...and it appears that is exactly what has happened to date. So if Muslims marginalized the terrorist element, denounced them regularly and disciplined them it might be helpful. There are some helpful ideas.

 

[pillars]

Coyote's point still stands. The majority of Christians disavow affiliation with Westboro. Even though the majority of Islamics aren't terrorists and aren't loyal to them, you still hold them accountable for terrorism in a way you do not hold Christians responsible for Westboro.

Oh I think the Baptists should be held accountable. Of course they may have and Westboro just refuses to drop the name. Time to Google again. Yes, unaffiliated. So no Christian group can discipline them, all they can do is counter protest, which they do.

See...I don't think so. For example - politicians can't control who endorses them, religions can't really control who claims to be of the faith - they can marginalize them and denounce them, excommicate them (depending on the faith) - but that's it. To expect more is unfair.

Agreed. It's practically impossible for Christians to control what other Christians do. We just don't hold Christianity to the same standard for having responsibility for all adherents that we do Islam.

I don't blame Christians for Fred Phelps.

I don't blame Islamics for nutjob fundamentalists who blow people up.

I actually think that's a good starting point to doing something productive.

 

[pillars]

...and it appears that is exactly what has happened to date. So if Muslims marginalized the terrorist element, denounced them regularly and disciplined them it might be helpful. There are some helpful ideas.

Muslims have tried to do that. Have you missed the link that I posted that stated that 70,000 muslim clerics have condemned terrorism? But, they can't control what someone from a different branch of their faith in another country does. They don't have the same kind of hierarchy that say, Catholicism does.

And look how difficult it was for Catholicism to deal with pedophile priests WITHIN their hierarchy.

Can you discipline Fred Phelps?

 

[saveliberty]

Agreed. It's practically impossible for Christians to control what other Christians do. We just don't hold Christianity to the same standard for having responsibility for all adherents that we do Islam.

I don't blame Christians for Fred Phelps.

I don't blame Islamics for nutjob fundamentalists who blow people up.

I actually think that's a good starting point to doing something productive.

I think the good starting point was a group of posters having an honest discussion with give and take. For a long time I have felt that is what we need on a national basis. It was nice to see all of you participate. We are a long way from making this a global effort though.

 

[pillars]

I would love to see a global effort, but we can't even get people in my state legislature to stop discriminating against gays and lesbians.

 

[saveliberty]

Muslims have tried to do that. Have you missed the link that I posted that stated that 70,000 muslim clerics have condemned terrorism? But, they can't control what someone from a different branch of their faith in another country does. They don't have the same kind of hierarchy that say, Catholicism does.

And look how difficult it was for Catholicism to deal with pedophile priests WITHIN their hierarchy.

Can you discipline Fred Phelps?

We signed Global Warming treaties too. Putting into practice is another thing all together. Catholic priests are a good example of saying one thing, but not really doing anything about it, unless you count moving problem priests around. Fred Phelps is unaffiliated and apparently protected by free speech rights. I certainly could put a bullet in his head, but that runs counter to being an American and Christian, so ultimately nope.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote's point still stands. The majority of Christians disavow affiliation with Westboro. Even though the majority of Islamics aren't terrorists and aren't loyal to them, you still hold them accountable for terrorism in a way you do not hold Christians responsible for Westboro.

Oh I think the Baptists should be held accountable. Of course they may have and Westboro just refuses to drop the name. Time to Google again. Yes, unaffiliated. So no Christian group can discipline them, all they can do is counter protest, which they do.

See...I don't think so. For example - politicians can't control who endorses them, religions can't really control who claims to be of the faith - they can marginalize them and denounce them, excommicate them (depending on the faith) - but that's it. To expect more is unfair.

...and it appears that is exactly what has happened to date. So if Muslims marginalized the terrorist element, denounced them regularly and disciplined them it might be helpful. There are some helpful ideas.

The thing is they do, but they aren't in the position to "discipline" them - Islam is not a centralized heirarchy like the Catholic Church.

 

[saveliberty]

The thing is they do, but they aren't in the position to "discipline" them - Islam is not a centralized heirarchy like the Catholic Church.

That is a good point, tribalism is big in the ME. Mullahs have a lot of power in their region, so discipline is hard if not impossible. Yet some how terrorists can organize across regions and nations. Something does not add up there.

 

[saveliberty]

Best I could do this week was start a thread about trying to stop terrorists.

 

[pillars]

The thing is they do, but they aren't in the position to "discipline" them - Islam is not a centralized heirarchy like the Catholic Church.

That is a good point, tribalism is big in the ME. Mullahs have a lot of power in their region, so discipline is hard if not impossible. Yet some how terrorists can organize across regions and nations. Something does not add up there.

Terrorist organizations are often non-hierarchical. Read about clandestine cell systems. People share a common ideology, but act mostly autonomously as individuals or small cells that don't know the identities of other cells.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/guidterr/ch03.pdf

I did a lot of research back in the day on homegrown terrorism as a function of my former job.

 

[saveliberty]

I learned, compromised, shared and never once felt like I weakened my principles. Didn't explode or catch on fire either. What's more, I don't think anyone else did either. Two Thumbs might be smoldering a little somebody check that okay? Good night all.

 

[saveliberty]

Terrorist organizations are often non-hierarchical. Read about clandestine cell systems. People share a common ideology, but act mostly autonomously as individuals or small cells that don't know the identities of other cells.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/guidterr/ch03.pdf

I did a lot of research back in the day on homegrown terrorism as a function of my former job.

It shows.

 

[pillars]

Some of you all might enjoy reading this: NOBODY LEAVES HOME UNLESS

It's thought-provoking. My sorority pledge daughter is married to a Somali refugee and shared it with me.

 

[Elvis Obama]

There is nothing to do with backwards people except to manage them. Right now our efforts to manage them have been hamstrung by our dependence on their oil and the interference of rogue powers like Russia and China. Islamaphobes just make the whole process harder. We should call them what they are, a retrograde culture, and neither hate them for their primitivism, nor pretend their primitivism isn't real (No, see, they're waving purple fingers! The must be democratic!).

You said that they are a primitive, backwards culture (with which I agree), but also said that "Islamophobes" make the whole process harder.

Any insinuation that their primitive culture is actually objectionable in any way only elicits calls of "Islamophobia", so I'm not sure I understand your point.

Well, first of all we have to define what we mean by "the process". I said the goal is to manage them. Is a state of constant warfare effective management? So we must manage them. How? Who knows? No one has ever done anything like that before, evolved a primitive culture into a modern culture.

That's the only option, though. Otherwise? What can we do, wipe them out? There's a billion and a half of them. Forgetting the moral implications, it's simply impossible. We don't know how to evolve them, but we have to try and figure it out, and I would not put our efforts so far into a primer on the subject, except as examples of what not to do. We appear to have screwed up our every intervention in the region. We have allowed our anti-Red and big oil interests to interfere with the true mission, which is to make these cultures into tolerable nations. Now? As a result of so many of the screwed up things we've done there, from Sykes-Picot to the overthrow of the Mosaddegh government to Bush's incitement and abandonment of the Kurds, our reputation in the region isn't too good.

I'm not singling out Islamaphobes. I'll give equal, if not greater blame to the bleeding hearts who see the Arabs as oppressed. They are oppressed, by their ignorance and the complete uselessness of their so-called leadership. We've made mistakes there, but we didn't make them backwards nuisances. What we need is a completely dispassionate, detached approach. Not with our hearts brimming over with the milk of human kindness, nor inflamed by hatred of Islam. Yes, there are Islamic terrorists, and these terrorists have support throughout the cultures of the ME, at all levels of society. Yes, these are cultural problems which transcend the idea of lone extremists Nonetheless, if refraining from using the terms "Islamic terrorists" and "clash of cultures" is deemed useful as management tools, then why disparage them? It's like insisting that the keepers of the ape cages at the zoo should be required to poke the apes with a stick. What purpose does that serve? It just gets them riled up and makes the zoo keepers that much less safe (and no, for those who may object to my metaphor, I am not suggesting that Arabs are apes).