CDZ Muslim Terrorism versus Islamopohobes

[Carla_Danger]

9/11 always seems to be omitted from the equation.

And I think that's fair since Bush and his supporters always explain how Bush kept us safe since 9-11.

 

[saveliberty]

Care to be more specific?

Sure, point was the infighting conservatives and liberals have make addressing the situation that much harder. Having honest and productive discussions may help. We did that here for the most part. Would you like to participate in that, or make thinly veiled personal attacks?

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Most Christians are not intolerant of Western thought.

 

[Coyote]

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.

I try to look at facts, not conjecture, in order to form my opinion and so far you provided no evidence that a majority of Muslims in the US want Sharia to be the law of the land. None. That's not rationalizing - that's looking at the evidence. If evidence (not conjecture) - I'd be happy to look at it.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Care to be more specific?

Sure, point was the infighting conservatives and liberals have make addressing the situation that much harder. Having honest and productive discussions may help. We did that here for the most part. Would you like to participate in that, or make thinly veiled personal attacks?

I have in no way made a personal attack. And asking you to explain your comments in the OP is a perfectly fair question.

Again, what is this 3rd form of hate you bring up in the OP? Please explain. I'm not seeing it. Where is it?

 

[Coyote]

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.

That was a great post - you put everything in the right context - simply wow!!!

In my opinion, the fact that differing standards are consistently being applied to Islam then are to other religions, regardless of the rationalizations - is part of what makes it "Islamphobia" or whatever "ist" term you want to use.

 

[saveliberty]

I have in no way made a personal attack. And asking you to explain your comments in the OP is a perfectly fair question.

Again, what is this 3rd form of hate you bring up in the OP? Please explain.

It was bolded for you and I explained. You are in the CDZ, follow the rules.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

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.

Actually, they are following the direct example of Mohammad.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

When Mohammad invaded people's lands, he was actually quite adamant about ordering his followers to rape women in front of their husbands before killing the men and taking all that was theirs, for instance. The hadiths even mention that some of the men were reluctant to do that, yet he ordered them to.

 

[Ravi]

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.

That was a great post - you put everything in the right context - simply wow!!!

In my opinion, the fact that differing standards are consistently being applied to Islam then are to other religions, regardless of the rationalizations - is part of what makes it "Islamphobia" or whatever "ist" term you want to use.

I agree. The fact of the matter is that her points fall on deaf ears. Christianity affects American's everyday lives way more than Islam does.

 

[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."


.

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.

Indeed, and that is the very topic of the thread I'm evidently not allowed to link to: Why are the very people who attack Christians and Christianity with such passion and frequency, who are so willing and ready to paint them with such a broad brush, so completely tolerant of another religion?

And, of course, a religion that is even MORE antithetical to their beliefs than the one they attack?

And even more, a religion that includes groups that are wreaking havoc, terrorism and pain all around the world, right now, as you read this? A religion with adherents who would be more than happy to slaughter my beautiful children today, simply because they don't share religions?

That's a pretty fair and appropriate set of questions right there.
.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I have in no way made a personal attack. And asking you to explain your comments in the OP is a perfectly fair question.

Again, what is this 3rd form of hate you bring up in the OP? Please explain.

It was bolded for you and I explained. You are in the CDZ, follow the rules.

No, I asked a fair question and you refuse to debate what's in your OP. If you think I'm in violation of the rules, please hit the report button.

You stated that you find Muslims as a whole to be intolerant, but since you're lumping them all together, aren't you guilty of being intolerant as well?

 

[saveliberty]

No, I asked a fair question and you refuse to debate what's in your OP. If you think I'm in violation of the rules, please hit the report button.

You stated that you find Muslims as a whole to be intolerant, but since you're lumping them all together, aren't you guilty of being intolerant as well?

You asked about the third hate. Now you bait and switch to the first category, while ignoring I acknowledged the second as valid as well.

Your logical fallacy really needs no comment.

 

[Carla_Danger]

No, I asked a fair question and you refuse to debate what's in your OP. If you think I'm in violation of the rules, please hit the report button.

You stated that you find Muslims as a whole to be intolerant, but since you're lumping them all together, aren't you guilty of being intolerant as well?

You asked about the third hate. Now you bait and switch to the first category, while ignoring I acknowledged the second as valid as well.

Your logical fallacy really needs no comment.

I'm still not clear on this 3rd form of hate you claimed we'd all see throughout the thread. I'm not seeing it, and you are refusing to debate what's in your OP.

Again, my questions have been totally fair and on topic.

 

[Mac1958]

9/11 always seems to be omitted from the equation.

Yeah, funny how that works. Not unlike accidentally deleting the word "illegal" from the term "illegal aliens." It's impossible to communicate with people who refuse to be honest, and it's impossible to solve problems when there is no communication.

It seems to me that authoritarian leftists operate under the principle that as long as they stand little probability of being a victim, other people's deaths really don't matter at all. The important issue is conforming to the authoritarian left group think.

I do believe that could be an element, as well. And part of that is the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" element, even though that friend is what it is.
.

 

[pillars]

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.

Most Christians are not intolerant of Western thought.

Come to North Carolina. You will see something completely different.

 

[saveliberty]

9/11 always seems to be omitted from the equation.

Yeah, funny how that works. Not unlike accidentally deleting the word "illegal" from the term "illegal aliens." It's impossible to communicate with people who refuse to be honest, and it's impossible to solve problems when there is no communication.

It seems to me that authoritarian leftists operate under the principle that as long as they stand little probability of being a victim, other people's deaths really don't matter at all. The important issue is conforming to the authoritarian left group think.

I do believe that could be an element, as well. And part of that is the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" element, even though that friend is what it is.
.

I think a good amount of honest discussion was had here. Not sure how making a confrontational statement promotes communication.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Ok, your case was made by looking at what most American Muslim's believe (that Sharia is God's word) and extrapolating from that in order to claim that therefore, most American Muslims believe that Sharia should be the law of the land (ie overrule the Constitution). There's a big gap in there that needs to be jumped.

Here's some of Pew's poll on American Muslims: Section 5: Political Opinions and Social Values

None of the questions specifically ask about Sharia, however - there are a number of questions that ask about their views on topics that can be connected to Sharia (for example women's roles, homosexuality etc.):

Muslim Americans hold more conservative views than the general public about gays and lesbians. However, they have become more accepting of homosexuality since 2007.

Today, Muslim Americans are more divided on this question: 39% say homosexuality should be accepted, while 45% say it should be discouraged. Four years ago, far more said homosexuality should be discouraged (61%) than accepted (27%).


The broader public has become more accepting of homosexuality as well. Currently, 58% say homosexuality should be accepted, while 33% say it should be discouraged. In 2006, about half (51%) said homosexuality should be accepted, while 38% said it should be discouraged.


The changes since 2007 are evident across most demographic groups of Muslim Americans. One exception, though, is older Muslim Americans. Four years ago, 22% of this group said homosexuality should be accepted. Today, 21% say this. The next oldest age group – those 40 to 54 – are almost evenly divided (43% say homosexuality should be accepted; 47% say it should be discouraged). Four years ago, 69% of this group said homosexuality should be discouraged.


Acceptance of homosexuality has risen significantly among those with high levels of religious commitment (from 16% in 2007 to 30% today) as well as those with medium levels of religious commitment (from 21% in 2007 to 37% today). However, those who express a low level of religious commitment continue to be more accepting (57%) than those with a high religious commitment (30%). Four years ago, 47% of those with low religious commitment said homosexuality should be accepted, compared with 16% among those who express a high commitment.


Whether Muslim Americans were born in the U.S. or immigrated here seems to make little difference in views toward homosexuality. Currently, 41% of the native born say homosexuality should be accepted, about the same as the 38% of foreign born who say this. In both cases, the numbers are up since 2007 (30% among the native born, 26% among the foreign born).​

Though overall Islam remains more conservative on this issue, it reflects the same trends as the general population over all, and the gap isn't huge and is closing. Compare this with countries, like Egypt or Afghanistan where there is a strong belief in that Sharia should be law of the land and a high intolerance for homosexuality.

The second area where adherence to a strict model of Sharia exerts an influence that is antithetical to western values is in the role of women, and here again we see distinct differences between Muslims in America and Muslims in the Middle East.

Nearly seven-in-ten U.S. Muslims (68%) say gender makes no difference in the quality of political leaders. Still, about a quarter (27%) say men make better political leaders. Very few (4%) say women make better leaders. There are only slight differences in views on this between men and women and among various age groups.

Among the U.S. public, 72% say gender does not determine who will be the better political leader. About one-in-ten each say men (12%) or women (13%) make better leaders.
​

On women working outside the home:

Muslim Americans show strong support for allowing women to join the workforce. Nine-in-ten either completely (72%) or mostly agree (18%) that women should be able to work outside the home. Among the U.S. general public, almost all either completely (81%) or mostly (16%) agree with this.

Attitudes among Muslim Americans are similar to attitudes among Muslims in Lebanon and Turkey. But support for women working outside the home is considerably smaller in many other Muslim nations. For example, in Egypt, only about six-in-ten say they either completely agree (23%) or mostly agree (39%) that women should be allowed to work outside the home. About four-in-ten (39%) disagree.​

A few other takeaways from the poll:

• Support for Islamic extremism is negligable.

• Muslim Americans are religious, but not dogmatic (Many Muslim Americans are highly religious: 69% say that religion is very important in their lives; 70% of Christians say that religion is very important in their lives)

Overwhelming numbers of Muslim Americans believe in Allah (96%), the Prophet Muhammad (96%) and the Day of Judgment (92%). Yet the survey finds that most reject a dogmatic approach to religion. Most Muslim Americans (57%) say there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of Islam; far fewer (37%) say that there is only one true interpretation of Islam. Similarly, 56% of Muslim Americans say that many different religions can lead to eternal life; just 35% say that Islam is the one true faith that leads to eternal life.

In this respect, Muslim Americans differ from many of their counterparts in the Muslim world and are similar to U.S. Christians. In the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s 2007 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, 28% of Christians said that there was only one way to interpret the teachings of their religion.​

• On wearing a hijab:

About a third of Muslim American women (36%) report always wearing the headcover or hijab whenever they are out in public, and an additional 24% say they wear the hijab most or some of the time. Four-in-ten (40%) say they never wear the headcover.​

• On assimilation:

A majority of Muslim Americans (56%) say that most Muslims coming to the U.S. today want to adopt American customs and ways of life. Far fewer (20%) say that most Muslims coming to the U.S. want to be distinct from the larger American society, with a similar number (16%) volunteering that Muslim immigrants want to do both. Native-born and foreign-born Muslims give similar answers to this question.

More than six-in-ten American Muslims (63%) see no conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society, twice the number who do see such a conflict (31%). A 2006 Pew Research survey found a nearly identical pattern among American Christians who were asked about a possible conflict between modernity and their own faith. Nearly two-thirds of Christians (64%) said there is no conflict between being a devout Christian and living in a modern society, compared with 31% who did perceive a conflict.​

When ask, who you are:

When you look at all this, as one big picture - two things stand out. There isn't a huge difference between American Muslims and American Christians (ie - the mainstream majority in the US).

The second thing is - it's impossible to reconcile these views with a desire to have Sharia be the law of the land by even a significant minority much less a majority.