Senate Revolution in the Muslim World

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Lowbacca_1977, Jan 28, 2011.

  1. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Many of them don't understand that. They don't have the same freedom there that we've enjoyed here for a long time.

    And it absolutely shouldn't be viewed as "Islamic culture is wrong, Western culture is right." The argument should be "Islamic culture is compatible with these rights and freedoms. This isn't Western culture trying to overthrow Islamic culture, these are universal human rights that can exist in Islamic countries too."

    In Turkey, it just became legal for women to wear veils in public. There's a whole, wide spectrum of Islamist political ideology. And see above.


    A small and savage group carried out the attacks. Of course there is a line between Al Qaeda and the general Muslim population!

    And I'm not even sure what the second part of the quote has to do with anything. And the Qu'ran does not have an overwhelmingly negative attitude toward non-Muslims, in fact there are laws on how to treat them right. And Mohammed encouraged kindness, and discouraged the "macho" violent attitude that afflicts many cultures.

    You're now starting to sound like a radical. You know you're condeming over 1 billion people, right? And it's very hypocritical of you to be so angry about the drone strikes, while at the same time saying that all Muslims are just as good as Al Qaeda.

    Did you even read what I wrote?

    You're generalizing and condemning an entire population.

    Why do you want a clash of civilizations? Why do you want to start a "holy war" between the West and Islam? Why do you want the fears of the crazy, extremist, Muslim terrorist leaders to come true? See what I wrote to Alpha-Red above in this post.

    Bush, McCain, Palin, Romney... no credible politician has gone as far as you're proposing. Maybe just Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain.

    Of course. And they obviously don't live in a free society yet. Nobody is saying that they do. Or that what they're doing is excusable.


    They have. Did you miss it on the last page?

    Scholars have. People don't pay as much attention to that. Everytime an abortion doctor is killed in the United States, do you see thousands of Christians writing theological papers on why that was wrong? Or when some Christian fundamentalist follows the Old Testament laws, do you see thousands of Christians thinking they are responsible, and feeling they need to theologically argue the counterpoint? You have a double standard.
    Last edited by Darth-Ghost, Sep 14, 2012
  2. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    Very impressive. The condemnations draw on such a litany of Islamic primary sources and destined to provide widespread seminal rationale against Islamic terrorism for years to come

    "Lying for the Lord" is a fairly common and well-known practice among LDS Missionaries; that is, not revealing some of the more outlandish, bizarre, and perhaps unpalatable tenets of the faith to outsiders and potential conflicts, in order to maintain the church's public image. It's metaphysically impossible that Muslims might also engage in this practice, even though it's actually a divinely mandated and widely institutionalized practice in Islam('Taqiyya')

    I'm glad to see Sheikh Qaradawi was a signatory of the first statement, though. He is quite a venerable figure--advocating for, among other things: death to apostates and homosexuals, the right of Muslim men to beat their wife(but only lightly is his caveat), has openly declared his admiration for Hitler and the Nazi regime, and has stated his life's wish is to die as a suicide bomber in a wheelchair against the Zionist entity.
    Last edited by Condition2SQ, Sep 14, 2012
  3. Lord_Hydronium Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 11, 2002
    star 5
    "Show me Muslim leaders condemning terrorism!"

    "No, those don't count, they're probably lying anyway."
    Ender_Sai, PointGiven and Darth-Ghost like this.
  4. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
  5. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
  6. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    While I too am concerned about radical Islam, I think we have to be careful we don't go too far and turn this into another red scare.

    Some of the GOP bugnuts like Bachmann have already gone down that path and all it leads too is more government intervention, more surveillance, less privacy, and lost individual liberty.
    Last edited by ShaneP, Sep 14, 2012
    Juliet316 and Darth-Ghost like this.
  7. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    But Condition2SQ isn't saying his problem is with radical Islam. He' s saying the problem is with all of Islam, and says that there is no clear line between Al Qaeda and the general Muslim population.
  8. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    Alright, this is approaching critical mass. I'm not going to get into the back-and-forth.

    My final statement is this:

    Critics of Islam are often accused of being "ethnocentric" or "bigoted". And yet, this charge is completely backwards. The Islamic primary sources and Muslim leaders explicitly tell us what they believe in and what they stand for. Much of it is frankly, horrifyingly retrograde, and again, why wouldn't it be? The Qu'ran is a 7th century document. The desperate attempts to make excuses such unpalatable doctrines seems to me manifestly "ideologo-centric"; that is, you believe it is simply a metaphysical certainty that all cultures, everywhere, believe in Western values and thought, even when these other cultures tell you, ad nauseum, the opposite. When geocentrism was the prevailing astronomic paradigm, astronomers often noticed stars with "eccentricities" in their movements, that is, they didn't fit into the model, so they were forced to concoct disparate ad hoc explanations for each and every one of these stars. And so it is with Islamic terrorism. Human beings in the 21st century simply don't behave this way; there must be some rational reason for it. So with every suicide bombing and lynch mob, we get apologia and ad hoc explanations. Yet if you simply entertain a different hypothesis: the West and Islam(Islam, not Muslims) are not compatible and inherently in conflict, suddenly these acts of violence and terror beg for no explanation whatsoever. Again, I say to you, the Qu'ran and Hadith manuals are widely available at all libraries and bookstores. Get yourself a copy and read them, and imagine what kind of society would probably emerge should you attempt to fashion one out of its injunctions. I think you'll find that what we more or less have will construct itself before your very eyes. Regarding the geopolitics of the region and the imperialist history of the United States and others, that absolutely must be taken into account, but it is clearly not the sine qua non of the conflict. Consider the repression of the Muslim Brotherhood by Anwar Sadat--an Egyptian--and the resulting protest and violence resulting therefrom, because of their anger that Sadat didn't want to fashion a fundamentalist Islamist regime. Post-9/11, Bin Laden spoke of the oppression Muslims have been suffering "for the last eighty years". What historical event was he referring to? The dissolution of the Islamic Caliphate and liberalization of Turkey by Ataturk. This isn't Islam versus the United States and imperalism; it's Islam versus liberalism.

    For anyone who wants to bring up the violence in the Torah: The books of Joshua and Judges(Samson is the world's first suicide terrorist, in my view) are historical narratives, they are not religious injunctions telling prospective followers how to behave from now until the end of time. There is no verse in the Bible that says Joshua is the "excellent standard of human conduct". Futhermore, demographically, a huge percentage of Jews are effectively atheists and don't believe a word of the Pentateuch.

    Christianity: The Catholic Church was an absolutely disgusting and vile institution for centuries. What can be said about it, though, is that they were, in fact, "distorting" the teachings of Christ. The gospels are some of the most beautiful and sublime narratives in the history of world literature, and their ideology is, if anything, pacifist. For centuries, in fact, most European Catholics had never even read the Bible, it not being available in a language with any currency among the general public. Once those translations finally emerged, and the general public was able to read them, the egregious behavior of the Catholic Church became obvious. Hence Luther and the Protestant Revolution. Islam has never gone through any cognate reform, and more importantly, the actual words of the Qu'ran and Hadith hardly allow for it.

    No, Islam is not the only factor in Middle East politics. I don't think the region reduces to some binary "Israel=good guys, Muslims=bad guys!" dynamic(I am no fan of Benjamin Netanyahu, for instance). But these are all facts; do you think that they aren't taken into account by the Obama Administration? Do you really think that, in the highest hallways of power, the word "Islamophobia" is ever deployed in crafting Foreign Policy? It certainly isn't when Obama systematically sends drones to Pakistans to kill Islamic terrorists by the hundreds(which liberals don't seem to care too much about)?

    I am not a Muslim, and I don't think Islam provides anything that is inherently and inextricably tied to the faith that is worth preserving or not criticizing, and I'm not ashamed of it.

    EDIT:
    You might notice that I was, in fact, the very first person in this thread to post those pictures, and that I found them incredibly endearing. They are wonderful pictures. The problem is, when these folks go searching in the Qu'ran for Islamic bona fides to back their words up, they're not going to find them.
    Last edited by Condition2SQ, Sep 14, 2012
  9. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Why not respond to my post?

    See my last post. The Muslim leaders don't all speak with one voice either.

    Also, there are plenty of passages in the Bible that most Christians today reject. Why not say that the West and Christianity are incompatible?

    Of course people in the 21st century behave this way. People always behave this way, and unfortunately always will, when under these circumstances of ignorance, conspiracy/paranoia, uncertainty, change, and economic depression. And yes, the Muslim World is deep in an economic depression.

    Also, my "model" isn't wrong. My "model" says that there are extremists in every religion, race, ethnicity, nation, and organization... and that they aren't represenative of everyone in the same group as them.

    Not from me.

    At least you separated the religion from the people here. But still wrong, and inflammatory.

    Also, you should really try talking to more Muslims in your life.

    That's what the radicals on both sides buy into. I reject that argument, that choice.

    David and Moses were beloved of God, as well as others, yet do you see them acting perfect?

    And what about Jesus using a whip to attack bankers and businessmen? And saying that he's come to pit father against son, brother against brother. Or when Jesus said he hasn't come to bring peace, but to bring a sword? Do you deny that Jesus is supposed to be a model for Christians?

    Also, there's a long list of sins in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament but some in the New Testament too, that most reject nowadays. But you don't go attacking Judaism or Christianity as incompatible with the West.

    Yet even more aren't.

    Only if you reject some of it as not being inspired from God, like I do. See above.

    Yeah, they do. Also, look at the last page. And appmaster will probably come back to this thread too.
    Last edited by Darth-Ghost, Sep 14, 2012
  10. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    I'm done with the back and forth. I've said what I have to say.

    I'm only posting this because I said "Anwar Sadat" in my previous long post when I meant Nasser. Someone out there is going to seize on that mistake as an adequate rejoinder to my whole post, so I'm correcting it here because I can no longer edit that post.
    Last edited by Condition2SQ, Sep 14, 2012
  11. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. As former LDS missionary, that is not what missionaries are taught to do at all.

    Missionaries are called to teach the basic doctrines of the Gospel. Basically, our job is to teach the foundation enough to get a person to the point of baptism (which is like a spiritual rebirth, not the end goal). From there, the responsibility shifts to the local congregation (which we call a ward) to help someone continue learning and growing. If faced with a question that goes beyond those basic doctrines, missionaries are encouraged to give a basic answer, and then get members of the local leadership to assist with further answers on the subject. At no time were we instructed to "lie for the Lord" or hide anything from investigators.

    To use a math analogy, missionaries teach arithmetic, and it's not their job to dive into questions about multivariable calculus. The responsibility to teach trigonometry, calculus, and so forth falls to others.

    You have to lay a foundation on the basics before you can build on top of that foundation to what you call the "more outlandish, bizarre, and perhaps unpalatable tenets of the faith". It's called giving context, because in the proper doctrinal context they aren't "outlandish, bizarre, and perhaps unpalatable".
  12. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    I've never heard any LDS missionary mention Lying for the Lord before. Ever. Most of them are honest, decent people.
  13. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    Okay, I'm only responding to KK's post because he threw a curveball. I'm absolutely done with the Islam discussion, and I'm only posting this here publicly to clarify a point I was making

    I did not mean to imply that they are taught this practice systematically at the MTC. But on the forums of ex-Mormon missionaries that I have visited, many people report the same experience of wavering in belief during their mission, and subsequently
    couching their appeals to investigators in the most careful terms possible, because they themselves feel nobody would buy into it if they heard the whole story from the get-go. No, this isn't some top-down practice, but ex-missionary communities have reported similar practices and have given it the name "Lying for the Lord" or "Milk before meat".

    Anyway, I'm happy to discuss this further via PM. But that's all I will say in this thread.
  14. aPPmaSTer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 23, 2004
    star 3
    Wow, all that and not a single reference to my post :(

    OK so I obviously didn't read this whole thing word for word, but generally I'm seeing that Condition2 has been reading Faithfreedom.org, unfortunately, and has come to share their ideas with us. I was actually a member on their forum during my early 20's, and spent a couple of years there probing into their claims and trying to have intelligent discussions (for my part at least) with some of their most prominent members in order to objectively analyze my own religion. They are, after all, making some really bold claims about Islam.

    Well to make a long story short, the fact that I'm Muslim and proud today is a sign that most of what is posted there is garbage. Yes, they have Qur'anic passages, but they're completely taken out of their scriptural and global contexts, and yes they have many hadeeths that without proper knowledge would seem crazy, and to be honest, if I didn't know how much I knew about my religion at the time, I might've actually been fooled. But thankfully, by God's grace, I was able to dismantle one of the first arguments they had with just one Qur'anic passage that I had memorized but that they conveniently omitted, and realized that every single one of their arguments conveniently leaves something out, and for others they themselves don't even have enough knowledge about it. There are 2 or 3 other sites just like that one that form their little group, and people who don't know much about Islam are unfortunately falling victim to them. One of these victims is Anders Breivik, who wrote a 1500 page manifesto about why all Muslims should be eradicated, and a few hundred of those pages I immediately recognized as a direct copy paste from Jihadwatch, another Muslim-hater site. Perhaps they should add plagiarism to his measly 20-something years in prison he got for murdering 70 of his own countrymen in cold blood.

    The point I'm making here Condition2, is that the people who are making these sites are very dangerous, explore them at your own discretion but know well that every one of their points have been explored by Muslims over the 14 centuries that Islam has existed, and are so easy to disprove by an ordinary everyday Muslim like myself. Our scholars, who have a lot more than just the Qur'an and Sahih-ul-Bukhari at their disposal (I'm talking tafseers, Fath-ul-Baari, Riyaad-us-Saliheen, etc. etc. etc.), can pick the site apart with even greater ease; but for people who don't know much about Islam, both Muslims and non-Muslims alike, or people who don't know any Muslims personally, can be fooled by them as they are very, very good at what they do. And unfortunately, the only solution they present is destroying Islam, which would mean killing all Muslims because there is no way that their arguments will win anyone over in this century. In any case, Condition2, from one Star Wars fan to another :-BI tell you that I left their forum after they started deleting my posts once I outsmarted them and presented irrefutable evidence and logic, later my account was permanently deleted. Nevertheless, I walked away with a much better appreciation of my faith, but at the same time, to be honest, that site has enlightened me in seeing faults within the Muslim community and in some of the interpretations of the Qur'an... all of which I see can be solved by educating Muslims on the spirit of Islam, and creating awareness of issues within their communities that go against these principles.

    So to get back to the issue at hand... I will not in any way defend the actions of Muslims who commit injustices upon anyone. I posted a excerpt from a Friday sermon by one the most influential Islamic speakers in North America, who even before all this happened spoke about how Muslims should deal with this kind of stuff in accordance to the Qur'an. There is nothing in the Qur'an that speaks about punishments for blasphemy, this is something that people invented over time and hopefully we can get rid of that soon enough, because the only thing the Qur'an talks about in that regard is patience. Words are words, and even though they can hurt, we have no right to take action against anyone just for what they say. The people that are protesting are hurt, many in Egypt live in poverty with only their faith to give them hope. I know this because I've lived there. Libya on the other hand has one of the lowest levels of education in the Arab world, and on average (I AM generalizing) they have a lower level of an understanding of Islam and world matters than many others, thus can be easily swayed by anyone who uses big words and appeals to their emotions. I think it's safe to say the same for the Yemenis. So again, I understand, but I condemn, and personally see it as a fault of us educated Muslims that we haven't done more to educate them. Hopefully, at least one of the positive things to come out of all this will be a bit more awareness on our side about what limits we can't cross, and to learn some patience when faced with these kinds of things, as they will undoubtedly happen again. As for how the US government should react, well the leaders of each of the countries where bad things happened have expressed their efforts in trying to quell the violence (in Egypt for example they flooded downtown Cairo with tear gas) as well as coming out and openly condemning the actions of these people. They also promised that these people will be caught and brought to justice. I'm curious to know what else US citizens would like to happen over there...? And what further actions should the Obama administration take -- should they say "nope, we don't accept your condolences, screw you all, prepare to be nuked"? Just curious.
    Darth-Ghost likes this.
  15. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Okay so I haven't read the Koran, but you know the Bible has examples of the Israelites committing mass violence against other people, like when God told King Saul to massacre all the men, women and children of some enemy nation in order so their idol-worshipping would not "infect" Israelite society. But present-day Christians aren't following that as a precedent, if anything that example would probably be considered an exception rather than the rule. So it's perfectly possible that most present-day Muslims have chosen to discard the sort of violent crusades their ancestors engaged in.

    More importantly though, there's 1.57 to 1.65 billion Muslims on the planet (from Wikipedia), and the vast majority of them are not engaging in violent crusades...if they were, we wouldn't be fighting a war on terror, we would be fighting World War III. Islam has a history of violence and forced conversions at times, but it also has a history of tolerating other religions at other times. I don't know what made them choose violence and coercion one day and peaceful tolerance the next, but most Muslims today seem to favor the latter. For proof of this, simply consider that Islam has been around for centuries, and America has existed for 236 years. From the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the end of World War II, there was no war between Islam the secular West. Explosives like TNT and nitroglycerin have existed since the mid-19th century, if Muslims wanted to destroy, subjugate or simply terrorize Western civilization, they've had the means to carry out terrorist attacks for a long time but didn't do so until we started supporting the Israelis' land grabs in the former British Mandate of Palestine and buddying up with regional dictators in the geopolitical struggle against Communism. The point is, there was a time when Muslims had no problem peacefully coexisting with the rest of the world, and there's no reason why that can't be the case again.

    It could be that the Prophet Mohammed called for violence and forced conversions, it could be that violent Islam is the true Islam and that the peaceful Muslims are heretics following a dumbed down, diluted version of the faith. Or maybe the violent Islam is the false teaching. I'm not a Muslim so I can't say which is the correct version...that's for Muslims themselves to decide. But so far, the Muslims who have no problem peacefully coexisting with everyone else are winning by virtue of there simply being a lot more of them.
    Darth-Ghost and aPPmaSTer like this.
  16. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    The only public answer I will give to this is to consider carefully the source you are citing. Many "ex-Mormons" present a very distorted version of what the Church actually teaches, and have been known to claim that an "incomplete" answer (that focuses on the basic doctrines) is actually intended to be deceptive. Lying requires the intent to deceive. While an incomplete answer can be done with the intent to deceive, it can also be done with the intent to teach to a person's level of understanding.

    Just like you don't start a math student off with differential equations*, you don't start discussions of theology (any theology) with matters of "deep doctrine". Just like someone on the road to becoming a Catholic doesn't need to be taught the details of transubstantiation, there are some doctrines or teachings that go beyond the basics of LDS doctrine.

    The mandate to LDS missionaries is teach the first principles of the Gospel, not to preach every last nuance of doctrine. Those first principles consist of Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance (which requires teaching the basic commandments that God expects of us), Baptism, and receipt of the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

    * A good example of this comes in physics, where you are initially taught that the equation for a falling object is z= z0 + vt + (1/2)gt^2. However, as you progress in math, you learn that the actual equation (of which that is a grossly simplified form) is actually the second derivative of z with respect to time equals g. (My apologies for not writing out the actual equation, but I can't make it look legible in board code). Instead of being a simple algebra problem, it's actually a second order differential equation with a constant coefficient. But that doesn't mean that your high school physics teacher lied to you by showing you the simplified form. He merely taught you according to your level of understanding at the time.
    Darth-Ghost likes this.
  17. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    So you're going to ignore my points, and the points of others? Take a break and recollect yourself, if you want, but flat out avoiding to respond sure makes it look like you can't find an adequate response to my points.
  18. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    While I agree with your larger points, Western powers fought Muslim opponents in this period... largely in colonial wars in India, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and Africa. Yeah.
  19. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    But the first country to recognize the United States' independence was a Muslim nation (I think the predecessor of either Tunisia or Libya). And in one of our first treaties, with that said Muslim nation, one of the Founding Fathers (either Adams or Jefferson, I think, whoever was the treaty negotiatior) wrote that the United States has no conflict with Muslims because we believe in freedom of religion and separation of church and state.
    aPPmaSTer likes this.
  20. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    There never has been a true conflict between the "secular West" and Islam itself, so I assumed he was referring to Western powers fighting Muslim opponents. That letter you're referring to was a treaty with the Barbary pirates-- from North Africa, funnily enough-- with whom the United States fought in its first ever overseas combat operation as an independent state ("from the shores of Tripoli") and who happened to be Muslim.
    Last edited by Darth_Guy, Sep 14, 2012
  21. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    It was an official treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, and counts as law. It was approved unanimously in the Senate (just looked it up quickly).

    And even before that conflict with the pirates, the first nation to recognize the United States was Morocco. (just quickly googled that too)

    Didn't mean to conflate the two, though.
    Last edited by Darth-Ghost, Sep 14, 2012
  22. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    Okay. And? I'm not 2SQ.
  23. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Just want to be clear :p

    Thanks for posting this. I'm not sure if Condition2SQ will respond to you here, maybe by PM, but it deserves to be reposted.

    Could you post some of the Qu'ran verses you mentioned, that refute the common claims made by those who say Islam is inherently a dangerous religion?
    Last edited by Darth-Ghost, Sep 14, 2012
  24. Condition2SQ Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 5, 2012
    star 4
    Fair enough. And aPP in particular absolutely deserves a response.

    But if we're calling each other out on arguments left hanging, then I'll emphasize a few of my own that I think haven't been addressed

    1) Spike Lee justly criticizing white reviewers of his film for fearing that showings of it would result in widespread rioting. Why was he indignant about this? Because implicit in this fear was the assumption that black people couldn't be expected to behave themselves at the showing of a racially provocative film. I'd say it's a fair argument to make that the laissez-faire attitude towards criticizing this rioting reveals similar implicit attitudes. Imagine if all those people crawling over embassies, murdering diplomats, their own countrymen being trampled to death in the carnage, were white what your instinctive reaction would be? I daresay it would be "Woah, these people need to take a step back and get a grip! It's just a movie". Are only white people intellectually and emotionally mature enough to shoulder the burdens of free speech?

    2)Jared Lee Loughner and the liberal media response, or even more to the point, Anders Breivik(thank you for bringing him up, aPP). Days after Breivik, it was already enshrined as liberal dogma that the Robert Spencers, Pamela Gellars, and Bruce Bawers of the world were in some way culpable for his murderous rampage, since he had cited them in his manifesto. But that is absurd on several levels. First, he also cited such notorious villains of history as Thomas Jefferson and Charles Darwin, so were they also in some way responsible? Of course not. What made Spencer et. al different? Because their works concerned Islam, and Breivik committed his crime partly out of a rage that Norway tolerated Muslims. And yet, none of these authors had ever directly enjoined the readers to engage in mercenary activity, so what made it reasonable in the eyes of liberals for them to be culpable? The tone they had set regarding Islam. That was the liberal calculus for assigning moral culpability.

    Now, let's look at the general reaction to Islamist terrorism. They tell us, ad nauseum why they are doing what they do, and if you read their holy scriptures you find the books do indeed say just that. Far more simple than the Breivik case. And yet, no liberals seem content to accept these explanations. People simply do not behave that way for such superficial reasons, the thinking goes. And yet, this is, again, horribly condescending and "ideologo-centric". I'll post this blockquote again nobody responded last time

    And a final point regarding Breivik, and why Muslim leaders need to speak out more against Islamic terrorism in specific theological terms. Let's engage in a thought experiment. Imagine you can travel back in time and talk to Anders Breivik a half an hour before begins his rampage. You tell him you know exactly what he is about to do and ask him why he is going to do it.

    "Norway needs to be cleansed of its multicultural ideology...".
    "Okay, say I buy that, what is killing dozens of civilians, including children, going to do to advance that cause?"
    "....they are the future leadership of Norway"
    "Okay, but dude, killing a hundred or so people isn't going to be have any appreciable impact on the government's policies. Furthermore, if you hate apologists for Islam so much, you have to realize that once you do this, people are going read your favorite authors are people like Robert Spencer, and then they're going to hate those people even more. This entire thing is going to be completely counterproductive"
    "..............."


    In about 30 seconds, you can demonstrate how manifestly insane his act is. Now let's travel back in time and talk to a 9/11 Hijacker

    "Why are you doing this?"
    "Because America is a blight on Allah's Earth and must pay for its crimes"
    "Okay, but how is killing thousands of American civilians and destroying some of its most iconic buildings going to help destroy the United States? They are the mightiest nation on Earth, and after this happens, they will retaliate against your lands with punishing force"
    "Allah says that....[begins citing Islamic scripture]"

    How can any non-Muslim talk to him at that point? Only Muslims are in a position to dissuade potential terrorists from their actions.

    3)Not a clear question, but the (non)-response here to my observation about the ubiquity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion strikes me as rather noteworthy. This document is exponentially more vile, bigoted, and pernicious than this film will ever be, to such a degree it's not even possible to put into words. This book has been sold in Egypt and other Muslim countries for decades as history(along with Mein Kampf, for that matter). If that's not offensive, I don't know what is. And yet, how many riots against bookstores in Egypts have you heard about?

    4)A final point I wish to make, and if I am putting words in anyone's mouth I apologize, but this strikes me as a rather important general observation: Ever since I registered on this forum several months ago, I have been a critic of Obama's robust drone strikes in Pakistan, which are carried out sometimes even when they don't know the names of individuals they are striking. They are carried out on the funeral-goers of people killed by previous drone strikes. Anwar al-Alwaki's 16-year old son was murdered by a drone. These are appalling crimes. While I absolutely loathe the way Islam is completely verboten in discussions of the Middle East region, I do not think for even a second that virtually all Muslims in the Middle East propose some sort of immediate foreign policy threat. Unless you have very good evidence that a potential terrorisist/s are in the end-level stages of mounting a major terrorist attack, I don't see how drone strikes are justified, especially of the nature I described above. These types of strikes have caused hatred of the United States in the Muslim world on orders of magnitude higher than anything the Tea Party and Robert Spencers of the world can ever say or do. If you're an Islamophobia-hawk, you should probably turn your attention away from those showmen and to the guy authorizing strikes to systematically kill Muslims, even Muslim children, by the hundreds. That guy is,of course, benevolent saint and liberal hero, President Barack Obama.

    That's all for now. aPP, thank you for your post. You deserve a response and you will absolutely get one tomorrow.
    Last edited by Condition2SQ, Sep 14, 2012
  25. aPPmaSTer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 23, 2004
    star 3
    I actually don't want this to turn into a religious debate or a debate on how each of us can interpret scripture, but I will give one example of a very common attack used by the people that I mentioned.

    Sura 2:191 (aka the "kill them wherever you find them" verse)
    "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah (persecution) is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram (Kaabah) until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers."

    Ok so what happens is generally these sites would say "oh look, Muslims are ordered to kill disbelievers. This proves it once and for all. Look at what's happening in Egypt, Lebanon,.....!!!" What they are careful not to do, though, is provide the context of this verse and pretty much all others, which is pretty much a paradigm shift.

    2:190
    "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors."
    2:191
    "And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah (persecution) is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram (Kaabah) until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers." ("the" meaning this particular group)
    2:192
    "And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."
    2:193
    "Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah. But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors."

    (a quick explanation of 2:190 - "in the way of Allah" means "in the way of justice", detailed throughout the Qur'an such as no killing women, children, elderly, or anyone that is not attacking you. "Those who fight you"... pretty self-explanatory but a very important detail, and lastly a reminder "do not transgress.")

    So this is just the immediate scriptural context, there is more scripture that further elaborates on what is going on here and the rules and conditions of everything, but of course... who needs the details when one verse is enough? After all we don't want to waste people's time :p

    And here is a nice non-Muslim lady explaining this verse with a bit more context.

    Totally agreed. Looking forward to your response tomorrow.
    Last edited by aPPmaSTer, Sep 14, 2012
    Ender_Sai and Darth-Ghost like this.