First of all, let's clear something up here: none of you, it seems, have even gone through the trouble of looking through the Quran yourself, let alone actual texts written about Islam from even Western scholars. Instead, you are asking another member of the forum to do the work for you and explain it to you.
Fine. badbrains is incorrect, I'm afraid. "Infidel" first of all is not even an accurate translation of the word from the Quran, which is "kafir." A kafir is not simply an infidel. The most accurate explanation is that it's someone who tries to cover "the truth." In fact, the english word "cover" comes from the arabic word "kafir." In other words, it's a person who is actively persecuting your ability to practice and preach your religion. This is because the people living in Mecca during the 7th century were not simply allowing the prophet to preach, but then he was trying to kill them all.
Let me take a break here: one of the biggest problems with Islamic radicals is that they take verses from the Quran, and reports on what the Prophet did out of the historical context and try to apply it in modern day. Unfortunately, that is also what many of you are doing, which is why you are allowing Islamic radicals the ability to shape the religion, because people in the West are just so obsessed with looking at ONLY those guys. In fact, someone in this thread said something along the lines of 'it's not relevant to talk about moderate Muslims,' and that essentially we should only be talking about radicals, which is absolutely absurd.
Anyway, going back to the prophet. What people don't realize is that as he spent 23 years spreading Islam, the first 13 of those years were not just exclusively nonviolent, but he specifically prohibited any armed resistance to the persecution people were facing who converted to Islam: this included torture, killings, isolation which would often lead to starvation in tribal societies, etc. Like the Christian reports of Jesus, he advocated a "turn the other cheek" philosophy for 13 years. It was not until he moved to Medina that eventually they began engaging the Meccans militarily. And even in those instances, killings of women, children, elderly, etc., were prohibited: for more on this, you can read about the conquest of Mecca in 630 which was bloodless. Ultimately, without trying to bore you people with too much history, it was specific instances that the Quran sanctioned the use of warfare: when people are persecuting you, "driving you from your homes" (a literal quote in reference to the fact that the Muslims had to leave Mecca for Medina), etc.
Islam actually takes a very practical approach to these types of situations, which is why it does not completely outlaw warfare. But to argue that it advocates targeting any person who simply does not believe in God is so absurd and has literally no religious OR historical basis. In fact, for hundreds of years the Islamic world was by far the most pluralistic and accepting society, especially in light of the horrible crimes that were going on in Europe.
When Europe began its colonization efforts in the Muslim world, they began implementing many types of policies that began discriminating against the indigenous Muslims. The capitulations that were instituted are by far some of the most obvious examples in the different countries (Tunisia, Algeria, etc), or how they began granting certain religious groups citizenship while denying others (such as the French allowing Jews in Algeria citizenship but not Muslims). These policies that the Europeans were instituting in the 19th and 20th centuries are important because it's what would shape the way religious groups in the Muslim world began interacting with each other: yes, they were political (and economic/resource-oriented) policies, but they were still made on the basis of religious identity. This is why we can't simply try to create distinctions between what is "religious" and what is "political" or "economic" or whatever. It doesn't work that way. Religious identity is a part of society, it's a part of how people view themselves as individuals, as a community, as a nation, etc. It directly plays into politics. And the Europeans exploited it and instituted a 'divide and conquer' strategy, which is why countries like Lebanon now have such horrible animosity between their various religious groups (Christians, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, etc). The 1975 civil war there was a direct result of the colonial practices of the Europeans. There's also the issue of the state of Israel, a state constructed for Jews and created by ethnically cleansing Muslim and Christian Palestinians--this act was and is defended vigorously to this day by Western powers, even as it continues.
I know there are tons of colonial apologists here who think it's nonsense to "blame" everything that happens today on colonialism. Good thing none of you actually know shit about history or Middle Eastern politics though, cause if you did then you might actually have to deconstruct the bullshit worldview you've been living that vindicates the West of any wrongdoing so you can try to live happily ever after in a "post-colonial" world.
In today's world, we have actually convinced ourselves that the problem with Islam is that it, in and of itself, inspires individuals to commit these horrendous acts, whereas when it comes to Western governments, they simply do horrible things for typical human reasons (greed, etc). How is it that you've actually been able to convince yourself of this, I have no clue, but obviously indoctrination from the media plays a huge role. For instance, none of you care to question why the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world lives peacefully--are they just practicing their religion incorrectly? Are they just overlooking certain parts of their religion that are more "brutal" and that's what makes them so peaceful? So, only the radicals are the ones who are technically practicing it correctly?
This is the problem, again, of allowing radical muslims to shape your view of the religion. Many of you blame Muslim leaders and individuals for not standing up to these radicals as the reason. The problem is that someone in this thread said we can't say the US is spreading Christianity without looking up what different Christian organizations say. Well how many of you actually cared to look up what various elements in Muslim societies say? I don't think any of you have, seeing as how none of you have even cared to open up a Quran or read any credible source on Islam.
The fact is, the radicals did this act in Kenya not for religious reasons, but for various other ones. Yes, they find religious justification, and they try to win over religious favor by doing stupid things like "if you're Muslim leave," etc., but Muslims died by their gunfire too. The fact is, al-Shabab themselves said this was done because of Kenya infringing on Somalian sovereignty before--i.e., a political reason.
The Western religion, Liberalism, has been abused for centuries to justify going to several countries and killing millions of people. But no one ever says liberalism is to blame--it's just been "abused." Well, Islam has been abused. And the reason you hear about it so often is largely because the Muslim world has been at the forefront of several invasions from Western powers for years--not to save them from themselves, but for the West's gain. Add to this the delicate history of the past couple hundred years since colonialism as well, and you have a very troubling scenario. Muslim leaders are trying to speak out, but the problem is that the moment they condemn Islamic radicals AND Western/Israeli invasions and crimes, they are isolated and condemned by Western media. The binary of "Good Muslim/Bad Muslim" means you either support the U.S. and Israel, or you are 'one of them.' This is the reality on the ground. Muslims are spied on and persecuted by the U.S. government in this country for speaking out against crimes committed by the government and by Israel--and they are repressed in their own societies by autocratic governments that are supported by the U.S. (like Saudi).
So what's the solution to this horrible mess? I doubt any of you have one. It's way too complicated. So if you don't have a solution, kindly shut the hell up and stop trashing an entire religion that has over a billion followers.
Thanks for the time you have taken to shed some light on this issue.
You have me curious now to the point where I wish to research some of what you have expressed. I have devout Muslim friends that I am sure can assist me with this endeavour. If you feel you wish to point me in the right direction, feel free (BadBrains, feel free as well!).
I'm sure somewhere someone is arguing this is just another poor innocent soul entrapped by the US government. :roll:
Do you deny that the U.S. government has been entrapping Muslims?
Do I deny entrapment exists? No.
Do I believe it is a charge trotted out far too often when people (of all religions, faiths and creeds) are caught in a dirty deal? Yes.
Fair enough. But to read an article about someone being arrested and rolling your eyes at the possibility that it's an entrapment, when various reports have been written and records exist of it being done an incredible amount over the last several years, is premature and, in my opinion, not the right way to go about things. The problem is too many people in this thread feel too comfortable making judgments about issues they clearly haven't read about. Who are you to roll your eyes at a young person being sentenced for virtually the rest of their life, when you haven't done any research into whether or not that person is actually guilty?
I know people think that the US justice system is so grand, and sure it makes a mistake every now and then, but it's virtually infallible--this is just not true, particularly when it comes to the "domestic war on terror." The US judicial system is just as political as the others. Read up on it, please.
Thanks for the time you have taken to shed some light on this issue.
You have me curious now to the point where I wish to research some of what you have expressed. I have devout Muslim friends that I am sure can assist me with this endeavour. If you feel you wish to point me in the right direction, feel free (BadBrains, feel free as well!).
Thanks for the time you have taken to shed some light on this issue.
You have me curious now to the point where I wish to research some of what you have expressed. I have devout Muslim friends that I am sure can assist me with this endeavour. If you feel you wish to point me in the right direction, feel free (BadBrains, feel free as well!).
Just ordered one from him. A curious title, but one seemingly appropriate: The Islamaphobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims (Esposito)
Just ordered one from him. A curious title, but one seemingly appropriate: The Islamaphobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims (Esposito)
Nathan Lean wrote that actually. It's an interesting book, depending on what topic you're interested in researching.
Just ordered one from him. A curious title, but one seemingly appropriate: The Islamaphobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims (Esposito)
Nathan Lean wrote that actually. It's an interesting book, depending on what topic you're interested in researching.
I wish to research the mounting tension towards Muslim people. I am hoping the book will dispel some of the most common misunderstandings in the process.
There will be no need for me to check out Islam, Christianity or any other religion ... I have as much interest in reading the Koran as I do the bible ... both books are fairy tales ... imo.
This idea of an invisible man in the sky ... is just too funny.
I'm more interested in leading example and all religions are extremely guilty of poor behaviour, but lately it people's ho practice Islam that is getting all the coverage.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Fair enough. But to read an article about someone being arrested and rolling your eyes at the possibility that it's an entrapment, when various reports have been written and records exist of it being done an incredible amount over the last several years, is premature and, in my opinion, not the right way to go about things. The problem is too many people in this thread feel too comfortable making judgments about issues they clearly haven't read about. Who are you to roll your eyes at a young person being sentenced for virtually the rest of their life, when you haven't done any research into whether or not that person is actually guilty?
I know people think that the US justice system is so grand, and sure it makes a mistake every now and then, but it's virtually infallible--this is just not true, particularly when it comes to the "domestic war on terror." The US judicial system is just as political as the others. Read up on it, please.
We are not talking about a young person. We are talking about a 38 year old man. That is older than me and I am no longer young. It is also old enough to know there might be consequences if you broker a deal with the Taliban for $25 million in arms in exchange for an $800,000 commission. I do roll my eyes at pretending this is the case of a poor, young victim.
Also, this is not an article about someone who has just been arrested. This is about someone who has been arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced. At least two of the points you made above are factually incorrect.
No where have I claimed or implied the US justice system is infallible or "so grand". It is not, however, always wrong.
There will be no need for me to check out Islam, Christianity or any other religion ... I have as much interest in reading the Koran as I do the bible ... both books are fairy tales ... imo.
This idea of an invisible man in the sky ... is just too funny.
I'm more interested in leading example and all religions are extremely guilty of poor behaviour, but lately it people's ho practice Islam that is getting all the coverage.
Don't get me wrong... I'm not interested in finding my spirituality. I will never believe in an omnipresent, wonderful, and magical man that I can speak to in prayer. To that matter... each to their own: if someone finds peace and happiness doing exactly that then fair enough.
I'm curious to read exactly what the book title states: how people have been led to believe the Muslim people are something to be wary of.
There will be no need for me to check out Islam, Christianity or any other religion ... I have as much interest in reading the Koran as I do the bible ... both books are fairy tales ... imo.
This idea of an invisible man in the sky ... is just too funny.
I'm more interested in leading example and all religions are extremely guilty of poor behaviour, but lately it people's ho practice Islam that is getting all the coverage.
You have the right to not believe in something, even if you choose to not read anything about it. I'm not trying to convert you. But I believe it's poor practice to trash a religion without reading about it. We should show respect toward each other's beliefs and choices. For instance: You, in my view, choose poor wording by saying "religions are extremely guilty of poor behaviour." The problem with this wording is that you are putting an ideology (religion) under attack for the actions of few people who claim to subscribe to it. It's not respectful to those who follow Islam, Christianity, or whatever else, who disagree that the religion itself is to blame for the actions of a few.
Fair enough. But to read an article about someone being arrested and rolling your eyes at the possibility that it's an entrapment, when various reports have been written and records exist of it being done an incredible amount over the last several years, is premature and, in my opinion, not the right way to go about things. The problem is too many people in this thread feel too comfortable making judgments about issues they clearly haven't read about. Who are you to roll your eyes at a young person being sentenced for virtually the rest of their life, when you haven't done any research into whether or not that person is actually guilty?
I know people think that the US justice system is so grand, and sure it makes a mistake every now and then, but it's virtually infallible--this is just not true, particularly when it comes to the "domestic war on terror." The US judicial system is just as political as the others. Read up on it, please.
We are not talking about a young person. We are talking about a 38 year old man. That is older than me and I am no longer young. It is also old enough to know there might be consequences if you broker a deal with the Taliban for $25 million in arms in exchange for an $800,000 commission. I do roll my eyes at pretending this is the case of a poor, young victim.
I was not talking specifically about this case--I haven't researched it yet. But your original comment seemed to make light of the fact that the majority of "domestic war on terror" cases like this are cases of government entrapment (which also often happen to kids in their early 20s or even teens). I know it's easy to read a 300-word article and think otherwise, but if you've studied the details of these different cases, as I have, I do believe you'd change your mind.
Fair enough. But to read an article about someone being arrested and rolling your eyes at the possibility that it's an entrapment, when various reports have been written and records exist of it being done an incredible amount over the last several years, is premature and, in my opinion, not the right way to go about things. The problem is too many people in this thread feel too comfortable making judgments about issues they clearly haven't read about. Who are you to roll your eyes at a young person being sentenced for virtually the rest of their life, when you haven't done any research into whether or not that person is actually guilty?
I know people think that the US justice system is so grand, and sure it makes a mistake every now and then, but it's virtually infallible--this is just not true, particularly when it comes to the "domestic war on terror." The US judicial system is just as political as the others. Read up on it, please.
We are not talking about a young person. We are talking about a 38 year old man. That is older than me and I am no longer young. It is also old enough to know there might be consequences if you broker a deal with the Taliban for $25 million in arms in exchange for an $800,000 commission. I do roll my eyes at pretending this is the case of a poor, young victim.
I was not talking specifically about this case--I haven't researched it yet. But your original comment seemed to make light of the fact that the majority of "domestic war on terror" cases like this are cases of government entrapment (which also often happen to kids in their early 20s or even teens). I know it's easy to read a 300-word article and think otherwise, but if you've studied the details of these different cases, as I have, I do believe you'd change your mind.
I edited my response you quoted here but as you say you were not referring to this case in particular it is of no matter.
Is there actual evidence that the majority of these cases are entrapment or is that an opinion? Because if you are reaching out to arms dealers, or seeking out explosives, or securing building blueprints for men you believe will blow up that building...regardless if you have been contacted by an actual terrorist or not, you have not been entrapped. You have just been detected by the proper authorities before an actual terrorist has had the chance to enlist your services.
I edited my response you quoted here but as you say you were not referring to this case in particular it is of no matter.
Is there actual evidence that the majority of these cases are entrapment or is that an opinion? Because if you are reaching out to arms dealers, or seeking out explosives, or securing building blueprints for men you believe will blow up that building...regardless if you have been contacted by an actual terrorist or not, you have not been entrapped. You have just been detected by the proper authorities before an actual terrorist has had the chance to enlist your services.
Yes there is evidence, but as this thread is not about this topic, I'll stop derailing. However, I recommend you look into the case of Yassin Aref, an imam who was living in Albany NY who was entrapped. Many examples exist like his case.
I edited my response you quoted here but as you say you were not referring to this case in particular it is of no matter.
Is there actual evidence that the majority of these cases are entrapment or is that an opinion? Because if you are reaching out to arms dealers, or seeking out explosives, or securing building blueprints for men you believe will blow up that building...regardless if you have been contacted by an actual terrorist or not, you have not been entrapped. You have just been detected by the proper authorities before an actual terrorist has had the chance to enlist your services.
Yes there is evidence, but as this thread is not about this topic, I'll stop derailing. However, I recommend you look into the case of Yassin Aref, an imam who was living in Albany NY who was entrapped. Many examples exist like his case.
I am aware examples exist. I am just skeptical that a majority of examples exists. My original point was that as soon as a case like this comes to light, the assumption by some is that the perpetrator was entrapped. I think that is just as bad as assuming someone is automatically guilty.
Apologies to the OP if I have derailed their thread.
"It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." --Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
"It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." --Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood
Gotta consider the source. The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't get to speak for all Muslims.
"It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." --Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood
Gotta consider the source. The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't get to speak for all Muslims.
I am only asking about the quote and the brothers.
Based on this quote - i would agree the brothers need to be eliminated.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
"It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." --Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood
Gotta consider the source. The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't get to speak for all Muslims.
I am only asking about the quote and the brothers.
Based on this quote - i would agree the brothers need to be eliminated.
There are some good stories about a british and an irish miltary soldiers that happened to be shopping at the time and they helped get 400 people safely out of the mall and traded fire with the islamists.
Yet I'm only seeing the story come up on page 10 news blurb ...
There are some good stories about a british and an irish miltary soldiers that happened to be shopping at the time and they helped get 400 people safely out of the mall and traded fire with the islamists.
Yet I'm only seeing the story come up on page 10 news blurb ...
Wonder why?
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
I am sure I seen Canadians in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Am I missing something :?:
I guess so. Canada did not go to Iraq. About 100 Cdn exchange officers went there and were embedded with the American military during the initial invasion for training and experience purposes, and that's it.... I guess it's possible that you happened to see one of these 100 or so people there during the whole of the Iraq war, but I doubt it.
Canada did go to Afghanistan of course, and had a large presence there.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
"It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." --Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood
Gotta consider the source. The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't get to speak for all Muslims.
Why is anyone still talking about "all Muslims"? I don't see how "all Muslims" are relevant to this conversation. "All Muslims" are not the concern here. Extremist Muslims are. And there are a lot of them, and they are dangerous. The only relevance that "all Muslims" have here is in that "all Muslims" do not seem to be doing anywhere near enough to oppose the extremists.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I am sure I seen Canadians in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Am I missing something :?:
I guess so. Canada did not go to Iraq. About 100 Cdn exchange officers went there and were embedded with the American military during the initial invasion for training and experience purposes, and that's it.... I guess it's possible that you happened to see one of these 100 or so people there during the whole of the Iraq war, but I doubt it.
Canada did go to Afghanistan of course, and had a large presence there.
It has been rumoured that JTF2 (Canada's Special Forces) was in Iraq ... I tend to think we played a role ... the government has never admitted that we were there ... but many have suspected we were involved in some way.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I am sure I seen Canadians in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Am I missing something :?:
I guess so. Canada did not go to Iraq. About 100 Cdn exchange officers went there and were embedded with the American military during the initial invasion for training and experience purposes, and that's it.... I guess it's possible that you happened to see one of these 100 or so people there during the whole of the Iraq war, but I doubt it.
Canada did go to Afghanistan of course, and had a large presence there.
It has been rumoured that JTF2 (Canada's Special Forces) was in Iraq ... I tend to think we played a role ... the government has never admitted that we were there ... but many have suspected we were involved in some way.
Kinda sounds like bullshit to me.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
First of all, let's clear something up here: none of you, it seems, have even gone through the trouble of looking through the Quran yourself, let alone actual texts written about Islam from even Western scholars. Instead, you are asking another member of the forum to do the work for you and explain it to you.
Fine. badbrains is incorrect, I'm afraid. "Infidel" first of all is not even an accurate translation of the word from the Quran, which is "kafir." A kafir is not simply an infidel. The most accurate explanation is that it's someone who tries to cover "the truth." In fact, the english word "cover" comes from the arabic word "kafir." In other words, it's a person who is actively persecuting your ability to practice and preach your religion. This is because the people living in Mecca during the 7th century were not simply allowing the prophet to preach, but then he was trying to kill them all.
Let me take a break here: one of the biggest problems with Islamic radicals is that they take verses from the Quran, and reports on what the Prophet did out of the historical context and try to apply it in modern day. Unfortunately, that is also what many of you are doing, which is why you are allowing Islamic radicals the ability to shape the religion, because people in the West are just so obsessed with looking at ONLY those guys. In fact, someone in this thread said something along the lines of 'it's not relevant to talk about moderate Muslims,' and that essentially we should only be talking about radicals, which is absolutely absurd.
Anyway, going back to the prophet. What people don't realize is that as he spent 23 years spreading Islam, the first 13 of those years were not just exclusively nonviolent, but he specifically prohibited any armed resistance to the persecution people were facing who converted to Islam: this included torture, killings, isolation which would often lead to starvation in tribal societies, etc. Like the Christian reports of Jesus, he advocated a "turn the other cheek" philosophy for 13 years. It was not until he moved to Medina that eventually they began engaging the Meccans militarily. And even in those instances, killings of women, children, elderly, etc., were prohibited: for more on this, you can read about the conquest of Mecca in 630 which was bloodless. Ultimately, without trying to bore you people with too much history, it was specific instances that the Quran sanctioned the use of warfare: when people are persecuting you, "driving you from your homes" (a literal quote in reference to the fact that the Muslims had to leave Mecca for Medina), etc.
Islam actually takes a very practical approach to these types of situations, which is why it does not completely outlaw warfare. But to argue that it advocates targeting any person who simply does not believe in God is so absurd and has literally no religious OR historical basis. In fact, for hundreds of years the Islamic world was by far the most pluralistic and accepting society, especially in light of the horrible crimes that were going on in Europe.
When Europe began its colonization efforts in the Muslim world, they began implementing many types of policies that began discriminating against the indigenous Muslims. The capitulations that were instituted are by far some of the most obvious examples in the different countries (Tunisia, Algeria, etc), or how they began granting certain religious groups citizenship while denying others (such as the French allowing Jews in Algeria citizenship but not Muslims). These policies that the Europeans were instituting in the 19th and 20th centuries are important because it's what would shape the way religious groups in the Muslim world began interacting with each other: yes, they were political (and economic/resource-oriented) policies, but they were still made on the basis of religious identity. This is why we can't simply try to create distinctions between what is "religious" and what is "political" or "economic" or whatever. It doesn't work that way. Religious identity is a part of society, it's a part of how people view themselves as individuals, as a community, as a nation, etc. It directly plays into politics. And the Europeans exploited it and instituted a 'divide and conquer' strategy, which is why countries like Lebanon now have such horrible animosity between their various religious groups (Christians, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, etc). The 1975 civil war there was a direct result of the colonial practices of the Europeans. There's also the issue of the state of Israel, a state constructed for Jews and created by ethnically cleansing Muslim and Christian Palestinians--this act was and is defended vigorously to this day by Western powers, even as it continues.
I know there are tons of colonial apologists here who think it's nonsense to "blame" everything that happens today on colonialism. Good thing none of you actually know shit about history or Middle Eastern politics though, cause if you did then you might actually have to deconstruct the bullshit worldview you've been living that vindicates the West of any wrongdoing so you can try to live happily ever after in a "post-colonial" world.
In today's world, we have actually convinced ourselves that the problem with Islam is that it, in and of itself, inspires individuals to commit these horrendous acts, whereas when it comes to Western governments, they simply do horrible things for typical human reasons (greed, etc). How is it that you've actually been able to convince yourself of this, I have no clue, but obviously indoctrination from the media plays a huge role. For instance, none of you care to question why the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world lives peacefully--are they just practicing their religion incorrectly? Are they just overlooking certain parts of their religion that are more "brutal" and that's what makes them so peaceful? So, only the radicals are the ones who are technically practicing it correctly?
This is the problem, again, of allowing radical muslims to shape your view of the religion. Many of you blame Muslim leaders and individuals for not standing up to these radicals as the reason. The problem is that someone in this thread said we can't say the US is spreading Christianity without looking up what different Christian organizations say. Well how many of you actually cared to look up what various elements in Muslim societies say? I don't think any of you have, seeing as how none of you have even cared to open up a Quran or read any credible source on Islam.
The fact is, the radicals did this act in Kenya not for religious reasons, but for various other ones. Yes, they find religious justification, and they try to win over religious favor by doing stupid things like "if you're Muslim leave," etc., but Muslims died by their gunfire too. The fact is, al-Shabab themselves said this was done because of Kenya infringing on Somalian sovereignty before--i.e., a political reason.
The Western religion, Liberalism, has been abused for centuries to justify going to several countries and killing millions of people. But no one ever says liberalism is to blame--it's just been "abused." Well, Islam has been abused. And the reason you hear about it so often is largely because the Muslim world has been at the forefront of several invasions from Western powers for years--not to save them from themselves, but for the West's gain. Add to this the delicate history of the past couple hundred years since colonialism as well, and you have a very troubling scenario. Muslim leaders are trying to speak out, but the problem is that the moment they condemn Islamic radicals AND Western/Israeli invasions and crimes, they are isolated and condemned by Western media. The binary of "Good Muslim/Bad Muslim" means you either support the U.S. and Israel, or you are 'one of them.' This is the reality on the ground. Muslims are spied on and persecuted by the U.S. government in this country for speaking out against crimes committed by the government and by Israel--and they are repressed in their own societies by autocratic governments that are supported by the U.S. (like Saudi).
So what's the solution to this horrible mess? I doubt any of you have one. It's way too complicated. So if you don't have a solution, kindly shut the hell up and stop trashing an entire religion that has over a billion followers.
Thanks fuck!!! I was having one hell of a time trying to defend my religion and didn't know how to put all of it in writing. But man, you did one hell of a job!
"It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." --Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood
Gotta consider the source. The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't get to speak for all Muslims.
Why is anyone still talking about "all Muslims"? I don't see how "all Muslims" are relevant to this conversation. "All Muslims" are not the concern here. Extremist Muslims are. And there are a lot of them, and they are dangerous. The only relevance that "all Muslims" have here is in that "all Muslims" do not seem to be doing anywhere near enough to oppose the extremists.
Actually, I already refuted the claims you're making in this post.
First of all, when people, such as yourself, are trying to make comments about Islam as a religion, we absolutely have to talk about Muslims, ALL Muslims. I know it's convenient for you to bash Islam by pointing at radicals, but that's just the wrong way to go about it. I know I have to use absolutist talk here, but I'm afraid you're just plain wrong. When we're talking about Islam as an entire religion, we can't let the discussion be shaped by radicals.
Earlier in this thread, you mentioned that 25-30% of Muslims in the Middle East are extremist, only to casually mention below that comment that you essentially pulled those numbers out of your ass (I think you said something along the lines of, 'I read it here and there'). Wonderful.
I think we have a problem here: first, we are throwing around terms like 'extremist' without attempting to define it. By what standards do you make the claim that 30% of a population the size of the US is extremist? Because Egypt voted in the Muslim Brotherhood during democratic elections, does that mean the majority of Egyptians are extremist? Are the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt an extremist organization? Based on what?
The above poster posts a quote from Hassan al-Banna who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928: not only would it be wrong to take that quote and say "this is what Islam preaches," but it would even be incorrect to suggest that that is what the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) preaches. The MB evolved as an organization over many decades. The MB you see now is not the same MB that you saw in the 60s, is not the same that was around in the 40s, etc. The MB formally renounced ever using violence as a means decades ago. They've participated in politics, adopted democracy (as they did in Egypt) especially as they had popular support through the many initiatives they were employing in society (founding clinics, distributing food, etc). So what makes the MB extremist?
Here's another problem: you are talking about 'Islamic extremists' and 'extremism' in general terms to suggest that there is one unified global movement seeking the destruction of anything not like it. This is the same nonsensical claim that people were making about communism in the Cold War. People on this board like Godfather, who were probably running around yelling "commie!" at anyone smoking a joint in the 60s, love these grand pictures of good vs evil. But it's just not true.
The different Islamic groups that exist in various parts of the world were not founded off the same Islamic custom. They are unique to the contexts in which they were founded in: Hezbollah is unique to the Lebanese context, Hamas to the Palestinian, the MB to Egypt, al-Shabab to Somalia, al-Qaeda to Saudi (and later Yemen, Iraq, etc), the Taliban to Afghanistan, and so on.
The Islamic groups are not one and the same. The MB in Egypt advocate for nonviolence and democracy. Hamas in Palestine is fighting a violent occupation, you can't remove them from that context. It's the same elsewhere. Likewise, some Islamic groups are far more tolerant and respectful towards other religious groups than others. For instance, the MB in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Islamic trend existing in Tunisia are far more tolerant of other religious groups than, say, al-Qaeda or the Taliban. In fact, al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not even tolerant toward other Muslims!
We can't remove all these individual Islamic groups and say "these are all Islamic extremists and all must be fought against." Just because something is Islamic or even "Islamist" does not make it violent, intolerant, etc. Some resort to armed struggle because they were founded in the context of violent foreign occupation. Others because force is the way to rule (like the Taliban). They have to be opposed, but we can't be talking, like the way ajedigecko is and say "the MB must be eliminated." That type of talk is almost genocidal. Let's be rational in our approach. The MB is not a global threat--in fact, they have been persecuted for decades by US-backed dictatorships. In fact, the Islamic monarchy of Saudi Arabia has assisted in persecuting the Brotherhood! This is because this is bigger than simply "Islam." This is about power, politics, and particular ideologies winning over others, not about a religion dictating us to kill others.
As for PJ_Soul's claim that all Muslims aren't doing enough to oppose radicals, this is just a bullshit claim used to justify Islam-bashing, which I already addressed in a post that was likely too long for him or her to read (just as this one probably is). Oh well.
Comments
First of all, let's clear something up here: none of you, it seems, have even gone through the trouble of looking through the Quran yourself, let alone actual texts written about Islam from even Western scholars. Instead, you are asking another member of the forum to do the work for you and explain it to you.
Fine. badbrains is incorrect, I'm afraid. "Infidel" first of all is not even an accurate translation of the word from the Quran, which is "kafir." A kafir is not simply an infidel. The most accurate explanation is that it's someone who tries to cover "the truth." In fact, the english word "cover" comes from the arabic word "kafir." In other words, it's a person who is actively persecuting your ability to practice and preach your religion. This is because the people living in Mecca during the 7th century were not simply allowing the prophet to preach, but then he was trying to kill them all.
Let me take a break here: one of the biggest problems with Islamic radicals is that they take verses from the Quran, and reports on what the Prophet did out of the historical context and try to apply it in modern day. Unfortunately, that is also what many of you are doing, which is why you are allowing Islamic radicals the ability to shape the religion, because people in the West are just so obsessed with looking at ONLY those guys. In fact, someone in this thread said something along the lines of 'it's not relevant to talk about moderate Muslims,' and that essentially we should only be talking about radicals, which is absolutely absurd.
Anyway, going back to the prophet. What people don't realize is that as he spent 23 years spreading Islam, the first 13 of those years were not just exclusively nonviolent, but he specifically prohibited any armed resistance to the persecution people were facing who converted to Islam: this included torture, killings, isolation which would often lead to starvation in tribal societies, etc. Like the Christian reports of Jesus, he advocated a "turn the other cheek" philosophy for 13 years. It was not until he moved to Medina that eventually they began engaging the Meccans militarily. And even in those instances, killings of women, children, elderly, etc., were prohibited: for more on this, you can read about the conquest of Mecca in 630 which was bloodless. Ultimately, without trying to bore you people with too much history, it was specific instances that the Quran sanctioned the use of warfare: when people are persecuting you, "driving you from your homes" (a literal quote in reference to the fact that the Muslims had to leave Mecca for Medina), etc.
Islam actually takes a very practical approach to these types of situations, which is why it does not completely outlaw warfare. But to argue that it advocates targeting any person who simply does not believe in God is so absurd and has literally no religious OR historical basis. In fact, for hundreds of years the Islamic world was by far the most pluralistic and accepting society, especially in light of the horrible crimes that were going on in Europe.
When Europe began its colonization efforts in the Muslim world, they began implementing many types of policies that began discriminating against the indigenous Muslims. The capitulations that were instituted are by far some of the most obvious examples in the different countries (Tunisia, Algeria, etc), or how they began granting certain religious groups citizenship while denying others (such as the French allowing Jews in Algeria citizenship but not Muslims). These policies that the Europeans were instituting in the 19th and 20th centuries are important because it's what would shape the way religious groups in the Muslim world began interacting with each other: yes, they were political (and economic/resource-oriented) policies, but they were still made on the basis of religious identity. This is why we can't simply try to create distinctions between what is "religious" and what is "political" or "economic" or whatever. It doesn't work that way. Religious identity is a part of society, it's a part of how people view themselves as individuals, as a community, as a nation, etc. It directly plays into politics. And the Europeans exploited it and instituted a 'divide and conquer' strategy, which is why countries like Lebanon now have such horrible animosity between their various religious groups (Christians, Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, etc). The 1975 civil war there was a direct result of the colonial practices of the Europeans. There's also the issue of the state of Israel, a state constructed for Jews and created by ethnically cleansing Muslim and Christian Palestinians--this act was and is defended vigorously to this day by Western powers, even as it continues.
I know there are tons of colonial apologists here who think it's nonsense to "blame" everything that happens today on colonialism. Good thing none of you actually know shit about history or Middle Eastern politics though, cause if you did then you might actually have to deconstruct the bullshit worldview you've been living that vindicates the West of any wrongdoing so you can try to live happily ever after in a "post-colonial" world.
In today's world, we have actually convinced ourselves that the problem with Islam is that it, in and of itself, inspires individuals to commit these horrendous acts, whereas when it comes to Western governments, they simply do horrible things for typical human reasons (greed, etc). How is it that you've actually been able to convince yourself of this, I have no clue, but obviously indoctrination from the media plays a huge role. For instance, none of you care to question why the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world lives peacefully--are they just practicing their religion incorrectly? Are they just overlooking certain parts of their religion that are more "brutal" and that's what makes them so peaceful? So, only the radicals are the ones who are technically practicing it correctly?
This is the problem, again, of allowing radical muslims to shape your view of the religion. Many of you blame Muslim leaders and individuals for not standing up to these radicals as the reason. The problem is that someone in this thread said we can't say the US is spreading Christianity without looking up what different Christian organizations say. Well how many of you actually cared to look up what various elements in Muslim societies say? I don't think any of you have, seeing as how none of you have even cared to open up a Quran or read any credible source on Islam.
The fact is, the radicals did this act in Kenya not for religious reasons, but for various other ones. Yes, they find religious justification, and they try to win over religious favor by doing stupid things like "if you're Muslim leave," etc., but Muslims died by their gunfire too. The fact is, al-Shabab themselves said this was done because of Kenya infringing on Somalian sovereignty before--i.e., a political reason.
The Western religion, Liberalism, has been abused for centuries to justify going to several countries and killing millions of people. But no one ever says liberalism is to blame--it's just been "abused." Well, Islam has been abused. And the reason you hear about it so often is largely because the Muslim world has been at the forefront of several invasions from Western powers for years--not to save them from themselves, but for the West's gain. Add to this the delicate history of the past couple hundred years since colonialism as well, and you have a very troubling scenario. Muslim leaders are trying to speak out, but the problem is that the moment they condemn Islamic radicals AND Western/Israeli invasions and crimes, they are isolated and condemned by Western media. The binary of "Good Muslim/Bad Muslim" means you either support the U.S. and Israel, or you are 'one of them.' This is the reality on the ground. Muslims are spied on and persecuted by the U.S. government in this country for speaking out against crimes committed by the government and by Israel--and they are repressed in their own societies by autocratic governments that are supported by the U.S. (like Saudi).
So what's the solution to this horrible mess? I doubt any of you have one. It's way too complicated. So if you don't have a solution, kindly shut the hell up and stop trashing an entire religion that has over a billion followers.
Do I deny entrapment exists? No.
Do I believe it is a charge trotted out far too often when people (of all religions, faiths and creeds) are caught in a dirty deal? Yes.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Thanks for the time you have taken to shed some light on this issue.
You have me curious now to the point where I wish to research some of what you have expressed. I have devout Muslim friends that I am sure can assist me with this endeavour. If you feel you wish to point me in the right direction, feel free (BadBrains, feel free as well!).
I know people think that the US justice system is so grand, and sure it makes a mistake every now and then, but it's virtually infallible--this is just not true, particularly when it comes to the "domestic war on terror." The US judicial system is just as political as the others. Read up on it, please.
As the Spanish would say: "grassy-ass!"
The Islamaphobia Industry: How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims (Esposito)
I wish to research the mounting tension towards Muslim people. I am hoping the book will dispel some of the most common misunderstandings in the process.
This idea of an invisible man in the sky ... is just too funny.
I'm more interested in leading example and all religions are extremely guilty of poor behaviour, but lately it people's ho practice Islam that is getting all the coverage.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
We are not talking about a young person. We are talking about a 38 year old man. That is older than me and I am no longer young. It is also old enough to know there might be consequences if you broker a deal with the Taliban for $25 million in arms in exchange for an $800,000 commission. I do roll my eyes at pretending this is the case of a poor, young victim.
Also, this is not an article about someone who has just been arrested. This is about someone who has been arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced. At least two of the points you made above are factually incorrect.
No where have I claimed or implied the US justice system is infallible or "so grand". It is not, however, always wrong.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Don't get me wrong... I'm not interested in finding my spirituality. I will never believe in an omnipresent, wonderful, and magical man that I can speak to in prayer. To that matter... each to their own: if someone finds peace and happiness doing exactly that then fair enough.
I'm curious to read exactly what the book title states: how people have been led to believe the Muslim people are something to be wary of.
I was not talking specifically about this case--I haven't researched it yet. But your original comment seemed to make light of the fact that the majority of "domestic war on terror" cases like this are cases of government entrapment (which also often happen to kids in their early 20s or even teens). I know it's easy to read a 300-word article and think otherwise, but if you've studied the details of these different cases, as I have, I do believe you'd change your mind.
I edited my response you quoted here but as you say you were not referring to this case in particular it is of no matter.
Is there actual evidence that the majority of these cases are entrapment or is that an opinion? Because if you are reaching out to arms dealers, or seeking out explosives, or securing building blueprints for men you believe will blow up that building...regardless if you have been contacted by an actual terrorist or not, you have not been entrapped. You have just been detected by the proper authorities before an actual terrorist has had the chance to enlist your services.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I am aware examples exist. I am just skeptical that a majority of examples exists. My original point was that as soon as a case like this comes to light, the assumption by some is that the perpetrator was entrapped. I think that is just as bad as assuming someone is automatically guilty.
Apologies to the OP if I have derailed their thread.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet." --Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood
Gotta consider the source. The Muslim Brotherhood doesn't get to speak for all Muslims.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I am only asking about the quote and the brothers.
Based on this quote - i would agree the brothers need to be eliminated.
From what I know of them...I don't disagree.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Yet I'm only seeing the story come up on page 10 news blurb ...
Wonder why?
Canada did go to Afghanistan of course, and had a large presence there.
It has been rumoured that JTF2 (Canada's Special Forces) was in Iraq ... I tend to think we played a role ... the government has never admitted that we were there ... but many have suspected we were involved in some way.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Thanks fuck!!! I was having one hell of a time trying to defend my religion and didn't know how to put all of it in writing. But man, you did one hell of a job!
First of all, when people, such as yourself, are trying to make comments about Islam as a religion, we absolutely have to talk about Muslims, ALL Muslims. I know it's convenient for you to bash Islam by pointing at radicals, but that's just the wrong way to go about it. I know I have to use absolutist talk here, but I'm afraid you're just plain wrong. When we're talking about Islam as an entire religion, we can't let the discussion be shaped by radicals.
Earlier in this thread, you mentioned that 25-30% of Muslims in the Middle East are extremist, only to casually mention below that comment that you essentially pulled those numbers out of your ass (I think you said something along the lines of, 'I read it here and there'). Wonderful.
I think we have a problem here: first, we are throwing around terms like 'extremist' without attempting to define it. By what standards do you make the claim that 30% of a population the size of the US is extremist? Because Egypt voted in the Muslim Brotherhood during democratic elections, does that mean the majority of Egyptians are extremist? Are the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt an extremist organization? Based on what?
The above poster posts a quote from Hassan al-Banna who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928: not only would it be wrong to take that quote and say "this is what Islam preaches," but it would even be incorrect to suggest that that is what the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) preaches. The MB evolved as an organization over many decades. The MB you see now is not the same MB that you saw in the 60s, is not the same that was around in the 40s, etc. The MB formally renounced ever using violence as a means decades ago. They've participated in politics, adopted democracy (as they did in Egypt) especially as they had popular support through the many initiatives they were employing in society (founding clinics, distributing food, etc). So what makes the MB extremist?
Here's another problem: you are talking about 'Islamic extremists' and 'extremism' in general terms to suggest that there is one unified global movement seeking the destruction of anything not like it. This is the same nonsensical claim that people were making about communism in the Cold War. People on this board like Godfather, who were probably running around yelling "commie!" at anyone smoking a joint in the 60s, love these grand pictures of good vs evil. But it's just not true.
The different Islamic groups that exist in various parts of the world were not founded off the same Islamic custom. They are unique to the contexts in which they were founded in: Hezbollah is unique to the Lebanese context, Hamas to the Palestinian, the MB to Egypt, al-Shabab to Somalia, al-Qaeda to Saudi (and later Yemen, Iraq, etc), the Taliban to Afghanistan, and so on.
The Islamic groups are not one and the same. The MB in Egypt advocate for nonviolence and democracy. Hamas in Palestine is fighting a violent occupation, you can't remove them from that context. It's the same elsewhere. Likewise, some Islamic groups are far more tolerant and respectful towards other religious groups than others. For instance, the MB in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Islamic trend existing in Tunisia are far more tolerant of other religious groups than, say, al-Qaeda or the Taliban. In fact, al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not even tolerant toward other Muslims!
We can't remove all these individual Islamic groups and say "these are all Islamic extremists and all must be fought against." Just because something is Islamic or even "Islamist" does not make it violent, intolerant, etc. Some resort to armed struggle because they were founded in the context of violent foreign occupation. Others because force is the way to rule (like the Taliban). They have to be opposed, but we can't be talking, like the way ajedigecko is and say "the MB must be eliminated." That type of talk is almost genocidal. Let's be rational in our approach. The MB is not a global threat--in fact, they have been persecuted for decades by US-backed dictatorships. In fact, the Islamic monarchy of Saudi Arabia has assisted in persecuting the Brotherhood! This is because this is bigger than simply "Islam." This is about power, politics, and particular ideologies winning over others, not about a religion dictating us to kill others.
As for PJ_Soul's claim that all Muslims aren't doing enough to oppose radicals, this is just a bullshit claim used to justify Islam-bashing, which I already addressed in a post that was likely too long for him or her to read (just as this one probably is). Oh well.