CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Islam...

[Kutnupe14]

83% condemn "terrorist acts as political protest." (Question 22)
67% oppose the ISIS goal to create an Islamic state (Q28)
73% oppose "how" ISIS is creating their state (Q29)
OK, nuts and bolts (Q37). It asks "If you thought someone who close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you..." (multiple answer)
-Talk to the person directly 46%
-Look for help 37%
-Report to police 34%
-I don't think someone close to me would be involved 27%
-Don't get involved 9%
-Don't know 10%

The articles appear to have taken great liberties with the findings of the poll. There isn't a question present about giving the govt information involving a terror plot. It's inferred that such a plot would involve an attack on Britain. Further, it is also inferred that 2/3 of British Muslim, simply don't care, as they the articles "citing" this poll conveniently leaves out the other intervention methods to address the problem.... the problem being that the responded knows someone who is involved with people who supports terrorism IN SYRIA. Sure one might want to extrapolate that if they support terrorism in Syria, they'd support it in Britain. That's a fair assumption, but it is an assumption, and not supported by the polling.

 

[BugI02]

Nonsense.

I've modded before, it's no fun. I've zero interest in doing it here.

It is a cute new attack though.

But ... but ... I learned on INGO that Criticism = Attack > Trump

What is Trump's INGO name?

 

[BugI02]

First, this is a false dichotomy. I'd pick C: depends on the circumstances. If I think the person is being an *******, I'll just post that in the thread. Has nothing to do with grandstanding. But rarely, I have PM'd stuff like that.

On the rest, I think I'm missing something. Where are the facts in evidence? Upon what do you base this accusation? What lines are you reading between to get there?

Here's my take. Someone says something against something you really believe in or whatever, you take it personally, and then you imagine everything the person says has nefarious purposes. I dunno. Maybe he thinks he's auditioning for mod or whatever. But from what do you base that? I see nothing even remotely close to that. Or maybe I mess the thread where all that was evidenced sufficiently to make the accusation. I admit I don't read every post in every thread.

Well, if you wish to call this out in public, so be it. The referenced type of post has occurred a number of times across a number of threads for more than a few months, with the tempo increasing in the last two. The only other conclusion I could come to, based on the evidence I have seen/read, is that the posting individual is more of a scold than I ever had inkling of. I would not as a rule seek out this individual's 'wisdom', nor he mine, but I still have come across the flagged behavior in a significant number of threads and it is out of character, thus engendering a hypothesis whose veracity is still indeterminate

Month's ago I PM'd a couple of other member's as a kind of "you heard it here first"; perhaps if they see this, and are so inclined, they will share that

 

[hog slayer]

83% condemn "terrorist acts as political protest." (Question 22)
67% oppose the ISIS goal to create an Islamic state (Q28)
73% oppose "how" ISIS is creating their state (Q29)
OK, nuts and bolts (Q37). It asks "If you thought someone who close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you..." (multiple answer)
-Talk to the person directly 46%
-Look for help 37%
-Report to police 34%
-I don't think someone close to me would be involved 27%
-Don't get involved 9%
-Don't know 10%

The articles appear to have taken great liberties with the findings of the poll. There isn't a question present about giving the govt information involving a terror plot. It's inferred that such a plot would involve an attack on Britain. Further, it is also inferred that 2/3 of British Muslim, simply don't care, as they the articles "citing" this poll conveniently leaves out the other intervention methods to address the problem.... the problem being that the responded knows someone who is involved with people who supports terrorism IN SYRIA. Sure one might want to extrapolate that if they support terrorism in Syria, they'd support it in Britain. That's a fair assumption, but it is an assumption, and not supported by the polling.

I gotta hand it to you. That was a lot more research than i expected . I'm impressed!

 

[RobbyMaQ]

So, if I interpret this correctly, you would countenance Satanists setting up a coven (or whatever they call their congregations) in your community; and as long as they only advocated the torture and sacrifice of innocent children, you would not move against them.
You would wait until someone associated with their 'gathering' actually acted upon their tenets?

I don't welcome poisonous creatures into my house

Words are words. Actions are quite different.
Much as I disagree with Westboro, KKK, etc... They're free to spout or believe whatever they wish.
If they act on such words, well then the ACT of murder is quite a different story.

 

[BugI02]

Words are words. Actions are quite different.
Much as I disagree with Westboro, KKK, etc... They're free to spout or believe whatever they wish.
If they act on such words, well then the ACT of murder is quite a different story.

This is 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Apparently there are some things which the mere contemplation of which will not be accepted. Perhaps the murder of innocents should be added to that list

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy


If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

18 U.S. Code § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government


Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or


Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or


Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—


Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.


If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.


As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

 

[Think]

Thanks for responding

How would the two commandments, "Thou shalt not kill (murder)" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery" be understood by Muslims? Are there verses in the Quran which abrogate their meaning? Can the hadiths abrogate the Quran?



Who provides guidance for the average Muslim on what verse abrogates another? In your example, it appears to be the chronological appearance of the verse? If that is so, is it ALWAYS chronological? If not, a brief example of one that isn't and how that was decided would be educational. Is the Quran is arranged chronologically? If not, is there general agreement among Muslim scholars on the chronology? For example, I own a Chronological Bible. Is there such a thing in the Muslim World?

All the ten commandments are eternally valid. Average Muslims read Quran, if they have questions usually they ask people who have formal islamic studies/scholars/sheikhs/Imams. The example given is well known to Muslims as it represents the aspect of Islam related to the protection of the five main goals of the Shari’ah. These have been defined as universal matters which the Shari’ah was revealed to protect and preserve, namely; faith, life, intellect, posterity and wealth. Regarding chronology, there is a science called (reasons for revelations) that deals with the specific incidents related to the revealed ayat. That's why commentaries can be very helpful for readers. In my knowledge, people can arrange surahs according to revelation time, but this is approximate because, sometimes, ayahs inside a surah are revealed in another incidents. See here:Revelation Order - Tanzil Documents

 

[RobbyMaQ]

This is 18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Apparently there are some things which the mere contemplation of which will not be accepted. Perhaps the murder of innocents should be added to that list

Its a good thing the satanists aren't trying to overthrow the gov't

 

[BugI02]

Its a good thing the satanists aren't trying to overthrow the gov't

Nice dance moves! The point is, sometimes merely advocating something is enough to run afoul of the law

As I stated, perhaps advocating the slaughter of innocents should join that list. I believe you could convince most Christians to allow the shut down of any church advocating the murder of those who don't adopt and follow their religion, as long as we could do the same for the Murderous Mosques®

 

[gregr]

At least they're up front about their bias. They didn't try to hide it. But that doesn't make the survey wrong. It's just a datapoint we may use to decide how credible is the poll.

Although not always necessarily so, many biases, like many stereotypes, are initially based on factual insights.

 

[hog slayer]

I'm just curious about something, I've not asked previously because my intent isn't to minimize the positions of others.

How many of those posting regularly in this thread, or reading behind the scenes, have deployed in support of OIF/OEF and had the opportunity to work with Muslims of the middle east?

An issue that I keep running into is my experience isn't easily related to those here who haven't been in that environment. I'm not even always sure that experience is totally relevant. I will say, regardless of anything else, those Muslims would NOT coexist peacefully. Give me whatever statistic you want. Wouldn't make a bit of difference.

 

[gregr]

I'm just curious about something, I've not asked previously because my intent isn't to minimize the positions of others.

How many of those posting regularly in this thread, or reading behind the scenes, have deployed in support of OIF/OEF and had the opportunity to work with Muslims of the middle east?

An issue that I keep running into is my experience isn't easily related to those here who haven't been in that environment. I'm not even always sure that experience is totally relevant. I will say, regardless of anything else, those Muslims would NOT coexist peacefully. Give me whatever statistic you want. Wouldn't make a bit of difference.

If you read the book, it`s self explanatory.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm just curious about something, I've not asked previously because my intent isn't to minimize the positions of others.

How many of those posting regularly in this thread, or reading behind the scenes, have deployed in support of OIF/OEF and had the opportunity to work with Muslims of the middle east?

An issue that I keep running into is my experience isn't easily related to those here who haven't been in that environment. I'm not even always sure that experience is totally relevant. I will say, regardless of anything else, those Muslims would NOT coexist peacefully. Give me whatever statistic you want. Wouldn't make a bit of difference.

I'm assuming your experience is in relation to being in a war zone, yes? That may temper your opinion, but you must keep in mind forming opinions, singularly, based on experiences in a conflict zone is bound to be full of fallacies. Ive been to several Muslim majority nations, and have interacted with people on an equal footing, where a power dynamic is not in play. I also know plenty of Muslims stateside. I, personally, have no fear of those individuals based on the religion they practice.

 

[hog slayer]

If you read the book, it`s self explanatory.

Oh, I'm fully aware. I'm actually more educated in the Quran than I ever really wanted to be. So far, rebutting those things attempted to substantiate the Quran have not used the text of the Quran to do so. Using history fails miserably. I've got one decently lengthy post to respond to for Think. If he's going to put forth decent effort I feel I should do the same in return. He's also the first Muslim (I don't actually recall the admission of faith, so I'm assuming) that hasn't had a temper tantrum while discussing this. Up till now they these discussions have ALWAYS turned to violence.

There are enough similarities between the two that it can be easy for someone hitting just the wave tops to think they are principally similar. All a guy has to do, though, is read for themselves. First thing you'll notice is how difficult it is to read the Quran. It's just not written in a way that's easy to read and comprehend for the average guy. After you spend a bit of time on it, though, you'll begin to identify how many errors there are for a book that's supposedly the exact word of Allah. Then you'll learn that Allah really isn't a loving god. That's a huge tell.

Let's look at the 5 basic foundational worldview questions: Look for consistency, but look for yourself.
1) Origin - how did this whole thing (earth, space, etc) begin?
2) Identity - What's my identity in all of this?
3) Meaning or purpose - Why am I here?
4) Morality - where do we get our sense of right or wrong?
5) Destiny - when I die, where I spend the rest of eternity? Dirt? Second life? Possibly with God (insert the word Father here for a real treat).

Consistency. Key word is CONSISTENCY. We are so afraid to offend someone it is tough to get these things out truthfully in conversation. But, if you read for yourself, and attempt to answer these five essentials, anyone should find something as close to truth as possible.

As for me: biblical worldview
1) Genesis, In the beginning GOD.....
2) God created us in His image. Now I only need to understand Him better to understand myself better. Genesis, again. I am valued by my God. It's not something I can earn. I was created with value.
3) I am here to know Him and have a relationship with my God. A personal relationship. Most religions don't have a loving god (Islam is such a religion).
4) I get my morality from this relationship with my Father. Just like anyone does with their own dad.
5) When I put my faith and trust in Jesus Christ and repent of my sins I am born again and my destiny is secured.

Applied to EVERYTHING I'll encounter, this will suffice. It will not be found lacking. Applied to finances: check. Applied to relationships: check. Applied to enemies: check. Applied consistently to anything in life: same result. It works.

Now, this is (easiest method) how the standard attempt to explain the Quran is faulty. You need only read a brief amount of the Quran and compare it to the elegance of writing in Psalm 23 to see that the author really lost pizazz. Not only that, But God changes if you look at the Quran as a succession. It simply isn't possible for both books to be true at the same time.

I think we see eye to eye on this matter, gregr

 

[ArcadiaGP]

It simply isn't possible for both books to be true at the same time.

Curious on your view here... How neutral can one person discuss a religion while being a member of a different, arguably opposing, religion?

Lot of the arguments in this thread are comparing Islam to Christianity (the majority religion on INGO, I'm assuming.) It's unlikely members of said religion are planning to offer many concessions against their own religion (the one they believe is right) vs a religion they have no interest in offering any validation to.

 

[jamil]

I'm just curious about something, I've not asked previously because my intent isn't to minimize the positions of others.

How many of those posting regularly in this thread, or reading behind the scenes, have deployed in support of OIF/OEF and had the opportunity to work with Muslims of the middle east?

An issue that I keep running into is my experience isn't easily related to those here who haven't been in that environment. I'm not even always sure that experience is totally relevant. I will say, regardless of anything else, those Muslims would NOT coexist peacefully. Give me whatever statistic you want. Wouldn't make a bit of difference.

It's not irrelevant. It's just another datapoint.

 

[hog slayer]

I'm assuming your experience is in relation to being in a war zone, yes? That may temper your opinion, but you must keep in mind forming opinions, singularly, based on experiences in a conflict zone is bound to be full of fallacies. Ive been to several Muslim majority nations, and have interacted with people on an equal footing, where a power dynamic is not in play. I also know plenty of Muslims stateside. I, personally, have no fear of those individuals based on the religion they practice.

War zone is correct. I would only wish to clarify that the absolute majority, nearly all for that matter, were not considered our enemies in my deployment experience. Others, of course, saw the enemy as defined by uncle Sam. I was around the "peaceful" group

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I've been following links to find the source (and thus methology) of that poll. Anyone have a link to the poll? I also noted that went researching backwards the narrative is being changed. As of right not, I'm calling the "2/3" claim as seriously lacking credibility.

Is it really that far fetched? I've read here and in other places that here in America, one of the hurdles our LEOs face is the unwillingness of those in crime ridden areas to help out with information. If true, wouldn't it be a reasonable assumption that that might also occur in other places? I am neither buying or selling the results of that article other than reading it as a possible data point and clue as to why we're where we are. And based on what I've been told, it's at least plausible.

 

[gregr]

Curious on your view here... How neutral can one person discuss a religion while being a member of a different, arguably opposing, religion?

Lot of the arguments in this thread are comparing Islam to Christianity (the majority religion on INGO, I'm assuming.) It's unlikely members of said religion are planning to offer many concessions against their own religion (the one they believe is right) vs a religion they have no interest in offering any validation to.

For starters, the Holy Bible is Gods` inerrant Word, not the writings of some man. Past that, Jesus taught to love your enemy, that other book compels it`s followers to murder in the name of their god. What is difficult to grasp about the books being polar opposites of each other?

 

[Route 45]

TY

YW