Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate

[chipbennett]

70%. Yet Obama won with 51.1% of the vote. Even after Roberts all but told people to go vote.

A crumb or two is better than nothing. Yes, I want the whole pie, but that won't happen, and if you are honest, you know that ship sailed a while ago. Best to keep gathering crumbs until we get the whole pie back.

51% of the people decided that they wanted Obamacare. That choice was clear.

We live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The will of 51% of the people does not matter, when that will is explicitly unconstitutional.

 

[miguel]

When you talk to Arabs, the main complaints are:
1) US backing Israel while allowing them to continue to push Palestinians out

This is the 800 lb. elephant the thread has been missing!

Would it be fair to posit the reason Middle Eastern adherents to Islam get a little bit bonkers about life at times -- other than the searing heat, absence of bacon and a lack of green space -- is because of the establishment of a non-Islamic state in their midst within the last 75 years? It is hard to ignore the fact that the founding of Israel effectively introduced a non-Islamic political and social entity into a geography that had not seen a non-Islamic political entity, save for some 'incursions' during the Crusades, for over 1000 years?

That said, is the concept of jihad taken to the nth degree and manifested physically as well as spiritually by Arabs because they have seen one of their holiest sites (Dome of the Rock) fall within the boundries of a non-Islamic state? I mean, Morocco is a Muslim nation, but when people think of Morocco, they think of Humphrey Bogart, not jihad. Ditto Uzbekistan.

Respectfully to all, that issue hasn't been something that has been popular to discuss in the Western world since WWII, for obvious reasons...

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Or as we call it, "SW Indiana"...

You say that like it's a _bad_ thing...

 

[IndyDave1776]

This is the 800 lb. elephant the thread has been missing!

Would it be fair to posit the reason Middle Eastern adherents to Islam get a little bit bonkers about life at times -- other than the searing heat, absence of bacon and a lack of green space -- is because of the establishment of a non-Islamic state in their midst within the last 75 years? It is hard to ignore the fact that the founding of Israel effectively introduced a non-Islamic political and social entity into a geography that had not seen a non-Islamic political entity, save for some 'incursions' during the Crusades, for over 1000 years?

That said, is the concept of jihad taken to the nth degree and manifested physically as well as spiritually by Arabs because they have seen one of their holiest sites (Dome of the Rock) fall within the boundries of a non-Islamic state? I mean, Morocco is a Muslim nation, but when people think of Morocco, they think of Humphrey Bogart, not jihad. Ditto Uzbekistan.

Respectfully to all, that issue hasn't been something that has been popular to discuss in the Western world since WWII, for obvious reasons...

What about Lebanon? It was a majority Christian state until approximately the time the civil war launched this side of the establishment of modern Israel. There seems to be no philosophical problem when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

The koran states its permissible to lie in order to further the expansion of islam and confound the kafer or infidel.
How can you say that muslims are peace loving people when the areas they live in are violent hell holes by their own doing? They subjugate women and children and are just as likely to kill a fellow muslim because they dont agree with their particular flavor of islam as they are to attack an infidel.
Their book says they are supposed to be violent towards the infidel. Is that not true? So the " muslims" that say they dont believe thats right are not muslims. They are the ones their fellow jihadist muslims (real muslims) will kill when they disagree with their techniques to further establish the caliphate.


Islam is a political system not a religion.

Respectfully, sir - I think you are mixing up some of the Arab states for Islam in general. Consider the Muslims that live in Indonesia and Malaysia for example. There ARE parts of the Middle East (think ISIS) that desperately need to be wiped out. They are aggressor and our sworn enemy. Fair enough. But I don't see them as representing all Muslims.

Please consider - By the same logic that you are using above for Muslims - if I don't go out and stone all homosexuals to death (after all it is written in the Old Testament), then I am not Christian... And that is simply not true. I would rather die than go all Westboro on folks. The devil can quote scripture for his own purposes. The leaders of ISIS - and a number of other places, have done so, in order to further conquest, revenge, etc. THOSE folks need wiping out. But we must bear in mind who our real enemy is - and not cast too wide of a net.

 

[spencer rifle]

Antisemitism is nothing new in Islam:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
I heard Allah's Apostle [Muhammad] saying, "The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!' " (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 791)

Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him) as saying: You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him. (Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6981)

Note: Any quotes of the Koran or and Hadiths that are not read and understood in Arabic are not considered authorized or authentic by many Muslim scholars.

 

[spencer rifle]

Please consider - By the same logic that you are using above for Muslims - if I don't go out and stone all homosexuals to death (after all it is written in the Old Testament), then I am not Christian...

You are in error. The Old Testament was fulfilled by Jesus, and he established the New Covenant that blends justice with mercy, and puts love first.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You are in error. The Old Testament was fulfilled by Jesus, and he established the New Covenant that blends justice with mercy, and puts love first.

Context matters and you didn't include the rest of what he said which puts that sentence into context.

 

[spencer rifle]

Context matters and you didn't include the rest of what he said which puts that sentence into context.

That would assume that the Westboro people are in any way Christian. They claim it, but it doesn't fit in with the Savior's teaching. What the Muslim terrorists are doing fits just fine, depending on your chosen fiq.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That would assume that the Westboro people are in any way Christian. They claim it, but it doesn't fit in with the Savior's teaching. What the Muslim terrorists are doing fits just fine, depending on your chosen fiq.

No, you missed the point. I'll highlight it:

Please consider - By the same logic that you are using above for Muslims - if I don't go out and stone all homosexuals to death (after all it is written in the Old Testament), then I am not Christian... And that is simply not true. I would rather die than go all Westboro on folks. The devil can quote scripture for his own purposes. The leaders of ISIS - and a number of other places, have done so, in order to further conquest, revenge, etc. THOSE folks need wiping out. But we must bear in mind who our real enemy is - and not cast too wide of a net.

He's agreeing with you in spirit.

 

[miguel]

What about Lebanon? It was a majority Christian state until approximately the time the civil war launched this side of the establishment of modern Israel. There seems to be no philosophical problem when the shoe is on the other foot.

A very good point!

Lebanon is much less Christian than it used to be however and is of more recent vintage than the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the area for centuries. The Christians in Lebanon/Syria/Iraq may have been seen as less of a threat since they had simply existed in that geography for centuries, they just "lost" the battle for religious and cultural supremecy.

I mean, one can rightfully argue Jews have been there since Day 1 too, but since the founding of Israel within Grandpa Ali's lifetime-- which was as much a political (Zionist) act as a religious one -- several million non-Sephardic Jews have arrived to settle in that land. I can envision some "conservative" adherents to Islam feeling the same about a couple of million Ashkenazics arriving in the land I will broadly describe as Palestine, as most "conservative" Americans feel about millions of Latins coming in from the south. "They don't look or act like us, so they should go back..."

Just my gentle observations...

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

You are in error. The Old Testament was fulfilled by Jesus, and he established the New Covenant that blends justice with mercy, and puts love first.

I totally agree that the Old Testament was fulfilled by Jesus - exactly as you say. But someone (NOT Christian) reading the scripture could EASILY twist it to say "Hey, if you don't stone the homosexuals, you are not Christian..."

I am a Christian. (of one particular flavor - not getting into that here...) I'm expected to understand Christianity. I am not Muslim. I am not arrogant enough to tell them what they believe. Just like I don't appreciate being told what I believe - nor do you, nor anyone else. It's part of that whole "do unto others as you would have done unto you" thing...

Again - the Ford dealer might be a brilliant guy and expert on all kinds of cars. But if I want to talk about Toyotas - I'm going to the Toyota dealer - and his mechanic team. Even if they have their own "spin" on things - that is the only fair way to understand. Especially when there are various opinions on all of the different scripture involved.

 

[IndyDave1776]

A very good point!

Lebanon is much less Christian than it used to be however and is of more recent vintage than the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the area for centuries. The Christians in Lebanon/Syria/Iraq may have been seen as less of a threat since they had simply existed in that geography for centuries, they just "lost" the battle for religious and cultural supremecy.

I mean, one can rightfully argue Jews have been there since Day 1 too, but since the founding of Israel within Grandpa Ali's lifetime-- which was as much a political (Zionist) act as a religious one -- several million non-Sephardic Jews have arrived to settle in that land. I can envision some "conservative" adherents to Islam feeling the same about a couple of million Ashkenazics arriving in the land I will broadly describe as Palestine, as most "conservative" Americans feel about millions of Latins coming in from the south. "They don't look or act like us, so they should go back..."

Just my gentle observations...

I would agree for the most part, but Lebanon has the smaller Christian representation that it now has as a product of the civil war, which didn't start until the Moslems reached the point of numerical parity by flat outbreeding the Christians. Yes, they had existed as a pocket in the Ottoman Empire rather than an independent nation, but they were still there, and had their own nation post-World War I up until being killed off and/or driven out by the mid 1980s. The argument about 'looking like us' doesn't really work, as many of the local Christians supposed the same things and expected more unity given that they were all Arabs and all disdained Israel. It didn't work out that way.

 

[spencer rifle]

Sensible approach. But then you must go to the radical mosque to hear what their interpretation is, not your Muslim neighbor (who is unlikely to be hearing or adhering to a problematic interpretation). Though that might not have worked in San Bernardino...

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Sensible approach. But then you must go to the radical mosque to hear what their interpretation is, not your Muslim neighbor (who is unlikely to be hearing or adhering to a problematic interpretation). Though that might not have worked in San Bernardino...

My point is this - the radical mosque is something akin to the Westboro ding dongs. And others - like white supremacists and stormfront types that arguably ARE Christian - but take a relatively harsh implementation view. BOTH arguably quote scripture to support their own (often violent) purposes. And I will allow that the percentages may be different. Maybe only 1-2% of Christians (if even that) can find it in their head to twist things towards aggression. And in Islam, it may well be a higher percentage. The "problematic interpretation" you mention above - I agree with. I'm all for wiping out those who would enslave us, kill us, or otherwise take our freedom. But as you indicate - there is a significant percentage of Muslims who do NOT follow a "problematic interpretation". What concerns me is when I see them lumped together, and folks advocating expelling them from America, rounding them up like the Japanese in WWII etc. Simply because they are Muslim. THAT is against everything I believe in.

If they pick up a sword against us (ISIS, et al.) then by all means, flatten them. If they don't - they have the right to their beliefs as much as you or I. And I am all for supporting the moderate (non-"problematic interpretation") folks in raising their voices and drawing a line between themselves and their more radical compadres. Just as you and I both did above with the Westboro example. We both said, in effect - "they claim to be Christian, but we don't agree". Ought we not to allow moderate Muslims the same privilege? To decry the violence and draw their line in the sand?

 

[IndyDave1776]

My point is this - the radical mosque is something akin to the Westboro ding dongs. And others - like white supremacists and stormfront types that arguably ARE Christian - but take a relatively harsh implementation view. BOTH arguably quote scripture to support their own (often violent) purposes. And I will allow that the percentages may be different. Maybe only 1-2% of Christians (if even that) can find it in their head to twist things towards aggression. And in Islam, it may well be a higher percentage. The "problematic interpretation" you mention above - I agree with. I'm all for wiping out those who would enslave us, kill us, or otherwise take our freedom. But as you indicate - there is a significant percentage of Muslims who do NOT follow a "problematic interpretation". What concerns me is when I see them lumped together, and folks advocating expelling them from America, rounding them up like the Japanese in WWII etc. Simply because they are Muslim. THAT is against everything I believe in.

If they pick up a sword against us (ISIS, et al.) then by all means, flatten them. If they don't - they have the right to their beliefs as much as you or I. And I am all for supporting the moderate (non-"problematic interpretation") folks in raising their voices and drawing a line between themselves and their more radical compadres. Just as you and I both did above with the Westboro example. We both said, in effect - "they claim to be Christian, but we don't agree". Ought we not to allow moderate Muslims the same privilege? To decry the violence and draw their line in the sand?

Philosophically, we are on the same page. That said, one of the issues of the day is admitting refugees that we have no realistic way to check before admitting. Personally, I take this a step back from the issue of religion given that the US is not in a position to absorb more people as evidenced by our unemployment and the strain on the government to provide the services already demanded of it. This is equally true regardless of whether the potential admitees are Moslems, Mexicans, or British who are card-carrying Anglicans.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The koran states its permissible to lie in order to further the expansion of islam and confound the kafer or infidel.
How can you say that muslims are peace loving people when the areas they live in are violent hell holes by their own doing? They subjugate women and children and are just as likely to kill a fellow muslim because they dont agree with their particular flavor of islam as they are to attack an infidel.
Their book says they are supposed to be violent towards the infidel. Is that not true? So the " muslims" that say they dont believe thats right are not muslims. They are the ones their fellow jihadist muslims (real muslims) will kill when they disagree with their techniques to further establish the caliphate.


Islam is a political system not a religion.

How can you say Christians are peaceful when their history is full of war and slavery? They rape children and their leaders cover for them. They subjugate women and deny them places in the church leadership. They deny the humanity and perpetrate violence against gay? Or, are people imperfect and often fail to live up to the standard of their ideals? Could there perhaps be other reasons for wars? Do you really believe everywhere Muslims live is a violent hell hole?

Yes, if you get to pick and choose who's Muslim, you can make Islam in too anything you want it to be. Then somehow the cry is Muslims need to condemn the terrorists, but they aren't real Muslims, because I get to define who real Muslims are.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

My point is this - the radical mosque is something akin to the Westboro ding dongs. And others - like white supremacists and stormfront types that arguably ARE Christian - but take a relatively harsh implementation view. BOTH arguably quote scripture to support their own (often violent) purposes. And I will allow that the percentages may be different. Maybe only 1-2% of Christians (if even that) can find it in their head to twist things towards aggression. And in Islam, it may well be a higher percentage. The "problematic interpretation" you mention above - I agree with. I'm all for wiping out those who would enslave us, kill us, or otherwise take our freedom. But as you indicate - there is a significant percentage of Muslims who do NOT follow a "problematic interpretation". What concerns me is when I see them lumped together, and folks advocating expelling them from America, rounding them up like the Japanese in WWII etc. Simply because they are Muslim. THAT is against everything I believe in.

If they pick up a sword against us (ISIS, et al.) then by all means, flatten them. If they don't - they have the right to their beliefs as much as you or I. And I am all for supporting the moderate (non-"problematic interpretation") folks in raising their voices and drawing a line between themselves and their more radical compadres. Just as you and I both did above with the Westboro example. We both said, in effect - "they claim to be Christian, but we don't agree". Ought we not to allow moderate Muslims the same privilege? To decry the violence and draw their line in the sand?

All of this. I resent the fact the polticos are creating this mentality among us. We know better than this...or we should be reminded that we should.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Philosophically, we are on the same page. That said, one of the issues of the day is admitting refugees that we have no realistic way to check before admitting. Personally, I take this a step back from the issue of religion given that the US is not in a position to absorb more people as evidenced by our unemployment and the strain on the government to provide the services already demanded of it. This is equally true regardless of whether the potential admitees are Moslems, Mexicans, or British who are card-carrying Anglicans.

Exactly. While we need to be careful and make sure we're doing this lawfully and with the long term safety and stability of the country in mind, we must not harden our hearts because we're being handled by folks trying to win political office.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Philosophically, we are on the same page. That said, one of the issues of the day is admitting refugees that we have no realistic way to check before admitting. Personally, I take this a step back from the issue of religion given that the US is not in a position to absorb more people as evidenced by our unemployment and the strain on the government to provide the services already demanded of it. This is equally true regardless of whether the potential admitees are Moslems, Mexicans, or British who are card-carrying Anglicans.

I agree with your concern. But there is a VAST difference between - "hey this whole immigration thing has been going the wrong direction - and the open borders crap is going to get us killed" (fair enough and a reasonable point) and - "Muslims ALL want to kill us and we need to export them" (I completely disagree - that argument is xenophobic and racist at its core)

I think that it is also fair to point out that there is a significant threat from extremist Muslims - without condemning ALL of them. The key being not to forget the last part of that sentence.