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

[2ADMNLOVER]

You know what is written in a book by men. You trust that your book is true because of inspirational experiences. People decide for themselves what they believe and what they reject for various reasons. But belief is different from knowledge. You can have knowledge of the book and believe what it says, but that you believe the words of those men are true, doesn't prove to me that they are true. You weren't there when God said let there be light. You weren't there when Jesus arose from the dead. You believe those things because of inspiration and not because you have first hand experience. Your inspiration is first hand experience, but the things that you believe because of it isn't. Sure, I'm okay with not knowing, because as of now, I can't know to the extent that I require to believe something as factual. Faith is not my standard of knowing.

You familiar with the book of Job ? " Where were you when I created the earth and set the stars in the heavens " ?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

You make your point very clearly, as always, and I think I understand what you are saying. I even agree with you...to a point.

My my understanding of the world does not include a supernatural element. While I am not concerned (in the least) with the origins of organic life, in order to be consistent with my worldview the origins of organic life would necessarily have to be due to some natural process, however unlikely or complex...but my worldview is allowed to have holes. I don't need to have all the answers..."I don't know" is perfectly acceptable. In short: I don't know how life began, and I don't really care. Life exists. I can measure and study that fact, and I don't need faith in gods...or anything else...to recognize this.

People who are way smarter than me have analysed the available evidence and come up with some reasonable scenarios for the origins of organic life on our planet. They have written these theories down and published them for other people, also much smarter than me, to scrutinize and test against the available evidence to see if they hold up. In this way the most supportable ideas receive the most scrutiny, and become more supportable still. This is the scientific method, and for discovering truly objective knowledge about our surroundings it is the best "compass for truth" that mankind has yet developed. This method does not ask for faith in results...it asks for verification.

Without the ability to verify, a theory is nothing more than a story. Without the ability to verify, a story can be exaggerated, or falsified. While ideas can exist completely within the human mind, facts cannot. Facts are not things that are known to exist, they are things that can be shown to exist. In other words, the scientific method forces the hand of the liar: "don't tell me, show me".

Gods may or may not be real. The most ardent believer, armed with testimony and fervor, is left ultimately impotent when rather simply challenged with: "Show me"...and that is the problem I have.

For thirty years I have looked for the answer to this question: In human history disparate groups have reached the very similar conclusions about a great many things: astronomy, geometry, agriculture, are technologies that were developed in separate parts of the world but found the same basic truths. The same should be true of an all-powerful eternal deity. Any number of groups, studying independently, should be able to reach the same conclusions about God when left to study the available evidence without interference, and those results should be consistent across time, since God doesn't change. Students in modern Japan should come to the same basic conclusions about God as students in ancient Mexico...but that isn't the case. People's views of "God" vary wildly from situation to situation, and change over generations.

This is not indicative of people chipping away at the core of a deep global truth, but of people crafting an ongoing narrative.

At the end of the day all of these stories of gods and devils, of ghosts and afterlives are just that...stories. For all of history men have been making up stories like these to entertain each other, or fool each other, or manipulate each other. If you want me to believe that your god is more than so much bluster, I will gladly follow along with you...but you are going to have to show me.

You have an interesting point. I have a question for you that only you can answer for yourself: If you were to ask for an unmistakable "sign" that "a God" exists, a sign that would possibly only be tangible to YOU, and if you experienced that "sign" that you had asked for, would you be willing to believe? Or would you reject that "sign" as coincidence or wishful thinking?

 

[PaulF]

You have an interesting point. I have a question for you that only you can answer for yourself: If you were to ask for an unmistakable "sign" that "a God" exists, a sign that would possibly only be tangible to YOU, and if you experienced that "sign" that you had asked for, would you be willing to believe? Or would you reject that "sign" as coincidence or wishful thinking?

That is a really good question. Because, honestly...I don't really know.

I think we all tend to put more weight into our own experiences, so I think it would have to depend on the circumstances. If I could somehow satisfy my own sense of skepticism, and determine it to be "real" I would have to change some fundamental views. So, yes...I hope so!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

That is a really good question. Because, honestly...I don't really know.

I think we all tend to put more weight into our own experiences, so I think it would have to depend on the circumstances. If I could somehow satisfy my own sense of skepticism, and determine it to be "real" I would have to change some fundamental views. So, yes...I hope so!

The only way to find out is to try it, isn't it?

 

[jamil]

You familiar with the book of Job ? " Where were you when I created the earth and set the stars in the heavens " ?

Yes, I'm familiar with that verse.

 

[GIJEW]

Islam and Judaism?
Israel is a political situation as much as a religious. Anytime you occupy a territory and don't give a portion of the citizens you rule over a say in your government you're gonna have problems.
Also if you claim divine right to a land you're going to have issues as well.
Jews and Muslims get along fine in other regions of the world. It'd be like saying Jews and Catholics don't get along because the Spanish Expulsion, it's just a point on a timeline, not anything inherit to either religion.

You're wrong on each point.
1)The Palestinian/Arab Israeli conflict is essentially a religious conflict. They have been offered territorial compromises at least 4 times ('36 Peel commission, 1947 UN partition plan, Barak offered to put Israel back in the 1948 cease-fire lines, Olmert later made the same offer) each time they refused with violence.
1a)There was, once again, a Jewish majority in Jerusalem before T. Herzl and political zionism and Tel Aviv was established and had about 20,000 inhabitants BEFORE the British and French carved up the Ottoman empire. In spite of the best efforts of the Babylonians, Romans, etc there have always been Jews there.
1b)The "occupied territory" in 1947 was Jewish homes in Hebron where the arabs massacred the Jews in 1929
1c)Arab citizens of Israel have the same civil rights, are in academia, are judges, "miss Israel", and even have anti-Israel arab nationalist parties in the knesset.
1d)Over 95% of the arabs in Judea-Samaria/W.bank of the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan by Right of Conquest (which Jordan relinquished in the peace treaty with Israel), live under the rule of the Palestinian Authority
The bottom line is that the Moslems can't tolerate infidels ruling themselves in their midst and refusing to be submissive dhimmis and pay the jizya.
2)The democratic state of Israel recognizes EVERYBODY'S religious claims so why can't we claim a divine (and historical) right to the land? The Moslems claim the Temple Mount as holy to them, which is to us what Mecca is to them--and no one bothers their mosque unless the police have to deal with rioters. On the other hand, they, wouldn't even let us have benches at the kotel ("wailing wall") or blow a shofar, just as they wouldn't let Christians ring church bells until we captured the old city in 1967
3)The violence that Jews endured in europe existed in the Moslem world too, if only with a little less frequency. It's no accident that there are virtually no Jewish communities left in the Moslem world, and that most of them moved to Israel. FYI does prohibiting Jews from going outside when it rains because our "impurity" would get washed off us and onto the town, sound like crazy midieval nonsense? A fellow congregant who grew up in Iran (he's in his seventies) lived with that. Do you think Jews and Moslems have good relations in France? There is a history of Moslems demanding supremacy over non Moslems, and with the current extremists like ISIS and boko haram running amok, paying the jizya isn't enough.
That this doesn't represent all Moslems doesn't mean it hasn't, and doesn't exist

 

[IndyDave1776]

That is a really good question. Because, honestly...I don't really know.

I think we all tend to put more weight into our own experiences, so I think it would have to depend on the circumstances. If I could somehow satisfy my own sense of skepticism, and determine it to be "real" I would have to change some fundamental views. So, yes...I hope so!

If you go blind and hear a voice tell you to go see a guy named Ananias about it, you will know what happened!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You're wrong on each point.
1)The Palestinian/Arab Israeli conflict is essentially a religious conflict. They have been offered territorial compromises at least 4 times ('36 Peel commission, 1947 UN partition plan, Barak offered to put Israel back in the 1948 cease-fire lines, Olmert later made the same offer) each time they refused with violence.
1a)There was, once again, a Jewish majority in Jerusalem before T. Herzl and political zionism and Tel Aviv was established and had about 20,000 inhabitants BEFORE the British and French carved up the Ottoman empire. In spite of the best efforts of the Babylonians, Romans, etc there have always been Jews there.

If it's a fact that there was a Jewish majority in Jerusalem under the Ottomans seem to suggest that Jews were not being expelled under Ottoman (Muslim) rule, further suggesting it is not solely a religious war?

If I believe you have expanded your property line 10' into my yard and refuse your offer to "compromise" by moving it back 5', that's proof it's a religious war?

If Muslims peacefully live within Israel (and they certainly do, it's somewhat ironic that a Israeli Muslim may have more freedom of faith than a Muslim in certain parts of, say, Pakistan) then, again can it still be said to be solely a religious war?

Certainly you are aware that the common citizen is not always called to a referendum on what a governing body should do. Do you suppose that there are subsets within the Palestinian leadership, both now and historically, who realize that their position of power and authority relies on continued resistance? That peace puts them to pasture, and that despots often don't care if the commoner suffers for their authority? That perhaps such secular concerns play out under religious cover?

 

[GIJEW]

Probably. Note that Israeli =/= Jew. Might be enlightening to see the travel restrictions on Palestinians as well.

In my experience, there isn't much distinction made between Jews and Israelis in the Arab world. We're all "il yahud" and when Israel survived it's war of independence, the Arabs attacked Jews from Morrocco to Iraq.

As for travel restrictions on palestinians, if they're citizens of friendly nations (ie USA, UK), they can enter Israel. I understand they've been banned from some Arab states--Kuwait, after the gulf war, for instance.


FYI When the Iraqi drew up their constitution after OIF, they made a point to say that no Jews could return and that they weren't making any reparations.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

As for travel restrictions on palestinians, if they're citizens of friendly nations (ie USA, UK), they can enter Israel. I understand they've been banned from some Arab states--Kuwait, after the gulf war, for instance.

That was my point. Presenting that 16 Muslim nations ban travel from Israel is one sided if you don't mention that many of them ban, or severely limit, travel by Palestinians as well. Some of the travel bans are certainly anti-Jewish, no doubt. Others are political protest.

Of course I'm sure the reason this is surfacing now is some way to attempt to save face for Trump. I really don't get the argument "Well, some country like Iran/Syria does it, so it's got to be cool if we do it", or that how others act is the barometer for how we should act. What is right is right, even if you're the only one doing it. Banning immigration based solely on religion is not right, even if someone else is doing it. Banning someone from Malaysia because Syria is scary is kinda silly when you think about it.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Libya's 21 Christian Martyrs: ?With Their Blood, They Are Unifying Egypt? | Christianity Today

“There has been a very strong response of unity and sympathy,” said Andrea Zaki, the newly-elected president of the Protestant Churches of Egypt. “People are describing Copts as Egyptians, first and foremost, and with their blood they are unifying Egypt.”In the wake of the beheadings, President Sisi visited Pope Tawadros in the Coptic Orthodox cathedral to express his condolences. He dispatched his prime minister to Samalout, 150 miles south of Cairo, to visit the families of the victims and promise construction of a church in their name.
Sisi has also struck hard with his air force at Islamic State positions in eastern Libya. However, Egyptian Christians interpret this as more of a national defense move than a specific defense of their community.
“Egyptians now have a sense of relief, wondering if Sisi would act on his words,” said Youssef Sidhom, editor-in-chief of the Coptic newspaper Watani. “It was not done to avenge the slayings, but to restore the sovereignty of the Egyptian state.”
Since the January 25 revolution (part of the 2011 Arab Spring), and in particular after the June 2013 demonstrations that led to the removal of Mohamed Morsi as president, Egypt has suffered a rash of terrorist attacks. The government—as well as most Christians—pin responsibility on Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood.
Sidhom rejoices that Muslims do as well. “After June 30, Copts stopped feeling like a lonely minority as they clung firmly to moderate Muslims,” he said. “Egyptians have learned the lesson that looking to political Islam for solutions leads only to fiasco.”

Recent polls suggest only 3 to 4 percent of Egyptians view the Islamic State in positive terms.

(more at article)

From a news sight that claims to be Evangelical Christian, presenting Islam in Egypt as in solidarity with their Coptic Christian fellows, recognizing the violence comes from a small minority, and refusing to focus solely on that minority. Thanks CT, that's the sort of narrative both sides need. A reminder most of us on all "sides" are getting on together well, but there is a percentage of a-holes trying to ruin it for the rest of us and they shouldn't be ignored...just not made to seem the majority.

 

[Libertarian01]

You have an interesting point. I have a question for you that only you can answer for yourself: If you were to ask for an unmistakable "sign" that "a God" exists, a sign that would possibly only be tangible to YOU, and if you experienced that "sign" that you had asked for, would you be willing to believe? Or would you reject that "sign" as coincidence or wishful thinking?

Here is the problem for God as I see it. And yes, God does have issues with mankind, or rather free will.

What would happen if absolute proof were given to ALL human beings all at once that God was real? I am talking the booming voice in the sky and the feeling to the depths of our being that we just knew it was God talking?


And then he said Moses bumped his head, he didn't send Jesus, and Mohammad spent too much time in the sun - Zoroaster was the one he revealed the truth to!

How would most Christians react? Would they convert, even knowing that it was God talking? And most of the worlds population would say, "Zoro WHO?"

The problem would be people that presumed then, once they knew the "truth," to force everyone else to follow it - even though God didn't say that!

We'd wind up slaughtering each other by the millions because now we knew the truth, but God didn't tell us what to do with it.

This is why I believe that IF there is a God he cannot give us absolute proof. Look how much damage we do with faith alone! With truth on the fanatics side, there would be war after war. Even then, when only Zoroastrians remained there would be problems: purges! Because anyone that didn't conform to the "right way" of thinking would be purged. This would happen even if God didn't tell us to.

Faith is a dangerous thing. Knowing for a fact? Worse still!

Regards,

Doug

 

[GIJEW]

If it's a fact that there was a Jewish majority in Jerusalem under the Ottomans seem to suggest that Jews were not being expelled under Ottoman (Muslim) rule, further suggesting it is not solely a religious war?

If I believe you have expanded your property line 10' into my yard and refuse your offer to "compromise" by moving it back 5', that's proof it's a religious war?

If Muslims peacefully live within Israel (and they certainly do, it's somewhat ironic that a Israeli Muslim may have more freedom of faith than a Muslim in certain parts of, say, Pakistan) then, again can it still be said to be solely a religious war?

Certainly you are aware that the common citizen is not always called to a referendum on what a governing body should do. Do you suppose that there are subsets within the Palestinian leadership, both now and historically, who realize that their position of power and authority relies on continued resistance? That peace puts them to pasture, and that despots often don't care if the commoner suffers for their authority? That perhaps such secular concerns play out under religious cover?

The Jews living under Ottoman rule were Ottoman subjects and therefore no threat to Ottoman rule or Moslem supremacy.

Aside from existing communities, the Jewish national fund went around BUYING land. Likewise, the arabs were offered territorial compromises 4 times and they turned them all down--violently. Given that, the implication is that the motivation is religious

Israel is in a defensive posture. It's arabs trying to murder Jews in the name of "defending al-aksa" just like they did in 1922 and 1929.

Your last point is valid. Not only arafat, abbas, and haniyeh, but the leaders of various arab states have played the 'zionist bogeyman' card to deflect anger away from them toward israel. But the 'arab street' isn't exactly a government institution. If it wasn't for Jew hating bigotry from imams like raed saleh calling Jews "the sons of pigs and monkeys" in addition to the enemies of Islam, Palestinian leaders couldn't mobilize ongoing violence. Again, the underlying issue is political supremacy of Islam over hated and despised infidels.

 

[Trigger Time]

Just read through the circle jerk thread. I'll sum up my feelings by saying I'm voting for trump.

 

[GIJEW]

That was my point. Presenting that 16 Muslim nations ban travel from Israel is one sided if you don't mention that many of them ban, or severely limit, travel by Palestinians as well. Some of the travel bans are certainly anti-Jewish, no doubt. Others are political protest.

Of course I'm sure the reason this is surfacing now is some way to attempt to save face for Trump. I really don't get the argument "Well, some country like Iran/Syria does it, so it's got to be cool if we do it", or that how others act is the barometer for how we should act. What is right is right, even if you're the only one doing it. Banning immigration based solely on religion is not right, even if someone else is doing it. Banning someone from Malaysia because Syria is scary is kinda silly when you think about it.

Splitting hairs, any travel ban on palestinians is not about religion. whereas that is the case in s. arabia where Jews are banned.

Agreed that trump is really bad news. Calling for a blanket ban on Moslem immigration reflects his ignorance and incompetence or worse, he's cynically trying to exploit fear to drum up support. IMO the piece about the travel ban isn't about supporting trump but calling out the hypocrisy of the left-wing enemies of Israel.

 

[GIJEW]

Here is the problem for God as I see it. And yes, God does have issues with mankind, or rather free will.

What would happen if absolute proof were given to ALL human beings all at once that God was real? I am talking the booming voice in the sky and the feeling to the depths of our being that we just knew it was God talking?


And then he said Moses bumped his head, he didn't send Jesus, and Mohammad spent too much time in the sun - Zoroaster was the one he revealed the truth to!

How would most Christians react? Would they convert, even knowing that it was God talking? And most of the worlds population would say, "Zoro WHO?"

The problem would be people that presumed then, once they knew the "truth," to force everyone else to follow it - even though God didn't say that!

We'd wind up slaughtering each other by the millions because now we knew the truth, but God didn't tell us what to do with it.

This is why I believe that IF there is a God he cannot give us absolute proof. Look how much damage we do with faith alone! With truth on the fanatics side, there would be war after war. Even then, when only Zoroastrians remained there would be problems: purges! Because anyone that didn't conform to the "right way" of thinking would be purged. This would happen even if God didn't tell us to.

Faith is a dangerous thing. Knowing for a fact? Worse still!

Regards,

Doug

About free will, there is a story in the Talmud that when God created Adam, the angels said "why? so far everything created is good and this creature won't be". Their answer was that it was neccessary to give man free will in order to vindicate good since it's no trick to be good if you don't have a choice.

About proof of God's existence, Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (1100's Spain) said that we can explain everything around us--to a point--and when we run out of explanations "...there is the finger of God." In other words, why was all the matter in the universe compacted in one spot and imploded? "God said 'let there be light' " and it went 'bang'

Faith empowers us and lets us transcend our animalistic side. What's dangerous is acting like 'the blind men and the elephant' and confusing faith with absolute truth and knowledge. The issue isn't proving God, but our inability to grasp and understand the infinite. I think BBI pointed that out up thread.

 

[Thor]

Just read through the circle jerk thread. I'll sum up my feelings by saying I'm voting for trump.

That's the kind of in depth reasoning we like to hear! It will be Yooooughuh, because he's 'smart' and a 'good negotiator', and he'll build a parking lot over your home because he considers it an eyesore and he can make more money that way.

When I was in Turkey during DS it was pretty obvious that 9 out of 10 Turks liked Americans. That other guy though, he wanted to kill you. It was him you had to watch out for (and yes one of the guys with me didn't and ended up with a bayonet in the back of his head). I still drank tea with the other nine. It was number 10 I wanted to hunt down and kill.

What we need to see though, is more universal and spontaneous condemnation of the jihadi acts, not booing a moment of silence for them. That's the kind of thing that does not bode well for understanding...tends to make folks want to take sides.

It is indeed a sticky wicket.

 

[printcraft]

T...........When I was in Turkey during DS it was pretty obvious that 9 out of 10 Turks liked Americans. That other guy though, he wanted to kill you. It was him you had to watch out for (and yes one of the guys with me didn't and ended up with a bayonet in the back of his head). I still drank tea with the other nine. It was number 10 I wanted to hunt down and kill. .....

See, that is an example of a ****ed up world view from that region that I don't believe is truly compatible with western civilization until they get that cancerous thinking turned around.
I don't believe you could find 10% of Americans, Europeans, Asians, Australians, etc. who would want to KILL another person over their perceived grievances.
It's just an archaic line of thinking that needs to go away.
Leave all apples and oranges comparisons out of this.
Convince me that terrorist activities are justified in some instances. John Kerry, you have the floor.

 

[T.Lex]

Convince me that terrorist activities are justified in some instances.

I can probably do that, but first please tell me your working definition of "terrorist activities" and not a "I know it when I see it" kinda thing. Definitions are important in this kind of endeavor. While you're at it, "justified" would be nice, too. Like, ends-justify-the-means kind of justified, or morally justified?

I mean, if you mean morally justified, that's much tougher. But, at that point, we might want to discuss other examples of combat... like raining big rounds on hospitals.

 

[Jludo]

See, that is an example of a ****ed up world view from that region that I don't believe is truly compatible with western civilization until they get that cancerous thinking turned around.
I don't believe you could find 10% of Americans, Europeans, Asians, Australians, etc. who would want to KILL another person over their perceived grievances.
It's just an archaic line of thinking that needs to go away.
Leave all apples and oranges comparisons out of this.
Convince me that terrorist activities are justified in some instances. John Kerry, you have the floor.

I think wealth plays a large part. If I'm in poverty in the US I'm still in relatively good shape. If I'm in poverty in the middle east I'm really in poverty, add a lower education level, constant warfare and you have a recipe for disaster.
I don't think it's anything inherent to Americans but is a product of our wealth and stability, something which the middle east hasn't had. (Something I'd also point out makes it fertile ground for Islamic extremism to take root)