Muslims

[Insidious Rex]

I love it when you throw me meat balls rian...

There are a billion Muslims in the world. How is it possible that essentially none have demonstrated against evils perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam? This is true even of the millions of Muslims living in free Western societies.

[Rían]

Why don't you bold the word BEFORE the word you bolded? I think percentage-wise, he is totally correct.


"NO muslim EVER protests against terrorism" does NOT equal "essentially none have demonstrated".

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think percentage-wise, he is totally correct.

on what do you base that assumption?

[brownjenkins]

another one

PMU Statement of Principles

The Progressive Muslim Union of North America (PMU) is a grassroots organization that aims to provide a forum, voice, and organizing mechanism to North American Muslims who wish to pursue a progressive intellectual, social and political agenda.

Our work is guided by the following principles:

1) We affirm that a Muslim is anyone who identifies herself or himself as "Muslim," including those whose identification is based on social commitments and cultural heritage.

2) We affirm the importance of celebrating the arts, culture, and the pursuit of joy in our daily lives. We believe the restrictions imposed by some on instrumental music and the depiction of human forms in paintings and sculpture contravene the rich Muslim cultural heritage from around the globe.

3) We affirm the validity of Islamic ritual and practice as an expression of love for God, while acknowledging that specific forms of ritual and practice are individual choices and should never be imposed through coercive means.

4) We affirm the equal status and equal worth of all human beings, regardless of religion, gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. We oppose any restrictions on women's full participation in society and believe that separation and segregation of men and women is contrary to the equity among genders enshrined in the Quran. We endorse the human rights and liberties of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans-sexual individuals. We believe that Muslim women and men, gay and straight, of all nationalities, ethnicities, and races should work together, shoulder-to-shoulder, in their effort to rejuvenate our community.

5) We affirm that justice and compassion should be the guiding principles for all aspects of human conduct. Islam holds that these qualities are characteristics of God as revealed in the holy Quran, divine qualities that are the ethical virtues to which all human beings should aspire to emulate.

6) We affirm our commitment to social and economic justice and our opposition to the culture of militarism and violence. We will support efforts for universal health care, public education, the protection of our environment, and the eradication of poverty around the world.

7) We reject the authoritarian, racist, sexist and homophobic interpretations of our faith as antithetical to the principles of justice and compassion.

8) We affirm the diversity of inspirations that motivate people to embrace a commitment to justice and compassion, including a profound faith rooted in religious traditions, ethical imperatives developed throughout the centuries, and secular and humanist values shared by many Muslims today.

9) We call for critical inquiry and dynamic engagement with Islamic scripture, early Muslim sources, the Islamic intellectual heritage, and traditional and current Muslim discourses.

10) We endorse the separation of religion and state in all matters of public policy, not only in North America, but also across the Muslim world. We believe that secular government is the only way to achieve the Islamic ideal of freedom from compulsion in matters of faith and that the separation of religion and state is a necessary pre-requisite to building democratic societies, where religious, ethnic, and racial minorities are accepted as equal citizens enjoying full dignity and human rights enunciated in the 1948 UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights.

11) We recognize the growing danger of religious extremism and view the politicization of religion and the intrusion of religion into politics as twin threats to civil society and humane civilization. We vow to resist the intrusion of religion into politics and the exploitation of religion for political ends.

12) Recognizing our participation in the broader human family, we seek to engage with and contribute to other philosophical and spiritual traditions and progressive movements.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

"essentially none have demonstrated".

What is the difference between "essentially none" and "none" exactly? They would both seem to me to be a pretty small number and an insult either way.

[Rían]

I would hope a doctor would not put an "essentially dead" person into the morgue. I imagine he would lose his license!

Seriously, to me, there is quite an important difference.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

(1) Why are you so quiet?

google under "muslims peace"

one example of many

the short story... peace doesn't sell... just because you don't see it on the nightly news does not mean it does not exist

Perhaps the Muslims should make their protests against violence newsworthy.

Peace doesn't sell. Why is it, then, that I've seen endless, and I mean endless material on anti-war protests concerning Iraq? And anti-war pressure in Italy, Spain and Britain, has all made the news regularly. Peace talks in Darfur between the rebels and the government made headlines. Gay-rights freedom rallies frequently make headlines.

My suspicion is that a more reasonable interpretation of the silence concerning Muslim peace rallies is simply that there simply haven't been many big moves or big rallies. Much of what is happening is, I expect, smaller scale. Sometimes individual communities might take action, or organizations here and there, but nothing really big. I've been checking BBC international news most days since September 11, yet I've seen very little action on the part of the Muslim community to cleanse its name. Rather, just a few days (or maybe a couple weeks ago? My memory on the time is not excellent.), President Bush and Tony Blair met in a large conference with Muslim leaders, trying to convince them to take a more strong and visible anti-violence position.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?

the vast majority of the palestinian population is muslim, and since it is not just about nationalism, but religion, it is not likely that the terrorists would trust those outside their own faith to participate

muslims are far from unique when it comes to terrorism... christian terrorism

Yet Christian terrorism has been no where near on the scale of Muslim terrorism. You won't see Christians bombing buses and hotels on the news, because the events are not large enough or widespread enough to be newsworthy.

Even historically, you'll find that the pattern remains constant. When you look at such events as the Crusades, the religious wars and Western Imperialism, there certainly are terrible black spots on Christian history. However, in my view, this is nothing like the relentless Muslim aggression that has been visible since Islam's birth. Whereas Christianity originally expanded through evangelism, Islam expanded through conquest in its origins. Ever since, Islam has continued to expand through conquest. While Christianity has bent under separation of church and state, religion and state have always been closely entwined in the Muslim religion. I recently heard a statistic that something like 30% of England was Muslim, and most of them were in favor of having Shariah law become the law of the land. France is experiencing the same dilemma, of large numbers of religious immigrants wanting to impose their views on a secular society. That is one of the levels of tension in French society.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?

history, culture, beliefs...

Completely correct. Religious beliefs are central to this. History and culture also are certainly involved. This is part of Islam's nature, however. In his messages recorded in the Koran, Muhammad tried to organize society. He explained the roles of women, the roles of slaves, and the roles of free men. He explained how they are to function in society and what God's will for them was. He was his people's religious and political leader. Politics and religion have always been bound together in Islam, in name and fact. Even in modern day Iraq, the agreed upon name for the state is "The Islamic Republic of Iraq."

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

(4) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?

religion is a very powerful motivator, especially to those who have little to live for and look only to "the life after"... leaders take advantage of this, much as the popes did in the middle ages

There definitely is truth in that, but the issue goes deeper. Religion and violence were always bound together from the very birth of Islam. When Peter drew his sword to defend Jesus, Jesus cried out, "stop! He who lives by the sword dies by the sword!" Jesus suffered frequent persecution during his ministry, yet he taught his disciples, "forgive those who persecute you not seven times, but seven times seven." This teaching is not paralleled in Islam.

My grandmother was once talking with a Muslim, and he was delighted to find out how many religious parallels in beliefs they held. Yet then she stated one point where they differed. She said, "if someone killed my husband, I would forgive the murderer." He said he could not imagine that. This has repeatedly happened in court rooms, as a matter of a fact. The stories are astounding enough that they frequently make even international headlines. I recently on BBC saw a story of a Christian woman who had recently lost a family member because of a murder. She publicly forgave the murderer. Then there was another story I saw on television, where a young Christian man was shot in the back of the head and paralyzed. In court, he publicly forgave his attacker and asked that Jesus would come into the man's life.

Now, Islam has a different story to tell. Muhammad and his followers suffered persecution as well, by their home tribe the Qur'aysh. They retaliated by raiding the Qur'aysh's caravans, taking hostages and slaughtering helpless settlements of Jews who were friendly with the Qur'aysh. They also fought the Qur'aysh themselves, and ended up conquering them. Then, Muhammad and his followers proceeded then to conquer all of Saudi Arabia.

Muhammad was feared but also hated. Many of the conversions were obviously forced. As soon as Muhammad died, most of the tribes he had united sought to revolt. Only through a series of violent clashes did Muhammad's successor succeed in getting control of them all again, so that he could launch his own invasions, now beyond the borders of Saudi Arabia.

[Rían]

(Lief, you're selling it short - it's SEVENTY times seven! )

Good post.

[brownjenkins]

as far as christians being less violent, it's all a matter of pov... we didn't live during the crusades, we didn't live during the KKK's hayday, we didn't live in germany during WWII, we do live in a time of muslim terrorism

i point you to a few posts above lief

the bottom line is that devout muslims can be peaceful, so the question is, do we target muslims in general, or do we just target violent muslims?

i've posted at the 'moot for a long time... a place where there are many strongly religious viewpoints, and if there is one thing i can tell you is an absolutely pointless endeavor, bound to cause more trouble than good, it is attacking someone's belief system

speaking out against the muslim faith, whether you like it or not, is counterproductive... it only makes matters worse... look at all the thousands of similarities and don't dwell on the differences... muslims are more people, just like you and me, then they are a "belief system"

give them a chance, you might be surprised

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What is the difference between "essentially none" and "none" exactly? They would both seem to me to be a pretty small number and an insult either way.

You talk about them being "insults" and "bashing". However, you have provided no evidence that they are untrue. All you have provided is assertions:

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Several of the questions just make wrong assumptions (no muslim ever protests against terrorism? come on...) and several others are disingenuous and meant only as a poke at islam and to show the superiority of christianity. This must be anti-anything but christianity day on the moot or something...

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Shows the flaws of a religious construct in a system flawed by definition because its designed and run by humans

I definitely agree with you that religions are all prone to violence because humans are in them. However, some are more prone to violence than others. Religions in which there are pro-violence creeds (such as the Carthaginian requirements that children be sacrificed to Baal), have a greater propensity to violence than religions where there are creeds calling for peace and love. The Koran happens to contain far, far more universal pro-violence passages than the Bible does. While in the Old Testament, God calls for violence against specific people at specific times, and in Islam there is a good deal of the same thing, in the Koran there also are times where Muhammad speaks universal or absolute truth. There are times when God in the Old and New Testament does the same. To my knowledge, there is never a time in the scripture where God says that all people should always react in violence in a circumstance. The Old Testament Law was many times making decrees for the ancient state of Israel . . . a state that no longer exists. Usually from the context, one can see whether a teaching is meant to be universal or not. Also, there is the aspect that Christ's new covenant supplanted the old.

Now, Christianity, which is based on the new covenant (though rooted in the old and fulfilling the old) came before Islam, and Islam was partly based upon Christianity. However, even Islam deviated from the Christian message in several critically important ways, and among these deviations were some of the important Koran passages concerning violence.

[Jonathan]

Wow, what scary questions you had there RÃ*an. Each five of them seem to imply that all muslims are terrorists! Why are the muslims quiet? Well remember the muslim demonstrations of sympathy after 9/11? Anyway, maybe most muslims don't regard the terrorists as real muslims and feel no need to demonstrate against their atrocities. Maybe they feel demonstrating would be like acknowledging it's the fault of Islam that there are muslim terrorists. It's the terrorists themselves who are responsible, not the religion. I could think of lots of reasons why a muslim wouldn't want to go out and demonstrate.
Why are all the Palestinian terrorists muslims and not christians? That's a strange question considering there are very few christians residing in the West Bank and even fewer in the Gaza strip. It's also strange that the jewish Palestinians aren't mentioned since there are a lot more of them than christian Palestinians. When asking this question, you send the signals that christians are so nice and good, compared to the muslims. Wouldn't be the same thing if one asked "Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Jewish?"

I think these questions are asked in such a way to evoke hostile feelings toward muslims as a group, like if they were collectively responsible of the acts of a few individuals. Islamophobia, that's what it is.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You talk about them being "insults" and "bashing". However, you have provided no evidence that they are untrue. All you have provided is assertions:

insults and bashing because it is taking the actions of a certain portion of a religious population and projecting them upon anyone that esposes that belief... or should i say "essentially" everyone

as long as there is even just one peaceful devout muslim in the world... they are untrue

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

... Christian terrorism has been no where near on the scale of Muslim terrorism. You won't see Christians bombing buses and hotels on the news, because the events are not large enough or widespread enough to be newsworthy...

Oh, I wouldn't say that. I bet whenever the US-led coalition in Iraq (mostly Christian countries) accidently bomb weddings etc. it makes some big headlines in the Muslim world and stirs up anti-Christian emotions. To them, the Christians are the terrorists and whereas the suicide bombers blow themselves up with bombs around their waists, the "Christian terrorists" come bombarding with aircraft and tanks.

We perceive things differently here and in the Muslim world, that's my point.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

My grandmother was once talking with a Muslim, and he was delighted to find out how many religious parallels in beliefs they held. Yet then she stated one point where they differed. She said, "if someone killed my husband, I would forgive the murderer." He said he could not imagine that...

Just a quick note - many Christians wouldn't be as forgiving either. In fact I believe very few Christians (and followers of any religion in general) would forgive the murderer of their husband or wife. I don't believe at all that the difference between Christians and Muslims is as big in this case as you make it seem.[/QUOTE]

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Oh, I wouldn't say that. I bet whenever the US-led coalition in Iraq (mostly Christian countries) accidently bomb weddings etc. it makes some big headlines in the Muslim world and stirs up anti-Christian emotions. To them, the Christians are the terrorists and whereas the suicide bombers blow themselves up with bombs around their waists, the "Christian terrorists" come bombarding with aircraft and tanks.

But do the "Christian terrorists" do their actions intentionally against civilian targets, calling upon the name of their God for their justification?

General comment to everyone - This may be an uncomfortable topic, but that's no reason to avoid discussion or jump to conclusions. And BTW, the guy who wrote the article is Jewish, not Christian. And please don't discount the article because of that, either. I still think they are good questions to consider, altho they're not comfortable.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You talk about them being "insults" and "bashing". However, you have provided no evidence that they are untrue. All you have provided is assertions:

They have already been countered. And some of them are so clearly antagonistic as to be not worth breaking down as far as Im concerned. But Id be happy to find you evidence that disproves that "essentially none" muslims are outwardly against terrorism... I think the very fact that most victims of extremist muslim terrorism are in fact... MUSLIMS... shows how pointless this kind of goading by non-muslims is.

I definitely agree with you that religions are all prone to violence because humans are in them. However, some are more prone to violence than others.

And even if this is true whats your point exactly? where do you intend to go with this? Do you just want to join the vocal chorus of Christianity is better then YOUR religion people or is their a bigger point to be made by making such statements. To me this (once again) shows the problems in the concept of religion in GENERAL. Its easier to see the forest for the trees when you arent concerned with one tree only.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

as far as christians being less violent, it's all a matter of pov... we didn't live during the crusades, we didn't live during the KKK's hayday, we didn't live in germany during WWII, we do live in a time of muslim terrorism

"A" time? Muslim terrorism has its roots right back in the origins of Islam, and it has existed pretty much without pause ever since, even on mass scale. There have been numerous waves of Muslim conquest, starting with Muhammad and continuing. These attempts weakened after the Western imperialist domination of Muslim lands, because they didn't have the power to keep the onslaught coming. Now, some Muslims have found a new way, and so the violence embedded in Muslim religious doctrines has shown its face again.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i point you to a few posts above lief

(Reads the post and goes bug eyed) I assure you that Muslims of Muhammad's day would have tortured these liberals to death.

(Goes around and looks on google)

Originally Posted by Islam's Love-Hate Relationship with Homosexuality

In addition to the Koran many hadiths or authoritative traditional sayings mention liwat, (homosexual intercourse) e.g. “When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes,� and “Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to (6).� Mohammed’s first successor Abu Bakr reportedly had a homosexual burned at the stake. The fourth caliph, Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, ordered a sodomite thrown from the minaret of a mosque. Others he ordered to be stoned. One of the earliest and most authoritative commentators on the Koran, Ibn ‘Abbas (died 687) blended both approaches into a two-step execution in which “the sodomite should be thrown from the highest building in the town and then stoned.� Later it was decided that if no building were tall enough, the he could be shoved off a cliff.

These modern liberal Muslims would have been tortured to death for a large number of the other forms of behavior they accept in that page, however. I suspect that that's why these Muslims call themselves "progressive". They are anything but representative for most Muslims. I doubt that even most Muslim liberals would go as far from Muhammad's teachings as they have gone.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

the bottom line is that devout muslims can be peaceful,

I don't believe that this is true. I think that there are many very serious, devoted Muslims who sincerely believe their religion is true, and who do hold some of these liberal beliefs. I don't know whether the fundamentalists or the liberals are the majority. On that, I really don't know. My suspicion is that the liberals are still the majority. They certainly are the majority in the west, and probably in many parts of the Middle East as well.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

so the question is, do we target muslims in general, or do we just target violent muslims?

Definitely just violent Muslims. I know that there are many, many peaceful Muslims. They may even be the majority of Muslims as well. I really don't know.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i've posted at the 'moot for a long time... a place where there are many strongly religious viewpoints, and if there is one thing i can tell you is an absolutely pointless endeavor, bound to cause more trouble than good, it is attacking someone's belief system

speaking out against the muslim faith, whether you like it or not, is counterproductive... it only makes matters worse... look at all the thousands of similarities and don't dwell on the differences... muslims are more people, just like you and me, then they are a "belief system"

give them a chance, you might be surprised

Only recently I had the pleasure of debating alongside a delightful and intelligent Muslim, against another very intelligent and IMO splendid atheist. Very fun . There certainly is a good deal of common ground between Islam and Christianity. That is largely because Islam has its roots embedded in both Christianity and Judaism.

I'm not judging all Muslims. Many liberal Muslims are absolutely wonderful people.

In fact, I don't think that I even judge the fundamentalists and terrorists as harshly as many do. This is because I think I can rather understand where they're coming from. I also admire their radical faith. That they are completely ready to die for their beliefs shows massive strength. In my opinion, this is the same strength many early Muslims showed, when they boldly tackled the Sassanid and Byzantine Empires combined. The odds against them were tremendous. The odds against Muslims even succeeding in Saudi Arabia were slim. Muhammad's followers can often be an impressive, though also terrible, lot.

The determination for holiness that is present among many Muslims is rather beautiful, in my view. The passion and zeal in the terrorists is amazing. I also appreciate some of their moral positions, in their rejection of change in the God given truth spoken by their founder and their rejection of many forms of immorality. They are rather like Paul the Pharisee, before he became a disciple of Christ. Zealous, relentless, dedicated, though also murderous and twisted. There is much good as well as much bad. In some very important ways, us Christians have much to learn from the terrorists.

However, there also is good and bad among liberal Muslims. They sense the evil the terrorists are involved in and they reject it. However, this also weakens them, because it causes them to also be ready to conform to ever-fluctuating modern moral values. It turns some from belief in an absolute truth. If they have no root, no basis to stand on, they can be washed hither and thither by the tide of changing human moral instincts. At the same time, there is embracing of goodness that here occurs. While kicking aside their roots, they are at the same time clutching at a goodness that is not preached in the Koran. I say this merely because I do not believe the Koran is absolutely true. When liberals pick and choose which parts of scripture they believe in, many times they make good decisions, and sometimes they also make bad decisions.

As for myself, I rather disapprove of the decision of the liberals to call themselves Muslims while picking and choosing what part of God's supposedly flawless message they're going to believe. I think that having a root and basis from which to form belief is essential, and I think the early Muslims and the modern terrorists believe(d) that also. If Muslims reject this root, they have nothing but their own moral instincts to rely on. People's moral instincts are important, but they can be misguided- as has been clearly demonstrated by the "moral instincts" of the Japanese soldiers who invaded China, and the attitudes toward Jews inherent in many of the moral in Nazi Germany.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But do the "Christian terrorists" do their actions intentionally against civilian targets, calling upon the name of their God for their justification?

To a muslim, who is the biggest villain? The rich and arrogant Christians who bombed the market you visit everyday and pretended it was an accident? Or the not-so-wealthy suicide bomber who bombed some far-away place and took some foreigners with him?

Now you and I know the West doesn't intentionally kill innocent civilians. The people in the Middle-East might not feel that is the case. As I said earlier, we all perceive the world differently.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But do the "Christian terrorists" do their actions intentionally against civilian targets, calling upon the name of their God for their justification?

Dresden anyone?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Dresden anyone?

Quotes for the God justification, please?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Quotes for the God justification, please?

Youre missing the point... Two primarily CHRISTIAN POWERS fire bombed a town of 600,000 civilians for two days straight until it was a heap of steaming rubble and just because they werent all screaming they were doing it for god (and you can bet SOME of them DID invoke the name of Jesus at this time) makes it ok while a muslim who straps a belt to his waste and says something about Allah before he detonates himself outside the green zone in Iraq killing a handful of other muslims is a much worse person? Thats completely ridiculous if you ask me.

Dont get into this tit for tat petty point thing by focusing on technicalities Lief (god justification). Thats not generally your style. Look at the broader picture of what we are saying here.

Oh and by the way what would you call dropping a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and the pilot saying may god have mercy on us all as exactly? I think thats the shear definition of killing countless civilians on purpose while refering to a diety (in this case christian...). Its just hard to see it because thats our western perspective. But from their perspective its quite clear.