What's the right way for UK Muslims to persuade extremists to stop being extremists?

format_quote Originally Posted by Search

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)


@Mustafa16 is autistic. Therefore, you will have to be clear in your communications with him.

Thank you for the information.

Mustafa16, you have my apologies. Please disregard my post.

format_quote Originally Posted by Search

Mustafa16 hates Daesh. He's not talking about Daesh but a proper and legitimate Caliphate in which shariah (Islamic law) would be followed in a merciful and just way with the will of the people.

What do you mean by "with the will of the people" Islamic Law is only according to the Quran and Sunnah not the will of the people.. Or I may have read wrong, to which I apologize.

format_quote Originally Posted by Search

There are academic approaches written about implementation of shariah (Islamic law) by Islamic scholars and Muslim academics. This approach takes into will, the position, and situation of the people under which shariah is to be implemented.

Just so you know, Islam was revealed onto the heart of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) for 23 years, and for 13 years the message's focus was only on the existence of One God. Shariah as we know it today didn't exist all at once, rather specific ayats (verses) would come to the heart of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) sometimes in his dreams, during meditation, or in specific situations. So, Allah revealed His Revelation that we call the Quran in a gradual fashion.

This gradualism approach is one that has been advocated as the prophetic methodology and this approach is about matching the situation of the people in preparation of having them accept shariah willingly over a period of time; this is what is meant by "will of people." In Muslim-majority countries that have a secular government, if the Muslims there want to bring in shariah, this is the method of rapprochement and success as it follows the prophetic method.

That said, I do believe we're talking in the hypothetical; because the end-time prophecies do not support the belief that there will be shariah as it is meant to be established in a prophetic methodology implemented in our lifetime or even our children's lifetimes because the head is considered the tail today and the tail considered the head and there is mass confusion about both, and therefore the time in which we'll have shariah as it was meant to be practiced is when Allah sends heavenly support through Mahdi alayhis salaam and Jesus alayhis salaam returns to the earth as ummati (individual from the nation) of Prophet and himself becomes a Caliph ruling over the earth for 40 years as hadiths (prophetic traditions) show and at that time the strongest believers will have already fought the Dajjal (Anti-Christ) and been victorious and so they wouldn't need this gradualism approach.

Wa alaikum salam,

Sorry for the noobish question, but I have a question about the Gradualism approach. How come the strongest believers at the time of Ad-dajjal did not need the gradualism approach, but the Prophet :saw: did?

Almost 7,000 Islamophobic tweets were sent, in English, every day last month. In April it was an average of two and a half thousand a day. July saw the most anti-islamic abuse on the site for five months as Europe was hit by the Nice terror attack and the murder of a Priest. Researchers at the think-tank Demos collected the data and with police predicting a terror attack for the UK they say this kind of abuse is likely to escalate. Catrin Nye has this exclusive report - which contains some very strong language.

Filmed by Joshua Baker



Scimi

The people had to wean themselves off of jahiliyyah, now there are some people born into fully practicing families, and others are able to learn fast, research material is easily accessible, and the strong fitnahs people are exposed to force them to quickly find a path to Allah with determination, the quicker we study the facts and adhere to Allah, the more healthy our psyches and communities become.

format_quote Originally Posted by Mustafa16

I guess Prophet Muhammad (saw) needed to win people's hearts through dawah, and persuade them slowly to join islam, whereas there is already some sort of foundation at the time of the dajjal.

I see! Makes sense. :jzk:

Obv, if you just load people with a ton of load from the get go you'll crush them. Say, if you put 150kg of weight on someone benching only 20kg. lol.

And Allah knows best.

format_quote Originally Posted by Search

Indeed, sir, I sure did. My objection is not to saying that I did. My MAIN objection to your posts lays in you making it "sound" and "appear" as if I'm saying so as a circular reasoning. I did not say X is true because I said so. That is an example of circular reasoning.

After reading a very long post from you, it's become clear that your argument now reduces to "I'm calling your argument a red herring." Looks like I may have to restate it a few times in order for it to make sense to you.

Instead, I said X is true because on evidence, Y and Z. That would fall under a logical proposition. And I made two logical propositions, (a) one refuting your position that Islam is the reason for terrorism and extremism and

Islam is not the only reason for terrorism, but when Muslims are terrorists their main goal is to overthrow an existing government and set up a new one that enforces Shariah law. That is pretty much always the end game, so long as we're talking about Muslim terrorists. Of course there are other terrorists, they're not Muslim and their goals are more varied. Sometimes they want theocracy, sometimes they don't. But when it's Muslim terrorists, they want to enforce Shariah, which is of course decidedly Islamic.

Do you disagree?

(b) that foreign policy is instead the driver behind both.

Point of clarification. Are you suggesting that US foreign policy is Only the main drive MAIN DRIVER of Islamic terrorism, or are you making a blanket statement about all terrorism and all extremism in general? If you are trying to make a blanket statement about all terrorism (which is not entirely Islamic in nature), that's the clarification that needs to be made- US foreign policy frequently is not what drives people to terrorism and extremism, specifically when it's not Islamic terror and extremism. If we're on the same page here, it means we're not talking about terror in general, but a specifically Islamic terror. The kind that wants to establish Shariah law and see that it is the only law that's enforced. That kind of terrorism.

Most importantly, I said specifically, "Foreign policy, as much as you might want to bury your head in the sand, is the MAIN CULPRIT behind the modern-day context of terrorism and extremism."

When you put it that way, it really makes it seem like a blanket statement about all terrorism and extremism. I do acknowledge that US foreign policy is frequently stated as a primary motivator by Islamic terrorists, just not by anybody else. Is there any chance that you'd be willing to alter this statement so it reflects that fact?

First and foremost, I 110% disagree with what you say here, and it shows your lack of understanding what's happening in Syria that you'd ask why Christians aren't turning into terrorists. The dictator Bashar Al-Assad has had support from Christians in Syria from the beginning despite his harsh policies against his Sunni Muslim-majority population and even when he started his genocide against Sunni Muslims.

You do know Assad is the head of state in Syria, right? Syrian Christians, given a myriad of choices in terms of alignment, are not seeking to overthrow the government. By your own assessment, they are backing the government that they have, even though it's unstable and corrupt and not very good at all.

Okay, look. If you have a room full of people and you're trying to determine who's a terrorist and who's not, ask them if they are actively supporting the violent overthrow of a government. If any of them say they're not seeking the violent overthrow of the government, but are instead backing the government and showing some loyalty to it, that would most likely be the furthest thing from a terrorist that you are going to find in Syria.

If you want to know why Christians have been supporting Assad and his forces, the answer is in what Andrew Tabler of Washington Institute said because Assad gives Christians

“very good business contracts, positions in government and the Syrian military." You just implied in two of your most lengthy posts that Christians are not participating in terrorism against Muslims when they are.

Christians are not seeking the violent overthrown of either the Syrian or Iraqi governments. Is that an acceptable distinction? Of course they're fighting against Muslims though, Daesh is right there. Everyone's fighting against them.

In fact, the term "state sponsors of terrorism" is a term that United States Department of State applies to countries which have "repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism" and Syria and Bashar Al-Assad and his military is on that list.

That's a rather odd argument by extension. The Muslims who rule Syria have indeed done much to support terrorism, specifically Islamic terrorism carried out by people who seek to overthrow governments and establish Shariah law. So because Christians in Syria are Not seeking to overthrow any government, and they are trying to stabilize the admittedly terrible government that they have, those Christians must be....supporting Islamic terrorism along with the Syrian government? Come on, you know that's a weak argument. When you support a government because you have no other real choice, that doesn't mean you support everything they do. It really doesn't, and it seems like you may be making the same mistake when you talk to Americans who are often quite critical of the US government and the US military.

So, there goes your theories that Christians are not participating in terrorism in Syria because according to the United States such Christians would qualify in fact as actors involved in blacklisted category of state-sponsored terrorism. Referencing Christians, Anne Richard, the assistant secretary of State for population, refugees and migration, testified on Capitol Hill in December 2015 that “a higher percentage of them support Assad and feel safer with him there.”

Again. Seeking the violent overthrow of your government is pretty likely to be terrorism. This is the exact opposite of that.

Do you consider Assad to be a terrorist? I consider him to be a bad leader, and a head of state who has supported terrorism in the past. Which is very wrong. And Turkey has been dead set on ending the Assad regime for quite some time, and I'm sure their reasons are well founded. But do you consider Assad to be an actual terrorist?

Secondly, Christians are not attacking the West because they do not have historical anger against the West that conversely exists in Muslim world

Oooookay, this is it right here. Non Muslims, if they happen to be terrorists, do not have anger against the West. Muslims, if they happen to be terrorists (who always share the primary end goal of overthrowing a government and establishing a new one that enforces Shariah law on everyone), do have anger toward the West. Which means US foreign policy does not act as a universal driver of terrorism, but a very specific driver of terrorism specifically when Muslims are the terrorists. In other words, US foreign policy cannot be identified as the MAIN CULPRIT behind all terrorism, but only some terrorism.

Can we agree on this?

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard. You are saying that Christians are all innocent of forming terror groups?

I'm not aware of any armed Christian militants in Syria that seek to overthrow the government, enact a whole different legal code, or otherwise change the way in which their society is run. Even when you're describing what you're doing, you're talking about people who are backing the government. That is the opposite of terrorism on a fundamental level. And by the way, where are the Syrian Christians that are seeking to establish a Christian theocracy? They don't exist (in Syria), and you won't even find any that are particularly set on having a secular society. They're basically backing the status quo, because even though it's not that good for them, it's one of the only non-terror options in the region and it's also their best chance at staying alive.

Under Assad, his military by the definition of our own American government is considered part of state-sponsored terrorism and this Syrian military comprises of many Christians. Do you know how many Christian armed resistance groups have been formed in Syria by now? I know of at least four, though I think there are probably more.

Are any of them seeking the violent overthrow of an established government, and if so, what sort of Christian government do they seek to put in its place?

There is one Christian group that is fighting with the Free Syrian Army against Assad and his forces, which depending on what they have done or can be proven, would qualify them as terrorists according to the definition of U.S. disbarring immigration to the U.S.

Okay, that is a good point, and it's the only one you've made so far. That's the Christian Free Syrian Army Brigade, and they most likely do qualify as terrorists. Their stated goals appear to be the overthrow of Assad, followed by peace and harmony between them and Muslims in a land free of sectarianism and division. And you know you can believe them when they say that, because they're holding large weapons and wearing masks when they say it.

The emoji means I don't take their claims all that seriously, or necessarily believe their goals are realistic.

They don't seem to have anything to say about expelling US forces from their lands, though. I don't believe they've named the US or any other Western power as a particular enemy of theirs. That course of action seems to be the exclusive property of Islamic terrorism, fighting the Great Satan and all that.

Good question. Ben Franklin in the struggle against the British Empire said, "We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." History has been written by victors, otherwise Ben Franklin and others who participated in armed struggle against the British would have been considered traitors.

Seeking the independence of colonies from across an ocean is quite a bit different from seeking to overthrow the English government from within England proper. If Syria had any colonies that were entirely separate from Syria itself, then maybe we could form a more direct comparison here.

History has been written by the victors though, and the amount of history that's been written by English-speaking authors absolutely dwarfs the history that's been written by Arabic-speaking authors. That's not entirely tied to winning and losing wars though, Islam placed a special burden on itself by declaring the printing press to be haram all the way up until the early 20th century. Special exceptions were made for the mass production of the Koran, but even when it came to that, the vast majority of Korans were printed on Italian printing presses up until that point. (Egypt is a bit of an exception, Napoleon was able to introduce the printing press in the 19th century and so Egypt got a bit of a jump on everyone else).

Anyway. That got a bit discursive. Where were we?

The definition of "terrorism" in Merriam-Webster Dictionary is listed first as "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal" and then secondly also as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion."

Targeting non-combatant civilians, especially in a manner designed to force civilians to go along with something, is another key part of that evaluation. What the US did in Japan, as the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, probably qualifies in that regard. The Dresden firebombing is another good example. Chemical weapons as they were used in Vietnam could easily be described as measures taken to intentionally target civilians. Again, you're probably assuming that any person from the US will defend and justify every single thing the US military has ever done. But that's not true.

Obviously, United States or Russia or U.K. as strong countries in the globe and especially with U.S. being #1 leader in the world will not allow any formal international declaration that we're being "terrorists" or are participating in "terrorism"

Well that's true.

with the use the use of the drone program or in using any other types of force or proxy wars or in supporting dictatorships in the Muslim world.

The drone program is a bit of a gray area, at least where state terrorism is concerned. The program's lack of oversight and transparency is of grave concern, collateral damage and the times when the wrong target is hit due to one mistake or another is also a bad thing. But there are many bad things that are not terrorism- most bad things are not terrorism, actually- and as I'm aware, the drone program does not intentionally target civilian non-combatants. The total lack of oversight in target selection and lack of due process is of great concern, as is the inaccuracy when it does happen. However....

So, it really depends on who is describing what as terrorism and for what reason.

....terrorism is a word that has a reasonably well defined meaning, not always the most precise or universally agreed upon, but there are definite limits to what you can do with it. I'm not sure if you're willing to acknowledge those limits, because I see who you are and I have a pretty good idea of your reasons for describing it, but there are some limits and I can see that you regularly exceed them.

Depends on what definition of "terrorism" you're using and for what reason and how that "terrorism" ensued after being placed in its proper context from history and other sociopolitical forces shaping the region's contemporary situation and dialogue on the situation.

And I suppose you decide on the proper context? Respectfully, I don't trust you with that at all.

Good, as I would rather have not have gone through the trouble of pointing them all out one-by-one because the biggest "Christian" hypocrisy that I see in the West, especially the U.S., is an entire lack of knowledge on this subject and making out terrorism to be something that is only "Muslim."

Muslims are not the only terrorists, but there are certain things that are typically only true of Islamic terrorism. It is not a brand of extremism like any other, there are some distinctive qualities that distinguish Islamic terrorism from other kinds of terrorism.

And at this point in your response, I hope you're not backtracking and changing any of your previous responses.

If you put marbles in your hand and roll them out onto the floor or carpet, what are the chances that they are all going to fall in the same way?

Suppose you have a bunch of marbles in your hand, some are designated as Muslim and some as non Muslim. Now suppose you roll them on the carpet, and all the Muslim marbles roll much further than the non Muslim marbles. You start to notice that the Muslim designation of a marble literally always means that it rolls in a way that's different from the non Muslim marbles. You might start to think that Islam is a religion that makes a reliable difference in how these terrorists roll, excuse me in how the marbles roll.

Now suppose someone comes up to you and says some of those marbles just happen to be Muslim, it doesn't really make a difference in how they behave as marbles. In fact, I'm going to repeatedly tell you that US foreign policy is the main reason why any marble of any kind does anything.

So then why do the Islamic marbles consistently have one reaction to US foreign policy, while the other marbles don't? You've already told me- it has to do with a very-slightly-modified Islamic belief in a global religious ruling authority, and that is the thing that makes all the Muslim marbles behave in the same way vis a vis the US while none of the other terrorist marbles do the same sort of thing.

Minuscule. In fact, I'd bet 0.00%. That's because every region has its own history, culture, belief, foreign policy, government, and its own reasons for not tangling or tangling with the West. You cannot take one region in whatever globe and believe they'd all react the same way. However, extremists and terrorists in the Muslim world has a specific reason for reacting the way it does -

Yes of course, Islamic extremists and terrorists do have a specific reason for reacting the way they do, and that is Islam. More specifically Shariah, which I am always told is not just a legal code, it is a way of life that permeates every aspect of society and every single thing about a person. If a Muslim happens to be a terrorist, and especially a terrorist with an end game of Shariah law everywhere in the world, then guess what would be a main thing about the terrorist that is permeated by his Shariah. That's right, his terrorism. If a Muslim happens to be a terrorist who is fighting for religious reasons and in service of his religious ideology, Islam is a pretty good bet if you're looking for any specific reason for any specific thing he does.

and I have told you time and again in different threads - the reason can be traced to WWII and Israel-Palestine conflict.

So in other words, you're specifying US foreign policy that only a Muslim would care about in this way. And the reason why Muslims care about it in this particular manner is clearly Islam.

Those are other words, and they're no less accurate to the situation.

However, it's more complicated than that as well because the way that Ottoman Caliphate was "drawn and quartered" (pun intended!) meant that arbitrary borders were set up and done so in a way that was meant to keep the Muslim world under the thumb of the victorious Allies whereas the Christians in those newly-mapped nations mostly benefited from this arrangement and thereby the setup from the get-go meant that Muslims would be mostly infighting against Muslims.

Yes, it's good to be on the winning side. Not as good to be on the losing side. Turkey is a part of NATO though, and up until just recently was the strongest ally of the US in the region. There has been a bit of a pivot toward Russia of late however.

Now, let me ask you a question: A purple man beats up a green man. You're essentially asking me the green man is angry but why is the pink man not angry? The pink man is a red herring. Your argument is nonsense.

If I'm understanding your analogy, the purple man is the US and Israel, collectively, and they beat up a green man, which is Palestinian Muslims. And you want to know why the pink man is not angry? Because he's not a Muslim, silly. Islam is the main reason why you are so angry about Israel and Palestine, do you agree with that statement?

Religious diversity doesn't mean anything in the context of most conflicts in the Muslim world because U.S. tends to back up USUALLY Christians in those countries. Not always, but mostly, yes.

We must have forgotten to do that in Iraq, because it took about 5 years of war in Iraq before the Christian diaspora from this country qualified as the largest Christian diaspora from a single country and a single conflict in the history of Christianity. That's a long history, and that's a lot of people.

Also, again, do Christians have an Israel-Palestine issue? NO. See above for the rest of the argument.

Sure we have that issue, it's called the Israel-Palestine issue. Oh, wait, you mean that's your issue and not our issue, which you determine on the basis of....religion. Oh.

So because you're a Muslim, that's your issue. Muslims have certain issues that strictly depend on them being Muslims, and because that's your religion, it's your issue. I see.

Now we need to ask ourselves if there are any Islam-specific issues that have a lot to do with terrorism, when Muslims happen to be terrorists. And of course there are, you were just talking about one of them.

By the way, when a terror group is Muslim, what do you suppose their goal is for laws and governance in the land once they've overthrown the government and established a new one? You know how I would summarize that answer, and we both have a pretty good idea of how the terrorists themselves would describe it, but I'm curious to see how you would describe it. Read the question carefully, then describe what sort of legal system and government would likely be established if the Islamic terrorists win.

format_quote Originally Posted by Scimitar

Almost 7,000 Islamophobic tweets were sent, in English, every day last month. In April it was an average of two and a half thousand a day. July saw the most anti-islamic abuse on the site for five months as Europe was hit by the Nice terror attack and the murder of a Priest. Researchers at the think-tank Demos collected the data and with police predicting a terror attack for the UK they say this kind of abuse is likely to escalate. Catrin Nye has this exclusive report - which contains some very strong language.

Scimi

Aaaaand how many people have been killed so far by all these Islamophobes? How many trucks have gone through crowds mowing down Muslims, how many priests (sorry, imams or mullahs) have been executed by someone who shouted something Islamophobic right before doing so?

The answer is "not that many," so maybe it would help if you worry less about something that might become a real problem (but probably won't) and worry more about the thing that's already a problem.

(In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful)

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

I identified a causal link between Islam and a particular outcome, then I said Islam was the cause of that. It's pretty simple. That's not a non sequitur.

I can't resist - it's actually too good.

You've said you've identified a causal link, right? Okay, I hope you stick by this position and you also said you took a formal course in logic, right? Can you name the fallacy that you've committed. Name it. Right now. Can't? Okay, I'll help you. If you're saying A leads to B, it means essentially A always leads to B. What that means is all I have to disprove your argument here is one singular instance in which A didn't lead to B. And your entire argument is DESTROYED. You've said in your own words you've identified a causal link, right? So, all I have to do is show you a story like Ibtihaj Muhammad fencing, that is, an instance of "not particular outcome" (i.e. terrorism) to disprove your position and DESTROY your argument. You're either lying about taking a logic course or you've forgotten logic.

PEACE. Glad to help ya!