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

format_quote Originally Posted by Abz2000

are you making a veiled threat?

Nope. Just pointing out that your ideological choices could potentially put you in high risk situations.

God has more right to be feared than tyrant lying unjust monarchs and tyrant lying unjust kings with the beast for an hour.

You speak on behalf of God, I take it? You plan on enforcing His law?

It is telling how you remained neutral on the mention of the gold dinar which is real and valid currency, but then went on to mention it's negative effects on the basket of unjust fake and faithless currencies, it appears you were trying to be crafty by providing a reasoning for something unreasonable, whilst knowing it is impossible to justify.
repent to God and be just.

All I did was make a sober evaluation of US foreign policy vis a vis Gaddafi. As evaluations go, it's incredibly self critical. You must be assuming that an American will be an American apologist, automatically and always. I didn't say anything that would indicate I was doing this, so maybe you're just working off your expectations.

Jihad (struggle/+ striving in the way of the creator and master of the heavens and the earth is the best of actions, in the self, in the family, in the community, in the planet, in the universe.

So for you, it's basically a struggle to force everyone to obey Islamic law, whether they want to or not. And then you'll tell me there's no compulsion in religion, despite the obvious contradictions pertaining to the main things that are most important to you.

Tell you what, why don't you just strive on your own behalf and I'll do my own striving in a different way without any interference from you?

The freemasons used falsehood, hypocrisy and infiltration in opposition to God, in order to lead astray nd debase whole nations whose honour and finances have been looted unjustly, such despicability is worthy of condemnation.

You may not know this, but there's been a split among the Masons- those in the Anglosphere and those on the continent. Whatever scary stories you've heard about the Masons, you should double check and see if the scary stories originate from England or the US, or if it originates from France, Germany, etc. English Masonry is far more open to religion, high ranking Masons and bishops in the Church of England have a long history of cooperation in public and in private. Masons on the Continent have always had a very different relationship with religion, with the government, and especially with the Masons on the other side of the Channel. After all, the French Masons backed Napoleon, which presented a credible and existential threat to all of England. There's two different main families of lodges, each calling the other irregular. They're very different from each other, and considering how you find yourself in the Anglosphere, it's worth knowing that English Masonry is kinder and gentler, and far less scary and creepy. I'm willing to bet most of the scary stories you've heard are attached to the Grand Orient de France.

Seriously though, have you ever had an experience where non Muslims talk about something that's specific to Shia Islam and they criticize all Muslims as if that describes all of them? It's exactly like that. You need to get a little more familiar with the divisions and distinctions within Masonry, because when you learn your way around a little, you'll quickly find that all or nearly all of your criticism winds up going in the direction of a particular group and not toward some others.

Everybody has peaceful and violent tendencies, it is necessary to expend those tendencies in establishing and upholding truth and justice, and it is clear that God who created and sustains the universe and revealed the Quran and sent Muhammad (pbuh) with the truth is the best guide and dictator of what it true and just.

Did he clearly say that all Muslims for all time should change all the legal codes they can in order for everyone to be forced to abide by Islamic law? If so, where?

Exhibit B, tell your leaders that Allah will not be overcome by falsehood and injustice, and it is better that we all turn to God in humility and submission before it's too late.

Now that sounds like a veiled threat. My leaders will never force their citizens to abide by Islamic law. Never going to happen. You may disagree, you may even say you're willing to die for this cause, but if I do have a chance to tell my leaders anything I'll say it's worth fighting wars in order to push back against this. Religious law, divine law if that's what you want to call it, is strictly optional. You don't get to make it mandatory, you don't get to make it compulsory. Freedom is important, that means you are free to practice your religion and it also means anyone else is free to practice a different religion. It even means you are free to leave your religion, if it comes to that, and you shouldn't come to any harm if you choose to do so.

format_quote Originally Posted by Futuwwa

That doesn't answer the question. The onus is still on you to prove that "appeasement" is a meaningful term, and that banning blasphemy would constitute "appeasement". If you cannot answer #1, then your answer to #2 is irrelevant.

First, I am under no obligation to "prove" anything, especially since I doubt that you will credit anything I say. Second, if you are going to attempt to control the conversation, I'm out of here.

That said, the idea that Appeasement as a concept doesn't exist is ridiculous. It's nothing more than giving in to extortion or blackmail, in the usually vain hope that the extortionist or blackmailer will be satisfied. To say that that concept has had no meaning throughout history, for both peoples and individuals, is either unbelievably naive or simply dishonest, depending on your motivation.

Would banning Blasphemy be appeasement? Again, that depends on the motive. It is appeasement if it is done solely as a reaction to a threat or attack, in the probably vain hope that the attacker will cease with the threats and/or attacks and make no future demands. Whether it would be either legal, practical or moral is another conversation.

-Gay marriage is legalized because gay activists demand it.
-The corporate tax rate is lowered in response to grumblings from the business community that it's too high and they may outsource if it remains as it is.
-The Belfast Agreement of 1998 is made after decades of ethnic conflict, instituting the right for the population of Northern Ireland to freely choose the sovereign status of the area, as well as enacts measures to mitigate marginalization of Irish Catholics.
-Jews are granted full and equal citizenship, and all laws singling them out for discrimination of any kind are repealed
-A prominent Muslim organization in a Western country decides to ditch any and all Islamic tenets that in any way are perceived by the majority culture as incompatible with it

Which of these are instances of appeasement, and which are not? Why?

I suspect that the last is the only one you're truly interested in, and you neglected to state the conditions under which the decision is made. If it is made solely in an attempt to "fit in," then it is not appeasement, it is retreat.

I'm an American, so this next is restricted to the US as I see it. It is also restricted to laboratory conditions, recognizing that the US Constitution is a human construct, and both human constructs and humans themselves are flawed.

The only obligation this hypothetical Muslim organization has to American society is to avoid advocating criminal activity. Criminal activity is anything that is already defined as such at the time the activity would be committed (Section IX, US Constitution).

There are a multitude of societies within the United States, and many of them have objections to different parts of American law and customs. For the most part, these objections can be and are accommodated. If, for example, conscription was reinstated (fat chance!) a Muslim who didn't want to fight other Muslims (which would be a religious objection) could either join the military as a medic or perform some other national service as a civilian (as a school teacher in a disadvantaged area, etc).

As I said above, humans are flawed. Yes, there are Americans who dislike Muslims to varying degrees; yes, police and citizens overreact; I don't deny it. I don't like it but I don't deny it. America can't be improved if it's faults aren't admitted. The American system, from the Constitution down to local city ordinances, all provide for self-improvement.

Social attitudes can be another question and various groups have been proscribed throughout our history. There was a time when no self-respecting businessman would hire the Irish; there were places where Whites and Blacks couldn't intermarry; native Americans were considered savages; no Roman Catholic, woman or non-White could hope to be president. It's an ugly picture.

Now it's the Muslims' turn. Fortunately, we seem to have learned at least a little from our past, and far more Americans are favorably disposed toward Islam than not. If the current polls in the presidential election can be believed, xenophobia will be defeated in a landslide. This particular picture is a bit brighter.

That's more than enough for an Internet forum. I'm going to go outside and play.

Jabeadey, you should listen to Shaikh Hamza Yusuf Hansen, I think you will appreciate his insights as Muslim scholar as well as Kentucky Colonel.



Scimi

format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran

There are and have been plenty of terrorists groups like Maronite Chrstian militia in Lebanon, The Lords resistence army in Uganda, National Liberation Front of Tripura - The Bosinian genocide. Bush calling the Iraq war a "crusade" (not good PR for Christianity especially in Iraq) etc etc.

...

All terrorists groups operate similar be they the IRA or Al qeada or the Lords resistance army.

All right, I'm going to come back to this one. Like I said before, the main thing I'm trying to debunk is the idea that Western imperialism, and the onerous presence of the US military where it doesn't belong, is the MAIN CULPRIT when it comes to terror.

So let's take a look at Lebanon, Tripura, Bosnia, the IRA and the LRA. Five good candidates there. How many of them identify the US military and Western imperialism as the MAIN CULPRIT for what they do, or for what they have ever done? How many of those five have made it their stated purpose to dislodge US military presence? And if these five aren't enough for you, please, continue to name off some other non-Islamic terror groups and we'll see about those. But for now, let's take a look at this question.

Lebanon and the Maronites- is US military presence and intervention the MAIN CULPRIT for what they're doing?
Tripura and the National Liberation Front- same question, and if I may, probably the same answer.
Bosnia genocide- was any sort of US military presence a MAIN CULPRIT, or any kind of culprit at all?
The IRA- does US military overreach have any bearing on this conflict?
The LRA- does any part of the US military and/or US foreign policy have any bearing whatsoever on what's happening there?

If you have the courage to answer any of these questions, even in passing, maybe you can tell me this. Why do the non Muslim terror organizations always exclude this as a recruiting tool, and why do Muslim terror groups- wherever they may happen to be- just about always make it their centerpiece and tell the world that terrible US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT?

I suppose the main thing I want to get across is this. When Muslims keep telling me this is why terror happens, look at what the US military is doing, it's so terrible, it's you guys. You're the real reason that terror happens. I say, well okay. Don't ignore the first part of this post, don't just slide past that and then tell me what you think I need to hear, listen for a second and maybe you can understand something. When you tell me that US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT in the origin of terror networks, you're not telling me something that pertains to all of terror, or to terror in general. You're giving me a talking point that is pretty standard among Muslim terrorists, but for all intents and purposes it's non-existent among non-Muslim terror groups. This undeniable fact is suggestive of a couple of different conclusions. One, US foreign policy does not, as a general matter, naturally lead to terror networks forming. And two, Islam appears to be the single factor that's most predictive of the conclusion that terrorists are going to blame the US and call it the MAIN CULPRIT. That doesn't mean it is the main culprit, of course, it just means a Muslim terrorist is justifying his actions and it's definitely not a non-Muslim terrorist.

Oh, right, number three. Although there may be some similarities between a broad range of terror groups, laser focus on US foreign policy is not one of them. Dislodging US military presence is not one of them. There is a distinct and pronounced difference between Islamic terrorism and every other kind of terrorism, and I've just described it for you.

format_quote Originally Posted by Mustafa16

Here's what id define as western powers going too far in stopping "extremism" I'd say being forced into saying that gays have a right to engage in homosexual relationships,

You don't have to deny divine law when it comes to moral assessments. You just can't enforce it. Of course they're breaking Islamic law, and this is some seriously sinful behavior by any reasonable interpretation of the Christian Bible as well. But I'm not someone who enforces the law, and you're not law enforcement either. So don't attempt to enforce Islamic law or any other kind of law. Unless you become a cop, then go ahead and enforce the regular law. But still, you definitely shouldn't attempt to enforce Islamic law.

that transgendered people have a right to pretend to be the other gender,

Again, you don't have to call it halal, you just have to understand that Islamic law is not going to be enforced. You're not going to compel anyone to follow the laws of your religion. And you are certainly not going to enforce that law, although you may certainly believe in it and order your life by it.

being forced to deny that the western and Zionist powers are war criminals,

I don't think anyone is forcing you to do that.

to be forced to deny the ijma of scholars on religious rulings such as those for apostasy and music, etc.

You are free to believe that apostasy is a serious matter that should not be done, you are free to believe that music is haram. But if you are in a public space, the only people who get to enforce any kind of law are actual law enforcement. You are not law enforcement, and you will not enforce any laws.

Suppose I'm playing music in a public space, in compliance with local ordinance. You hear it, you come up to me and politely inform me that you are able to hear the music from where you're at and you briefly educate me about Islamic law and its restrictions.

Then I politely thank you for informing me, but I also point out that we're in a public space and I'd like to know if you are law enforcement. Are you in a position where you are able to enforce Islamic law? Is that your job? Is that something you can do?

If you're smart, you'll find somewhere else to be and something else to do, because you are certainly not law enforcement. That is not going to be happening.

to be going too far.....as for implementing shariah in non muslim lands, this is nonsense, if you killed an apostate in America or Britain you would go to jail......you can only carry out punishments with the ruling of a judge in a state ruled by the shariah, and if not, you are living in the jungle.....

There's a whole lot of Muslims living in secular areas that go full on jungle with their violence. And you know what's the most disturbing part of it to me? I mentioned part of this earlier in the thread, about the Desi Muslim who drove 200 miles from England to Scotland so he could kill an extremely peaceful Ahmadi. Well....that's not the worst part. It's the reaction that happened afterward. To be clear, of course there are fringe groups that don't speak for all Muslims or even most Sunni Muslims, like Sipah-e-Sahaba. That's clearly not mainstream Islam. But it's just as clear that the head of religious events at Glasgow Central Mosque is under investigation for links to them, and a week after the Ahmadi in Scotland was killed, the Sunni imam of Scotland's largest mosque addressed his social media audience on the WhatsApp platform and spoke in support of the KILLER. The guy who stabbed an innocent man over 30 times, then sat on him and laughed- yes he was arrested, yes he was killed by the state, and the imam of Scotland's Largest Mosque said he was "disturbed" and "upset" at his execution.

Then he said "rahmatullahi alaih" after mentioning his name- which as I'm sure you know is a religious blessing typically given to a devout Muslim who you respect and admire.

That's not fringe, that's a fair representation of the Sunni mainstream in Scotland. It's not at all okay, but that is what's happening.

but for western powers to tell us to abandon the shariah, yet preach freedom of speech and "will of the people" (democracy) is hypocritical......

You don't have to abandon the Shariah in your own personal life. You just can't enforce it. This is completely consistent with the idea that there is no compulsion in religion. Let's return to the public place where I am playing music within the bounds of the law. You may ask me to keep the music away from where you can hear it, but I will politely decline. And you will not compel me otherwise. Now, it would be undeniable hypocrisy if you told me that there is no compulsion in religion but you're going to compel me to obey your, um, religious law. No compulsion in your religion except where you compel me to obey your religious rules, okay buddy. Why don't you keep moving.

if the majority of muslims want shariah, why not let them have it?

Because compulsion in religion is wrong, and the religious freedom of the minority must be protected. No, your religious freedom does not extend to being able to force non-Muslims to abide by Islamic law or else get punished. You don't get to do that. That's compulsion and it's a violation of basic human rights, whether you're in the majority or minority. That's why you can't do that.

but for muslims living in the west, you can not just go out and kill people for committing apostasy when the de facto laws are different....

They shouldn't, but they do, it has happened recently, and the reaction from the most important mainstream Sunni imams and scholars that have anything to do with it has not been entirely encouraging. Their reaction has been mixed at best. And that's just the ones in the UK, of course the mullahs and imams in Pakistan and Bangladesh are actively encouraging their followers to carry out extra-judicial violence against Ahmadis, call them martyrs when they do, talk about how they carried out "the will of the people." That's a direct quote from Imam Maulana Habib Ur Rehman in Pakistan, after the murder of a "blasphemer" and then the murderer had 30,000 people at his funeral. That's the main reason why Muslims from these countries do it all the time, it's this combination of certain religious elites in certain Muslim countries that actively encourage it, that's what leads to the broad public support, and now they're leaving these countries and doing it other places too.

Would you attend the funeral of a Muslim who straight up murdered a blasphemer? I mean, if you didn't know the person at all. Would you reflect on the beauty of your religion while celebrating the life of someone that you know nothing about, except that he killed someone that he believed to be an enemy of Islam? I assume not. But what exactly do you think of these 30,000 people in Pakistan who would, and did?

See, that's what we really want you to give up. Not you personally, but any of those 30,000 people who might wind up coming to live in the West for one reason or another....whatever it is that makes you celebrate the life of a killer, That is what some Muslims need to give up. And by some Muslims I mean a lot of Muslims.

format_quote Originally Posted by Mustafa16

Here's what id define as western powers going too far in stopping "extremism" I'd say being forced into saying that gays have a right to engage in homosexual relationships, that transgendered people have a right to pretend to be the other gender, being forced to deny that the western and Zionist powers are war criminals, to be forced to deny the ijma of scholars on religious rulings such as those for apostasy and music, etc. to be going too far.....as for implementing shariah in non muslim lands, this is nonsense, if you killed an apostate in America or Britain you would go to jail......you can only carry out punishments with the ruling of a judge in a state ruled by the shariah, and if not, you are living in the jungle.....but for western powers to tell us to abandon the shariah, yet preach freedom of speech and "will of the people" (democracy) is hypocritical......if the majority of muslims want shariah, why not let them have it? but for muslims living in the west, you can not just go out and kill people for committing apostasy when the de facto laws are different....

If you want to live by Shariah in the US, go ahead and do it. I've not only seen it done, I've indirectly participated in it. Just recognize that in criminal matters, State and national laws will preempt Shariah. No one is forcing you to say that gays and trannies have rights, or that Western governments haven't committed war crimes. You're perfectly free to disagree with these practices and laws. You're even free to attempt to change them. You'll probably fail, but you won't be punished for trying.

But no, you cannot just go out and kill people for apostasy, or for any other reason for that matter. Neither will you be cutting anyone's hand off. Sorry to spoil your fun.

format_quote Originally Posted by Mustafa16

The non Muslims in Prophet Muhammad's time had their own communities and their own laws.....same applies in a sharia state.

Like the Islamic State?

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

All right, I'm going to come back to this one. Like I said before, the main thing I'm trying to debunk is the idea that Western imperialism, and the onerous presence of the US military where it doesn't belong, is the MAIN CULPRIT when it comes to terror.

So let's take a look at Lebanon, Tripura, Bosnia, the IRA and the LRA. Five good candidates there. How many of them identify the US military and Western imperialism as the MAIN CULPRIT for what they do, or for what they have ever done? How many of those five have made it their stated purpose to dislodge US military presence? And if these five aren't enough for you, please, continue to name off some other non-Islamic terror groups and we'll see about those. But for now, let's take a look at this question.

Lebanon and the Maronites- is US military presence and intervention the MAIN CULPRIT for what they're doing?
Tripura and the National Liberation Front- same question, and if I may, probably the same answer.
Bosnia genocide- was any sort of US military presence a MAIN CULPRIT, or any kind of culprit at all?
The IRA- does US military overreach have any bearing on this conflict?
The LRA- does any part of the US military and/or US foreign policy have any bearing whatsoever on what's happening there?

If you have the courage to answer any of these questions, even in passing, maybe you can tell me this. Why do the non Muslim terror organizations always exclude this as a recruiting tool, and why do Muslim terror groups- wherever they may happen to be- just about always make it their centerpiece and tell the world that terrible US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT?

I suppose the main thing I want to get across is this. When Muslims keep telling me this is why terror happens, look at what the US military is doing, it's so terrible, it's you guys. You're the real reason that terror happens. I say, well okay. Don't ignore the first part of this post, don't just slide past that and then tell me what you think I need to hear, listen for a second and maybe you can understand something. When you tell me that US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT in the origin of terror networks, you're not telling me something that pertains to all of terror, or to terror in general. You're giving me a talking point that is pretty standard among Muslim terrorists, but for all intents and purposes it's non-existent among non-Muslim terror groups. This undeniable fact is suggestive of a couple of different conclusions. One, US foreign policy does not, as a general matter, naturally lead to terror networks forming. And two, Islam appears to be the single factor that's most predictive of the conclusion that terrorists are going to blame the US and call it the MAIN CULPRIT. That doesn't mean it is the main culprit, of course, it just means a Muslim terrorist is justifying his actions and it's definitely not a non-Muslim terrorist.

Oh, right, number three. Although there may be some similarities between a broad range of terror groups, laser focus on US foreign policy is not one of them. Dislodging US military presence is not one of them. There is a distinct and pronounced difference between Islamic terrorism and every other kind of terrorism, and I've just described it for you.

Search answerd .....

format_quote Originally Posted by Search

WRONG. Normalization of suicide bombing and murder of innocents rests clearly on U.S. foreign policy because of the misapplication of the concept of Qisas - "eye for eye" philosophy which holds that Al-Qaeda is allowed to retaliate in kind and so is Daesh for dead Muslims elsewhere in the globe. Does this concept exist? On an individual level within a legitimate Khilafat (Caliphate), yes. On a national or global level, never. That's why I said it is a misapplication of the concept. Now, why do I say it hinges on U.S. foreign policy? Because if we as a country had kept our noses out of the business of M.E., then we wouldn't be handing justifications to Daesh or Al-Qaeda to exist or expand but we have. We as a country have cared more about Israel than U.S., which is why we're in this sad status of quo and impasse. Moreover, sorry to say, but did you have amnesia? Last I checked, we armed both Al-Qaeda and Daesh when it suited our purposes to do so. We are a bit like the anti-hero Victor in Mary Shelly's book who created "Frankenstein" and then cried wolf - we're both villain and hero, and I'm sorry, being an American doesn't give you the right or the excuse to ignore this inconvenient truth.

And finally, please see above as I have already pointed out how and why I eschew your line "Muslims reasoned their way there through religious study" with a facepalm. In addition to seeing why the above is untrue from what I've posted above, I'd add: In Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, a book that presents the findings of a six-year, 50,000-interview Gallup survey of Muslim populations in 35 countries, found that "those who condone acts of terrorism are a minority and are no more likely to be religious than the rest of the population."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To conclude, I have this to say: I don't follow Islam because I believe Allah (God) to be a wrathful being demanding vengeance and the blood and death of non-believers. In fact, what you'd find is that I start every post of mine with "" which in Arabic literally reads in transliteration "Bismillah Ir-Rehman Ir-Raheem" and means "In the Name of God, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful." I don't exclude non-believers from this mercy because the fact that we're both drinking water and breathing air free of cost to us from God means that we're both falling under the umbrella of this mercy even though you see yourself as a Christian and I see myself as Muslim.

You have asked what U.K. Muslims are doing to combat extremism or terrorism: First, I resent the fact that Muslims are being put, oh, look under a microscope and under trial for being Muslims (albeit in the U.K.). However, the fact that you're asking this question shows you're not acquainted with how Muslims have been trying to handle the situation. Well-credentialed and well-respected Islamic scholar Shaykh Afifi Al Akiti, a lecturer in University of Oxford on Islamic Studies, who days after 7/7 published a fatwa (ruling) denouncing terrorism in the name of Islam calling for the protection of all noncombatants at all times and describing suicide bombings as an innovation with no basis in shariah (Islamic law). Secondly, these types of things not getting press from the larger media is not the same as Muslims doing nothing; Muslims are doing what they can in their capacity, and that's much more than what I can say for non-believers in most recent cases of harassment that Muslims - specifically Muslim women due to wearing hijab or niqab - face in the U.K. In fact, in a survey for the Daily Telegraph, published two weeks after the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground, showed that 88% of British Muslims were opposed to the bombings, and 91% of British Muslims feel loyalty to U.K.

You should ask yourself why Fox News, for example, doesn't cover the fact that Daesh has been unanimously condemned by both Islamic scholars and the overwhelming majority lay Muslims over the globe. In fact, Pew Research Study places the number of Muslims to be extremist to, after doing basic math, to .00625%. We can further pare those numbers when we consider that most "extremists" will never join a terrorist organization or kill people in spite of their extremist views. A case in point is Abz2000 on IB. So, what gives? Could it be that sensationalist news sells and having a popular villain in Muslims brings in television ratings?

You should ask yourself why U.K. non-Muslims feel so threatened by Muslims. You have not addressed this nor have I seen this brought up anywhere in the posts so far that I've had a chance to read on this thread. However, U.K. is both a historically classist and xenophobic society. This might be harder for you to grasp as whites were immigrants to the land of the United States and never the natives, but the same is not true for white nationals in U.K. A strong South Asian presence has existed in the U.K. since the British Raj, and this is also currently the predominant "Muslim face" in U.K. This has factored greatly into how Muslims are "otherized" in U.K. and also modern-day fear-mongering of Islam and Muslims. In fact, the equivalent of U.S. N-word in the U.K. is the racial slur "Paki" which is used to describe anyone presumed to either be of South Asian descent or Muslim. (This slur existed in 1960s when there had been no overt "Muslim threat" against which to defend.)

I'd additionally point out you cited Sam Harris as an authority from which you are understanding Islam, and he is not an expert on Islam. Moreover, he appeared in 2014 on a Talk Show calling Islam as having a "mother load of bad ideas." However, having been an atheist myself, I can tell you that in an atheist's opinion all religions will equally fall under that umbrella. Sam Harris might be a neuroscientist; so, no one can say he's not intelligent. However, like you, he really likes Maajid Nawaz, and like Fox News, seems to consider Maajid Nawaz some kind of legitimate authority on Islam and "Islamic" extremism. However, that is not the case as I've already established. And most importantly, Sam Harris is very notoriously an Islamophobe as he called for profiling of anyone who even looks like Muslim in 2012. Imagine if he'd said the same thing about Jewish people. Or imagine if I'd said let's profile anyone who even looks Jewish, and I'd in real life be rightfully accused of anti-Semitism. However, (lucky him!) he doesn't even believe there is any "Islamophobia" to which we can attribute his affront. However, contrary to what Sam Harris may believe, there was nothing particularly "rational" about his expressions of antipathy towards Islam and Muslims; we have atheists on this board who do not behave like Sam Harris like our IB's Pygoscelis, essentially atheists who are able to have discussions about atheism and Islam without resorting to a discourse expressing intolerance towards Muslims for being Muslims.

Also, the fact that you are here and I am here, and we are having this dialogue on a Muslim platform is itself proof enough that neither Muslims nor Islam endorses or condones terrorism or extremism or even a selective and distorted reading of Quran or Sunnah (prophetic footsteps) to favor either. The fact is you yourself said that you know an apostate atheist Syrian with a Muslim wife, and the fact from what you've relayed is that his wife has not tried to kill her husband or you ("the enemy" if right-wingers are to be believed in regards to what Muslims truly "believe"). All that said, Muslims are human beings, people like you and your family, and their demonization and demonization of Islam is a disservice to our dignity and our honor as being individuals deserving to be judged for our unique strengths and not collectively for a presumed and herein debunked weakness.

Taking one and two verses out of the entire post and building a straw man is not going to get you anywhere. If you actually read what she says and respond to her then you might be taken seriously rather mine quote one or two posts when she explained in detail frankly with a lot of facts.

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

@cooterhein @Zafran

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

Yes indeed, you sure did say the MAIN CULPRIT

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.

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 (b) that foreign policy is instead the driver behind both. I PROVIDED EVIDENCE, and the EVIDENCE IS AS FOLLOWS AGAIN: The reasons can be numbered as follows: (1) MI5 report confirms that terrorism and extremism is not happening because of Islam (please see my original post to get link to original article that appeared in The Guardian), (2) that U.S. terrorism analyst Robert Page's book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism in examining 315 cases in total said that there is little connection between Islamic fundamentalism and suicide terrorism, and also because (3) Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think shows that "Those who condone acts of terrorism are a minority and are no more likely to be religious than the rest of the population." Earlier, I also told you earlier that CIA and FBI agree that there is little connection between Islam and terrorism as I'd even said previously in one of my earliest posts in this thread.

And you STILL continue to IGNORE THE EVIDENCE.

Well, here's INFORMATION that EXPANDS on previously presented information with MORE EVIDENCE:

In a book edited by Matthew M. Morgan called The Impact of 9/11 on Religion and Philosophy: The Day that Changed Everything?, the following information is presented: "National Strategy of Combating Terrorism stated that terrorists 'exploit' and 'distort' Islam while 'peaceful Muslims' and 'responsible Islamic leaders' represent its truest forms." In the same book, a terrorism expert studying the phenomena presents the theory called "Ziggurat of Zealotry" that specifically states motivations to radicalize can occur in any secular or religious ideology and that is how terrorism is being studied in modern-day context. In the same book, an analyst in the unit of CIA called "The Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program" said that the unit did not see religion as the key driver of radicalization or recruitment of terrorist groups because religious indoctrination happened after absorption into the terrorist organization. In fact, I went onto CIA's site and it specifically again said that Islam is not the focus of this program but movements and organizations that claim the religion are. FBI on their site regarding radicalization process said that there are three main stages of the radicalization model, which is grievance which includes alienation, feelings of discrimination, discontent, perceived persecution, etc. and then diffusing this grievance into fracture of the ummah (nation) and then hanging out with others of a similar mindset which can occur whether in person or alone on the Internet.

So, AGAIN, I have offered evidence and turning one's back on evidence shows prejudice, NOT intelligence.

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." Why do I further say this? Good question. Apart from the aforesaid EVIDENCE that it is not Islam driving the modern-day terrorism and extremism, I say this because of FURTHER EVIDENCE:

(1) In the book Feeling Betrayed: The Roots of Muslim Anger in America, the author quotes. "In WorldPublicOpinion.org polling conducted in 2008 and 2009 found that 8 out of 9 Muslim-majority countries endorsed the view that 'in our government's relation with the United States,' the United States 'abuses its power to make us do what the United States wants.'" THAT IS FOREIGN POLICY.

(2) In Abu Hafs al-Mauritani, we have an "ex-extremist," a reformed man, who'd been part of Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization, as a mufti (Islamic scholar), and he had worked prior with Osama Bin Laden as an extremist, who explained in an interview with the Al-Jazeera why the West is experiencing attacks, and his exact words are: "Now, to answer your question, one must explain these events and not justify them. We should explain such actions rather than justify them and explain the context which prompts these events in some countries but not others. Many Muslim youth and particularly youth who are members of these groups like the Islamic State, or Al Qaeda or others, they think the West is heavily involved in all the crises which afflict the Muslim world. The West is the one who planted Israel in the middle of the Islamic world, armed Israel and supports Israel politically and the West turns a blind eye to the crimes which are committed against the Palestinians. Although I do not agree with what happened and I feel pained by the killing of any innocent person whether in France or America or any other place it seems others don't feel the same pain when it comes to our issues." He goes on to explain many other things, but I quote what he said further: "Westerners want to oversimplify things and say that the strikes on France and America were random and just blind terrorism. But these groups think they are acting for a reason. Why didn't they attack China for example? So it's not a matter of disbelief versus faith and infidels versus Muslims. As far as Muslims are concerned the Chinese are further in disbelief than the Jews and Christians who are considered people following books from God. Otherwise why else would they have hit France and not hit the Vatican? The Vatican represents Western Christianity." (Feel free to watch the YouTube video to which I've linked you.) THAT IS FOREIGN POLICY.

(3) Now, let's turn to the bane of our existence in modern-day: terrorism and extremism. WikiLeaks shows the following: "The United States paid large numbers of Iraqis to defect from the Sunni insurgency and instead fight against al-Qaeda, on the promise of receiving regular employment through integration into the Iraqi military. As Jamail argues, the failure of the Maliki government to honor this promise saw huge numbers of US-trained, US-armed and US-financed—but now unemployed—Sunni militants return to the insurgency, eventually swelling the ranks of the former al- Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, which in 2014 became known as ISIS, or the “Islamic State.” THAT IS FOREIGN POLICY, PRECISELY OUR FOREIGN POLICY.

(4) Now, for 9/11 that seemed to set in motion events from which the world is still reeling: In the book, Til Death Do Us Part, is said, "In 1979, about the same time as Soviet Union deployed troops into Afghanistan, the United States began giving several hundred million dollars a year in aid to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and the Soviet Army in Operation Cyclone. Along with native Afghan mujahideen were Muslim volunteers from other countries, popularly known as Afghan Arabs." Among this was was Osama Bin Laden. In the book U.S. Conflicts in the 21st Century: Afghanistan War, Iraq War, and the War on Terror, the following is said: "Between 1987 and 1993, another $4 billion of U.S. aid was allocated to Afghanistan, although the CIA's Operation Cyclone was gradually phased out after the Soviets exited Afghanistan in 1989. It is estimated that American funding helped train at least 80,000 Afghan rebels between 1973 and 1993. [....] Operation Cyclone was just a relatively small part of American strategy to roll back Soviet influence in Asia and the Middle East during the 1980s. However, the impact that it had on Afghanistan--over the long term--was certainly more pervasive. It helped fund and prolong the Afghan civil war, which ranged from 1989 until 1996, and aided the rise of the Taliban to power in 1996." Also, Osama Bin Laden thought that the West could be forced to give up their imperialistic policies and neo-colonialism with 9/11 Attacks and also predicted and wanted that the issue of Palestine-Israel be highlighted in a manner that United States learns to stop supporting Israel. ALL OF THE AFORESAID IS FOREIGN POLICY!

format_quote Originally Posted by cooterhein

Okay, explain something to me. As I understand it, significant minority groups in Iraq and Syria (and a few other places over the years) are Christian. Not Protestant or Catholic, but Oriental Orthodox, and they've been there forever. It's their homeland. They are very protective of it. Moreover, these Christians that are native to these lands are worried about drone strikes collateral damage violence and instability just like everyone else, and they are some of the most vulnerable people because the climate of war has turned their Muslim neighbors against them like never before.

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. 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. 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. 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.” And also, Russia (which would be considered part of the West) is in fact supporting Bashar Al-Assad and in fact a Syrian archbishop had been appealing to the U.S. to also back the regime and not rebel groups. Secondly, Christians are not attacking the West because they do not have historical anger against the West that conversely exists in Muslim world due to the Palestine-Israel issue. In fact, the West has Christian origins and roots, which is why they have extremely and generally supported Zionism even at the expense of human right violations in that part of the world because Christians believe that Jesus alayhis salaam (peace be upon him) will not return back to the earth until the Jews have their own nation. I have repeatedly told you in the past that all anger in the Middle East can be traced to Israel-Palestine, yet you keep turning a deaf ear, which is DISINGENUOUS.

Well, there's plenty of Christians being targeted, and they're losing even more ground than the Muslims are, and they're losing it permanently. There's more than enough Christians in the region that they could have formed some sort of terror network by now, but it hasn't happened. There isn't a single bit of organized non-state violence being carried out in the region by any of these Christians, or any other non-Muslim group for that matter. They are being hurt by this just as much as the Muslims, the MAIN CULPRIT as you say is more harmful to them than it is to anyone else. So why aren't they getting organized, why aren't they securing funding for an armed resistance?

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard. You are saying that Christians are all innocent of forming terror groups? 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. We're talking about a war-torn country here and war is not a picnic. 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. And also, Christian forces are forming armed resistance against Daesh which would still qualify them as participants in terrorism and have an automatic bar from immigrating into the U.S. The same would be true for the all-women Christian group that is fighting against Daesh. The same is also true for a Christian group known as "self-sacrificers." Also, Christians have tried to secure funding for armed resistance from the U.S., but the U.S. refused, which is why in some right-wing articles like this one I'd read Obama was blamed for not caring about Christians and instead arming Muslim rebel groups. And in case you want to know how or why I'm saying the above about these four Christian armed factions in Syria, let me tell you I went to law school, the best in my state within the U.S., and though I specialized in family law, I am also quite familiar with immigration law and the definition of terrorism therein (and these Christian groups regardless of their motives would easily qualify).

Thank you for this, I appreciate that you are making an effort and staying on topic. For what it's worth, my understanding of the situation is that "terrorism" as a word by itself is generally understood to involve violent non-state actors, with somewhat separate categories of less-direct responsibility for the state funding of terrorism, and then there is another category of state terrorism or state-sponsored terrorism (which comes back to direct responsibility) which, as far as I'm aware, involves the intentional and/or indiscriminate killing of civilian non-combatants, and there's also a bit of a sub-category that involves false flag operations by a state under the guise of not belonging to that state and again we're talking about killing civilian non-combatants, and that may include the possibility of a state's military killing its own civilians.

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. 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." 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" 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. So, it really depends on who is describing what as terrorism and for what reason. According to Noam Chomsky and Andre Vltchek, authors of On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare, the West, however, is in fact said to be the biggest terrorist and for reasons that are entirely well-presented in this well-researched book. I highly recommend you to read this book. Also, please read the article "Western Christians support terrorism: Shock polls prove danger in our midst" that says the following:

"Support for state sanctioned terror is shared by millions of Christians in America, more than a third of whom still expressed support for the destruction of Iraq by George W Bush - even when the scale of the disaster with hundreds of thousands of dead was well known. Significant minorities continue to support the US war in Southeast Asia that caused the deaths of millions of civilians. And in case there was any doubt that only a conservative minority support such atrocities, polls show support for a well-known liberal mass killer currently stands at 51 percent. That’s more than half the country giving backing to a leader who uses a “Kill List” to strike at alleged enemies in countries as far apart as Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan and Syria – none of whom have had a day in court or even, in most cases, any legal evidence produced of guilt of any crime. Many were just innocent bystanders in a crazed system of assassination from the skies, for which the paid drone operators are rewarded with envelopes telling them how many people they have helped kill while on duty. (Meanwhile most ordinary Israelis - our allies - support the execution of civilians and half support ethnic cleansing.) Ah, I hear you say, you can’t compare support for “their” terrorism – that of Islamic State or al-Qaeda on the streets of Paris and Brussels or beaches of Tunisia – with Western actions over the years designed to defend us from mortal enemies. But such an argument does not stack up. The mass killing of civilians is illegal under the Geneva Conventions and all laws of war, as we are reminded by human rights group reporting on civilians deaths in Yemen or Syria every week. So there is no get-out clause for state terrorism. If you support killing people without trial, or justify collateral damage of innocent civilians, morally speaking, you are the same as those who support Islamic State. The only difference is Western wars have killed a hell of a lot more people than either of the most famous terrorist brands. Decapitation by shell or drone is still beheading."

I'm not arguing that only Muslims can commit terrorism, just that in this particular region where there is some religious diversity, Muslims are the only ones with well-funded terror organizations, or terror organizations of any kind really.

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.

For example, let's use the example of Egypt. We, the U.S., supported Mubarak the dictator in Egypt and yet our support of Mubarak meant that Muslims were living under the thumb of the dictator but Coptic Christians were happily supporting Mubarak from the beginning. In fact, in Muslim world, time and again what has been seen is that Christians usually end up supporting support secular dictatorships in return for protection from the secular dictatorship and for access to power. So, as a domino effect, our support for Mubarak's dictatorship in Egypt was benefiting Christians in that region and not Muslims, though I'm sure we as a country did not do so specifically to benefit Christians or any other minority but to ensure we had a puppet willing to listen to what we say in regards to Israel-Palestine issue. The Muslim Brotherhood wanted to change the secular dictatorship's existence and did do just that before the military coup that ended the struggle. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states consider Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. General Sisi who came into power declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. However, U.S. hasn't put Muslim Brotherhood yet on the terrorist list, though Republicans in the Congress have introduced a bill to do so.

I will go on to say one other thing with regard to terror in a broader context. I do acknowledge that there are non-Muslim terror groups, there are even a couple that have a separatist Christian motivation and a couple that involve cults somewhat related to Christianity. And then there's a few that are not particularly religious in nature, and a few that involve Eastern religions. If I could bring this back to your point about US foreign policy though, there is something that I'd like to point out.

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."

Consider for a moment all the different ways in which a terrorist organization could direct its violent tendencies. One thing they could certainly do is spread hatred for the US and for the West, they could promote armed struggle against the US military and even against US civilians or anything that's broadly West-affiliated. One thing they could care about more than anything else is the armed presence of the US military in various countries all around the world, especially if it's acting as a destabilizing force.

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

Now let me ask you something. As you think about which terrorist groups choose that as their main reason for existing, how many of those groups are Islamic? Think back for a second on those non-Muslim terror groups, and I did just acknowledge that they exist in quite a few places throughout the world. How many of those non-Muslim terror groups are committed to a broad, long-term fight against the US military? You probably know the names of most of these non-Muslim groups, go ahead and tick them off real quick then let me know if any of them are super committed to fighting back the US military wherever it happens to be. The IRA, in its various forms and incarnations- did it ever make a point of fighting the US military, and of removing its presence and/or influence from a certain part of the world? Yes of course they're terrorists, and that whole situation might just reignite in the current environment, but let's ask if This Particular terror group has adopted hatred of the US and its military presence as any one of its various reasons for existing and operating. Then let's repeat this for any other non-Muslim terror group and find out how many of them hate the US military, in keeping with your working hypothesis- namely, that the US military and US foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT

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.

in causing terrorism to happen. Let's just do a quick comparison, okay? I can obviously name all sorts of Islamic terror organizations that hate the US military and who cite US foreign policy as the MAIN CULPRIT for what they are trying to do. But how often is that true of non-Muslim terror groups?

See what I've said right above this quote.

Now, before you say the US military is only guilty of incursions on Muslim countries, I'll remind you once again that there tends to be a fair amount of religious diversity in those Muslim-majority countries. The US has done quite a bit of destabilizing, and with all these different regions taken together, there has certainly been ample opportunity for non-Muslims to form terror groups and name the US as their main enemy and prime target, all while saying the destabilizing chaos of its terrible foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT for what they're doing. Now, to your knowledge, is that something that's ever happened when we're speaking of non-Muslim terror groups?

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

Go ahead and run those numbers, and please let me know what you find out. I'm curious to see if I've really discovered a trend that is fairly common among Muslim terror networks while also being not-at-all common in non-Muslim terror networks. I'm feeling good about it so far, but I would like to know what you think.

Well, how nice. First, you want monopoly on the definition of terrorism and then you want the monopoly to define Christian terrorism and then you also want me to tell you why and how Christians as a minority within Muslim-majority nations might not have acted as badly when you well know that FOREIGN POLICY has impacted Muslims in Muslim-majority nations adversely in a way that OUR FOREIGN POLICY has not Christians in those countries. I call BS. Let's just take Egypt for a small example. And I call out STRAW MAN because we've been talking earlier in the posts about my argument about why Islam is not the reason for terrorism and extremism and FOREIGN POLICY IS and then we go from that to talking about how Christians have not acted in the same way which I find untrue based in Syria itself. Even if true, however, still IRRELEVANT. IT STILL DOESN'T DISPROVE MY POINT - Foreign policy is the MAIN CULPRIT behind the modern-day context of terrorism and extremism.