What do non-Muslims want from Muslims?

[ICYUNVMe]

I'd be glad to do my best to answer your questions:

How do The United States protect its country by attacking, invading and occupying other foreign states? Please enlighten us.

Groups such as the Taliban that exercised a great deal of control in Afghanistan enabled terrorist cells to flourish, and promoted an ideology of hatred that I'm sure most moderate Muslims would disagree with. The idea is: removing those influences removes a portion of the threat. (And its not an "occupation". Its temporary, until control can be safely turned over to the citizens. And I know deep down, you know that to be true).

Is that why The US government was so gung-ho in attacking and invading, and creating lies in order to justify the invasion?

No rational people wish to kill innocents. Rational people are never "gung-ho" for wars. Sometimes people make mistakes, as was the case with Iraq, as it turns out. But you go on the best information you have at the time. Regardless, I don't think anyone was too fond of Saddam anyway. Not that that justifies it, but I'm just sayin'.

Have you actually ever lived in any muslim countries? Please provide evidence to support your assertion above.

Not a chance... And that really wouldn't change anything anyway. You can't provide proof for conjecture. All you can do is look at patterns. So, I have my assertions, and you have yours. We can disagree on that. Doesn't really matter to me. Though I do think that nearly everyone in the West would appreciate a more unified stand against radicals within the fold of Islam. It would do us a lot of good AND would do a lot of good for ALL of the Muslims around the world who genuinely do want peace.

Is that why everyone in the US is so excited and happy when a very peaceful group of muslims decided to build a house of worship which also serve as community centre in downtown NYC?

No one in the US has suggested that the group of Muslims building the mosque and religious center near the WTC site doesn't have the RIGHT to do it. Of course, in America, they do. However, is it the SMARTEST thing to do? No, it isn't. And given the sensitivity of the situation and the area in question, it would have been taken as a very noble gesture to move it to a different location. Reverse the roles, and consider how a Muslim community would feel if a group of crazy evangelicals destroyed a small town, and then decided to erect a church nearby.

What do I want from non-muslims? less bull**** and hypocrisy.

I'll have my people call your people. We'll get it done. Lets do lunch.

 

[جوري]

The United States involves themselves in these regions to protect our own country from continued attacks.

You call inside attacks a cause to invade sovereign nations?

Trust me when I tell you that NO American wants to be in the middle east unnecessarily.

I doubt that very much.. it is lucrative to be a warmonger!

If Muslims stood up and defended rationality and reason,

One wonders of your definition of 'rationality' and 'reason' is it a subjective per capita thing of a global sentiment?

and therefore fought against those Muslim fundamentalists who do harm to people around the world as well as the reputation of Muslims around the world, then the US would have no need to interfere.

Why should anyone take the U.S's word on whom it deems a 'fundamentalist'--rather what does the term mean all together?

Just based on outward appearances however, that lack of action on the part of the Muslim community has been perceived as an alliance with those fundamentalists.

What would you like to have done?

When that crazy guy was planning on holding his Burn a Qu'ran day, EVERYONE in the US stood up and told him to knock it off, because we all knew it was wrong, and we don't want to be associated with people who are willingly doing harm to America's reputation.

really 'everybody' stood against him? or were they simply fearful of retaliation.. fear seems to be the biggest motivator of the under-educated WOULDN'T YOU AGREE?

What do I want from Muslims?

Accountability.

Will you take accountability for the The stealth-crusade or are christian nutters exempt from hooliganism and terrorism?

all the best

 

[جوري]

Groups such as the Taliban that exercised a great deal of control in Afghanistan enabled terrorist cells to flourish, and promoted an ideology of hatred that I'm sure most moderate Muslims would disagree with. The idea is: removing those influences removes a portion of the threat. (And its not an "occupation". Its temporary, until control can be safely turned over to the citizens. And I know deep down, you know that to be true).

One country's 'terrorists' is another country's freedom fighters.. There is NO such thing as a 'moderate Muslim' you are either a good Muslim or a bad Muslim..
Afghanistan has been and will be the death of empires as early as was recorded by history:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/57411/milton-bearden/afghanistan-graveyard-of-empires

I doubt the new century's identification tags and puerile description is going to bring a different outcome for the U.S' accomplishments in that region-- it will go down the same path as other nutters before it.. with or without the help of those alleged 'moderate Muslims' and well the rest of us are really enjoying it unravel..

 

[IAmZamzam]

No rational people wish to kill innocents. Rational people are never "gung-ho" for wars. Sometimes people make mistakes, as was the case with Iraq, as it turns out. But you go on the best information you have at the time.

Since when was the government rational?!

No one in the US has suggested that the group of Muslims building the mosque and religious center near the WTC site doesn't have the RIGHT to do it. Of course, in America, they do. However, is it the SMARTEST thing to do? No, it isn't. And given the sensitivity of the situation and the area in question, it would have been taken as a very noble gesture to move it to a different location. Reverse the roles, and consider how a Muslim community would feel if a group of crazy evangelicals destroyed a small town, and then decided to erect a church nearby.

I call bull. I call serious bull. Not only would it not be the same evangelicals building the church (indeed, these evangelicals probably hate the ones who did the destroying at least as much as you do), but what is "smart" is not even the issue. In fact, it sounds a lot like the distinction is nothing more than an excuse for disapproval. TONS of people have been saying that we Muslims have no right to build a mosque there, just because eleven bad apples out of a billion happened to go rotten within a certain number of blocks in distance. I am not going to debate this with you. Though I'm sure you'll still try to debate it with me, which is sad.

 

[Ramadhan]

Just asking here, are you by any chance working for Fox News?

Groups such as the Taliban that exercised a great deal of control in Afghanistan enabled terrorist cells to flourish, and promoted an ideology of hatred that I'm sure most moderate Muslims would disagree with. The idea is: removing those influences removes a portion of the threat.

Can you please provide evidence how the Talibans enabled terorist cells to flourish?

and how do you measure that a certain country enable terrorist cells to grow?

and is that enough reason, to attack and invade a sovereign state just because they are not seen as capable in handling their interior affairs?

Another thing, your "logic" here does not apply to Iraq, because the reason given by the US govenrment for invading Iraq was that Iraq had "WMD"

By your admission, why has the US not attacked and invade north korea? North Korea is proven to have Nuclear weapon, and has been sending missiles to south korea and japan and has nuclear missiles with a range to attack the US.
There are plenty poor african countries who provide environment that "enable terrorist cells", so why has the US never attack and invade any of those countries?

(And its not an "occupation". Its temporary, until control can be safely turned over to the citizens. And I know deep down, you know that to be true).

So, in your language, if it is temporary, then it is not occupation?
Since when an occupation has to be permanent and lasting?

No rational people wish to kill innocents. Rational people are never "gung-ho" for wars. Sometimes people make mistakes, as was the case with Iraq, as it turns out. But you go on the best information you have at the time. Regardless, I don't think anyone was too fond of Saddam anyway. Not that that justifies it, but I'm just sayin'.

It seems you have an extremely short memory.
let me copy and paste my post which was in reply to your previous post:

Quote Originally Posted by ICYUNVMe View Post
Trust me when I tell you that NO American wants to be in the middle east unnecessarily

Is that why The US government was so gung-ho in attacking and invading, and creating lies in order to justify the invasion?

So, are you now saying that The US government is rational and only made mistakes when decided to to attack and invade Iraq?

Let me get one thing straight:
You think it was only a mistake when the US government lied to its teeth by saying Iraq has WMD and then sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers with full military might to a sovereign state who did not "breed terrorist cells" and who did not provoke attack to the USA?
who's irrational now?

Not a chance... And that really wouldn't change anything anyway. You can't provide proof for conjecture. All you can do is look at patterns. So, I have my assertions, and you have yours. We can disagree on that. Doesn't really matter to me. Though I do think that nearly everyone in the West would appreciate a more unified stand against radicals within the fold of Islam. It would do us a lot of good AND would do a lot of good for ALL of the Muslims around the world who genuinely do want peace.

As I suspect. No one who has lived in a muslim majority countries would ever think or say that way.

No one in the US has suggested that the group of Muslims building the mosque and religious center near the WTC site doesn't have the RIGHT to do it. Of course, in America, they do. However, is it the SMARTEST thing to do? No, it isn't. And given the sensitivity of the situation and the area in question, it would have been taken as a very noble gesture to move it to a different location. Reverse the roles, and consider how a Muslim community would feel if a group of crazy evangelicals destroyed a small town, and then decided to erect a church nearby.

You elevate yourself to another level of bull and phoniness.
Is the group that is building cordoba house the same as the one who is accused of destroying the towers?

I'll have my people call your people. We'll get it done. Lets do lunch.

Sure. Make sure your people call mine only after christians, jews and other non-muslims stop killing my brothers and sisters in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.

 

[ICYUNVMe]

One country's 'terrorists' is another country's freedom fighters.. There is NO such thing as a 'moderate Muslim' you are either a good Muslim or a bad Muslim..
Afghanistan has been and will be the death of empires as early as was recorded by history:


I doubt the new century's identification tags and puerile description is going to bring a different outcome for the U.S' accomplishments in that region-- it will go down the same path as other nutters before it.. with or without the help of those alleged 'moderate Muslims' and well the rest of us are really enjoying it unravel..

I enjoy your rants as much as the next guy, but I won't be responding to them. Sorry.

 

[ICYUNVMe]

I call bull. I call serious bull. Not only would it not be the same evangelicals building the church (indeed, these evangelicals probably hate the ones who did the destroying at least as much as you do), but what is "smart" is not even the issue. In fact, it sounds a lot like the distinction is nothing more than an excuse for disapproval. TONS of people have been saying that we Muslims have no right to build a mosque there, just because eleven bad apples out of a billion happened to go rotten within a certain number of blocks in distance. I am not going to debate this with you. Though I'm sure you'll still try to debate it with me, which is sad.

No, I'm not here to debate. I'm not here to tell you what you should think. Personally, I don't care. I was sharing my view in relation to the comments presented to me. But your input is appreciated.

 

[ICYUNVMe]

You need to lighten up a little, dude. This is a forum. Not politics. I'm not here to challenge your views on the world, nor do I expect this thread to change it. Take it down a notch. To answer your questions as best as I can:

Just asking here, are you by any chance working for Fox News?

No.

Can you please provide evidence how the Talibans enabled terorist cells to flourish? and how do you measure that a certain country enable terrorist cells to grow? and is that enough reason, to attack and invade a sovereign state just because they are not seen as capable in handling their interior affairs? Another thing, your "logic" here does not apply to Iraq, because the reason given by the US govenrment for invading Iraq was that Iraq had "WMD" By your admission, why has the US not attacked and invade north korea? North Korea is proven to have Nuclear weapon, and has been sending missiles to south korea and japan and has nuclear missiles with a range to attack the US. There are plenty poor african countries who provide environment that "enable terrorist cells", so why has the US never attack and invade any of those countries?

There are a million sources of information regarding the Taliban. You would be in the minority of Muslims if you felt this wasn't actually true. You don't have to look far. I'm not here to do research. Regarding Iraq, I said as much in the last post. You must have missed it. When North Korea shoots a missile at the US, you can be sure they will be in trouble. As soon as the US discovers that terror cells from Africa are coming into the US to blow things up, they will do something about that as well.

So, in your language, if it is temporary, then it is not occupation? Since when an occupation has to be permanent and lasting?

More accurately, its about intent. The US does not have the intent to "occupy" countries in the middle east. But if you end up removing the power structure that is already in place, then you have to settle things down, have the people create a government, have them create a police force to protect themselves, and then you can leave. Those things take a little time. If you just cut the head off the snake and leave, there will be chaos, and things will be worse than they already are.

So, are you now saying that The US government is rational and only made mistakes when decided to to attack and invade Iraq? Let me get one thing straight: You think it was only a mistake when the US government lied to its teeth by saying Iraq has WMD and then sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers with full military might to a sovereign state who did not "breed terrorist cells" and who did not provoke attack to the USA? who's irrational now?

People and governments make mistakes. It is understandable, as it has been the case for a century now, that the US get held to a different standard than the rest of the world. I would like nothing more than to have the powers that be operate in a perfect manner. But that's not possible. Regarding Iraq, you can look at it and say they purposely lied to start a war, or you can look at it and say they thought they had good evidence, but it turns out they were wrong. I don't intend to convince you of either position.

As I suspect. No one who has lived in a muslim majority countries would ever think or say that way.

If you don't mind, could you explain to me what living in a Muslim country as to do with standing up against the minority of Muslims who wish to do harm to the reputation of Islam as a whole?

You elevate yourself to another level of bull and phoniness. Is the group that is building cordoba house the same as the one who is accused of destroying the towers?

That is uncalled for. You're very hostile for no reason. I haven't called you any names..... Watch yourself.

No, it isn't the same group, but that is not the point. There is a sensitivity involved. Its a really simple concept. It doesn't matter if its the same group. Its the perception that bothers people and no matter how you want to rationalize these things by saying its not the same group, you can't control people's emotions.

 

[جوري]

I enjoy your rants as much as the next guy, but I won't be responding to them. Sorry.

what do you call this? just the usual run of the mill braying of donkeys?

funny stuff.. when you want to not respond perhaps it would cement your views more to simply do so rather than getting the town crier (yourself) to announce it!

we had no expectation of a ''rational' response anyway given bog-standard diatribe you have shared thus far!

all the best

 

[Ramadhan]

You need to lighten up a little, dude. This is a forum. Not politics. I'm not here to challenge your views on the world, nor do I expect this thread to change it. Take it down a notch. To answer your questions as best as I can:

I didn't expect you to challenge my views on the world, anyway.
and FYI, this is a discussion forum, so of course when you spew a lot of bulls you will get challenged, so you might as well accustom yourself with it.

No.

You are not working for Fox news?
Blimey, your views here seem 100% regurgitated from Fox news.
Not even the US govt has those kind of views anymore, especially related how to deal with terrorism.

There are a million sources of information regarding the Taliban. You would be in the minority of Muslims if you felt this wasn't actually true. You don't have to look far. I'm not here to do research.

There are also a million sources of information regarding Taliban that do not conform to your views about them.
and how do you know that I am in the minority of muslims regarding opinion about the taliban?
It seems you have done nothing other than throwing a lot of prejudices against muslims since you joined this forum, and without any evidence or logic to back them up.

Regarding Iraq, I said as much in the last post. You must have missed it. When North Korea shoots a missile at the US, you can be sure they will be in trouble. As soon as the US discovers that terror cells from Africa are coming into the US to blow things up, they will do something about that as well.

Did you know that you just actually shot your argument to pieces?

You claimed that Iraq was attacked and invaded because the US government "think" it has WMD. That's the only reason.
And when I presented that North Korea has proven to have nuclear weapons and is clearly hostile towards to USA and has attacked two of US closest allies (japan and south koorea), you shifted your stance, and said that North Korea needed to attack the uS first.
Iraq had no WMD, and it wasnt attacking and had no plan and never attack the US, and yet it was invaded by the US.
Actually, I don't hope you will be able to see the double standards and hypocrisy, seeing that you have an abundant of those your own.

More accurately, its about intent. The US does not have the intent to "occupy" countries in the middle east.

I say the US has intent to occupy the countries in the middle east.

People and governments make mistakes. It is understandable, as it has been the case for a century now, that the US get held to a different standard than the rest of the world. I would like nothing more than to have the powers that be operate in a perfect manner. But that's not possible. Regarding Iraq, you can look at it and say they purposely lied to start a war, or you can look at it and say they thought they had good evidence, but it turns out they were wrong. I don't intend to convince you of either position.

People and government do make mistakes, however with regard to Iraq, you can say as much as you want and want to defend Bush, but clearly it was not a mistake.
recent evidence and articles coming to the surface in the past two years (some of them are chronicled in Vanity Fair mind you, not in some obscure muslims media) have shown that the plan to attack and invade Iraq had been made way way before, and even before 9/11. all the govt needed was an excuse.

If you don't mind, could you explain to me what living in a Muslim country as to do with standing up against the minority of Muslims who wish to do harm to the reputation of Islam as a whole?

The major thing that is feared by the westerners and against the principle of Islam with respect to the so-called muslim terrorist is suicide bombing. In Indonesia (the biggest muslim country in the world, FYI), many da'i and imams have frequently given lectures that explains 1. suicide is haram 2. killing innocent civilians is haram. However, defending one's honor and one's property and opposing transgessors is fard.

That is uncalled for. You're very hostile for no reason. I haven't called you any names

I am saying it as it is. No one is forcing you to be here.

.... Watch yourself.

I don't like to watch myself, thank you.
DO YOU like to watch yourself?

 

[Ramadhan]

ICYUNVMe, you can see this following thread, in order to see who are the most likely terrorists in US soil or in Europe:

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/134302444-all-terrorists-muslims-except-94-aren-t.html

another good advise for you: cut down on the number of hours spent watching Fox News.

 

[Grace Seeker]

What all this thread has to with USA policy at all?

What do non-Muslims want from Muslims?

I am muslim but not from USA. I am European.

It is a spin from answering questions that Muslims have put to non-Muslims as they counter our statements as to what non-Muslism want from Muslims.

A non-Muslims says: "We want Muslims to not condone terrorism." A Muslim responds: "Well, when will the USA quit advancing terrorism itself?" And suddenly the thread goes down that line.

 

[جوري]

A non-Muslims says: "We want Muslims to not condone terrorism." A Muslim responds: "Well, when will the USA quit advancing terrorism itself?" And suddenly the thread goes down that line.

then why start off with a faulty premise?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Non-Muslims want Muslims to recognize that though a lot of people may play the role of lemmings to one's government in the west, that this is not universally so and that there are other voices. For instance: "The Anarcho-Cynicalist"

(OK, really I just liked this article and thought others might as well. But I didn't want to start a new thread just for it, so I was looking for an excuse to post it somewhere and this seemed the best fit. :embarrass)

 

[sister herb]

Seems non-muslums want that muslims will condemn every bad things what some other muslims have done but don´t condemn bad things what some non-muslims have done.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Seems non-muslums want that muslims will condemn every bad things what some other muslims have done but don´t condemn bad things what some non-muslims have done.

Already addressed in this very thread. But worth repeating:

1) While it would be nice to have bad things condemned, given the number of bad things that are done in this world everyday, I don't think it is fair to ask anyone to spend all of their time making such condemnations, you would never finish and you could never be aware of them all. However, I do believe it is fair to ask Muslims who become aware of a bad thing that is done in the name of Islam to at least not condone it. As a non-Muslim, I do ask that of Muslims who are serious about their faith.

I suspect those unwilling to agree to that are MINOs (Muslims In Name Only) and are more interested in political objectives for which they are willing to hijack Islam than persons who truly desire to follow Islam as a way of life. I suspect they have neglected internal jihad for other ends. And I fear that some who truly seek to follow Islam as a way of life are misled by these folk into condoning things that Islam itself does not.


2) I've tried to condemn bad things that I've seen non-Muslims do when appropriate. I've especially been atune to this when they were actions by either my government or people did things I disagreed with in the name of the faith I believe in. I've told the story too many times to repeat here that this is precisely what led me to this forum in the first place. So, I don't think it's true that non-Muslims don't condemn bad things that other non-Muslims have done. I know lots of cases of just such condemnations occuring. Some have even been cited by others in this thread.


3) Of course we have to each recognize that you and I may disagree as to what are and are not bad things. But I would like to think that our lists have enough in common that you would realize the truth of what I have said above.

 

[سيف الله]

Salaam

I suspect those unwilling to agree to that are MINOs (Muslims In Name Only) and are more interested in political objectives for which they are willing to hijack Islam than persons who truly desire to follow Islam as a way of life. I suspect they have neglected internal jihad for other ends. And I fear that some who truly seek to follow Islam as a way of life are misled by these folk into condoning things that Islam itself does not.

What do you mean by 'political objectives'? If you mean mindless indiscriminate killing, hunger for power etc etc then yes I agree.

However palestinians struggling for statehood. Iraqis trying to create a free independent state. Or generally Arab/Muslims trying to free themselves from Uncle Sams boot (among many other boots). These goals are not incompatible with the Islamic faith.

Ive noticed a trend amongst certain segments of the Western media. That those who oppose or speak out against Western policy say in the middle east are 'hijacking' Islam.

Perhaps its an attempt by them to 'define' what it means to be a Muslim.

Have to say its much more subtle than the usual denuciations.

 

[Woodrow]

A reminder to all of us. There are 2 separate, similar but different threads. One thread (this one) is made for non-Muslims to say what they want from us The other thread http://www.islamicboard.com/general/134302428-what-do-muslims-want-non-muslims-4.html is for us to say what we want from non-Muslims. Let us try to keep our replies on the appropriate thread.

Neither thread is intended to generate arguments or create a war zone. Just a chance for us to come to an understanding of what we each want. None of us will agree with all of the wants of the other. But let us try to understand why Muslims and non-Muslims differ and more specifically in what areas.

It is possible some goals may be similar, and could be something we all can work towards such as:

1. Peaceful dialogue

2. Disagreement without malice

3. Cessation of hostilities and animosities for entire groups because of the actions of some

4. Everybody being treated as people and not as labels.

These threads are not going to make any world shattering changes nor affect any forum rules. But, perhaps they will give all of us a time to reflect on if we are acting defensively or as aggressors. We all need to work on being able to defend without transgressing or attacking with unbridled malice, thinking it is defense.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Salaam

What do you mean by 'political objectives'? If you mean mindless indiscriminate killing, hunger for power etc etc then yes I agree.

However palestinians struggling for statehood. Iraqis trying to create a free independent state. Or generally Arab/Muslims trying to free themselves from Uncle Sams boot (among many other boots). These goals are not incompatible with the Islamic faith.

What I mean by political objectives would include all of the above. It isn't the objective that is itself the problem (though certainly some could be), but rather the willingness to resort to unIslamic means to achieve them. That is why I said it is the hijacking of Islam. To claim to be Muslim, seeking an Islamic goal, but using means that are themselves unIslamic in nature is to be a Muslim in name only. For if Islam is a way of life, then it is also a way of achieving one's ends.

One could of course make similar complaints about many groups. And if you want to say that this is one of the problems with western powers in places like Iraq and Afghanistan -- that they claim to be democracies, but democracies forced on people who don't want it isn't being very democractic -- I won't argue with you. It doesn't change my answer to the question of what this non-Muslim wants of Muslims.

.

 

[Pygoscelis]

As a non-Muslim I find it difficult to understand anyone supporting the Taliban. The Taliban, even without 9/11, are an example of a government that suppresses all freedom. No TV, of course no internet. No opinion. It's very hard to support such a thing. War or no war. Anytime, it would be hard to support. If I can ask, what is it that makes you support them?

^ I would like to see an answer to this question. I do know that the Taliban does some limited humanitarian work (perhaps you could highlight that?), but beyond that what draws you to them?