Full Version: Islamophobia
In recent days there have been numerous foiled attempts by suspected terrorists to attack public targets in England and Canada. In both cases these attacks were to be carried out by domestic Muslim citizens, known to be regulars at the mosque.
At the same time, though prior to the most recent example in the UK, the British government has announced MI5 is now stretched to the limit after having prevented no less than twenty attacks in Britain since the London bombings. And in Iraq upwards of one hundred and fifty British Muslims are said to have formed a special British Brigade, under the direct command of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with the stated purpose of killing coalition troops.
In Canada, the authorities and media appear to be at some pains to avoid the connection between Islam and the actions of the suspected terrorists. According to this article the Canadian police are having a 'hard time finding a common denominator' between the seventeen arrested men. Local Muslims have contested the arrests and an imam called Qamrul Khanson has described the suspects as being 'steadfast, religious people'. Another imam, named Aly Hindy, has complained that the CSIS has 'harassed the suspects for years' and he is sure none of the arrested men will be charged. Link.
Islam Online has numerous articles devoted to the Canadian arrests with titles such as; Canadian mosque vandalised, Muslims fearful, Canadian Muslim students face more racist attacks, Canadian muslims lack outreach programs, Canadian schools counter Islamophobia. In not one single article does Islam Online question, or even otherwise remotely address the possible responsibility of the Islamic community in this matter. Indeed, with articles such as: Security target, Canadian Muslims report Islam Online echoes the Canadian imam Aly Hindy and deliberatly pushes all responsibility onto the Canadian security agencies citing 'Muslim fears' as a result of Canadian 'intimidation tactics, aggressive behavior and threats of arrest against Canadian Muslims'.
In Germany, the domestic security services have estimated there are circa 32,000 'Islamic extremists' in the country. These include known members of Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, the Muslim brotherhood and the Turkish group known as Milli Gorus. So far Germany has escaped attack and this has been put down to the fact that Germany took a stand against the war in Iraq (not that thats helped the Canadians) but others have voiced concern that in the ongoing climate of escalating violence between the cultures of the west and Islam means it is only a question of time before an attack takes place.
Ephraim Halevy, a former head of the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, has warned that European and Russian cities are fast becoming a potential threat as their demographics evolve towards Muslim majorities. According to Halevy we are already fighting a 'third world war' with 'Islamic terror'.
Islam Online however has a different perspective on Germany.
All across the western world there are fast growing Muslim minorities and in and amongst these are unknown numbers of extremists who are becoming a serious threat to the security and safety of the general public. At the same time, the accusation of 'Islamophobia' is being used, with ever increasing regularity, both by the Muslim communites and (more often than not) by left wing political organisations, in, if not defence, then as a form of explanation as to why so much violence is being carried out in the name of Islam (The name Bush in particular seems to crop up a lot when debating Islamic terrorism).
Does Islam constitute a political threat to democratic society?
...or is the threat to democracy merely centred on extremists who have not nderstood the message of Islam?
Is Islam Online correct in its apparent assesment that Islamophobia is a greater problem than Islamic extremism?
Do Muslims in Canada, Germany or any other democratic nation have any real justification in saying they are afraid of Islamophobia?
At the same time, though prior to the most recent example in the UK, the British government has announced MI5 is now stretched to the limit after having prevented no less than twenty attacks in Britain since the London bombings. And in Iraq upwards of one hundred and fifty British Muslims are said to have formed a special British Brigade, under the direct command of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with the stated purpose of killing coalition troops.
In Canada, the authorities and media appear to be at some pains to avoid the connection between Islam and the actions of the suspected terrorists. According to this article the Canadian police are having a 'hard time finding a common denominator' between the seventeen arrested men. Local Muslims have contested the arrests and an imam called Qamrul Khanson has described the suspects as being 'steadfast, religious people'. Another imam, named Aly Hindy, has complained that the CSIS has 'harassed the suspects for years' and he is sure none of the arrested men will be charged. Link.
QUOTE
Toronto police Chief Bill Blair called on Muslims and non-Muslims alike to let cooler heads prevail Sunday after 17 people were arrested in connection with what authorities say was a plan to stage a massive terrorist attack.
The 17 suspects who were arrested Friday, men and youths alike, were allegedly “motivated by an ideology based on politics, hatred and terrorism, and not on faith,” Blair told a gathering of Muslim leaders and concerned community members.
The suspects will be considered innocent until proven guilty, Blair said, who noted that any anger or fear spawned by allegations of a home-grown terrorist ring should not be directed at the Muslim community.
(my emphasis) Link.The 17 suspects who were arrested Friday, men and youths alike, were allegedly “motivated by an ideology based on politics, hatred and terrorism, and not on faith,” Blair told a gathering of Muslim leaders and concerned community members.
The suspects will be considered innocent until proven guilty, Blair said, who noted that any anger or fear spawned by allegations of a home-grown terrorist ring should not be directed at the Muslim community.
Islam Online has numerous articles devoted to the Canadian arrests with titles such as; Canadian mosque vandalised, Muslims fearful, Canadian Muslim students face more racist attacks, Canadian muslims lack outreach programs, Canadian schools counter Islamophobia. In not one single article does Islam Online question, or even otherwise remotely address the possible responsibility of the Islamic community in this matter. Indeed, with articles such as: Security target, Canadian Muslims report Islam Online echoes the Canadian imam Aly Hindy and deliberatly pushes all responsibility onto the Canadian security agencies citing 'Muslim fears' as a result of Canadian 'intimidation tactics, aggressive behavior and threats of arrest against Canadian Muslims'.
In Germany, the domestic security services have estimated there are circa 32,000 'Islamic extremists' in the country. These include known members of Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, the Muslim brotherhood and the Turkish group known as Milli Gorus. So far Germany has escaped attack and this has been put down to the fact that Germany took a stand against the war in Iraq (not that thats helped the Canadians) but others have voiced concern that in the ongoing climate of escalating violence between the cultures of the west and Islam means it is only a question of time before an attack takes place.
Ephraim Halevy, a former head of the Israeli intelligence service, Mossad, has warned that European and Russian cities are fast becoming a potential threat as their demographics evolve towards Muslim majorities. According to Halevy we are already fighting a 'third world war' with 'Islamic terror'.
Islam Online however has a different perspective on Germany.
All across the western world there are fast growing Muslim minorities and in and amongst these are unknown numbers of extremists who are becoming a serious threat to the security and safety of the general public. At the same time, the accusation of 'Islamophobia' is being used, with ever increasing regularity, both by the Muslim communites and (more often than not) by left wing political organisations, in, if not defence, then as a form of explanation as to why so much violence is being carried out in the name of Islam (The name Bush in particular seems to crop up a lot when debating Islamic terrorism).
Does Islam constitute a political threat to democratic society?
...or is the threat to democracy merely centred on extremists who have not nderstood the message of Islam?
Is Islam Online correct in its apparent assesment that Islamophobia is a greater problem than Islamic extremism?
Do Muslims in Canada, Germany or any other democratic nation have any real justification in saying they are afraid of Islamophobia?
Does Islam constitute a political threat to democratic society?
I think most radical religions or factions tend to threaten democratic society and freedoms. I don't think democracy and Islam necessarily conflict, do they?
Is Islam Online correct in its apparent assesment that Islamophobia is a greater problem than Islamic extremism?
Greater problem for whom? Iraqi sectarian violence is definately a bigger problem that Islamophobia. And outside of the west, where is Islamophobia an issue for muslims?
Do Muslims in Canada, Germany or any other democratic nation have any real justification in saying they are afraid of Islamophobia?
Well, in Canada a mosque was attacked after those people were detained. And the skinheads in Germany aren't a group you'd want to tick off.
I live near the largest population of arabs outside the middle east and there are tensions with the muslims here. But nothing to get too worked up over. In fact, I'd blame any tension on the arabs. So it's hard to say what fear is justified.
I think most radical religions or factions tend to threaten democratic society and freedoms. I don't think democracy and Islam necessarily conflict, do they?
Is Islam Online correct in its apparent assesment that Islamophobia is a greater problem than Islamic extremism?
Greater problem for whom? Iraqi sectarian violence is definately a bigger problem that Islamophobia. And outside of the west, where is Islamophobia an issue for muslims?
Do Muslims in Canada, Germany or any other democratic nation have any real justification in saying they are afraid of Islamophobia?
Well, in Canada a mosque was attacked after those people were detained. And the skinheads in Germany aren't a group you'd want to tick off.
I live near the largest population of arabs outside the middle east and there are tensions with the muslims here. But nothing to get too worked up over. In fact, I'd blame any tension on the arabs. So it's hard to say what fear is justified.
Does Islam constitute a political threat to democratic society?
It's hard to say a religion is inherently a threat because interpretation and emphasis is so important. In America, for example, people tend to emphasis the part of the Bible that says homosexuality is wrong but don't seem to care about the regulations on men's and women's hair styles or garments. Unfortunately as it's interpreted and emphasized in much of the Muslim world, Islam is incompatible with pluralism. I'm not an expert about the Koran but as I understand it there are passages that basically say it's okay to kill someone if they disagree with your Islamic beliefs. But at the time there are parts of the Old Testament that say more or less the same thing. But whatever your religion if you can justify murdering someone because they disagree with you, you cannot participate in a democracy. The difference between Christians, Muslims and Jews on this issue is that a much larger percentage of Muslims believe murder is justified against non-believers. I think this is backed up by numerous polls.
Is the threat to democracy merely centred on extremists who have not understood the message of Islam?
I don't think there is "the" message of Islam. They have understood "a" message of Islam. It's not as good a message as charity, loyalty, kindness, etc but it's still in there. There isn't a correct interpretation of any religion, but the kill non-believers interpretation seems fairly popular.
Is Islam Online correct in its apparent assessment that Islamophobia is a greater problem than Islamic extremism?
Hate crimes and attacks against Muslims are a problem, but compared to say 9/11, their somewhat insignificant. To me the argument that Islamophobia is causing Islamic extremism is somewhat the tail wagging the dog. At least in America Islamic extremism is the major cause of "Islamophobia." In many of these countries Islamic terrorism , although not in its current form, dates back to before there were large Muslim communities. Look at Germany, I'm not positive but it's possible the 1972 Munich Massacre played a role in the perception of Muslims in that country.
Do Muslims in Canada, Germany or any other democratic nation have any real justification in saying they are afraid of Islamophobia?
It depends on the country. In diverse, tolerant countries like America and the UK Muslims are under no threat. According to a Pew poll only 22% of American people and 14% of Britons found Muslims unfavorable. In Germany that number was 47%. But in any case, it's clear that the West is more tolerant of every religion. Considering how little tolerance of Christians and Jews there is in the Muslim world it seems kind of like they're throwing stones from a glass house.
It's hard to say a religion is inherently a threat because interpretation and emphasis is so important. In America, for example, people tend to emphasis the part of the Bible that says homosexuality is wrong but don't seem to care about the regulations on men's and women's hair styles or garments. Unfortunately as it's interpreted and emphasized in much of the Muslim world, Islam is incompatible with pluralism. I'm not an expert about the Koran but as I understand it there are passages that basically say it's okay to kill someone if they disagree with your Islamic beliefs. But at the time there are parts of the Old Testament that say more or less the same thing. But whatever your religion if you can justify murdering someone because they disagree with you, you cannot participate in a democracy. The difference between Christians, Muslims and Jews on this issue is that a much larger percentage of Muslims believe murder is justified against non-believers. I think this is backed up by numerous polls.
Is the threat to democracy merely centred on extremists who have not understood the message of Islam?
I don't think there is "the" message of Islam. They have understood "a" message of Islam. It's not as good a message as charity, loyalty, kindness, etc but it's still in there. There isn't a correct interpretation of any religion, but the kill non-believers interpretation seems fairly popular.
Is Islam Online correct in its apparent assessment that Islamophobia is a greater problem than Islamic extremism?
Hate crimes and attacks against Muslims are a problem, but compared to say 9/11, their somewhat insignificant. To me the argument that Islamophobia is causing Islamic extremism is somewhat the tail wagging the dog. At least in America Islamic extremism is the major cause of "Islamophobia." In many of these countries Islamic terrorism , although not in its current form, dates back to before there were large Muslim communities. Look at Germany, I'm not positive but it's possible the 1972 Munich Massacre played a role in the perception of Muslims in that country.
Do Muslims in Canada, Germany or any other democratic nation have any real justification in saying they are afraid of Islamophobia?
It depends on the country. In diverse, tolerant countries like America and the UK Muslims are under no threat. According to a Pew poll only 22% of American people and 14% of Britons found Muslims unfavorable. In Germany that number was 47%. But in any case, it's clear that the West is more tolerant of every religion. Considering how little tolerance of Christians and Jews there is in the Muslim world it seems kind of like they're throwing stones from a glass house.
Does Islam constitute a political threat to democratic society?
Islam represents a threat far greater than a political one: it represents a physical threat to Western culture. Of course, both politicians and the media are trying to cover up the religious motivations of these fanatics.
The Elephant in the Room: The mainstream media continue to suppress the “Islam” in Islamic terrorism.
The enemy is not Al Qaida (although they are an enemy). The enemy is radical Islamicists and Sharia, whether they are recruited by Osama's network or the local imam. The problem is with Islam.
...or is the threat to democracy merely centred on extremists who have not understood the message of Islam?
Poor misguided fanatics.
Cry me a river. These people are murderers and thugs and are getting worse, not better.
Is Islam Online correct in its apparent assessment that Islamophobia is a greater problem than Islamic extremism?
Wikipedia has a decent article on Islamophobia. The critics of such a term posit that what is going on is not a phobia, but an attempt to stifle any criticism of the religion or its adherents actions.
Do Muslims in Canada, Germany or any other democratic nation have any real justification in saying they are afraid of Islamophobia?
Some people on
fear the "radical right" that is, in their view, attempting to establish a theocracy. People should not fear ideas, but it is perfectly normal to fear actions which include bombings, rape, beheadings, kidnapping and other heinous activities.
Certainly the peaceful Muslims out there (and there are millions of them) are being held hostage by the most vocal and violent minority of their religion. However, it is up to them to expel and marginalize the offenders.
Islam represents a threat far greater than a political one: it represents a physical threat to Western culture. Of course, both politicians and the media are trying to cover up the religious motivations of these fanatics.
The Elephant in the Room: The mainstream media continue to suppress the “Islam” in Islamic terrorism.
QUOTE
Meanwhile, the Times, no doubt inadvertently, provides us with a nugget that compromises the whole obfuscatory enterprise. Though the Canadian plotters are numerous, it seems that “[n]one of them had any known affiliation with Al Qaeda.”
They apparently are not members of the terror network, did not train at the Qaeda camps, and have not been directed by the Qaeda hierarchy. All they have in common with al Qaeda is their schooling in the same creed. And their conclusion that this creed commands them to murder.
They apparently are not members of the terror network, did not train at the Qaeda camps, and have not been directed by the Qaeda hierarchy. All they have in common with al Qaeda is their schooling in the same creed. And their conclusion that this creed commands them to murder.
The enemy is not Al Qaida (although they are an enemy). The enemy is radical Islamicists and Sharia, whether they are recruited by Osama's network or the local imam. The problem is with Islam.
...or is the threat to democracy merely centred on extremists who have not understood the message of Islam?
Poor misguided fanatics.
Cry me a river. These people are murderers and thugs and are getting worse, not better. Is Islam Online correct in its apparent assessment that Islamophobia is a greater problem than Islamic extremism?
Wikipedia has a decent article on Islamophobia. The critics of such a term posit that what is going on is not a phobia, but an attempt to stifle any criticism of the religion or its adherents actions.
Do Muslims in Canada, Germany or any other democratic nation have any real justification in saying they are afraid of Islamophobia?
Some people on
fear the "radical right" that is, in their view, attempting to establish a theocracy. People should not fear ideas, but it is perfectly normal to fear actions which include bombings, rape, beheadings, kidnapping and other heinous activities.Certainly the peaceful Muslims out there (and there are millions of them) are being held hostage by the most vocal and violent minority of their religion. However, it is up to them to expel and marginalize the offenders.
Moif:
Re any "threat", as I said prior on the thread about English as the US official language, there is not even a word in Arabic that translates as "democracy." What does that say?
Re just who knows Islam and who doesn't, well, I doubt that your average everyday Muslim is any more educated when it comes to the Quran and Mohammed than is your average everyday Christian with respect to the NT and Jesus. The so-called extremists otherwise have no trouble at all quoting material from the Quran in support of their activity. I've read the material cited by them, and it does not appear to me to be taken out of context. The very fact that an Islamic state would be governed by sharia more or less mandates that Islam is rather openly hostile to a secular, plural, democracy. And re those who fear that purportedly soon coming theocracy, funny that such persons cannot recall that it was only Jesus who made that classical distinction between what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar, meanwhile, in Islam, religion IS the state, and so, as I've said here prior, Mohammed did all of those things that a potentate normally does [i.e., make war, establish taxes, etc.].
Re Islam Online, even worse than WhyIslam [which appears to itself be supported by some entity on the US list of terrorist organizations, the one in question being home-based in Pakistan].
Re "Islamaphobia", well, let me have Ali Sina provide my response, since neither he nor I find the term legitimate:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60526.htm
"Islam is an ideology. Rejection of an ideology cannot be classified as phobia. To call the opponents of an ideology phobic is a fallacy. All ideologies have their critics and opponents but we do not hear Christians calling the critics of Christianity Christianophobe, communists calling their critics communitophobe or Hindus calling theirs hinduphobe. The term "Islamophobia" is both technically and logically incorrect and misleading.
***
All ideologies have their opponents. It is sheer arrogance to call criticism of any ideology, phobia. This implies that the truth of that ideology is already established and anyone opposing it is adopting an irrational position and is in need of psychological help.
Only Muslims are capable of this much irrationality and arrogance. We all recall Muhammad Abdullah, the Afghani man who converted to Christianity and who was facing execution. When the government of Afghanistan was pressured to release him, to save face they accused him of being insane and not fit to stand trial. In the mind of Muslims only an insane person would disagree with Islam. This is sheer arrogance.
***
The absurdity of the Muslim mind is such that they think it is okay for them to incite hate against the non-Muslims in general and the Jews in particular and yet it is not okay for others to criticize their ideology of hate.
What is behind this paranoia and phobia of criticism? It is the inability of Muslims to counter the valid criticism of Islam. Failing that, they resort to ad hominem and try to discredit its critics by undermining their character. By classifying the criticism of Islam as a disorder, Muslims absolve themselves from responding to valid criticisms against their faith.
***
The very existence of this neologism is a tacit confession of Muslims that Islam is a lie, which can't be defended logically and that ad hominem and censorship are the only ways to defend it."
Oh, Moif, you probably know as well as I do that those in your country, in mine, and in some others, who are not Muslims, but yet, who speak of "Islamaphobia", are simply clueless in regard to the Quran and Islam, and probably don't otherwise even understand what "phobia" means.
Lastly, Moif, since you mentioned Mr. Straw in that other thread re the Manifesto, you should "enjoy" this page from Faith Freedom:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Iran/KhomeiniSpeech.htm
Re any "threat", as I said prior on the thread about English as the US official language, there is not even a word in Arabic that translates as "democracy." What does that say?
Re just who knows Islam and who doesn't, well, I doubt that your average everyday Muslim is any more educated when it comes to the Quran and Mohammed than is your average everyday Christian with respect to the NT and Jesus. The so-called extremists otherwise have no trouble at all quoting material from the Quran in support of their activity. I've read the material cited by them, and it does not appear to me to be taken out of context. The very fact that an Islamic state would be governed by sharia more or less mandates that Islam is rather openly hostile to a secular, plural, democracy. And re those who fear that purportedly soon coming theocracy, funny that such persons cannot recall that it was only Jesus who made that classical distinction between what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar, meanwhile, in Islam, religion IS the state, and so, as I've said here prior, Mohammed did all of those things that a potentate normally does [i.e., make war, establish taxes, etc.].
Re Islam Online, even worse than WhyIslam [which appears to itself be supported by some entity on the US list of terrorist organizations, the one in question being home-based in Pakistan].
Re "Islamaphobia", well, let me have Ali Sina provide my response, since neither he nor I find the term legitimate:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina60526.htm
"Islam is an ideology. Rejection of an ideology cannot be classified as phobia. To call the opponents of an ideology phobic is a fallacy. All ideologies have their critics and opponents but we do not hear Christians calling the critics of Christianity Christianophobe, communists calling their critics communitophobe or Hindus calling theirs hinduphobe. The term "Islamophobia" is both technically and logically incorrect and misleading.
***
All ideologies have their opponents. It is sheer arrogance to call criticism of any ideology, phobia. This implies that the truth of that ideology is already established and anyone opposing it is adopting an irrational position and is in need of psychological help.
Only Muslims are capable of this much irrationality and arrogance. We all recall Muhammad Abdullah, the Afghani man who converted to Christianity and who was facing execution. When the government of Afghanistan was pressured to release him, to save face they accused him of being insane and not fit to stand trial. In the mind of Muslims only an insane person would disagree with Islam. This is sheer arrogance.
***
The absurdity of the Muslim mind is such that they think it is okay for them to incite hate against the non-Muslims in general and the Jews in particular and yet it is not okay for others to criticize their ideology of hate.
What is behind this paranoia and phobia of criticism? It is the inability of Muslims to counter the valid criticism of Islam. Failing that, they resort to ad hominem and try to discredit its critics by undermining their character. By classifying the criticism of Islam as a disorder, Muslims absolve themselves from responding to valid criticisms against their faith.
***
The very existence of this neologism is a tacit confession of Muslims that Islam is a lie, which can't be defended logically and that ad hominem and censorship are the only ways to defend it."
Oh, Moif, you probably know as well as I do that those in your country, in mine, and in some others, who are not Muslims, but yet, who speak of "Islamaphobia", are simply clueless in regard to the Quran and Islam, and probably don't otherwise even understand what "phobia" means.
Lastly, Moif, since you mentioned Mr. Straw in that other thread re the Manifesto, you should "enjoy" this page from Faith Freedom:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Iran/KhomeiniSpeech.htm
Does Islam constitute a political threat to democratic society?
...or is the threat to democracy merely centered on extremists who have not understood the message of Islam?
These two choices are not mutually exclusive. There is no question that there is a cancer within the heart of Islam, and that it is a more serious cancer than currently exists within the heart of any other faith. This is very different from saying that Islam, in and of itself, is the problem. This is because systems of religious faith, more than any other belief systems, change and evolve radically. The "message of Islam," like the message of Christianity, or any other faith, is open to unlimited debate. Rather than discussing whether a particular interpretation of Islam is true or false, those of us who stand outside that faith must judge whether or not it is harmful to others or helpful to others. That which is harmful must be opposed; that which is helpful must be supported.
Let's also talk about practical realities. The plain fact is that Islam is not going to vanish from the planet. The only hope is for Islam to liberalize itself from within. To insist that Islam is inherently at fault is to abandon this hope, and only despair remains.
Is . . . Islamophobia is a greater problem than Islamic extremism?
(Question edited to leave out discussion of a specific organization.)
No. This is not to say that irrational prejudice against Muslims does not exist, or that it is not a serious problem. The temptation to see things in black and white is very strong here, and must be avoided. Yes, fundamentalist Islamic violence is a more serious problem worldwide than anti-Muslim violence; this does not mean that either one can be tolerated.
Do Muslims in Canada, Germany or any other democratic nation have any real justification in saying they are afraid of Islamophobia?
Some have objected to the word "Islamophobia" itself, so let me avoid that issue entirely by rephrasing the question. Do Muslims in these nations have any real justification in saying that they are afraid of prejudice against Islam? The answer is obviously yes. It cannot be denied that such prejudice exists, and must be rejected.
...or is the threat to democracy merely centered on extremists who have not understood the message of Islam?
These two choices are not mutually exclusive. There is no question that there is a cancer within the heart of Islam, and that it is a more serious cancer than currently exists within the heart of any other faith. This is very different from saying that Islam, in and of itself, is the problem. This is because systems of religious faith, more than any other belief systems, change and evolve radically. The "message of Islam," like the message of Christianity, or any other faith, is open to unlimited debate. Rather than discussing whether a particular interpretation of Islam is true or false, those of us who stand outside that faith must judge whether or not it is harmful to others or helpful to others. That which is harmful must be opposed; that which is helpful must be supported.
Let's also talk about practical realities. The plain fact is that Islam is not going to vanish from the planet. The only hope is for Islam to liberalize itself from within. To insist that Islam is inherently at fault is to abandon this hope, and only despair remains.
Is . . . Islamophobia is a greater problem than Islamic extremism?
(Question edited to leave out discussion of a specific organization.)
No. This is not to say that irrational prejudice against Muslims does not exist, or that it is not a serious problem. The temptation to see things in black and white is very strong here, and must be avoided. Yes, fundamentalist Islamic violence is a more serious problem worldwide than anti-Muslim violence; this does not mean that either one can be tolerated.
Do Muslims in Canada, Germany or any other democratic nation have any real justification in saying they are afraid of Islamophobia?
Some have objected to the word "Islamophobia" itself, so let me avoid that issue entirely by rephrasing the question. Do Muslims in these nations have any real justification in saying that they are afraid of prejudice against Islam? The answer is obviously yes. It cannot be denied that such prejudice exists, and must be rejected.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Jun 12 2006, 11:59 PM) 
Does Islam constitute a political threat to democratic society?
...or is the threat to democracy merely centered on extremists who have not understood the message of Islam?
These two choices are not mutually exclusive.
That's pretty much what I was thinking when I saw those two questions. In the first question, I interpret "Islam" not to be the doctrines and documents of that particular faith (whatever they may be). Instead, I interpret it to mean the culture that identifies itself with that religion. And at the present time, that culture (regardless of whether it's misinterpreting or accurately following its faith, something I don't take a position on) has become a danger to our way of life. It's not just the terrorists themselves, or even just the radical imams. It's all the ones that remain silent, or make excuses for the terrorists, or act as though Western "prejudice" is somehow a greater crime than Islamic violence.
I won't necessarily adopt Bush's formulation by telling them that they're either with "us" or with the terrorists. But I will say to them: either you're the sworn enemy of the terrorists, or you're their ally.
Victoria:
You wrote:
"The plain fact is that Islam is not going to vanish from the planet. The only hope is for Islam to liberalize itself from within. To insist that Islam is inherently at fault is to abandon this hope, and only despair remains."
How does one "liberalize" when the foundational documents reject "liberalization"? I mean, we recently came to know of our friend in Afghanistan who was going to be killed for apostasizing from Islam. How do we liberalize that when the Quran makes it perfectly clear that the penalty for apostasy is death? By saying that our friend is crazy and offering him a ticket to the West? I wouldn't call that liberalizing.
And you also wrote:
"Some have objected to the word "Islamophobia" itself, so let me avoid that issue entirely by rephrasing the question. Do Muslims in these nations have any real justification in saying that they are afraid of prejudice against Islam? The answer is obviously yes. It cannot be denied that such prejudice exists, and must be rejected."
What's wrong with "prejudice" against Islam? A member here has a quote from Bertrand Russell, no fan of Christianity, to the effect that nothing in the gospels speaks in favor of intelligence [or something like that]. Is that "prejudice" against Christianity? And if so, what are we to make of the same? I know for certain that if we said the same about the Quran and Islam, that more than a few Muslims would be reporting that we are "Islamophibic". As I've otherwise said here before, Islam, like Christianity, is an ideology [and since it concerns "God" we call it by the more specific, "theology"] and as such is entirely open to challenge. We don't normally refer to such a challenge as "prejudice." And to relate this to my above remarks, and this point is all too often missed by some who insist on "liberalizing" Islam, but have you considered that any attempt at "liberalizing" might itself be seen as an attack on Islam? I otherwise disagree re the "obvious" since I don't consider flushing the Quran down the toilet and printing some cartoons making sport of Mohammed "prejudice" against Islam. Muslims are, of course, entirely free to flush the NT down the toilet and make sport of Jesus. Muslims won't do the latter, unless, of course, one considers their rejection of the divinity of Jesus to be "prejudice" against Christianity, and re the NT, hey, since it doesn't match the report of Mohammed saying that we could all check the Torah and Injeel to verify that the same matches his words, our Muslim friends nearly unanimously report that the NT, as it exists now, is "corrupt." Is that prejudice against Christianity? And if so, then who are they to complain when some of us report some unfavorable information re Mohammed and Islam? The double standard implied by your quoted remark is quite simply appalling. We don't need to reject any criticism of Mohammed, the Quran, and/or Islam, unless, of course, we wish to become Muslims who never consider challenges to our faith. Ironically enough, you have proved Ali Sina entirely correct, since you have taken the same position as that of more than a few Muslims, to wit, that Mohammed, the Quran, and Islam are above challenge and only the crazy could be inclined to do so.
And when you are ready to address that which you seek to avoid, please let me know. Actually, you already did, since the word "prejudice" means "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge." If you'd like to discuss the Quran, the Sunnah, etc., please let me know, since maybe then we'll learn whether it's "prejudice" or simply a correct understanding of the works in question. And by the way, if Ali Sina offends you, how about Ibn Warraq? He would presumably report that you have done nothing but make the problem just that much worse:
"We believe that Islamic society has been held back by an unwillingness to subject its beliefs, laws and practices to critical examination, by a lack of respect for the rights of the individual, and by an unwillingness to tolerate alternative viewpoints or to engage in constructive dialogue."
But why do so, when persons such as yourself will simply report that such an effort is mere "prejudice?" And, sorry, friend, and it pains me to say it, but it seems that you've bought into the lie.
Oh, and so you know, jihad isn't simply jihad. It is jihad al-kuffar [it can't be against anyone other than us kufr since in Islam, Muslim on Muslim violence/war is strictly prohibited]. And the motto of the faithful is, revert to Islam, pay the Ziziya, or fight to the death.
And are you pagan? If so:
Sura 9:5: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent (accept Islam) and establish regular prayers and practices regular charity then open the way for them; for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
And for Jews and Christians, so-called People of the Book, there is:
Sura 9:29: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth even if they are the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
And then there's Dr. Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti:
"The Holy War (Islamic Jihad), as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy war has taken its final form. Thus the apostle of God said: ' I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in Allah and his messages...'"
And going back to Sura 9:29, the Baydawi reports:
"Fight Jews and Christians because they violated the origin of their faith and they do not believe in the religion of the truth (Islam), which abrogated all other religions. Fight them until they pay the poll-tax (Ziziya tax) with submission and humiliation."
And have you ever heard of Ibn Khaldun? Well, he's considered the greatest Arab historian:
"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in (Islam), so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same."
And you might want to tell those here on AD who live in fear of the soon coming theocracy that Omar Ahmad, co-founder of CAIR, reported that:
"The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
Lastly, let me leave you with:
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1951292005
You wrote:
"The plain fact is that Islam is not going to vanish from the planet. The only hope is for Islam to liberalize itself from within. To insist that Islam is inherently at fault is to abandon this hope, and only despair remains."
How does one "liberalize" when the foundational documents reject "liberalization"? I mean, we recently came to know of our friend in Afghanistan who was going to be killed for apostasizing from Islam. How do we liberalize that when the Quran makes it perfectly clear that the penalty for apostasy is death? By saying that our friend is crazy and offering him a ticket to the West? I wouldn't call that liberalizing.
And you also wrote:
"Some have objected to the word "Islamophobia" itself, so let me avoid that issue entirely by rephrasing the question. Do Muslims in these nations have any real justification in saying that they are afraid of prejudice against Islam? The answer is obviously yes. It cannot be denied that such prejudice exists, and must be rejected."
What's wrong with "prejudice" against Islam? A member here has a quote from Bertrand Russell, no fan of Christianity, to the effect that nothing in the gospels speaks in favor of intelligence [or something like that]. Is that "prejudice" against Christianity? And if so, what are we to make of the same? I know for certain that if we said the same about the Quran and Islam, that more than a few Muslims would be reporting that we are "Islamophibic". As I've otherwise said here before, Islam, like Christianity, is an ideology [and since it concerns "God" we call it by the more specific, "theology"] and as such is entirely open to challenge. We don't normally refer to such a challenge as "prejudice." And to relate this to my above remarks, and this point is all too often missed by some who insist on "liberalizing" Islam, but have you considered that any attempt at "liberalizing" might itself be seen as an attack on Islam? I otherwise disagree re the "obvious" since I don't consider flushing the Quran down the toilet and printing some cartoons making sport of Mohammed "prejudice" against Islam. Muslims are, of course, entirely free to flush the NT down the toilet and make sport of Jesus. Muslims won't do the latter, unless, of course, one considers their rejection of the divinity of Jesus to be "prejudice" against Christianity, and re the NT, hey, since it doesn't match the report of Mohammed saying that we could all check the Torah and Injeel to verify that the same matches his words, our Muslim friends nearly unanimously report that the NT, as it exists now, is "corrupt." Is that prejudice against Christianity? And if so, then who are they to complain when some of us report some unfavorable information re Mohammed and Islam? The double standard implied by your quoted remark is quite simply appalling. We don't need to reject any criticism of Mohammed, the Quran, and/or Islam, unless, of course, we wish to become Muslims who never consider challenges to our faith. Ironically enough, you have proved Ali Sina entirely correct, since you have taken the same position as that of more than a few Muslims, to wit, that Mohammed, the Quran, and Islam are above challenge and only the crazy could be inclined to do so.
And when you are ready to address that which you seek to avoid, please let me know. Actually, you already did, since the word "prejudice" means "an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge." If you'd like to discuss the Quran, the Sunnah, etc., please let me know, since maybe then we'll learn whether it's "prejudice" or simply a correct understanding of the works in question. And by the way, if Ali Sina offends you, how about Ibn Warraq? He would presumably report that you have done nothing but make the problem just that much worse:
"We believe that Islamic society has been held back by an unwillingness to subject its beliefs, laws and practices to critical examination, by a lack of respect for the rights of the individual, and by an unwillingness to tolerate alternative viewpoints or to engage in constructive dialogue."
But why do so, when persons such as yourself will simply report that such an effort is mere "prejudice?" And, sorry, friend, and it pains me to say it, but it seems that you've bought into the lie.
Oh, and so you know, jihad isn't simply jihad. It is jihad al-kuffar [it can't be against anyone other than us kufr since in Islam, Muslim on Muslim violence/war is strictly prohibited]. And the motto of the faithful is, revert to Islam, pay the Ziziya, or fight to the death.
And are you pagan? If so:
Sura 9:5: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, And seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent (accept Islam) and establish regular prayers and practices regular charity then open the way for them; for Allah is oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
And for Jews and Christians, so-called People of the Book, there is:
Sura 9:29: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth even if they are the people of the book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
And then there's Dr. Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti:
"The Holy War (Islamic Jihad), as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy war has taken its final form. Thus the apostle of God said: ' I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in Allah and his messages...'"
And going back to Sura 9:29, the Baydawi reports:
"Fight Jews and Christians because they violated the origin of their faith and they do not believe in the religion of the truth (Islam), which abrogated all other religions. Fight them until they pay the poll-tax (Ziziya tax) with submission and humiliation."
And have you ever heard of Ibn Khaldun? Well, he's considered the greatest Arab historian:
"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in (Islam), so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same."
And you might want to tell those here on AD who live in fear of the soon coming theocracy that Omar Ahmad, co-founder of CAIR, reported that:
"The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
Lastly, let me leave you with:
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1951292005
I seem to suffer from the inability to make myself understood whenever I discuss these issues. Whether this is due to the inflammatory nature of this topic, or to my lack of eloquence, is a question on which I offer no opinion.
Since direct discussion of purely religious questions is not allowed here, I am not allowed to offer any opinions as to the validity of any particular faith. This ties my hands a bit, but let me try to proceed.
It is a difficult struggle and may take centuries. I offer as evidence the evolution of Judaism from a religion of bloodthirsty conquest, as depicted in the Old Testament. (I offer no opinion as to whether these writings are pure fiction, pure fact, or something in the middle. The fact remains that the people who wrote them were proud to depict themselves as slaughtering those who would not worship their God.) A similar thing could be said about the abuses done in the name of Christianity. Judaism and Christianity, despite many unpleasant things in the history of each one, have both successfully evolved away from that sort of thing. Since Islam shares the same background as the other two Abrahamic faiths, it is not too much to hope that it, too, can evolve. If it cannot, then the only possible conclusion is that the planet Earth is doomed to misery.
Anti-Christian prejudice certainly exists, and must be opposed. I hope you see that there is a huge difference between saying "I think Christianity is non-factual" and saying "I hate Christians." I have heard someone seriously suggest that the United States should destroy Mecca with nuclear weapons. Would you deny that such a person has an irrational prejudice against Muslims?
If we were allowed to have a debate here as to whether Islam is factual or not, you and I would probably agree. We would probably not agree about the other Abrahamic faiths. This doesn't mean that either one of us is prejudiced against the persons who profess those faiths.
Let me make this as clear as possible: I welcome honest criticism of all faiths. Of course, we are not allowed to do this at, but this does not mean that I think such criticism is prejudice. Statements such as "Israel should be wiped off the map" or "Kill the Christians" or "Bomb Mecca" are bigotry, and must be opposed. I hope you see the difference here.
Again, it seems that I have not made my position clear. There is nothing in the above quoted statement with which I disagree, and I would certainly not call this prejudice. I applaud the efforts of Ibn Warraq and the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society.
Link
And what is the goal of ISIS? Liberalization of Islam, which is what I said must happen to offer humanity any hope. It worked for Judaism and Christianity; am I too optimistic (something that I have rarely been accused of) to think that it possible for it to work for Islam?
Since direct discussion of purely religious questions is not allowed here, I am not allowed to offer any opinions as to the validity of any particular faith. This ties my hands a bit, but let me try to proceed.
QUOTE
How does one "liberalize" when the foundational documents reject "liberalization"?
It is a difficult struggle and may take centuries. I offer as evidence the evolution of Judaism from a religion of bloodthirsty conquest, as depicted in the Old Testament. (I offer no opinion as to whether these writings are pure fiction, pure fact, or something in the middle. The fact remains that the people who wrote them were proud to depict themselves as slaughtering those who would not worship their God.) A similar thing could be said about the abuses done in the name of Christianity. Judaism and Christianity, despite many unpleasant things in the history of each one, have both successfully evolved away from that sort of thing. Since Islam shares the same background as the other two Abrahamic faiths, it is not too much to hope that it, too, can evolve. If it cannot, then the only possible conclusion is that the planet Earth is doomed to misery.
QUOTE
What's wrong with "prejudice" against Islam? A member here has a quote from Bertrand Russell, no fan of Christianity, to the effect that nothing in the gospels speaks in favor of intelligence [or something like that]. Is that "prejudice" against Christianity? And if so, what are we to make of the same?
Anti-Christian prejudice certainly exists, and must be opposed. I hope you see that there is a huge difference between saying "I think Christianity is non-factual" and saying "I hate Christians." I have heard someone seriously suggest that the United States should destroy Mecca with nuclear weapons. Would you deny that such a person has an irrational prejudice against Muslims?
If we were allowed to have a debate here as to whether Islam is factual or not, you and I would probably agree. We would probably not agree about the other Abrahamic faiths. This doesn't mean that either one of us is prejudiced against the persons who profess those faiths.
QUOTE
We don't need to reject any criticism of Mohammed, the Quran, and/or Islam, unless, of course, we wish to become Muslims who never consider challenges to our faith. Ironically enough, you have proved Ali Sina entirely correct, since you have taken the same position as that of more than a few Muslims, to wit, that Mohammed, the Quran, and Islam are above challenge and only the crazy could be inclined to do so.
Let me make this as clear as possible: I welcome honest criticism of all faiths. Of course, we are not allowed to do this at
, but this does not mean that I think such criticism is prejudice. Statements such as "Israel should be wiped off the map" or "Kill the Christians" or "Bomb Mecca" are bigotry, and must be opposed. I hope you see the difference here.QUOTE
"We believe that Islamic society has been held back by an unwillingness to subject its beliefs, laws and practices to critical examination, by a lack of respect for the rights of the individual, and by an unwillingness to tolerate alternative viewpoints or to engage in constructive dialogue."
But why do so, when persons such as yourself will simply report that such an effort is mere "prejudice?" And, sorry, friend, and it pains me to say it, but it seems that you've bought into the lie.
But why do so, when persons such as yourself will simply report that such an effort is mere "prejudice?" And, sorry, friend, and it pains me to say it, but it seems that you've bought into the lie.
Again, it seems that I have not made my position clear. There is nothing in the above quoted statement with which I disagree, and I would certainly not call this prejudice. I applaud the efforts of Ibn Warraq and the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society.
Link
And what is the goal of ISIS? Liberalization of Islam, which is what I said must happen to offer humanity any hope. It worked for Judaism and Christianity; am I too optimistic (something that I have rarely been accused of) to think that it possible for it to work for Islam?
Vicky. 
I recognize this frustration because I so often feel it myself when dealing with this subject. There is a decided unwillingness by the population at large to deal with the trouble the mass immigration of Muslims into Europe has caused and far too many people avoid the unpleasant truth by hiding behind notions of xenophobia and accusations of 'racism', though for the life of me I can't see how race has anything what so ever to do with Islam.
I cannot see any moral obligation which requires me to throw aside everything my people built and fought to defend from wicked ideology just to have the current political leadership of my country and my continent cast aside those values in a craven pursuit of wealth and be damned to the consequences.
No. Enough is enough. Europe is being colonised by Islam and it is being allowed to happen. Yesterday for example the EU, without leave from the people of Europe, opened the door to Turkish membership of the EU. Turkey is not a European nation. It has nothing much in common with Europe, largely ignores European values and culture and has nothing much to offer Europe except a wealth of uneducated, ignorant peasantry, rife with superstition and medieval traditions. If Turkey joins the EU it will boost the Muslim population of Europe from 15 million to 95 million.
If this were merely a question of religion, how easy it would be to shrug and say "so what?". The problem is, it isn't a problem of religion. Islam, as it is today, is a political ideology first and foremost. It is a doctrine, used by a nebulous leadership to pursue a clearly anti democratic agenda and no matter what western politicians and policemen might say in the wake of terrorist actions carried out by 'devout Muslims' as they seek to assure us with regards to Islam's 'true face', when Islam's own scholars are in uniform agreement in disagreeing with the notion that Islam means anything other than submission, then I know hwo to believe and why domestic Muslims in the west are so apt to murder innocent people.
Today I watched an interview on Sky news. Two British men, both 'devout Muslims' were giving a press interview. One of them had recently been shot by the British police during an anti terrorist raid. What caught my eye was the text banner at the bottom of the screen, which in large letters wrote, 'Islam means Peace.'
No it does not. Islam means Submission and with the Mo'toons affair it has becoming increasingly clear to me who must submit to whom, or face the consequences.
I do not have an infinity of patience, and I'll freely admit I am prone to rash generalisations. My world view is often simplistic as well, for I do not believe that complexity is an inherent ingredient of life. We live, we die and if we don't stand up for ourselves then we'll get trampled underfoot. I don't hate Muslims per se, I'll gladly support any one who supports me, but I believe that democratic civilisation is, so far, the pinnacle of human endeavour. Equal rights and freedom for all is what I believe in... and yes, that includes the right to hold what ever relgion one may choose.
But Sharia law is undemocratic and in its implementation it is a direct threat to democracy. I believe now that these two political systems are mutually incompatable.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf)
I seem to suffer from the inability to make myself understood whenever I discuss these issues. Whether this is due to the inflammatory nature of this topic, or to my lack of eloquence, is a question on which I offer no opinion.
I think rather it is a deep frustration with the current situation that turns upon any one who offers any perspective that might be seen as offerng apology's for the perceived evils of Islam. I recognize this frustration because I so often feel it myself when dealing with this subject. There is a decided unwillingness by the population at large to deal with the trouble the mass immigration of Muslims into Europe has caused and far too many people avoid the unpleasant truth by hiding behind notions of xenophobia and accusations of 'racism', though for the life of me I can't see how race has anything what so ever to do with Islam.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf)
It is a difficult struggle and may take centuries. I offer as evidence the evolution of Judaism from a religion of bloodthirsty conquest, as depicted in the Old Testament. (I offer no opinion as to whether these writings are pure fiction, pure fact, or something in the middle. The fact remains that the people who wrote them were proud to depict themselves as slaughtering those who would not worship their God.) A similar thing could be said about the abuses done in the name of Christianity. Judaism and Christianity, despite many unpleasant things in the history of each one, have both successfully evolved away from that sort of thing. Since Islam shares the same background as the other two Abrahamic faiths, it is not too much to hope that it, too, can evolve. If it cannot, then the only possible conclusion is that the planet Earth is doomed to misery.
And in the mean time I am left, with the paltry few decades of life that I might enjoy, watching the betrayal of the EU leadership and the gradual, slow rape of Europe which is a consequence of their grand plan of a Mediterranean Community, and I have to ask, what is this evolution to me? Why should I, or any other European, wait for this evolution, if it it exists at all? I cannot see any moral obligation which requires me to throw aside everything my people built and fought to defend from wicked ideology just to have the current political leadership of my country and my continent cast aside those values in a craven pursuit of wealth and be damned to the consequences.
No. Enough is enough. Europe is being colonised by Islam and it is being allowed to happen. Yesterday for example the EU, without leave from the people of Europe, opened the door to Turkish membership of the EU. Turkey is not a European nation. It has nothing much in common with Europe, largely ignores European values and culture and has nothing much to offer Europe except a wealth of uneducated, ignorant peasantry, rife with superstition and medieval traditions. If Turkey joins the EU it will boost the Muslim population of Europe from 15 million to 95 million.
If this were merely a question of religion, how easy it would be to shrug and say "so what?". The problem is, it isn't a problem of religion. Islam, as it is today, is a political ideology first and foremost. It is a doctrine, used by a nebulous leadership to pursue a clearly anti democratic agenda and no matter what western politicians and policemen might say in the wake of terrorist actions carried out by 'devout Muslims' as they seek to assure us with regards to Islam's 'true face', when Islam's own scholars are in uniform agreement in disagreeing with the notion that Islam means anything other than submission, then I know hwo to believe and why domestic Muslims in the west are so apt to murder innocent people.
Today I watched an interview on Sky news. Two British men, both 'devout Muslims' were giving a press interview. One of them had recently been shot by the British police during an anti terrorist raid. What caught my eye was the text banner at the bottom of the screen, which in large letters wrote, 'Islam means Peace.'
No it does not. Islam means Submission and with the Mo'toons affair it has becoming increasingly clear to me who must submit to whom, or face the consequences.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf)
If we were allowed to have a debate here as to whether Islam is factual or not, you and I would probably agree. We would probably not agree about the other Abrahamic faiths. This doesn't mean that either one of us is prejudiced against the persons who profess those faiths.
Well, you and I certainly would agree I think... QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf)
Let me make this as clear as possible: I welcome honest criticism of all faiths. Of course, we are not allowed to do this at but this does not mean that I think such criticism is prejudice. Statements such as "Israel should be wiped off the map" or "Kill the Christians" or "Bomb Mecca" are bigotry, and must be opposed. I hope you see the difference here.
Yes, I do, but only grudgingly for I am growing weary of being held responsible for crimes I did not commit by people who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and who would label me a racist, a bigot and an Islamophobe because I refuse to swallow a blatent lie told by people who have a blatently socialist agenda. but this does not mean that I think such criticism is prejudice. Statements such as "Israel should be wiped off the map" or "Kill the Christians" or "Bomb Mecca" are bigotry, and must be opposed. I hope you see the difference here.I do not have an infinity of patience, and I'll freely admit I am prone to rash generalisations. My world view is often simplistic as well, for I do not believe that complexity is an inherent ingredient of life. We live, we die and if we don't stand up for ourselves then we'll get trampled underfoot. I don't hate Muslims per se, I'll gladly support any one who supports me, but I believe that democratic civilisation is, so far, the pinnacle of human endeavour. Equal rights and freedom for all is what I believe in... and yes, that includes the right to hold what ever relgion one may choose.
But Sharia law is undemocratic and in its implementation it is a direct threat to democracy. I believe now that these two political systems are mutually incompatable.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Jun 13 2006, 10:54 AM)
It is a difficult struggle and may take centuries. I offer as evidence the evolution of Judaism from a religion of bloodthirsty conquest, as depicted in the Old Testament. (I offer no opinion as to whether these writings are pure fiction, pure fact, or something in the middle. The fact remains that the people who wrote them were proud to depict themselves as slaughtering those who would not worship their God.) A similar thing could be said about the abuses done in the name of Christianity. Judaism and Christianity, despite many unpleasant things in the history of each one, have both successfully evolved away from that sort of thing.
An excellent point, people who list out choice sections of the Koran as 'proof' that islam is somehow all evil always tend to forget that this imaginary absolute cause-and-effect does not stand up for any other of the world's major religions. The Torah which is as violent as the Koran has produced a religion whcih was pretty much conflict avoidant for the last 2500 years, and the New Testament which is far less violent and preaches tolerance and peace produced a religion which committed untold atrocity and savagery for about 1500 years.
Not to mention, while there is no question at all that the Koran is an exceedingly violent book, it is not quite as utterly one-sided as some would pretend:
"Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them"
"who- ever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other wicked crimes, should be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life should be regarded as though he had saved all mankind."
"He who forgiveth, and is reconciled unto his enemy, shall receive his reward from God; for he loveth not the unjust doers."
And so on.
Islam has violent extremists, just as Christianity has violent extremists. The main problem is twofold; One: the extremists in Islam, though a minority, represent a much larger minority than in Christianity for example, and Two: that mainstream islam has not yet figured out how to deal with these extremists internally, something they need to figure out quickly...
QUOTE(Vermillion)
An excellent point, people who list out choice sections of the Koran as 'proof' that islam is somehow all evil always tend to forget that this imaginary absolute cause-and-effect does not stand up for any other of the world's major religions. The Torah which is as violent as the Koran has produced a religion whcih was pretty much conflict avoidant for the last 2500 years, and the New Testament which is far less violent and preaches tolerance and peace produced a religion which committed untold atrocity and savagery for about 1500 years
Well, first and foremost, the Jews were resoundly defeated by the Romans and their avoiding conflict as you call it was almost certainly due to their being scattered across the world and into a position hardly conducive to aggressive religious persecution of non believers. And, how can you argue the peaceful evolution of Islam and then use the example of 1,500 years of Christian atrocity? This is a bogus argument if ever I read one. 'Islam shouldn't be judged badly because Christianity and Judaism are just as bad... '
People who seek to apologise for contemporary, political Islamic violence on the basis of other religions tend to ignore the plain truth that not all religions are the same anyway and the evolution of one will not mirror the evolution of another.
In other words, there is absolutely nothing inherent in Islam that indicates it will ever undergo the sort of liberal metamorphosis that you appear to assume it will. And no matter if you repeat your claim a thousand times, your words carry no weight anyways, for you Vermillion, like myself, are a kufir.
Consider this...
QUOTE(Nasser bin Suleiman Al-'Omar)
The Islamic nation now faces a great phase of Jihad, unlike anything we knew fifty years ago. Fifty years ago, Jihad was attributed only to a few individuals in Palestine, and in some other Muslims areas. Following the events of Afghanistan, the nation has embraced Jihad. Young and old, men and women - everyone is talking about Jihad.
Whoever is familiar with the Sunna and the Hadith knows that a battle against the enemies of Allah awaits on the horizon, in which the Muslims will be victorious. This is confirmed by the reliable hadiths, as well as by reality.
Link.Whoever is familiar with the Sunna and the Hadith knows that a battle against the enemies of Allah awaits on the horizon, in which the Muslims will be victorious. This is confirmed by the reliable hadiths, as well as by reality.
or this...
QUOTE(Dr. Babu Suseelan)
Jihadi terrorism is as old as Islam. Jihad war, death and destruction have followed in the wake of Islam for hundreds of years. Ancient Egypt, Greece, Spain, Persia, India and several societies have experienced the deadly Islamic conquest. Now Jihadi terrorism has propelled to dangerous proportions and is a major threat to public health and world peace. Jihadi terrorists are said to have the unique ability to perpetuate their deadly terrorism wreaking havoc in every city in the world. It's destructive impact on the economy, public health and public safety is widespread, and on the increase.
Sensational Jihadi terrorism, mass riots, violence, beheading, suicide bombing and plane hijacking are under constant media scrutiny. Jihadi terrorism is also a compelling subject for terrorism scholars, social scientists and security planners. Nevertheless, agreement on the important underlying causes has been elusive and inconsistent. Liberal left wing social scientists attribute Jihadi terrorism as a product of "labeling" and social causes including economic deprivation and interference of non-Islamic countries. They romanticize Jihadi terrorists as involved in protest against social injustice. In their eagerness to promote the irrational doctrine of "political correctness", left wing armchair speculators see Jihadi terrorists as victims of reactionary, reductionist "conspiracy theories" that make the terrorists the real victim of unjust society. For phony, left wing, liberal social scientists, suicide bombing, mass murder, riots, arson and public beheading of non-Muslims by Jihadi terrorists are the negotiated product of formal responses to political injustices.
Link.Sensational Jihadi terrorism, mass riots, violence, beheading, suicide bombing and plane hijacking are under constant media scrutiny. Jihadi terrorism is also a compelling subject for terrorism scholars, social scientists and security planners. Nevertheless, agreement on the important underlying causes has been elusive and inconsistent. Liberal left wing social scientists attribute Jihadi terrorism as a product of "labeling" and social causes including economic deprivation and interference of non-Islamic countries. They romanticize Jihadi terrorists as involved in protest against social injustice. In their eagerness to promote the irrational doctrine of "political correctness", left wing armchair speculators see Jihadi terrorists as victims of reactionary, reductionist "conspiracy theories" that make the terrorists the real victim of unjust society. For phony, left wing, liberal social scientists, suicide bombing, mass murder, riots, arson and public beheading of non-Muslims by Jihadi terrorists are the negotiated product of formal responses to political injustices.
or this...
QUOTE(Al Ghurabaa)
A Muslim must know that if he is to maintain his Islam, he cannot participate in the election and must not participate in any form of kufr such as voting for a person that wants to go to elections in order to participate in the legislative body under the pretext of his ‘good intention’.
Link.or this...
And now tell me what all these people have in common:
Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Aldebes, Mohamed Atta al-Sayed, Abu Laban, Mohammed Bouyeri, Noordin Mohammed Top, Richard Reid, Yasser Arafat, Sayyid Qutb, Musa Hilal, Mullah Omar, Mohammed Pehlawan, Abdul Malik Pehlawan, Saddam Hussein, Süleyman Reis , Seyyed Ali Khameni, Ahmed Yassin, Mohammed Deif, Hassan al-Banna, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Mohammed Salameh, Muammar al-Gaddafi, Mohammad Khatami, Mehmet Ali Ağca, Mohammed Farooq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Syed Hassan Nasrallah, Noel Saleh, Bashar al-Assad, Hamadi al-Takhi al-Nissani, Umer Hayat, Abdul Rahman, Ghassan Abdullah al-Sharbi, Mullah Krekar, Nasser bin Suleiman Al-'Omar, Faheem Khalid Lodhi, Mobeen Muneef, Ayatollah Ahmad Husseini Al-Baghdadi, Khair ad Din, Abu Hamza, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Muhammad ibn abd al-Wahhab, Mullah Dadullah, Salah Sultan, Tariq Ramadan, Sami al Arien, Inayat Bunglawala, Mohammad Ali Samadi, Mohammad Mohammadi Golpayegani, Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, Imad Hamad, Omar Abdel Fatah Al-Shishani, Abu Dujanah al-Qahtani, Abu Hummam al-Urdani, Abu Radwan al-Urdani, Abu Usama al-Ansari, Abu Asil al-Jazairi, Abu Ibrahim al-Tunisi, Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal, Mufti Mujeebur Rehman, Qari Gul Rehman,Khalid Khwaja, Abu Houzeifa, Qayyum Abdul Jamal, Zakaria Amara, Syed Haris Ahmed, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, Ahmad Ghany, Shareef Abdelhaleen, Tariq Abdelhaleem, Mohammed Dirie, Yasim Abdi Mohamed, Abdullah Khadr, Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali, Yvonne Ridley, Abu Musab Abdel Wadoud, Abdullah bin Rashid al-Baghdadi, Abu Abdullah al-Hassan Bin Mahmud, Mullah Mohammed Umar, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer...
...apart from a decided lack of imagination in names, these people are all devout Muslims. And every single one of them has been in the media news stories since I started this thread and connectéd in one way or another, to the jihad against democratic society. These are the people who are defining what Islam is. Not you or I or Tony Blair.
Its the attitudes, words and actions of these people that is now defining what Islam is.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
Not to mention, while there is no question at all that the Koran is an exceedingly violent book, it is not quite as utterly one-sided as some would pretend:
"Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them"
"who- ever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other wicked crimes, should be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life should be regarded as though he had saved all mankind."
"He who forgiveth, and is reconciled unto his enemy, shall receive his reward from God; for he loveth not the unjust doers."
And so on.
Ha! I refer you to the quote by bin Suleiman Al-'Omar above. "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them"
"who- ever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other wicked crimes, should be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life should be regarded as though he had saved all mankind."
"He who forgiveth, and is reconciled unto his enemy, shall receive his reward from God; for he loveth not the unjust doers."
And so on.
You (like Tony Blair) can quote the Koran all day long, until you are blue in the face for all the difference it makes. Your interpretation of that book is utterly and completely irrellevent, since you are not the one embarking upon a campaign to kidnap your government and cut off their heads one by one until your demands are met!
What you think, or believe about Islam does not change the simple, and irrefutable fact, that as bin Suleiman Al-'Omar (who is a cleric in Saudi Arabia) points out 'a battle against the enemies of Allah awaits on the horizon, in which the Muslims will be victorious'.
This is what so many Muslims believe. It is what their religion tells them and it has no parrellel in any other contemporay religion.
On this issue I agree with Oriana Fallaci:
QUOTE(Oriana Fallaci)
“The tolerance level was already surpassed fifteen or twenty years ago,” she wrote, “when the Left let the Muslims disembark on our coasts by the thousands. And it is well known . . . that I do not accept the mendacity of the so-called Moderate Islam. I do not believe that a Good Islam and a Bad Islam exist. Only Islam exists. And Islam is the Koran. And the Koran says what it says. Whatever its version. Of course there are exceptions. Also, considering the mathematical calculation of probabilities, some good Muslims must exist. I mean Muslims who appreciate freedom and democracy and secularism.
Link.Islam is not young. It is not in the early adolescent years of its existence. It is 1,400 years old! It has had 'periods of enlightment' and 'golden era's'. It has ruled the known world and it has had just as many opportunities as christianity to evolve, and guess what.... it hasn't. There is no tradition of foregiveness in Islam. There is, and always has been, submission.
Islam, means Submission.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
Islam has violent extremists, just as Christianity has violent extremists. The main problem is twofold; One: the extremists in Islam, though a minority, represent a much larger minority than in Christianity for example, and Two: that mainstream islam has not yet figured out how to deal with these extremists internally, something they need to figure out quickly...
Or else what Vermillion? What are you going to do about it if they don't?
edited for spelling
QUOTE(moif @ Jun 14 2006, 12:42 AM)
And, how can you argue the peaceful evolution of Islam and then use the example of 1,500 years of Christian atrocity? This is a bogus argument if ever I read one. 'Islam shouldn't be judged badly because Christianity and Judaism are just as bad... '
OK, you completely missed my point on that one, perhaps I was unclear.
I was not arguing the peaceful evolution of Islam, I was simply stating that to blame the current condition of Islam entirely on the violence in the Koran, as some people do, is illogical, as it presumes the tenor of a religion is based entirely on the tone of its holy book, and that does NOT apply to the other major religions in the area.
I also never said 'Islam should not be judged badly because Christianity and Judaism are just as bad, in fact I said almost the EXACT opposite of that. Radical fundamentalist islam should absolutely be judged badly as it is abhorrent, but in case you didn't notice, its growth is a phenomenon of the last 30 years. It always existed of course, just as radical violent fundamentalist Christianity exists, but in a tiny minority, only recently has the minority grown to its current levels.
QUOTE
People who seek to apologise for contemporary, political Islamic violence on the basis of other religions tend to ignore the plain truth that not all religions are the same anyway and the evolution of one will not mirror the evolution of another.
I'm sorry, where did I apologise for contemporary, political Islamic violence? In fact I seem to recall myself saying quite clearly that Islam has violent extremists, and they need to be dealt with, preferably internally (which is not hapening yet). My point, which you seem to agree with given your choice of words above, is that one cannot take the fanatic fundamentalist islamicicts and use them as a blanket condemnation for all of Islam as somehow being a brutal or universally violent religion.
Muslims in countries all over the world, even extremely devout muslims, live in peace with their neighbours. The 'liberal metamorphasis' is not only not impossible, it has already happened. The problem is the recent shift back towards the violent extremes in the last 30 years, in particular in the middle east.
QUOTE
Osama Bin Laden, Mahmoud Aldebes, (snip) Tariq Abdelhaleem, Mohammed Dirie, Yasim Abdi Mohamed, Abdullah Khadr, Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali, Yvonne Ridley, Abu Musab Abdel Wadoud, Abdullah bin Rashid al-Baghdadi, Abu Abdullah al-Hassan Bin Mahmud, Mullah Mohammed Umar, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer...
What do they have in common? They are all violent fundamentalist Islamicists. A branch of the religion entirely worthy of condemnation and in fact eradication. You and I are in no way disagreeing on this Moif. Where I disagree is with posts like Kivrot above which SEEM (and correct me if I am in error) to be condemning Islam as a whole for the actions of the radicals.
You can quote all the radical messages from radical islamicists you want, and I will agree with you. But just remember that there IS a separartion between islamicists and Muslims, though I sometimes feel some people deliberately refuse to see it.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
QUOTE
Islam has violent extremists, just as Christianity has violent extremists. The main problem is twofold; One: the extremists in Islam, though a minority, represent a much larger minority than in Christianity for example, and Two: that mainstream islam has not yet figured out how to deal with these extremists internally, something they need to figure out quickly...
Or else what Vermillion? What are you going to do about it if they don't?
I'm not sure I understand your question. What do you think should be done about Radical islamicists?
Step on them like cockroaches whenever they are found, while at the same time (and this is critical) reaching out to, working with and supporting liberal Muslim clerics and moderate Immans so that the Muslim people of the world realise the war is not against their religion, it is against the violent fanatics who use the religion to further their own political or personal petty ends. If we do not, then by OUR actions, more Muslims become Islamacists every day...
QUOTE(Vermillion)
OK, you completely missed my point on that one, perhaps I was unclear.
Perhaps... 
QUOTE(Vermillion)
I was not arguing the peaceful evolution of Islam, I was simply stating that to blame the current condition of Islam entirely on the violence in the Koran, as some people do, is illogical, as it presumes the tenor of a religion is based entirely on the tone of its holy book, and that does NOT apply to the other major religions in the area.
I have never read the Koran, nor even the Bible. Religious tracts hold no significance to me, not even as historical curiosities, so I don't have any great insight to the messages contained in these books. All I have to go on is how their adherents define their teachings. As a consequence of this observation I find Christianity to be equally as hypocritcal and meaningless as Islam (and just about any other relgion you care to mention) but what really stands out is the disaparity between how Islam is defined by Muslim scholars and clerics and the western politicians (and other supporters of multiculture) where by Islam is regarded as a religion of peace in the west, yet used to justify a vast multitude of wicked actions by the faithful. Thus, the religious aspect of Islam takes a back seat to the political aspect of the religion, and in that aspect, the actual words in the book itself are unimportant. As Oriana Fallaci said, I do not believe that a Good Islam and a Bad Islam exist. Only Islam exists. And Islam is the Koran. And the Koran says what it says.
In other words, to not blame the current condition of Islam on the Koran is to ignore that the fundamental foundation the Koran, in all its glorious ambiguity and confused prating, provides. The Koran is the basis of the violence carried out in the name of Allah.
It is also, to seek to find excuses as to why religion, by its own virtue (regardless of which religion we care to debate) is not the cause of its own miserable failings. No matter how many provisions you apply to your argument prior to the 'but', the 'but' still exists.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
I'm sorry, where did I apologise for contemporary, political Islamic violence? In fact I seem to recall myself saying quite clearly that Islam has violent extremists, and they need to be dealt with, preferably internally (which is not hapening yet). My point, which you seem to agree with given your choice of words above, is that one cannot take the fanatic fundamentalist islamicicts and use them as a blanket condemnation for all of Islam as somehow being a brutal or universally violent religion.
Muslims in countries all over the world, even extremely devout muslims, live in peace with their neighbours. The 'liberal metamorphasis' is not only not impossible, it has already happened. The problem is the recent shift back towards the violent extremes in the last 30 years, in particular in the middle east.
Would you care to provide some examples (more than just one) of places where devout Muslims live in peace with their neighbours? Muslims in countries all over the world, even extremely devout muslims, live in peace with their neighbours. The 'liberal metamorphasis' is not only not impossible, it has already happened. The problem is the recent shift back towards the violent extremes in the last 30 years, in particular in the middle east.
...especially places where these devout Muslims are not in a minority for it is my observation that where ever Islam exists, so there is social injustice, violence and low intensity warfare, whether we are debating Kenya, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Zanzibar, Turkey, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Palestine, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Switzerland, Sweden, Bosnia, Britain, Germany, Denmark, Holland, USA or Canada, the picture remains the same.
Every where you chose to look, you will see the spread of political Islam using the Koran as the fundamental foundation for its violence.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
What do they have in common? They are all violent fundamentalist Islamicists. A branch of the religion entirely worthy of condemnation and in fact eradication. You and I are in no way disagreeing on this Moif. Where I disagree is with posts like Kivrot above which SEEM (and correct me if I am in error) to be condemning Islam as a whole for the actions of the radicals.
Well, in fact they are not all violent fundamentalist Islamicists. Many of them claim to renounce violence in fact. A good many of them are using the law as their means to subvert the culture of democracy in order to strengthen the cause of Sharia. I happen to think KivrotHaTaavah may be right, after all there is a lot of evidence to support his argument. I'm not fully convinced, but its getting to that point the more and more I see of whats going down in Europe these days. He regards islam as a totalitarian ideology, and I'm afraid, so do I. I see your counter point as akin to the oft repeated 'not all Germans were nazi's' argument and I have to say that such quibbling, hair splitting reservations mean very little to me when confronted with a perceived threat the scale of which equals the Third Reich, in its monstrous treatment of humanity for the sake of ideology. Oriana Fallaci makes the same observation as KivrotHaTaavah and Rear Admiral Chris Parry (a senior British military analyst) has this to say regarding the threat from third world immigrant groups...
QUOTE(Rear admiral Chris Parry)
Western civilization faces a threat on par with the barbarian invasions that destroyed the Roman Empire in the 5th century, warns one of Britain's most senior military strategists. Immigrant groups from the Third World with little allegiance to their host countries could undermine Europe in a "reverse colonization," said Rear Admiral Chris Parry, according to the Times of London. "Globalization makes assimilation seem redundant and old-fashioned . . . [the process] acts as a sort of reverse colonization, where groups of people are self-contained, going back and forth between their countries, exploiting sophisticated networks and using instant communication on phones and the Internet," he said.
[snip]
Various regions of Europe, Parry said, are threatened by factors such as radical Islam, agricultural decline, booming youth populations, water shortages and rising sea levels. He believes that from 2012 to 2018 the current global power structure likely will crumble as a result of "irregular activity" such as terrorism, organized crime and "white companies" of mercenaries burgeoning in lawless areas.
Link.[snip]
Various regions of Europe, Parry said, are threatened by factors such as radical Islam, agricultural decline, booming youth populations, water shortages and rising sea levels. He believes that from 2012 to 2018 the current global power structure likely will crumble as a result of "irregular activity" such as terrorism, organized crime and "white companies" of mercenaries burgeoning in lawless areas.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
You can quote all the radical messages from radical islamicists you want, and I will agree with you. But just remember that there IS a separartion between islamicists and Muslims, though I sometimes feel some people deliberately refuse to see it.
I refer you to the matter of Naser Khader (whom I made mention of in the Mohammed cartoons thread). Prior to the 'Mo'toons affair', Khader was a run of the mill Danish MP, one of only two Muslims in the Folketing.As a consequence of the Mo'toons affair, Khader created a Muslim group designed to bridge the gap between the 'ethnic Danes' and the 'Muslim Danes'... or to put it another, more blunt way, the Muslims and everybody else. He called his group, the 'Moderate Muslims'. This move resulted in two distinct events. The first was; Khaders popularity went through the roof with the Danish electorate and he is now, by a healthy margin, the most popular politician in Denmark. This popularity is so strong that his party, The Radicals, (Centre left) is now considered a major contender in the polls. If there was an election tomorrow, Khader would most likely get his wish and be named immigration minister making Denmark the first country in Europe to have a Muslim in charge of immigration...
But.
Naser Khader is widely considered a traitor in the Danish Muslim community. His Moderate Muslim's society has about 1,000 Muslim members (but 20,000+ ethnic Danish support members) and very little support at all in the Danish 'Muslim community' (of 200,000). In the last few months, Khader (who is guarded by police body guards) has been the recpient of insults, Abu Laban, an imam of Copenhagen, publically called Khader a rat, (which apparently meant it is okay to kill him), and death threats, some of these made by prominent imams (including Abu Laban) and caught on hidden camera by a French Muslim journalist. Khader has also seen his family shunned at social events and his children so harrassed at their kindergarten that he was forced to with draw them.
Why?
Because A. Khader is married to a Danish woman. And B. Khader publically declared his loyalty to democracy over Islam.
So, yeah, sure, there is a separartion between islamicists and Muslims... so what? It doesn't change the scale of the threat, the fast growing popularity of Islamic extremism nor the tenacity by which Islam is being foisted onto Europe.
Or in other words, I recognize there are innocent, peace loving Muslims, just as I recognize these people have absolutely no control what so ever over their religious compatriots... and frankly I haven't got several centuries of time to wait around for them or their religion to 'catch up' to us. My daughter is nearly a year old and growing fast and I have no wish to see her raped in the near future for not wearing a hijab.
I will gladly vote for the nationalists in order to prevent that, and if that is not enough then I will gladly take up arms to defend my country!
QUOTE(Vermillion)
I'm not sure I understand your question. What do you think should be done about Radical islamicists?
Immediete deportation for those who use non violence and extermination for those who do. QUOTE(Vermillion)
Step on them like cockroaches whenever they are found, while at the same time (and this is critical) reaching out to, working with and supporting liberal Muslim clerics and moderate Immans so that the Muslim people of the world realise the war is not against their religion, it is against the violent fanatics who use the religion to further their own political or personal petty ends. If we do not, then by OUR actions, more Muslims become Islamacists every day...
Given the speed by which Islam is spreading, as well as the explosive birth rate of Muslim women in Europe and the depressing lethargy of these liberal Muslims, then that argument sounds like something King Canute might have thought of. So I repeat. I don't have the luxury of time to wait for these people to take a stand. They never have in the past and I doubt they ever will in the future for I agree with Rear Admiral Parry, the technology available to thse people now ensures that they will never change or evolve and whilst we sit about waiting for these 'liberal Muslims', the extremism that is already taking over at the grass roots will overwhelm us from within.
edited to correct a sentence or two
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.