True or False: Deadly mutation in the heart of Islam

Rewrite the Koran? That is hilarious and very offensive. That is about as idiotic as liberals wanting to rewrite the constitution.

 

There is that very distinct possibility, JuanValdez.

And, unfortunately, part of the necessity of the inevitable confrontation within Islam between moderate and extremist Muslims, I think.

And at some point, as with most things: without polarization, there can be no movement. And with no movement, there can be no change.

I'm as "liberal" as any state-sponsored, race-baiting affirmative-action Negro parrot could ever hope to be. And I don't think that there are a lot of moderate Muslims who could have gone into that building and killed a lot of people behind satire.

But it happened. And even if there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who have some feeling that this was "justified"...their secular lives in non-Muslim countries affords them the opportunity to address the wrongness of these actions if that is what they choose and are committed to do.

Separation of church and state has happened for them in essence, by assimilating into other countries. There may not be any more time, or any better opportunity, than now to address the need for Islam to examine its core.

It's not going to matter, eventually, how sensitive we try to remain to those who are probably in the majority in the Muslim community...who might not be inclined to act on "directives" from the Quran, despite their tacit "condonement" of the "sentiment" that they might fell incites these horrible acts.

That "polarization" that extremists need to incite terror and conflict can't be shied away from, JuanValdez.

It has to be met head-on. And it has to be spearheaded by those who have the most to lose by either inaction or indecision.

That doesn't necessarily mean fighting fire with fire, in my opinion. Usually the only thing that happens in that scenario is things burn hotter more quickly and burn down faster.

Where moderate Muslim people have an avenue or opportunity, is in the non-Muslim countries that they have built lives fro themselves. They have to accept that they are citizens of their "native" countries now, and that that doesn't mean an abdication of what they believe in as Muslims. They have to seize control of the narrative, at some point. And that will mean embracing the people who have been hurt by this senselessness.

There won't ever be a good or comfortable time for that to happen. But as more and more people die...and die needlessly and shamelessly...

...the potential tolerance that exists now (which is what I believe would manifest if there were more unilateral and co-sponsored protests for instance), may not exist much longer.

However intolerant "Radical Islam" is, very much of the rest of the world is not. The moderate Muslims might be surprised to find out that they have more in common with people then they may be ready to admit.

There may be a grand opportunity, in this madness, for Islam's reformation to be relatively bloodless especially because there isn't a "rogue" state (like North Korea), that by its very existence handcuffs that exchange.

But then again, that's the weak-minded liberal that got shoe-horned into me talking.

What the hell would I know about "bloodless revolutions"...

 

hmm what do you have to say about France banning pro Palestinian demonstrations? Where were you and other islamophobes when this attack on free speech happened?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ce-country-world-ban-pro-Palestine-demos.html

 

Totes.

1st amendment of the Abrahamic faiths - killing is bad mmkay.

 

Terrorism is how the powerless confront the powerful. Muslims just got a late start on the Industrial Revolution and lacked coal.

 

In a Western country, 2 men in body gear with assault rifles entered an office building and killed 12 unarmed people who were part of a newspaper.

Might want to rethink the "powerless confront the powerful" narrative.

 

Or how the delusional confront the rational.

 

Honestly, if the religious killings, beheadings, and barbaric treatment of women in the Middle East from what many consider to be TRUE Muslims are not enough to turn moderate Muslims away from Islamic teachings, then I really fear for the ability of Islam to evolve naturally. I'm just going to assume that fear is what keeps those moderates in those countries pacified, because no human being with a conscience can live in a country like that and be morally alright with it.

 

It's ridiculous to suggest that terrorism is unique to Islam, there are plenty of examples to disprove such a suggestion. However, the problem we are facing TODAY, is solely an Islam terrorism problem, it is a radical Islam problem, and radical Islam is not REAL Islam, just as those who use the Bible to justify murder and hatred are not REAL Christians. Their hatred goes against every mainstream teaching of Islam and most of it is not based on the Qur'an, but rather hadith and later teachings and fatwahs. I was listening to Arsalan Iftikhar (@themuslimguy/themuslimguy.com) on CNN last night and he essentially said the same thing, except he insists that this is not a "radical Islam" issue, this is an "extremist" issue, that it's not a religious issue at all....well, it is, but it isn't. Yes, extremism is what we are fighting (NOT Islam), but the CURRENT struggle is uniquely focused on radical ISLAMISTS not radicals in general. While yes, other radical groups (Timothy McVeigh) are still an issue that our government needs to be weary of, they are separate from this current struggle.

But to be clear, I don't believe this is inherent to Islam. There are how many Muslims in the world? Over a billion, how many are radicals hell bent on killing? Not many, statistically speaking. However, most teachings of Islam are still not compatible with the Western morals and ideas.....but we don't see Muslims all over the world killing because of it...they adapt, like most Christians today have adapted to the changing morals and views of this country.

 

The relationship between non-secular Muslims who actually commit violent acts and non-secular Muslims who don't, which consists of a large portion of the Muslim world, is the same relationship between a U.S. Soldier or Marine and a U.S. civilian. Most U.S. civilians support the Soldier or Marine. Most Muslims in Muslim dominant regions agree about the punishment for apostasy or blasphemy. Most don't carry out the violent acts because there are Muslims dedicated to those actions.

 

Soo........ they are in silent consent perhaps even supporting

Not unlike when our soldiers blow up a village of women and children across the world
We, the US Civilian support and celebrate that privately and silently?

Rocket River
I do not . . .

 

Your argument is too nuanced for our resident Islamaphobe, but it has to be made.

Another argument too nuanced for him is that you can defend that it is their right to say what they said and still be critical of what they said.

 

What are these Muslims supposed to do?

There are lots of Americans who decry this, but don't decry our carrying out atrocities 24/7 in the Muslim World and supporting their dictator/ oil guys who could care less about free speech. Sadly many will want to make it out that the only cause of their extremism was their reaction to cartoons or their religion.

Don't forget that the guys they think were the gunmen at the newspaper claimed in the past publicly that they were radicalized by our needless Iraq
War. Why don't Americans do something about this?

Does this mean I condone the killing of the cartoonists? Of course not, but I am interested in stoping more of this bs and we can't just make these folks more moderate by killing and oppressing them.

 

Start with maybe an Op/Ed and stop well short of killing people?

Those 12 civilians in France did not die because of US foreign policy. They died because three troubled men felt they had the divine right to kill anyone that insulted their prophet. It wasn't a case of killing the messenger. It's a case of killing the guys who made FUN of the messenger, and hell yes people have a right to be outraged.

Islamic terror is nothing new in France, and existed long before either Bush was a president, whether it's killing Jewish children for retribution in Israel,or bringing the Algerian civil war into France, there's a long history of this. Are Americans responsible for French colonialism in North Africa?

The gunners claimed to be "Al-Qaeda in Yemen." Do you think without the US invasion in Iraq that they would have otherwise been secular humanists?

While I'm not going to defend US post-WW2 foreign policy idiocy, France has a long and troubled history with a resentful Algerian population that's not going to be end tomorrow if the US were to suddenly adopt a Ron Paul non-interventionist foreign policy. It's also not going to end by forcing the most secular country in the world to accept blasphemy laws, either.

 

I can't help but laugh when I read this. So what happens to non believers in the Christian scripture, hmmm? I guess they all get to go and frolic in the Garden of Eden for all eternity, no?

Is it a coincidence that multitheism tend to be the gentler religions?

 

Come on, Desi, you are smarter than that usually. Look around. Many Muslims are criticizing these actions. It would do you good to find your own links, so I won't do it for you.

That is certainly one reason. BTW, why were they troubled? So th foreign policy of France or the US has no effect? The old Bush gang "they hate us for our freedom"

Clever, but this is a time to be serious.

Certainly people are outraged, but people have the right to be told that to be constructive they should be more than outraged.

. Wow!! Who says this will end it tomorrow. I suppose the Israeli policies of only force have been so effective at ending conflict and terrorism.

It's also not going to end by forcing the most secular country in the world to accept blasphemy laws, either. If you are fair, you should acknowledge that I am advocating that. What a red herring.

 

Stop butchering the quote feature, you weirdo psycho freak.

 

Yes.

You are so very right, but presently, any scrutiny of Islam calls for a death penalty. With that being the ultimate in obstructionism ; (!!!), it is not likely we'll any meaningful dissection, which is badly needed. A number of years ago, during an interview with Muslim scholars in Cairo Egypt; they were asked if they felt that Islam was compatible with democracy. Their answer was "No." Even though there are different versions (denominations) of Islam; its center is in Saudi Arabia (Mecca , Medina). And Saudi Arabia executes people for , of all things, ...sorcery!