Do Muslims Assimilate, Integrate into American society?

Listen, I'm not trying to attack you personally at all, but I've seen your posts and replies to my posts. I don't know you on a personal level to make judgements, so I apologize for making an assumption that you disliked (not hated) Islam and Muslims. Now with that being said, you're taking this a little too personal and a little too far. I'm not trying to judge you on anything you do personally, but when you're posting all these negative comments about Islam, I feel the need to post my own viewpoint because the world I live in, Islam is not negative, most Muslims I know are good people. Are there bad Muslims? Sure, just like there are bad people in all religions and bad people who aren't associated with religion at all. If you really dislike me as a person, I'm sorry. I'm not going to tell you to F yourself. I just pray you find peace.

 

And there you go with your high horse. So now I'm 'not at peace' because I dislike Islam? That is a very condescending viewpoint to have about a person just because they don't like your religion.

I've heard the "there are bad people in every religion" trope enough. Us liberals use the 'volume of perpetrators' argument all the time in regards to all matters of politics EXCEPT Islam for some uncanny reason. Liberals, including me, make arguments such as "not all conservatives are racist, but most racists are conservative". Yet, when it comes to Islam, where the LARGE majority of religious inspired attacks TODAY stem from it, liberals are like "Well, see this video of a Christian man making fun of homosexuals! See, every religion has it's bad apples" right after a Muslim murdered FIFTY PEOPLE. It's really ****ing pathetic the level of cognitive dissonance that is displayed on this message board.

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. The dude who killed 50 people in Orlando does not represent Islam. It was horrible, I don't support what he did. And I wish for everyone to find peace. If you've already found it then great, I mean no ill intention by it. Im done here now though, as I don't think you and I will reach any end point.

 

Is there ever a time in your life that you aren't bitter?

You are so incredibly insecure.

 

Pretty sure I already wrecked you on these exact things you brought up in another thread.

It's funny, you try and use the fact that your family is Muslim as if that makes you some expert on the religion. Each time you do that, you end up getting thoroughly refuted and disappear from the thread.

 

Pretty sure the only thing you have wrecked here is your own credibility.

 

He does represent an extremist interpretation of Islam that is very popular in a larger portion of the world than anyone should be comfortable with. He certainly doesn't represent all of Islam and not all Muslims which is a very good thing. It's truly unfortunate that the good, peace loving Muslims of the world have their name tarnished by the fanatics. The problem is how many Muslims he does accurately represent, it's a huge number and as such is a global problem.

 

Explicit refutations please. Please refute Muhammad's sex slavery claim, his concubine claim, and his raiding of multiple tribes creating hundreds of widows. I'm sure in your 'context', all those acts were justifiable. You haven't refuted anything. You are a typical layman Muslim who assumes that your natural empathy coincides with Muhammad's teachings. That is nothing more than wishful thinking. Please show me a single thread of you or any Muslim here 'thoroughly refuting me'. Some serious wishful thinking.

If there was this so called thread were I 'magically' disappeared from your alleged bullet proof refutation, then it's because I simply just didn't return to the thread, not because of some 'bullet proof' refutation.

The entire issue here isn't that I believe Muhammad for his time was some relatively evil warlord. He was just like any individual of that time from who desired power. The issue arises when that individuals propped on a pedestal as one of the best moral representations for mankind to follow for the rest of time until the day of judgement. I'm sure there were some positive traits of Muhammad, but there are an infinite amount of better role models to follow.

 

Is it because of the expletives? Does that offend you? Someone stated I have an agenda against Muslims. That's a personal attack. I refuted. Deal with it. Stop being so easily butt hurt over a argument that has nothing to do with you.

 

Then why did Radical Islam - in it's current form that you see with these extremist groups - only being to materialize in the 20th century?

Why is it that terrorism in the Arabic world only began in the 1960's? Why wasn't there jihads in the 1800's?

These are honest questions. If the teaching of Mohammed or whomever is so corrupting, why is the problem only manifesting itself now? And why are the majority of people who follow this guy not subscribing to his beliefs?

 

My ancestors were probably raped and murdered by Muslims in South Asia centuries back and therefore today my family is Muslim! Yeah for us

You are very naive if you think Islamic violence just materialized in the last 50 years.

I really wonder how many Muslims from the Indian subcontinent would instantly leave Islam if they magically had a flashback of the time their ancestors converted.

 

Well their reach was much less during a lot of that time and most of the radicalized Muslims were too busy humping goats or whatever to bother their neighbors. Those that did hurt others only did so locally and that's not enough to matter to anyone else in the world. Now that a lot of really backwards countries are starting to come out of the dark ages they are discovering technologies that allow them to hurt others hundreds and even thousands of miles away and in much greater numbers than they are used to which is enticing enough to some of them to put their goat humping on hold to be terrorist assholes.

 

Islam has been in jihad since 10 years before Muhammad died until today. That is the legacy of a warlord prophet.

 

Just go re-read the 'Afghan Lawmaker' thread. Literally every point you futilely attempted to make was contradicted with factual information (and not just your, "my mom is a Muslim and I learned this in Sunday school 20 years ago").

You try and criticize a historical figure, but then complain when historical facts are used. Do you want me to apologize for using basic logic and reasoning?

 

I mean how niave are people to believe a religion with 1.5 billion people spread through only peaceful means? Do these people honestly believe that Muslims came in and were like "Oh did you know that this Quran here is literately perfect and no one can replicate it! It's a miracle" and poof 1 billion Muslims.

Naw, there was a lot of murdering, raping and desecration of Hindu Temples in between that.

 

One refutation... Please go ahead.

Did Muhammad hold sex slaves?
Did Muhammad consummate a marriage with a 9 year old?
Did Muhammad ever order the execution of an individual?
Did Muhammad ever create widows?
Did Muhammad ever make those newly created widows into sex slaves?

Let's do this Hydhypedplaya.

 

There was a lot of raping and murdering going on in the world before the Enlightenment when genocide, rape, slavery and such was considered acceptable.

I'm not talking about Islamic violence - or violence by Muslims or in the name of Islam. I'm talking about Islamic Radicalism which came from Wahabism. And terrorism came after that.

 

What do you think Wahhabism entails? Maybe it entails invading the Indian subcontinent and forcing the region to be Islamic rule? How more Wahhabiest can you get?

 

Violent intolerance came way before that. Wahhabism is just an extreme form of that violently intolerant ideology. Islam has never ever been peaceful as an ideology.

 

Once again, it's called concubinage and had existed well before Muhammad and well after him. Thomas Jefferson engaged in the exact same thing. Trying to draw moral equivalences from something that was considered normal 1900+ years with modern times only shows your willingness to engage in fallacious reasoning.

Yes, and do you notice how no one back then cared? Because it was considered a norm, especially when coupled with the fact that life expectancy during that time was half of what it is today. You know that, just barely over 100 years ago, the same thing was occurring in the state of Delaware with even younger girls? Morals change, and your inability to understand something that basic baffles me. Trying to draw moral equivalences from something that was considered normal when it occurred with modern times only shows your willingness to engage in fallacious reasoning.

Considering he was also a political leader, is this some how a bad thing? Every 4 years in the US, we vote on selecting a person who will do this thing routinely throughout their term in office.

I think it's safe to assume that a significant majority of people who has taken an active part in battles/hostilities/war has created widows.

It's called concubinage, and was considered normal back then. Slavery was pretty rampant back then and the losers were usually made slaves. Manumission was also encouraged back then and occurred quite often.

Again, you are drawing moral equivalences from something that was considered normal 1,600 years ago with modern times. That is a fallacious line of reasoning and only displays how inept you are to construct a valid argument.

You're better off going on one of those Islamophobic websites ATW frequents