How about this. A larger percentage of Muslims have the desire to force their religion and beliefs than do do any other religions. Almost every terrorist act in the world involves the "Religion of Peace"TM. In nearly every country that is in turmoil involves Muslims.
I'm going to half-way agree on point 1. I believe most Muslims don't really care what others believe, but we don't like to be told what we believe either, especially when we know it's not true. However, a good majority do desire to see others become Muslim (I'm not one of them), but that is perfectly normal for any religion. Did Jesus (as) not give the parable of the woman who lost her earring, jewelry, (depends on translation)? Same thing.
On point 2 minus your "Religion...." veiled insult, I agree. The majority of terrorist claim to be Muslims.
On point 3 I'm going half way on that one, because there's a lot of crap going on in South America, Africa, South East Asia, etc. that has nothing to do with Muslims. However, in a total worldwide survey, "Muslim" countries rank high in the group.
That is not what I said, and you know it. Once again, you are being dishonest.
You are supposed to believe that Islam is violent because: 1) it's authoritative texts encourage violence; 2) its founder practiced violence against both Jews and Christians, and he held himself up as an example to be followed by his disciples; and, 3) the subsequent history, both ancient and modern, demonstrates violence against Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and even other Muslims.
1) That's a lie. There is nothing in the Qur'an or Sahih Hadith that ever in the context of "violence" encourage wanton fighting for no reason at all or terrorist activities. On the contrary, everytime the word "Jihad" is mentioned in the Qur'an it's followed by the word sabr which means patience. The Qur'an makes it pretty clear that the only time fighting is allowed is for self-defense against attack or oppression. It clearly states that regardless of the reason, if the one fighting you stops and extends the hand of peace you have to do so as well. On innocent lives, the Qur'an makes it clear that the taking of one life is like the taking of all humanity. This is the largest spread lie. Even Robert Spencer the hero to some of you, purposely skip over verses in his "exposes" that state that fighting is prescribed for you only in self defense, and to turn away from fighting if the enemy extends the hand of peace, because Allah loves not the starter of aggression.
2) It's "founders" fought against Pagans (not Christians) who burned Muslims at the stake, made assassination attempts, and beat Muslims in the street, raised armies and slaughtered thousands of Muslims. Now if your beef is with fighting back against people like that, well there's nothing to discuss. Now the only "fight" with the "Jews" occurred in Medina with "a" Jewish clan who swore a treaty with the Muslims and betrayed the treaty to help the Pagan Armies. And that was a one time incident. Now as far as the Qur'an commanding Muslims to fight Jews and Christians, that is not true, they are "The People of the Book" and counted as believers. In fact, the Qur'an is the only religious text of the 3 (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) that specifically states that non-Muslims and Jews and Christians in particular will go to heaven whether or not they become Muslims at all. The Qur'an goes a step further with Christians calling among them some of the most righteous and pious. As it relates to the actions of Muslim rulers after the passing of Muhammad (saw), that's a long rollercoaster ride through history among them you had some pious and fair rulers and some ruthless, the same can be said of any culture, empire, nation, etc. Theologically speaking though, the Qur'an clearly states in Surah Bakarah that there is to be no compulsion in religion and in Surah Kaffirun that to me be my beliefs and to you yours. Lastly, in the last sermon of Muhammad (saw) he clearly stated that Muslims are to be equitable in all things as well as dealing with non-Muslims, and that there is no superiority between the black or white, Arab or non-Arab. All Sahih Bukhari, Muslim, and others.
3) Well, I think that's a glass half full argument as each one of the aforementioned religious groups have also done the exact same things to each other and Muslims. Hell in India the Hindus are actively attacking both Muslims and Christians, and the Buddhists in Thailand are slaughtering Muslims, today. So if we want to be fair, let's not look at history in a way that makes one's history whitewashed and another's picked apart in a pot and kettle type fashion. The real question is not what people have done over time and under what banner, but whether or not theologically speaking their actions match that of their official doctrines and writings. In the case of all of the above, there is little evidence to say yes overall. In the case of Islam, I can cite specific letters from Caliphs that direct the generals to not commit many of the acts that many of you claim are in fact Islamic. I would say the acts are human as it's not uncommon in history for humans to do awful things to one another and use religion, ideology, politics, etc. as an excuse for the inexcusable.
I am sure Salman Rusdie feels much better, now that you have pointed out that Shias make up only 10 per cent of the Muslim population of the world. Did the man merely flee from the Ayotallah of Iran, or does he have a legitimate fear, wherever he chooses to live?
Mr. Rushdie's fear is real. No one is denying that. I never said there aren't lunatics who want to kill people just because they don't believe or agree with their interpretation and/or beliefs about Islam. What I disagree with is people using those lunatics as a model for what I believe and interpret as my religion. Two different things. The Rushdie incident was cited as an example of how Muslims believe and behave as well as citing the Ayahtollah of Shia Iran as an example of a leader of all Muslims in proclaiming religious edicts. That's not categorically true, because his following in not large enough in the overall Muslim population to make that statement, because of his location and sect, which the overwhelming majority of Muslims just aren't a part of. To add fuel to the fire, even then, various areas in the Muslim world adhere to various interpretations or Tafsir, so to be closer to the truth as to what Muslims believe about Islam, especially Sunni's you would first have to find out what Fiqh they follow i.e. Malaki, Hanifi, etc. etc. whether they are Sufi, Ishmaeli, Ahmaddiyyah, etc. etc. these answers can skew the argument a number of ways for instance a Sunni of the Malaki tradition may see things Islamically different than a Hanifi, then you have sects like the Wahabs of Saudi Arabia who many don't agree with outside of Saudi. In other words, the broad sweeping generalizations that many of you make about Muslims and how they interpret the Qur'an is akin to stating that all Christians believe in Baptism, without noting the fact that what they believe about Baptism can change from sect to sect, such as sprinkling vs full immersion for instance. May seem simple to some, but to others, volumes have been written on said topics.
I find it interesting that you attack me for not going to the primary sources for my information, then direct us to the North American Fiqh Council, then close the paragraph by saying "[t]he process is just illogical." If you cannot see the problem here, I am afraid we are done.
You have it wrong. What I was referring to as illogical is telling American Muslims what they believe based on the declaration of an Iranian cleric. We have our own fiqh council. If you want to know how American Muslims view Islam then that's most likely where we get out guidance. Outside of that, the next best thing is to go to the broader fiqh councils and Sunni institutions like Al-Azhar for instance. Case in point, when France made their religious iconography ruling, Muslims in France didn't turn to scholars in America, Egypt, etc. for guidance on how they should react, they went to the Fiqh council in France and Europe, who unanimously agreed that it's perfectly fine to obey the French law and remove headscarves. While some in other countries disagreed, it didn't matter because they don't influence French Muslims, the French Council does. When the woman in Florida wanted to wear a Niqab at the DMV for her photo and went to court, the Prosecutor went and sought out the religious scholars in Florida and do to their testimony the woman lost the case. Because the accurately pointed out that the Niqab (face covering) is not an Islamic requirement at all.
I have always admitted that most Muslims are not consistent with Mohammed's teaching, and so are able to live peaceful and productive lives. And I am glad that is so. But that does not change the reality of the religion. The fact that most American Catholics tolerate contraception does not mean Catholicism teaches the same thing.
Well I'm Sunni (one who follows the Sunnah) and I live my life in accordance with those teachings as well as every Sunni I know or have met. I just happen to believe through experience, practice, faith, and worship, that you are sadly mistaken and to be perfectly honest, unless any of my religious leaders, scholars, councils, etc. say otherwise, what non-Muslims and terrorists state won't change that one bit. You know what you believe and I know what I believe, I wouldn't expect you to accept what I tell you that you "actually" believe anymore than you should expect me to accept what you tell me about what I "actually" believe. You have religious leaders as do I, I defer to their guidance and Gods Grace and Mercy.
Here's what it boils down to:
- Salaam comes onto web sites like this one, searching for anything that has to do with "Muslims".
- Salaam finds what he thinks is a "fallacy" or an "ad hominem attack" or xenophobia or any number of perceived outrages against his religion, and then launches into mega-reams of information all designed to do one thing -
Sell Islam. Oh, and the hot air that emanates from Sir Salaam himself, of course.
Only problem is, I don't see anybody here with their checkbook out.
Do you, Salaam?
The only problem in your diatribe is that it's lacking meaningful logic.
In order for me to point out fallacies or one in particular ad hominem one has to first direct something at me. What's the odd's that there are even posts dedicated just to me.
The truth is much easier as it's been pointed out. I was invited as I was to every other board because I'm mostly Conservative in my political views (at least that's what I think) others have told me in the past that it's because I have a diverse opinion (I think), but either way, if one was to catalog all my postings ever on Islam/Muslims it has always been in response to something negative that someone else has said, or to condemn/give my opinion to something a Muslim has done in the news.
The crazy and insane part I will never understand about you is that you actually pretend to be shocked and disgusted that I would have the "nerve" to respond to attacks and commentary against my religion.
It's as if you guys expect me to just sit here and take it. Well guess what, you may not like it, but this is my religion that I practice everyday of my life for the last almost 9 years now. It's the religion of my wife, friends, children etc. when I come to a msgboard for entertainment or to shoot the breeze about politics and/or current events, and then read some of the things you guys write about my religion, naturally I'm going to respond.
If the shoe was on the other foot you would do the same exact thing. If you saw day in and day out negativity spewed by others about the things you believe in and the things you value, you would respond.
So excuse me if I'm not buying the fake outrage and condemnation spewed by some of you at the thought that I dare confront those who insult the things I value.
And that's not limited to religion. I have been on left-leaning boards where "blame America" and making jokes about the military where the theme of the day and have just as vigorously debated those topics as well. I have been on atheist leaning boards who have nothing but bad to say about Christians and have vigorously debated those topics as well.
Excuse the hell out of me for having a positive opinion as it relates to my beliefs.
And no need to give crap to Thor either, he openly disagrees with me just like some of you do, I have even posted his comments on my blog, even though I disagree with some of those remarks the difference is, you can disagree with respect without being disagreeable. And most who know of me, met me in person, chat on the phone, or listened to my show, will admit that I respect different opinions and admit when I'm wrong. I'm very fair, some of you just insult and name call, and anyone who doesn't agree with you, you have to label.
P.S.
As I was posting the above, Eupher made the "In all fairness" comment. So rather than go back and edit all these words, suffice to say Euph, no harm no foul, I think we are on the same page for the most part regarding the "history".
To clear up one main theme of yours and others, I do not feel it's my mission to educate non-Muslims. I really don't care what you believe in the end. I want to destroy those who harm, kill, and murder in the name of my religion. To that effect I see as my "mission" to use whatever abilities I have to thwart terrorist propaganda by presenting Islam as I know it and to take them to task on their divergent views. Like I told both Walid Shoebat and Brad Thor on a radio program long ago, our missions are similar and we should work together, however if working together means I have to accept you lumping my beliefs in with those of terrorists, I will debate that point.
And another thing, I type so much because I'm a talker and I'm bored. When I'm busy which often happens in spurts, you won't see me post for weeks, but sometimes like recently I don't have much on the schedule so this is what I do to pass time, don't we all.
I happen to be drawn to Conservative sites, because I think that for what it's worth you guys tend to have a better grip on the "situation" as it applies to the world. I may disagree on some notable points (like this one), but overall, it's better by volumes than what you would get from the liberal sites, which I can't stomach. As noted above and others can verify, I'm way more Conservative than liberal and would say that I'm more moderate than anything.
I enjoy fair debate, point and counterpoint, and in the end, it's all in good fun. Even though I wager some of you would hate my guts from postings on a msgboard, as I have proven time and time again, I would treat you guys like family if we ever met, that's just the way I was raised. Fight hard and play hard.
Oh and I'm not on a self-promotion binge Euph, like you said "no checks", on this site or others and I pay out of my pocket and with my time all the things I do, the real question is why?
It's really simple if asked. I can't sit idlely by. When I first converted I was initially content, just being me, reading, studying, praying, etc. But as I kept seeing terrorist acts and my leaders acting what I consider to be "soft" in their responses, I immediately got into lead, follow, or get out the way mode. Based on the way I was raised and always having an ability for speaking, teaching, etc. mainly of the ministerial tradition, I decided to use whatever talents and faculties I have to do something which is better than nothing. So if write something calling for Hama's head on a platter that's something to me. If I help organize local Muslims to help the homeless or speak out against domestic violence, that's something. And in between both my private and public work, raising a large family, my only "entertainment" if you will is msgboards, reading, and the Xbox 360. It's either that or go back to my life of sin many moons ago when I backslid so much I thought my grandparents were going to kill me.
Maybe it's just me.
