Afraid of backlash against Muslims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question for Muslims who are secular. Let's say ISIS continues to grow over the next 50-100 years and Democratic countries fall under their control. Are you willing to live under a Sunni regime? Would you adapt or would you fight to keep your modern lifestyle?

I asked my husband last night if we should memorize a line or two from the Koran in case we were ever hostages like those in Mali. He rattled off something in Arabic (which impressed me because I didn't know he knew any Arabic.)

He laughed and said he said something on the lines of, "F**k you pig face. Your mother is a whore." Not going to win us any points with an armed gunman.

Or the vast majority of folks on this here board. Not saying they would wrong. Shrill and pompous maybe. But not wrong.

[Anonymous]

More precisely, OP said "I do not know the Muslim teachings they are using" and this "is not what I was taught when I was a kid."

She very clearly did NOT denounce, at all, "the Muslim teachings" ISIS and similar terrorist groups use to justify their violence against non-Muslims.

Where does OP ever say "those teachings are wrong, evil, and I hereby denounce them"? Or: "those teachings are corruptions of true Islam, falsehoods?"

She didn't do that.

Do you really, truly, in your heart of hearts believes OPs nonsensical claim that she has no knowledge, whatsoever, that ISIS is using some version of an Islamic doctrine to justify their violence?

I don't. That doesn't mean she knows those teachings specificially, but surely, she must be aware of their existence, just as anyone else would be, even non-Muslims.

I wonder what OP would say if she was asked what she WAS taught as a kid, 35 odd years ago? Did that include peaceful co-existence with Israel? Or, that Israel should be wiped off the map? What mosque in Boston 35 years ago taught peaceful co-existence with Israel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You dont have to be afraid of it, because sadly it's already happening. I am disgusted, disgusted with our country.

I'm disgusted by radicals hijacking a peace loving religion. Our country has had enough. We can't police the world. Let Arab countries step up to the plate.

Hell let OP's mosque in Boston step up to the plate. I wonder if they have posted any public statements about the recent violence by radical Muslims?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You dont have to be afraid of it, because sadly it's already happening. I am disgusted, disgusted with our country.

I'm disgusted by radicals hijacking a peace loving religion. Our country has had enough. We can't police the world. Let Arab countries step up to the plate.

Hell let OP's mosque in Boston step up to the plate. I wonder if they have posted any public statements about the recent violence by radical Muslims?

Has the Presbyterian church? The Methodists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question for Muslims who are secular. Let's say ISIS continues to grow over the next 50-100 years and Democratic countries fall under their control. Are you willing to live under a Sunni regime? Would you adapt or would you fight to keep your modern lifestyle?

I asked my husband last night if we should memorize a line or two from the Koran in case we were ever hostages like those in Mali. He rattled off something in Arabic (which impressed me because I didn't know he knew any Arabic.)

He laughed and said he said something on the lines of, "F**k you pig face. Your mother is a whore." Not going to win us any points with an armed gunman.

The irony is if they do take over to that extent, they will discriminate WAY more against lesbians such as OP then whatever the current level of discrimination she and jsteele claim to be concerned about.

How could a lesbian Muslim, of all people, claim to be UNAWARE of current radical Islamic doctrine, which includes extreme homophobia including execution of gay people???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You dont have to be afraid of it, because sadly it's already happening. I am disgusted, disgusted with our country.

I'm disgusted by radicals hijacking a peace loving religion. Our country has had enough. We can't police the world. Let Arab countries step up to the plate.

Hell let OP's mosque in Boston step up to the plate. I wonder if they have posted any public statements about the recent violence by radical Muslims?

Has the Presbyterian church? The Methodists?

Those folks didn't post a thread complaining about being discriminated against as backlash due to ISIS violence so I'm not sure how your questions is relevant.

[Anonymous]

OP was this your childhood mosque? If not could you let us know which mosque you went to if it's still in existence and we can do a google search to determine what you are actually trying to accomplish with your thread. Thanks.

http://nypost.com/2014/09/07/jihadi-behind-beheading-videos-linked-to-notorious-us-mosque/

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:jsteele, you are an apologist for radical Islamic violence.

OP clearly did not unequivocally denounce the ISIS violence. She said she denounced "all violence" which completely undercuts her half-baked denunciation of the ISIS violence.

She then claimed she wasn't even aware of what ISIS-brand Islam stands for. Because she went to the mosque in Boston 35 years ago and gee it was peaceful back then.

That HAS to be a lie, doesn't it? Do you seriously believe OP, an Islamic person herself, isn't well aware of current radical Islam and that it is NOT what she evidently experienced 35 years ago in a Boston mosque?

And I never said, ever, that OP should have "backlash" (a completely undefined, vague term) or be "discriminated" against.

However--if she posts in an open forum, she is NOT immune from "criticism" of her viewpoints. Nor are you.

She, and you, are obviously apologists for radical Islamic terror that has been occurring recently. She, and you, obviously want to shut down criticism of that tacit apologism by hurling "racism" accusations at anyone who points out that you, and she, are apologists for the violence.

Which itself is a very common tactic of the apologists of the violence.

When you stoop to calling me an apologist for radical Islamic violence, you have clearly exposed yourself for what you are. You continually misrepresent what the OP wrote.

Here is your claim: "She then claimed she wasn't even aware of what ISIS-brand Islam stands for."

Here is what she actually wrote: "And no I do not know the Muslim teachings they are using."

Those are two different things. Admittedly, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that you lack the intellectual sophistication or even the basic knowledge to discuss what she actually wrote. But, in the hope that is not true, let's give it a shot. The vast majority of Muslims are not exposed to interpretations of Islam that justify violence. Just as in Christianity where certain Biblical passages such as those opposing homosexuality get attention while others such those discussing enslaving daughters don't, the same is true in Islam. Jihadist groups, on the other hand, teach a much different version of Islam using interpretations that are alien to the vast majority of Muslims. It is not only possible, but entirely expected that someone who learned about Islam decades ago in Boston wouldn't be familiar with the Jihadist teachings. Similarly, nobody would expect someone who learned Christianity in a Lutheran Church to necessarily be familiar with the teachings of Seventh Day Adventists.

I am surprised that you need to have "backlash" defined for you. I would think that is a fairly basic term for native speakers of English. Moreover, I provided you a list of examples. Are you seriously struggling with that concept?

You are free to express your views and have, in fact, been doing so. However, just as you say that the OP is not free from immune from criticism, neither are you. If you come here and express bigoted points of view, you can expect to get called on it. You asked the OP to denounce violence and she did. You are now acting like she is supposed to express some sort of loyalty oath that has to be word for word approved by you. You are wrong. She does not have to live by your double standard.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honest question for Muslims who are secular. Let's say ISIS continues to grow over the next 50-100 years and Democratic countries fall under their control. Are you willing to live under a Sunni regime? Would you adapt or would you fight to keep your modern lifestyle?

I asked my husband last night if we should memorize a line or two from the Koran in case we were ever hostages like those in Mali. He rattled off something in Arabic (which impressed me because I didn't know he knew any Arabic.)

He laughed and said he said something on the lines of, "F**k you pig face. Your mother is a whore." Not going to win us any points with an armed gunman.

The irony is if they do take over to that extent, they will discriminate WAY more against lesbians such as OP then whatever the current level of discrimination she and jsteele claim to be concerned about.

How could a lesbian Muslim, of all people, claim to be UNAWARE of current radical Islamic doctrine, which includes extreme homophobia including execution of gay people???

How is it that someone who is able to write reasonably good English is so incompetent at reading and comprehending? Your ability to debate what people did not say is impressive.

[Anonymous]

You asked the OP to denounce violence and she did.


No. I asked her to unequivocally denounce radical Islamic terror violence, and she did not do that.

I also asked her to unequivocally denounce the radical violent Islamic religious doctrine underlying that violence, and she did not do that either.

Nor did you.

[Anonymous]

You are now acting like she is supposed to express some sort of loyalty oath that has to be word for word approved by you.

***************


Not at all. She is free to do or say whatever she pleases. However, if she is going to don the mantle of "innocent Muslim victim of anti-Islamic violence," in effect to change the subject from the real concern, which is what to do about radical Islamic violence which is global, then it's appropriate to scrutinize her motives for doing so.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote: You asked the OP to denounce violence and she did.


No. I asked her to unequivocally denounce radical Islamic terror violence, and she did not do that.

I also asked her to unequivocally denounce the radical violent Islamic religious doctrine underlying that violence, and she did not do that either.

Nor did you.

Fine. I denounce radical Islamic terror. I denounce the radical violent Islamic religious doctrine underlying that violence.

Will you denounce the expectation that Muslims support violence unless they state otherwise?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:You are now acting like she is supposed to express some sort of loyalty oath that has to be word for word approved by you.

***************


Not at all. She is free to do or say whatever she pleases. However, if she is going to don the mantle of "innocent Muslim victim of anti-Islamic violence," in effect to change the subject from the real concern, which is what to do about radical Islamic violence which is global, then it's appropriate to scrutinize her motives for doing so.

Who put you in charge of deciding what is the "real concern". The OP, like every other American, has very little to fear from radical Muslim violence. However, she has a much more real fear of being the target of an anti-Muslim backlash. It is quite reasonable to understand that she is more concerned with the threat that she is more likely to face.

You have no right to tell the OP what should be her "real concern".

Your constantly repeated assertion that Muslims must denounce violence or otherwise be considered supporters of it is a bigoted position. Such expectations are not held for any other group. If you will provide your gender, race, and religion, I will happily supply a list of things that I expect you to denounce in order for you to be consistent with your expectations of Muslims.

[Anonymous]

The vast majority of Muslims are not exposed to interpretations of Islam that justify violence.

And you know this, how? I feel reasonably comfortable that a substantial minority of Muslims ARE exposed to such interpretations. In any event, that's a diversion on your part since whether or not OP was exposed to it, she didn't denounce it. (How could she denounce it if she wasn't exposed to it and was unfamiliar with those teachings?) Clearly however OP must know at least as much about these teachings as you or I--which is enough to know they advocate violence against non-Muslims as part of their doctrine. So she's being disingenuous, and you're now acting as her apologist for her failure to denounce it, irrespective of her specific level of knowledge. Just watch the news. It's right their on CNN. Radical Islamic terrorists blowing themselves and other people up.

I denounce that. You didn't. She didn't. You denounced me.

Just as in Christianity where certain Biblical passages such as those opposing homosexuality get attention while others such those discussing enslaving daughters don't, the same is true in Islam.

Excuse me, did you just attempt to again be an apologist for what happened recently in Paris and Mali by equating Christian homophobia with Islamic homophobia? Nice try.

Jihadist groups, on the other hand, teach a much different version of Islam using interpretations that are alien to the vast majority of Muslims.

In that case the majority of Muslims should have no problem unequivocally denouncing those "interpretations." But OP didn't.

It is not only possible, but entirely expected that someone who learned about Islam decades ago in Boston wouldn't be familiar with the Jihadist teachings.

She's familiar enough with what's going on in the world to be concerned about anti-Islamic "backlash" affecting her. Are you now claiming that OP is unaware of what the source of that "backlash" is? She doesn't have a television set? She didn't watch the news about Paris and Mali?

Well if she's completely ignorant of those versions of Islam then that explains why she didn't denounce it. I just don't believe that's she could possibly be that ignorant. She's feigning ignorance so she doesn't have to denounce it. She evaded the issue entirely.

Similarly, nobody would expect someone who learned Christianity in a Lutheran Church to necessarily be familiar with the teachings of Seventh Day Adventists.

If Seventh Day Adventists were blowing up theatres and machine gunning hundreds of people and it was on all the news stations and inundating the media then perhaps we would all have at least some passing familiarity with what was going on at least enough to understand that the Adventists (for instance) believed it was God's will that they murder people who were not of their faith.

Of course if I was someone who was a Seventh Day Adventist myself, but wanted to distract from the issue of what my co-religionists were doing, I might cry out in fear of unfair "backlash" and claim that I had no idea about why my co-religionists were doing that since I wasn't raised under the same set of doctrines. But I would probably make it very clear that I renounced whatever version of my religion those Seventh Day Adventist killers were using to justify their murders, you know, so there wouldn't be any room for doubt. I wouldn't say "Gee when I was a kid that's not I was taught." I would say "This is absolutely evil and wrong." But that's just me. And of course it would all depend upon whether or not my religion ACTUALLY contained doctrine permitting killing of people not of my faith.

I am surprised that you need to have "backlash" defined for you. I would think that is a fairly basic term for native speakers of English. Moreover, I provided you a list of examples. Are you seriously struggling with that concept?

Not at all. I am having a bit of troubling coping with your deliberately evasive word salads and false accusations though. If "backlash" means defacing mosques, attacking Muslims, etc., such as the examples you gave, then you were wrong to accuse me of "backlash," since all I did was offer an opinion that you don't like because it's true.

I didn't do violence to anyone, or anything, except your false notions, and that's gotta hurt. But it's not "backlash."

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are now acting like she is supposed to express some sort of loyalty oath that has to be word for word approved by you.

***************


Not at all. She is free to do or say whatever she pleases. However, if she is going to don the mantle of "innocent Muslim victim of anti-Islamic violence," in effect to change the subject from the real concern, which is what to do about radical Islamic violence which is global, then it's appropriate to scrutinize her motives for doing so.

Who put you in charge of deciding what is the "real concern". The OP, like every other American, has very little to fear from radical Muslim violence. However, she has a much more real fear of being the target of an anti-Muslim backlash. It is quite reasonable to understand that she is more concerned with the threat that she is more likely to face.

You have no right to tell the OP what should be her "real concern".

Your constantly repeated assertion that Muslims must denounce violence or otherwise be considered supporters of it is a bigoted position. Such expectations are not held for any other group. If you will provide your gender, race, and religion, I will happily supply a list of things that I expect you to denounce in order for you to be consistent with your expectations of Muslims.

There you go, distorting things again. I did not tell her what "her" real concern should be. I stated what THE "real" concern IS--the actuality and reality of global radical Islamic violence.

I am glad you believe that every American has little to fear from radical Muslim violence, but that's just your opinion, isn't it?

I think most Americans have far LESS to fear from "anti Islamic backlash."

It's a pure straw man, and the only reason OP even posted it is as a diversion from what "really" concerns most Americans.