Afraid of backlash against Muslims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted the question prior for secular Muslims to answer but another legitimate question.

It is my understanding that the Koran gets more violent toward the end, as Mohammed was peaceful at first. Wikipedia does a decent job of explaining the sword verses and the peace verses. Peace seeking Muslims follow the earlier parts and those who seek violence follow the later.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_violence

How many Muslims of any kind--"secular" or otherwise--have posted in this thread actually clearly and unequivocally denouncing both the radical Islamic terroristic acts and the Muslim doctrine that underpins those acts (regardless of what level of detail they claim to "know" that doctrine)?

I count zero.

Here you go. I'm a Muslim-American and I denounce any killing whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted the question prior for secular Muslims to answer but another legitimate question.

It is my understanding that the Koran gets more violent toward the end, as Mohammed was peaceful at first. Wikipedia does a decent job of explaining the sword verses and the peace verses. Peace seeking Muslims follow the earlier parts and those who seek violence follow the later.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_violence

How many Muslims of any kind--"secular" or otherwise--have posted in this thread actually clearly and unequivocally denouncing both the radical Islamic terroristic acts and the Muslim doctrine that underpins those acts (regardless of what level of detail they claim to "know" that doctrine)?

I count zero.

Here you go. I'm a Muslim-American and I denounce any killing whatsoever.

Not enough for unhinged. You failed to denounce the attacks in Paris specifically, nor did you denounce the Muslim doctrine underpinning them, which I doubt unhinged can name.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Radical Islamic Violence" is not very realistic threat to the average American, unless they spend a lot of time abroad in those areas. If you think it is an imminent threat that affects "most Americans" here on U.S soil, a doctor can prescribe medication for your paranoid/schizo personality disorder. I'm fairly certain that any given American has a higher chance of hitting the jackpot for mega-millions than being involved in a terrorist attack. I didn't crunch the numbers but the odds are pretty astronomically low.

And that's the "never going to happen here" bloated American mentality they are banking on.

We are America, we are exempt from all the tragic events that happen in other parts of the world because we are Americans.

It's not surprising though. America is a very young country. Thus the teenage "superman" complex is still very much pervasive as a young country.

That plus the appalling lack of World History and geography taught to students, especially to those that are now running this country when they were in school.

Please describe the scope of the threat that you believe we face? Do you think we face the loss of 40 million or so as Russia did under Stalin? Lower, maybe 12 million like the Nazis killed? A few hundred thousand? Given that -- unlike you believe us to be -- you are educated in World History and geography, what is the threat you believe we face?

The threat we are discussing and that I believe we most certainly are susceptible to is radical violence based on certain groups' practice of Islam. The scope? I'm not fortune teller but I base my judgements on history and current events.

Muslims under the mentality of Islamic "duty" have killed millions throughout history since it's religious conception. Other religions have too, so now what's the difference? There have been terrorist attacks in other countries for years, even before 9/11. We paid no attention because it did not effect us. The terrorists were targeting 'others'.

Now they have landed on us as a target. Historically, targeted countries have incurred terrorist attacks.

Since the discussion is about radical Islamic terror, I'm not comparing the scope to Stalin or Hitler. I'm comparing it to other accounts of radical Islamic terror.

You are the one comparing apples to oranges.

Now you either truly in your heart believe that we will never incur another terrorist attack by believers of Islam or you think that even if there is a terrorist attack it will only effect maybe a few hundred or thousand people in this land of 3 million so essentially, not a big deal. I mean especially if you're comparing it to Hitler or Stalin. So therefore we should not be so worried about it, it's just a mere terrorist attack and odds are you won't be injured or killed in it.

Not everyone agrees with that line of thinking but you seem to think everyone that does not is prejudiced.

Here is a list of State Dep't recognized foreign terrorist organizations. Look closely at which religious group comprises the majority of that list.

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

Obviously we are not targets for all of those groups, but other countries have been and have also been effected by the actions of some of these groups. It would be irresponsible to not take this type of threat seriously. Yet we are all the crazy, paranoid, prejudiced ones.

You seem to think that having this opinion makes one anti-Muslim, which I am most definitely not. Having criticisms does not make one "anti" or prejudice. Yet you point that finger and make that charge if there is a differing viewpoint.

It's simply rational thinking with the application of relevant history that is correlated with Islamic terrorism and current events.

[Anonymous]

It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.

Not quite. You left out other enemies of Islam such as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and pretty much everyone else who is not Muslim and hence is considered "infidel."

In the U.S. we are focused on the middle east and Israel, probably because U.S. has an influential jewish population, but Muslims haven't limited their slaughter to Jews and Christians by any means. They've slaughtered plenty of Hindus, Sikhs, etc.

Basically whatever flavor of Islam is invoked, it's not a sin to kill an infidel, if it's done in the name of Allah or for the betterment of the Islamic community, or the spread of the caliphate.

Does that mean most Muslims are going to do the actual killing? No of course not. Most people in general don't have the stomach to commit that kind of violence.

However, are they going to shed a tear for the infidels who might be killed by their radical violent Islamic brothers? That's a nope too.

Pretty much every Muslim I've ever spoken with basically doesn't really have any issue with what happened on 9/11 or let's say the notion of wiping Israel and the Jewish population in other parts of the world off the face of the Earth. I mean they at first give lip service but if pressed at all it's very clear that they just don't give a shit about the deaths of infidels. I'm sure they feel the same way about Sikhs, Hindus, and others as they do Jews and Christians.

Infidels are just "in the way."

Convert or die.

I hope that explains Islam adequately, because that's what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted the question prior for secular Muslims to answer but another legitimate question.

It is my understanding that the Koran gets more violent toward the end, as Mohammed was peaceful at first. Wikipedia does a decent job of explaining the sword verses and the peace verses. Peace seeking Muslims follow the earlier parts and those who seek violence follow the later.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_violence

How many Muslims of any kind--"secular" or otherwise--have posted in this thread actually clearly and unequivocally denouncing both the radical Islamic terroristic acts and the Muslim doctrine that underpins those acts (regardless of what level of detail they claim to "know" that doctrine)?

I count zero.

Here you go. I'm a Muslim-American and I denounce any killing whatsoever.

Do you specifically & unequivocally denounce 1) the recent killings by Islamic terrorists in France and Bali, not just because it was "any killing whatsoever," but BECAUSE it was done in the name of Allah? Yes or no please; and 2) do you specifically and unequivocally denounce any flavor or interpretation of Islam that may have been relied upon by the aforementioned terrorists to justify their actions? Yes or no please; no equivocations.

[Anonymous]

Further to the Muslim-American PP:

Do you specifically and unequivocally renounce the recent terror killings of Jews/Israelis by Palestinians (I think a few were stabbed to death or something)?

Yes or no--unequivocally.

(If you renounce "all killing" as you just claimed then "all" should include what this Palestinian did. So it should be very easy for you to answer.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.

Not quite. You left out other enemies of Islam such as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and pretty much everyone else who is not Muslim and hence is considered "infidel."

In the U.S. we are focused on the middle east and Israel, probably because U.S. has an influential jewish population, but Muslims haven't limited their slaughter to Jews and Christians by any means. They've slaughtered plenty of Hindus, Sikhs, etc.

Basically whatever flavor of Islam is invoked, it's not a sin to kill an infidel, if it's done in the name of Allah or for the betterment of the Islamic community, or the spread of the caliphate.

Does that mean most Muslims are going to do the actual killing? No of course not. Most people in general don't have the stomach to commit that kind of violence.

However, are they going to shed a tear for the infidels who might be killed by their radical violent Islamic brothers? That's a nope too.

Pretty much every Muslim I've ever spoken with basically doesn't really have any issue with what happened on 9/11 or let's say the notion of wiping Israel and the Jewish population in other parts of the world off the face of the Earth. I mean they at first give lip service but if pressed at all it's very clear that they just don't give a shit about the deaths of infidels. I'm sure they feel the same way about Sikhs, Hindus, and others as they do Jews and Christians.

Infidels are just "in the way."

Convert or die.

I hope that explains Islam adequately, because that's what it is.

Wow. You really hate Muslims, huh?

I'm a Muslim and I think 9/11 was nothing but pure evil. I'm a Muslim and I'm married to a Jewish man and don't want to see Israel or Jews "wiped off" the face off this world. We're raising our daughter in both faiths. I'm sorry if that offends you.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Radical Islamic Violence" is not very realistic threat to the average American, unless they spend a lot of time abroad in those areas. If you think it is an imminent threat that affects "most Americans" here on U.S soil, a doctor can prescribe medication for your paranoid/schizo personality disorder. I'm fairly certain that any given American has a higher chance of hitting the jackpot for mega-millions than being involved in a terrorist attack. I didn't crunch the numbers but the odds are pretty astronomically low.

And that's the "never going to happen here" bloated American mentality they are banking on.

We are America, we are exempt from all the tragic events that happen in other parts of the world because we are Americans.

It's not surprising though. America is a very young country. Thus the teenage "superman" complex is still very much pervasive as a young country.

That plus the appalling lack of World History and geography taught to students, especially to those that are now running this country when they were in school.

Please describe the scope of the threat that you believe we face? Do you think we face the loss of 40 million or so as Russia did under Stalin? Lower, maybe 12 million like the Nazis killed? A few hundred thousand? Given that -- unlike you believe us to be -- you are educated in World History and geography, what is the threat you believe we face?

The threat we are discussing and that I believe we most certainly are susceptible to is radical violence based on certain groups' practice of Islam. The scope? I'm not fortune teller but I base my judgements on history and current events.

Muslims under the mentality of Islamic "duty" have killed millions throughout history since it's religious conception. Other religions have too, so now what's the difference? There have been terrorist attacks in other countries for years, even before 9/11. We paid no attention because it did not effect us. The terrorists were targeting 'others'.

Now they have landed on us as a target. Historically, targeted countries have incurred terrorist attacks.

Since the discussion is about radical Islamic terror, I'm not comparing the scope to Stalin or Hitler. I'm comparing it to other accounts of radical Islamic terror.

You are the one comparing apples to oranges.

Now you either truly in your heart believe that we will never incur another terrorist attack by believers of Islam or you think that even if there is a terrorist attack it will only effect maybe a few hundred or thousand people in this land of 3 million so essentially, not a big deal. I mean especially if you're comparing it to Hitler or Stalin. So therefore we should not be so worried about it, it's just a mere terrorist attack and odds are you won't be injured or killed in it.

Not everyone agrees with that line of thinking but you seem to think everyone that does not is prejudiced.

Here is a list of State Dep't recognized foreign terrorist organizations. Look closely at which religious group comprises the majority of that list.

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

Obviously we are not targets for all of those groups, but other countries have been and have also been effected by the actions of some of these groups. It would be irresponsible to not take this type of threat seriously. Yet we are all the crazy, paranoid, prejudiced ones.

You seem to think that having this opinion makes one anti-Muslim, which I am most definitely not. Having criticisms does not make one "anti" or prejudice. Yet you point that finger and make that charge if there is a differing viewpoint.

It's simply rational thinking with the application of relevant history that is correlated with Islamic terrorism and current events.

You are putting words in my mouth. All I did was ask you to describe the scope of the threat. As near as I can tell, you can't do that. You think there is a threat, but you can't say whether that threat is big or little. All you can say is that I accused you of being prejudiced which I don't think I did unless you are the unhinged poster.

You are correct in that I think we could be subject to a terrorist attack by radical Muslims, but I believe that attack will be on a scale that is not substantial in real terms. 9-11 was anomaly, and horrendously bad, but it still had a relatively low casualty count. Consider in the Syrian Civil War, over 200,000 have been killed. Other than 9-11, America has faced a much more deadly thread from right-wing terrorism. So, proper risk analysis would require more attention to right-wing violence than Islamic violence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted the question prior for secular Muslims to answer but another legitimate question.

It is my understanding that the Koran gets more violent toward the end, as Mohammed was peaceful at first. Wikipedia does a decent job of explaining the sword verses and the peace verses. Peace seeking Muslims follow the earlier parts and those who seek violence follow the later.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran_and_violence

How many Muslims of any kind--"secular" or otherwise--have posted in this thread actually clearly and unequivocally denouncing both the radical Islamic terroristic acts and the Muslim doctrine that underpins those acts (regardless of what level of detail they claim to "know" that doctrine)?

I count zero.

Here you go. I'm a Muslim-American and I denounce any killing whatsoever.

Do you specifically & unequivocally denounce 1) the recent killings by Islamic terrorists in France and Bali, not just because it was "any killing whatsoever," but BECAUSE it was done in the name of Allah? Yes or no please; and 2) do you specifically and unequivocally denounce any flavor or interpretation of Islam that may have been relied upon by the aforementioned terrorists to justify their actions? Yes or no please; no equivocations.

I denounce all killing - especially that done in the name of Allah. I denounce any justification by any terrorist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Further to the Muslim-American PP:

Do you specifically and unequivocally renounce the recent terror killings of Jews/Israelis by Palestinians (I think a few were stabbed to death or something)?

Yes or no--unequivocally.

(If you renounce "all killing" as you just claimed then "all" should include what this Palestinian did. So it should be very easy for you to answer.)

Yes, I do not believe these murders were justified, just as I do not think Israeli killings of Palestinians are justified. Both are despicable.

[jsteele]

Question for Unhinged:

You seem to think that Muslims are nothing but natural born killers of everyone who is non-Muslim -- not that you are prejudiced or anything. Could you please give me your analysis of the situation with the Rohingya in Myanmar? I would love to see how that fits in with your world view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol this poster is unhinged..."Guilty until proven innocent" is not a principle we follow in America. Maybe the PP should relocate to Russia where his/her type of thinking would be more welcome.

I agree, so no one is "guilty" of "backlash" or "discrimination" against Muslims until proven innocent. Maybe OP should relocate to Iran.

Unless you agree that all Christians (not only catholics) must denounce the pedophilia of the Catholic church (just one example, we can come up with many for any given group of people), than you really have no argument here. By your logic, most christians support pedophilia.

This is a bad example. The collective outrage over pedophilia in the Catholic church was widespread. Many Catholics spoke out against it, left the church, etc. If you ask any Christian about it they would express disgust and sadness over the matter. The previous pope made an almost unprecedented move of "retiring" because he knew he was handling the fallout poorly. Pope Francis' has made a radical change in rhetoric and this made a real difference with people who were dissatisfied with the Catholic church on a lot of levels.

ISIS didn't pop into the world all of a sudden. The hateful, crazy rhetoric has been part of the Islamic world for a long time. The violence against minorities and even other Muslims has been around a long time, and has been widespread. THAT is the equivalent of the Catholic church's pedophilia problem, and that elicited no outrage in the Muslim world. You could have walked through Cairo on a Friday afternoon for the past couple of decades and heard ISIS-worthy sermons about the "kaffir" blaring from loudspeakers for the entire world to hear. Criticizing anything "Islamic" in the Muslim world is very much taboo. Or maybe most Muslims didn't really care, and things kept escalating until we reached this point.

[Anonymous]

Jeff, is Unhinged the author of most of these posts? If not, I'm sad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.

Not quite. You left out other enemies of Islam such as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and pretty much everyone else who is not Muslim and hence is considered "infidel."

In the U.S. we are focused on the middle east and Israel, probably because U.S. has an influential jewish population, but Muslims haven't limited their slaughter to Jews and Christians by any means. They've slaughtered plenty of Hindus, Sikhs, etc.

Basically whatever flavor of Islam is invoked, it's not a sin to kill an infidel, if it's done in the name of Allah or for the betterment of the Islamic community, or the spread of the caliphate.

Does that mean most Muslims are going to do the actual killing? No of course not. Most people in general don't have the stomach to commit that kind of violence.

However, are they going to shed a tear for the infidels who might be killed by their radical violent Islamic brothers? That's a nope too.

Pretty much every Muslim I've ever spoken with basically doesn't really have any issue with what happened on 9/11 or let's say the notion of wiping Israel and the Jewish population in other parts of the world off the face of the Earth. I mean they at first give lip service but if pressed at all it's very clear that they just don't give a shit about the deaths of infidels. I'm sure they feel the same way about Sikhs, Hindus, and others as they do Jews and Christians.

Infidels are just "in the way."

Convert or die.

I hope that explains Islam adequately, because that's what it is.

As a muslim that had a very religious upbringing I don't know anyone, including myself that shares any of those beliefs. Most muslims in the U.S do not condone 9/11 in anyway shape or form. I would take the experience of a bigot like yourself with a hefty grain of salt. We also do not support violence or the killing of innocent people regardless of their religion. It's almost as if every single opinion you have formed is from a FOX news headline and not real life.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, is Unhinged the author of most of these posts? If not, I'm sad

Yes, almost all of those to which I have replied. There have just been a couple of exceptions.