Afraid of backlash against Muslims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a suggestion for American Muslims who are tired of being associated with the violence of radical Islam. My suggestion is inspired by Jeff Steele's earlier comparison with moderate Republicans, who have found their party taken over by extremists and nutcases. Sometimes you have to leave the political party you grew up with, when its agenda is taken over by a small minority of extremists.

So my suggestion for American Muslims is to -- convert to Christianity! I realize it is difficult to give up the religion you grew up with, and where you likely still have many friends. But -- perhaps after a difficult initial transition period -- I think you can find the same comforts from Christianity that you currently find from Islam. I mention Christianity only because of the large number of denominations in the U.S. to choose from, and because it has some similarities to Islam (where Jesus is a prophet). But you could also choose other religions, or simply just disassociate yourself from Islam.

My main points are (1) it is no big deal to change your religion -- millions have done it, and (2) there is nothing that Islam can provide that Christianity can't.

lol, have you seen today's American Christians? Bitch slapping vulnerable groups of people ever chance they get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Thank you, Dr. Carson. Unfortunately, intolerant evangelicals have taken over many American deniminations.

Do you think Quakers are intolerant? Unitarians? My point is that there are so many Christian denominations that a Muslim looking to convert could likely find a compatible one.

Only compatible if you think that Christianity does not require a belief that Jesus is God.

BTW Unitarianism is not Christian.

It is a Christian theology movement and believes Jesus was the son of God, as are we all, so you are wrong, it is a form of Christianity. Perhaps more along the lines what Jesus actually taught than what the Roman Catholic Church is.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Armed protesters at a mosque in Irving, Texas. The Unhinged poster probably believes this is legitimate because those who attend the mosque haven't given televised denunciations that were dictated by him:

Don't know who "unhinged poster" is.

However, it certainly looks like a lawful protest under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Presumably open carry is lawful in Texas, too, right?

So yes under the laws of the U.S.A. it looks like a completely "legitimate" protest to me.

If you don't like the First Amendment and don't believe in the constitutional freedom of speech, you could always move to Syria.

[Anonymous]

Safe to say that this thread has taken an ugly turn.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Armed protesters at a mosque in Irving, Texas. The Unhinged poster probably believes this is legitimate because those who attend the mosque haven't given televised denunciations that were dictated by him:

Don't know who "unhinged poster" is.

However, it certainly looks like a lawful protest under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Presumably open carry is lawful in Texas, too, right?

So yes under the laws of the U.S.A. it looks like a completely "legitimate" protest to me.

If you don't like the First Amendment and don't believe in the constitutional freedom of speech, you could always move to Syria.

Yes, it is legal just like Westboro Baptist's protests are legal. But, just like Westboro, protests like this should be condemned by all decent people.

[Anonymous]

But you said the protest was not "legitimate."

It's perfectly "legitimate." You just disagree with the opinions of the protestors.

And Tom Brokaw.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:But you said the protest was not "legitimate."

It's perfectly "legitimate." You just disagree with the opinions of the protestors.

And Tom Brokaw.

In my opinion, there is no legitimate reason for armed protesters -- some of them masked -- demonstrate in front of a mosque. You would likely feel the same way about armed Muslims demonstrating in front of a church, a synagogue, or your house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

On your point that an Islamic terrorist attack on American soil would not be very substantial as far as casualty count compared to other countries, you could just as easily say that the amount of backlash that peaceful, tolerant Muslims might possibly feel in America is also not very substantial compared to the scale of backlash of the peaceful Muslims that are being terminated by ISIS.

The backlash they might feel here is minuscule to the backlash they receive in other countries.

I say this as a South Asian that gets swept into the backlash by people who fear my brown skin. I very much dislike it.

What I would like is not sympathy from Whites, which it is the format the OP seems to be taking, I want to see a movement for Islamic Reformation which cannot happen without a recognition of the fact that ISIS and all the other Islamic terror groups practice a very valid form of Islam. They didn't make it up, it's not a twisted interpretation. It's the way Islam was practiced ever since it's founder entered Medina.

If it's not a twisted interpretation, please back it up and post the verses in the Qur'an that legitimize the murder of woman and children...you won't find any. And sorry, but what ISIS is doing is not what Mohammed did when he entered Medina. Of course I can see why one might believe that, if they don't research the history for themselves and rely on sources such as FOX for all their "islamic knowledge". Was there violence in those days? Yes, because back then everyone fought in hand to hand combat in large scale armies. This was how warfare was carried out in the time, and it was not at all unique to muslims. Civilians/woman/children were not slaughtered even back then. I'm not sure the same can be said of the crusaders, they seem to be far more violent than mohammed ever was. But as a south asian you should already have some knowledge of world history?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you said the protest was not "legitimate."

It's perfectly "legitimate." You just disagree with the opinions of the protestors.

And Tom Brokaw.

In my opinion, there is no legitimate reason for armed protesters -- some of them masked -- demonstrate in front of a mosque. You would likely feel the same way about armed Muslims demonstrating in front of a church, a synagogue, or your house.

I can think of at least one very good reason for some of the protesters to be legally armed at such an event--for self-defense. So they don't get shot at by any radical Islamic individuals who might take offense at their protest.

You first make absolutist declarative sentences about what is "legitimate", then when your error is pointed out to you, you revert to "It's my opinion" with the expectation that everyone else has to agree with your opinion.

It was a legitimate, legal protest. You disagree with both the content of the protest as well as the fact that some of the protesters were legally armed. You don't explain at all why your opinion that being lawfully armed lacks any legitimate reason (although open carry laws don't require someone who is openly carrying to have a "reason" to be doing so).

It's a trait of a true fascist to lie about those whom the fascist disagrees with and attempt to delegitamize those differences of opinion. Since you brought up your concerns about the dangers of facism.

[Anonymous]

If it's not a twisted interpretation, please back it up and post the verses in the Qur'an that legitimize the murder of woman and children...you won't find any. And sorry, but what ISIS is doing is not what Mohammed did when he entered Medina. Of course I can see why one might believe that, if they don't research the history for themselves and rely on sources such as FOX for all their "islamic knowledge". Was there violence in those days? Yes, because back then everyone fought in hand to hand combat in large scale armies. This was how warfare was carried out in the time, and it was not at all unique to muslims. Civilians/woman/children were not slaughtered even back then. I'm not sure the same can be said of the crusaders, they seem to be far more violent than mohammed ever was. But as a south asian you should already have some knowledge of world history?

Let's say we agree that the version of "Islam" promulgated by ISIS is twisted, corrupt and inauthentic.

How come the broader Islamic world of one billion adherents to "true" Islam seems to be doing nothing at all to ameliorate this gross corruption and hijacking of their true faith?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you said the protest was not "legitimate."

It's perfectly "legitimate." You just disagree with the opinions of the protestors.

And Tom Brokaw.

In my opinion, there is no legitimate reason for armed protesters -- some of them masked -- demonstrate in front of a mosque. You would likely feel the same way about armed Muslims demonstrating in front of a church, a synagogue, or your house.

I can think of at least one very good reason for some of the protesters to be legally armed at such an event--for self-defense. So they don't get shot at by any radical Islamic individuals who might take offense at their protest.

You first make absolutist declarative sentences about what is "legitimate", then when your error is pointed out to you, you revert to "It's my opinion" with the expectation that everyone else has to agree with your opinion.

It was a legitimate, legal protest. You disagree with both the content of the protest as well as the fact that some of the protesters were legally armed. You don't explain at all why your opinion that being lawfully armed lacks any legitimate reason (although open carry laws don't require someone who is openly carrying to have a "reason" to be doing so).

It's a trait of a true fascist to lie about those whom the fascist disagrees with and attempt to delegitamize those differences of opinion. Since you brought up your concerns about the dangers of facism.

What are you talking about? Why are so many of you right winger whiney little crybabies who can comprehend basic English? Show me where I made an "absolutist declarative sentences about what is 'legitimate'"? I didn't and you are misrepresenting what I wrote.

If you want to argue with figments of your imagination, go do it somewhere else. If you want to have a discussion with me, respond to me, not your imagination.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

If it's not a twisted interpretation, please back it up and post the verses in the Qur'an that legitimize the murder of woman and children...you won't find any. And sorry, but what ISIS is doing is not what Mohammed did when he entered Medina. Of course I can see why one might believe that, if they don't research the history for themselves and rely on sources such as FOX for all their "islamic knowledge". Was there violence in those days? Yes, because back then everyone fought in hand to hand combat in large scale armies. This was how warfare was carried out in the time, and it was not at all unique to muslims. Civilians/woman/children were not slaughtered even back then. I'm not sure the same can be said of the crusaders, they seem to be far more violent than mohammed ever was. But as a south asian you should already have some knowledge of world history?

Let's say we agree that the version of "Islam" promulgated by ISIS is twisted, corrupt and inauthentic.

How come the broader Islamic world of one billion adherents to "true" Islam seems to be doing nothing at all to ameliorate this gross corruption and hijacking of their true faith?

Why don't you ask the Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Kurds, Lebanese, and Iranians who are on the ground fighting ISIS why they aren't doing anything about ISIS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

On your point that an Islamic terrorist attack on American soil would not be very substantial as far as casualty count compared to other countries, you could just as easily say that the amount of backlash that peaceful, tolerant Muslims might possibly feel in America is also not very substantial compared to the scale of backlash of the peaceful Muslims that are being terminated by ISIS.

The backlash they might feel here is minuscule to the backlash they receive in other countries.

I say this as a South Asian that gets swept into the backlash by people who fear my brown skin. I very much dislike it.

What I would like is not sympathy from Whites, which it is the format the OP seems to be taking, I want to see a movement for Islamic Reformation which cannot happen without a recognition of the fact that ISIS and all the other Islamic terror groups practice a very valid form of Islam. They didn't make it up, it's not a twisted interpretation. It's the way Islam was practiced ever since it's founder entered Medina.

If it's not a twisted interpretation, please back it up and post the verses in the Qur'an that legitimize the murder of woman and children...you won't find any. And sorry, but what ISIS is doing is not what Mohammed did when he entered Medina. Of course I can see why one might believe that, if they don't research the history for themselves and rely on sources such as FOX for all their "islamic knowledge". Was there violence in those days? Yes, because back then everyone fought in hand to hand combat in large scale armies. This was how warfare was carried out in the time, and it was not at all unique to muslims. Civilians/woman/children were not slaughtered even back then. I'm not sure the same can be said of the crusaders, they seem to be far more violent than mohammed ever was. But as a south asian you should already have some knowledge of world history?

Here is a very lengthy synopsis of violent Islamic history. I don't memorize verses from the Qur'an, I'm going by the history of it's practice since it's earliest days. Perhaps Islam has been interpreted incorrectly from the beginning? Because babies and children and women have been murdered in Islamic wars previously. People keep trying to say this isn't true, but just because one shouts it or repeats it endlessly doesn't make it true.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/454305.page

If this is a twisted interpretation and this has been going on for centuries, I once again don't understand why there is so much abhorrence for reform. It seems like with this history one with strong faith and devotion in their religion and desire for peace and tolerance would be demanding for reform in order to prevent this from repeating itself in another 50 years.

Once again, since it seems so necessary, I am not in any way anti-Muslim. Most are very good people, despite the history of their religion.

Trying to gloss over the fact that ISIS and organizations similar are in fact fighting an Islamic holy war is trying to erase history.

If there were Crusades like wars and terrorism being committed all over the world right now and we were at war with a group of "Crusaders" than it would be appropriate to discuss it's history and compare to current events and even call for another reform if necessary. That's not the case right now.

Lastly, being South Asian has no correlation to my knowledge of history and I don't watch FOX news. I study history thus my interest in it's relevance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a suggestion for American Muslims who are tired of being associated with the violence of radical Islam. My suggestion is inspired by Jeff Steele's earlier comparison with moderate Republicans, who have found their party taken over by extremists and nutcases. Sometimes you have to leave the political party you grew up with, when its agenda is taken over by a small minority of extremists.

So my suggestion for American Muslims is to -- convert to Christianity! I realize it is difficult to give up the religion you grew up with, and where you likely still have many friends. But -- perhaps after a difficult initial transition period -- I think you can find the same comforts from Christianity that you currently find from Islam. I mention Christianity only because of the large number of denominations in the U.S. to choose from, and because it has some similarities to Islam (where Jesus is a prophet). But you could also choose other religions, or simply just disassociate yourself from Islam.

My main points are (1) it is no big deal to change your religion -- millions have done it, and (2) there is nothing that Islam can provide that Christianity can't.

lol, have you seen today's American Christians? Bitch slapping vulnerable groups of people ever chance they get.

I don't believe God fathered a son. And I do believe that Mohammad was a good man who received divine revelation. Which sect of Christianity would you suggest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But you said the protest was not "legitimate."

It's perfectly "legitimate." You just disagree with the opinions of the protestors.

And Tom Brokaw.

In my opinion, there is no legitimate reason for armed protesters -- some of them masked -- demonstrate in front of a mosque. You would likely feel the same way about armed Muslims demonstrating in front of a church, a synagogue, or your house.

I can think of at least one very good reason for some of the protesters to be legally armed at such an event--for self-defense. So they don't get shot at by any radical Islamic individuals who might take offense at their protest.

You first make absolutist declarative sentences about what is "legitimate", then when your error is pointed out to you, you revert to "It's my opinion" with the expectation that everyone else has to agree with your opinion.

It was a legitimate, legal protest. You disagree with both the content of the protest as well as the fact that some of the protesters were legally armed. You don't explain at all why your opinion that being lawfully armed lacks any legitimate reason (although open carry laws don't require someone who is openly carrying to have a "reason" to be doing so).

It's a trait of a true fascist to lie about those whom the fascist disagrees with and attempt to delegitamize those differences of opinion. Since you brought up your concerns about the dangers of facism.

When there are demonstrations like this, local police first do community outreach to the leaders of the respective groups and discuss the issue. Then they provide appropriate police presence. At least well-trained ones do.. There's no need for people to be armed for self-defense.