Afraid of backlash against Muslims

[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.

Rather be bitch slapped than blown up-just sayin......

[Anonymous]

The post listed violent events by Muslims, many of which were politically motivated. It is not a synopsis of Islamic history over the past 1400 years. Some of it is typical stuff done by invaders of the past whatever their nominal religion. One could put together a similar list of what invaders and conquerors who were nominally Christian did in the past.

Also, none of the examples had Muslims murdering women and babies.

Not sure what your point is in citing such random examples.

[Anonymous]

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?

So there is no proof for any of the allegations you made, and we are now resorting to "unhinged's" argument that people are guilty until proven innocent (or in his worlds, if they don't denounce it it's because they support it) . Thankfully, that is not an American principle. Many muslim organizations have already denounced the ISIS attacks, and chances are if you ask a random sample of American muslims they would also denounce it. I don't personally know if a single american muslim that supports ISIS's mission or the methods they use. I don't see how you expect all the muslims around the world, many of which live in utter poverty in 3rd world countries, to go around actively denouncing ISIS. ISIS is not a part of their lives, and they have enough to worry about without having to raise awareness for something that is probably the least of their worries. With that being said, even these people regularly denounce ISIS but you probably won't see any mention of it in the media.

While we are discussing, this lets address the larger issue. I have, on several occasions on DCUM, spoken out against the ideology promoted by ISIS. I've shown that there is nothing in the Qur'an that defends the murder of woman and children as so many people seem to believe. I am always invariably met with people that link some statement, from some obscure Imam halfway across the world, that promotes radical actions as if he is representative of Muslims as a whole. These people do not care that many muslim groups have already stepped up and denounced the events, and they don't care if you show them unequivocal proof that these actions are not supported by the Quran. They have one belief in their head and they refuse to let anyone change that (regardless of what the evidence actually shows).

If you have the time and you still think the muslims don't speak out against ISIS, you should check the following links, especially the first one.

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

http://abc7.com/society/muslims-speak-out-against-isis-following-paris-terror-attacks/1086310/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/20/opinions/obeidallah-muslims-countering-extremism/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting research piece on religious tribunals etc:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/08/applying-gods-law-religious-courts-and-mediation-in-the-us/

"there is no single credentialing organization or centralized hierarchy for American imams, there also are no standard procedures for dispute resolution"

Would it not make sense for Mosques to organize and form groups based on beliefs? A USA form of Islam that would be indicative of beliefs, practices, etc of the vast majority of the Muslims here?

Would they still obey the Koran?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like you all feel paranoid but nothing has happened to you personally. But yet, we are not allowed to feel paranoid that something might happen to us here in the US by ISIS? Hate, bigotry and racism goes both ways but it is only a small minority.

Not the OP but of course you're allowed to feel paranoid about what ISIS might do. I'm paranoid about what ISIS might do. But we can worry about terrorists and not let our fears cause us to demonize millions of other people who have nothing to do with the terrorists.

On another note, ISIS wants the West to reject the refugees, which will alienate them from the West and drive them into the arms of ISIS. Giving into fear by refusing entry to 10,000 refugees is only letting the terrorists win. That's what the terrorists want in the long run.

I have read this reference to the ISIS "strategy" several times on DCUM. Can you provide a link to the ISIS playbook so I can understand their "strategy" in detail?

Here's their filthy magazine in English.

http://media.clarionproject.org/files/islamic-state/islamic-state-dabiq-magazine-issue-7-from-hypocrisy-to-apostasy.pdf

This from their rantings:

Al-Muhallab said, “You must use deception in
war, for it is more effective than reinforcements.”
Some methods of deception include:

a. Planting spies.
b. Reconnaissance.
c. Feigning an intent to attack an area other
than the actual target, for when the Prophet
(sallall?hu ‘alayhi wa sallam) wanted to attack
one area, he would give his army the impression
they were going to attack another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I could compile a list like that for nearly any religion, people have been killing each other since the beginning of time and muslims too have been massacred (take a look at India's history for some quick easy examples). If your argument is that it is NOT a twisted interpretation of islam you should be able to provide at least one example of the Quran or Mohammed advocating for such violence, because those are what the teachings of Islam are based upon. What ISIS does is not rooted in what the Qur'an says or what Mohammed said, they just twist what was actually said to fit their narrative. Can you give an example of mohammed killing woman and children or advocating for it? I'll let you off the hook for providing Quranic evidence of such, since I already know it doesn't exist. You can't simply gloss over the crusades because they happened "back then" when many of the examples in the link you provided also happened "back then". Also, several of the events you provided as "evidence" had more to do with politics and religion tensions that have been perpetuated by both sides. The Bangladesh genocide was not due to a religious movement, it was a political one. Unfortunately you don't get to handpick certain events in history while leaving out others if you are trying to be objective.

[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.

I, for one, am very sorry you get swept up in the racist backlash. I have heard people say cruel things about South Asians my entire life. There is a lot of jealousy at work there. South Asians have been at the forefront of condemning the overall backlash.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like you all feel paranoid but nothing has happened to you personally. But yet, we are not allowed to feel paranoid that something might happen to us here in the US by ISIS? Hate, bigotry and racism goes both ways but it is only a small minority.

Not the OP but of course you're allowed to feel paranoid about what ISIS might do. I'm paranoid about what ISIS might do. But we can worry about terrorists and not let our fears cause us to demonize millions of other people who have nothing to do with the terrorists.

On another note, ISIS wants the West to reject the refugees, which will alienate them from the West and drive them into the arms of ISIS. Giving into fear by refusing entry to 10,000 refugees is only letting the terrorists win. That's what the terrorists want in the long run.

I have read this reference to the ISIS "strategy" several times on DCUM. Can you provide a link to the ISIS playbook so I can understand their "strategy" in detail?

Here's their filthy magazine in English.

http://media.clarionproject.org/files/islamic-state/islamic-state-dabiq-magazine-issue-7-from-hypocrisy-to-apostasy.pdf

This from their rantings:

Al-Muhallab said, “You must use deception in
war, for it is more effective than reinforcements.”
Some methods of deception include:

a. Planting spies.
b. Reconnaissance.
c. Feigning an intent to attack an area other
than the actual target, for when the Prophet
(sallall?hu ‘alayhi wa sallam) wanted to attack
one area, he would give his army the impression
they were going to attack another.

Sounds like they have been reading "The Art of War".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The post listed violent events by Muslims, many of which were politically motivated. It is not a synopsis of Islamic history over the past 1400 years. Some of it is typical stuff done by invaders of the past whatever their nominal religion. One could put together a similar list of what invaders and conquerors who were nominally Christian did in the past.

Also, none of the examples had Muslims murdering women and babies.

Not sure what your point is in citing such random examples.

Yes, it did list circumstances of babies and children being murdered. And I addressed the topic of the Crusades as well, I would happily put together a list if that history was repeating itself right now.

I've given instances of violent Islamic history from 700 AD to the present, but you would like to state that these are random examples. Understanding the past is the only way to understand the motivations of these groups in the present.

Religious zealots motivation by conversion through force or death or ethnic cleansing and power hungry political motivation can be two sides of the same coin, sharing a common bond by those that commit these atrocities in an alliance.



But we can keep saying the past has nothing to do with the present and this is just a completely random wrong interpretation of Islam and that the terrorists actions are an anomaly of Islamic history because these actions were just so "typical" back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The post listed violent events by Muslims, many of which were politically motivated. It is not a synopsis of Islamic history over the past 1400 years. Some of it is typical stuff done by invaders of the past whatever their nominal religion. One could put together a similar list of what invaders and conquerors who were nominally Christian did in the past.

Also, none of the examples had Muslims murdering women and babies.

Not sure what your point is in citing such random examples.

Yes, it did list circumstances of babies and children being murdered. And I addressed the topic of the Crusades as well, I would happily put together a list if that history was repeating itself right now.

I've given instances of violent Islamic history from 700 AD to the present, but you would like to state that these are random examples. Understanding the past is the only way to understand the motivations of these groups in the present.

Religious zealots motivation by conversion through force or death or ethnic cleansing and power hungry political motivation can be two sides of the same coin, sharing a common bond by those that commit these atrocities in an alliance.



But we can keep saying the past has nothing to do with the present and this is just a completely random wrong interpretation of Islam and that the terrorists actions are an anomaly of Islamic history because these actions were just so "typical" back then.

Seemed more like a very one-sided and biased list from an Indian (just guessing here, not that it even matters) person. You left out huge swaths of Islamic history and focused almost exclusively on India, where muslim-hindu relations have always been tense and atrocities have been carried out by both sides (yet you made no mention of those). That has been, historically, a deeply divided part of the world and relations were made even worse by the mentality that the British colonialists promoted. I don't think including politically motivated events and saying they are representative of islamic history is being objective in any way, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The post listed violent events by Muslims, many of which were politically motivated. It is not a synopsis of Islamic history over the past 1400 years. Some of it is typical stuff done by invaders of the past whatever their nominal religion. One could put together a similar list of what invaders and conquerors who were nominally Christian did in the past.

Also, none of the examples had Muslims murdering women and babies.

Not sure what your point is in citing such random examples.

Yes, it did list circumstances of babies and children being murdered. And I addressed the topic of the Crusades as well, I would happily put together a list if that history was repeating itself right now.

I've given instances of violent Islamic history from 700 AD to the present, but you would like to state that these are random examples. Understanding the past is the only way to understand the motivations of these groups in the present.

Religious zealots motivation by conversion through force or death or ethnic cleansing and power hungry political motivation can be two sides of the same coin, sharing a common bond by those that commit these atrocities in an alliance.



But we can keep saying the past has nothing to do with the present and this is just a completely random wrong interpretation of Islam and that the terrorists actions are an anomaly of Islamic history because these actions were just so "typical" back then.

Seemed more like a very one-sided and biased list from an Indian (just guessing here, not that it even matters) person. You left out huge swaths of Islamic history and focused almost exclusively on India, where muslim-hindu relations have always been tense and atrocities have been carried out by both sides (yet you made no mention of those). That has been, historically, a deeply divided part of the world and relations were made even worse by the mentality that the British colonialists promoted. I don't think including politically motivated events and saying they are representative of islamic history is being objective in any way, sorry.

I never stated I was listing the entirety of Islamic history. I listed examples of Islamic violence throughout different centuries because if it's relevance to current events.

When much of Islamic history and Islamic violence was centered around that region of the world then obviously many of the examples will be from that region of the world. There is no bias in that, it's history pure and simple. We can now look to that history and try to better understand what is going on in this part of the world now.

I can't list numerous examples Islamic violent history and holy wars in Iceland, Australia, or Mexico if the history is not there. That's like saying why are we always talking about North America with regards to Columbus, that history is bias or why do we always center on Germany or Europe with regards to Hitler and WWII the history is biased. That's where that history took place.

And while there has been tense Muslim-Hindu relations ( also Muslim-Sikh, Muslim-Jewish and Muslim-Christian and Muslim-Muslim within sects) we are currently not at war with anyone promoting a Sikh, Hindu, Jewish or Christian holy war against us, thus the topic of Islamic holy wars and the violence that has been used with that regard.

Again, speaking about this history is not me saying Muslims are bad. Muslims should not be treated wrongly because of the actions of some. It's something to learn from as to prevent repetition and to understand the current situation better. Its a painful history.

The current ISIS issue is being called political, the history I listed you call political. The perpetrators of all of this say it is religious. I'll say again that religiously motivated or politically motivated, it's 2 sides of the same coin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[
The current ISIS issue is being called political, the history I listed you call political. The perpetrators of all of this say it is religious. I'll say again that religiously motivated or politically motivated, it's 2 sides of the same coin.

The actions of ISIS were declared in violation of Islam in a letter to Baghdadi signed by over 100 Muslim clerics in the US. Here is the summary:

Executive Summary
1- It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith.
2- It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.
3- It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.
4- It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.
5- It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.
6- It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.
7- It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.
8- Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.
9- It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.
10- It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.
11- It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.
12- The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.
13- It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.
14- It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.
15- It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.
16- It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.
17- It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.
18- It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.
19- It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God ?.
20- It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.
21- Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.
22- It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.
23- Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.
24- After the death of the Prophet ?, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate

The full text can be found here:

http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/14/english-v14.pdf

Here is a news story about the letter with a link:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/09/24/More-100-Muslim-Clerics-Sign-Letter-Condemning-ISIS

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous
I've shown that there is nothing in the Qur'an that defends the murder of woman and children as so many people seem to believe. I am always invariably met with people that link some statement, from some obscure Imam halfway across the world, that promotes radical actions as if he is representative of Muslims as a whole. These people do not care that many muslim groups have already stepped up and denounced the events, and they don't care if you show them unequivocal proof that these actions are not supported by the Quran. They have one belief in their head and they refuse to let anyone change that (regardless of what the evidence actually shows).

/

here is some of the Mohammed's rules from Hadith about killing woman.

Muslim (17:4192) - This hadith clarifies the different penalties for adultery (when the subjects are married), and fornication (when they are not): "in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year" (See also 17:4191)

Muslim (17:4196) - A married man confesses that he has adultery. Muhammad orders him planted in the ground and pelted with stones. According to the passage, the first several stones caused such pain that he tried to escape and was dragged back.

Muslim (17:4206) - A woman who became pregnant confesses to Muhammad that she is guilty of adultery. Muhammad allows her to have the child, then has her stoned. The description is graphic: "Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her."

Muslim (17:4209) - A woman confesses adultery and is stoned to death on Muhammad's order.

Ibn Ishaq (970) - "The adulterer must be stoned." These words were a part of Muhammad's farewell address to his people on the occasion of his final pilgrimage to Mecca.

[jsteele]

PP, why didn't you include a link to your source? When I check Google, I only find Islamophobic sites that have that text. Is the why you left out a link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I've shown that there is nothing in the Qur'an that defends the murder of woman and children as so many people seem to believe. I am always invariably met with people that link some statement, from some obscure Imam halfway across the world, that promotes radical actions as if he is representative of Muslims as a whole. These people do not care that many muslim groups have already stepped up and denounced the events, and they don't care if you show them unequivocal proof that these actions are not supported by the Quran. They have one belief in their head and they refuse to let anyone change that (regardless of what the evidence actually shows).

/

here is some of the Mohammed's rules from Hadith about killing woman.

Muslim (17:4192) - This hadith clarifies the different penalties for adultery (when the subjects are married), and fornication (when they are not): "in case of married (persons) there is (a punishment) of one hundred lashes and then stoning (to death). And in case of unmarried persons, (the punishment) is one hundred lashes and exile for one year" (See also 17:4191)

Muslim (17:4196) - A married man confesses that he has adultery. Muhammad orders him planted in the ground and pelted with stones. According to the passage, the first several stones caused such pain that he tried to escape and was dragged back.

Muslim (17:4206) - A woman who became pregnant confesses to Muhammad that she is guilty of adultery. Muhammad allows her to have the child, then has her stoned. The description is graphic: "Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her."

Muslim (17:4209) - A woman confesses adultery and is stoned to death on Muhammad's order.

Ibn Ishaq (970) - "The adulterer must be stoned." These words were a part of Muhammad's farewell address to his people on the occasion of his final pilgrimage to Mecca.

Those are not hadith about "killing woman"...those are hadith regarding the punishment for adultery which had nothing to do with the person being male or female, which is why 3 out of your 5 examples do not even mention woman. You also left out a large portion of the Hadiths, and only include the parts about the punishment. You failed to mention, for example in 17:4206, that the woman came to mohammed and confessed herself that she had committed adultery. Mohammed still didnot order her stoned to death or punished at all, instead he turned away from her and gave her a chance to walk away (as he did in several other examples). It was not until she came back and insisted that she had committed adultery, that mohammed said "Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child)". After the child was born he said "Go away and suckle him until you wean him"...Mohammed was not as quick to rush judgement as you make it appear. The man in 17:4196 went to mohammed FOUR times confessing adultery before mohammed decided to punish him, because everytime he confessed mohammed ignored him and gave him the chance to go away. I could go and back-check all the hadith you listed but I think we see what is going on here. Mohammed gave ample opportunities for the people in these examples to not be punished and did not pass judgment on them until after they repeatedly self confessed.

And besides, none of these Hadith are advocating for the murder of innocent woman and children. Adultery was a grevious crime in those days, and even christians were executed for it.

Leviticus 20:10 prescribes capital punishment for adultery between a man and married woman: And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Here is a link to the Hadith you quoted if you have any interest in reading the full versions, not taken out of context: https://muflihun.com/muslim/17/4206