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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn't say nothing she learned years ago would justify the attacks. She actually said she had never been TAUGHT the violent doctrines. She did NOT say that those violent doctrines, which she was never taught, were not a legitimate part of Islamic religious doctrine.

But then why would a small female child have been taught the violent part of radical Islamic doctrine, since presumably she wasn't being indoctrinated to be a warrior?

She simply said that as a small child she wasn't taught the doctrines that the male adult warriors are using to justify their violence now. She didn't renounce those doctrines in any way, shape, or form.

How can she denounce doctrines she never learned and doesn't know? And BTW males weren't taught them 30 years ago because these doctrines are not mainstream Islam, but a more recent radical rethinking of Islam.

Can you name these doctrines yourself? Please provide sources.

I didn't say she denounced them, I said she didn't denounce them.

It was jsteele who was falsely claiming, for most of the thread, that she had denounced those doctrines, but apparently he gave up on that white lie.

Sorry, never said that. Of course, you have proven that your accuracy in quoting is nearly as bad as your ability with statistics. Also, nearly as bad as your statistics ability is your reading ability. The question was, "how can she denounce doctrines she never learned?" That is like asking how you can denounce quantum physics. You wouldn't know where to begin.

I've been loosely following this thread and feel compelled to point out that OP is not the same person as the (lesbian) woman who posted about her Arab wife. A little reading comprehension goes a long way.

Also PP what's so hard about denouncing a religious doctrine that says killing non-believers is perfectly fine? How much studying does a person have to actually be able to do, in order to denounce it?

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn't say nothing she learned years ago would justify the attacks. She actually said she had never been TAUGHT the violent doctrines. She did NOT say that those violent doctrines, which she was never taught, were not a legitimate part of Islamic religious doctrine.

But then why would a small female child have been taught the violent part of radical Islamic doctrine, since presumably she wasn't being indoctrinated to be a warrior?

She simply said that as a small child she wasn't taught the doctrines that the male adult warriors are using to justify their violence now. She didn't renounce those doctrines in any way, shape, or form.

How can she denounce doctrines she never learned and doesn't know? And BTW males weren't taught them 30 years ago because these doctrines are not mainstream Islam, but a more recent radical rethinking of Islam.

Can you name these doctrines yourself? Please provide sources.

We are not taught these doctrines even know, because hey this is America, not ISIS bootcamp. I don't know why this clown thinks muslims are familiar with the twisted methodologies of ISIS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn't say nothing she learned years ago would justify the attacks. She actually said she had never been TAUGHT the violent doctrines. She did NOT say that those violent doctrines, which she was never taught, were not a legitimate part of Islamic religious doctrine.

But then why would a small female child have been taught the violent part of radical Islamic doctrine, since presumably she wasn't being indoctrinated to be a warrior?

She simply said that as a small child she wasn't taught the doctrines that the male adult warriors are using to justify their violence now. She didn't renounce those doctrines in any way, shape, or form.

How can she denounce doctrines she never learned and doesn't know? And BTW males weren't taught them 30 years ago because these doctrines are not mainstream Islam, but a more recent radical rethinking of Islam.

Can you name these doctrines yourself? Please provide sources.

I didn't say she denounced them, I said she didn't denounce them.

It was jsteele who was falsely claiming, for most of the thread, that she had denounced those doctrines, but apparently he gave up on that white lie.

Anonymous wrote:Were you under the mistaken impression that, like I seem to be doing, ISIS wastes inordinate amounts of time on internet blogs trying to talk sense to imbeciles?

That, in fact, is their recruitment strategy.

I'm Muslim and fear backlash, too. I also find myself often angry that my religion is used by sociopaths to kill. But I try to remind myself that no religion is perfect and that any of the three major monotheistic religions taken literally can lead to absurdity, hatred, murder, and misogyny:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Leviticus 20:10 - If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the man and the woman who have committed adultery must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 17:2-17:7 - If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the Lord your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the Lord your God, by transgressing His covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded, and if it is told you and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire thoroughly. Behold, if it is true and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death. On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the [d]evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Timothy 2:9 - Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.

Leviticus 10:6 - Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes; lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people.

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 - But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 - Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Leviticus 21:17-23 - Whosoever … hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookback, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken … He shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 - If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.

Leviticus 25:44-46 - You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She didn't say nothing she learned years ago would justify the attacks. She actually said she had never been TAUGHT the violent doctrines. She did NOT say that those violent doctrines, which she was never taught, were not a legitimate part of Islamic religious doctrine.

But then why would a small female child have been taught the violent part of radical Islamic doctrine, since presumably she wasn't being indoctrinated to be a warrior?

She simply said that as a small child she wasn't taught the doctrines that the male adult warriors are using to justify their violence now. She didn't renounce those doctrines in any way, shape, or form.

You are batshit crazy, please for the sake of everyone, go take your meds. She already denounced the attacks, so instead of typing up your propaganda on DCUM go watch a youtube video on reading comprehension.

Everything you are proposing is stuff that you inferred from her response. Ill repeat, stuff that YOU inferred based on what she wrote. She said one thing, and now you are arguing about something she did not even write. It's scary because what you are doing is what ISIS does when it twists the interpretation of religion texts. You are like a "non-islamic" ISIS. If Americans are in danger from anyone, it's from the whack-jobs like you that are liable to go shoot into a crowd of peaceful people because of their own paranoia/racism.

No, dear, what ISIS does is kill people with bombs and machine guns.

Were you under the mistaken impression that, like I seem to be doing, ISIS wastes inordinate amounts of time on internet blogs trying to talk sense to imbeciles?

Anonymous wrote:How much are you getting paid to write this bullshit, jsteele? Who's paying for you to do this?

I didn't write that post. As for being paid, I'm worried that Stormfront will demand a cut of our ad revenue because your clicks should be going to them. Instead of looking like a bigoted whack job here, you would be right at home there.

The bolded text above is why you are incapable of understanding why some people are the victims of backlash regardless of what they advocate themselves.

I never claimed people aren't the victims of discrimination from time to time. However OP obviously has an agenda which is to focus attention away from the very real global Islamic violence and onto supposed "backlash" and simultaneously claims ignorance as to what could possibly be causing the backlash other than Republican bigotry.

It's almost as if OP wants to pretend there hasn't been a recent series of very violent Islamic attacks killing hundreds of people, which just might have something to do with the creation of a "backlash." The issue isn't the Islamic terrorism. It's the Republicans. It's the backlash. What Islamic terror? What religious doctrine? I know nothing about that, they didn't teach that to me when I was a little child.

I think OP is a sham and I think what she posted is pure propaganda. You are free to disagree.

Are you of the opinion that sikhs's, who have no relation to islam at all, are also responsible for running around denouncing "radical islam" to avoid backlash?

No, has a Sikh started a thread complaining about it, and pretending to be completely unaware of why some politicians might be giving speeches about it? I imagine a Sikh would have no problem vociferously opposing Islamic terror since they are frequent victims of it.

Because history has shown that are often the victims of anti-muslim sentiments.

History has shown that Sikhs are far more often the victims of actually being killed by Muslims then they have to fear of discrimination from being confused with Muslims in the U.S. I mean the difference is orders of magnitudes.

I could safely say if you took a poll of Sikhs and asked them what was more of a problem, Sikhs actually being murdered by Muslims, or being confused for Muslims and discriminated against, they would overwhelmingly choose the first.

You can't be so dense to think that someone that hates muslims is NOT going to target a muslim just because they advocate that they do not support terrorism.

You can't be so dense as to think that someone who astroturfs the way OP did and refuses to unequivocally renounce violent radical Islamic doctrine may well be an apologist for the actual global violence that has been occurring and may in fact be a foreign agent whose job includes posting anonymously on internet forums to influence dupes such as yourself.

Even if the OP did outrightly declare that she denounces radical islam on here, to you,

LOL you FINALLY admit that she DID NOT renounce it. Took you long enough.

it would not change a single thing in regards to the backlash she faces in the real world.

Sure it would. Because her inability to renounce the terrorism indicates she is probably sympathetic to it.

If I went out on the street and starting calling every christian a pedophile because they did not tell me they were against the actions of the Catholic church, I would be swiftly stopped and I doubt even you would stand for it.

You seem to do in effect the same thing to those people who don't agree with your viewpoints--you call them all bigots and backlashers LOL. Basically that's EXACTLY what you've been doing.

But I haven't gone out on the street anywhere, OP is the one who came here and made a claim of fear of being discriminated against because she's Islamic, or her wife is, or they both are, it's not clear. I don't have to accept her propagandistic claims at face value, and I won't. Unlike you probably are, I'm not getting paid to do so, and I really don't want to support apologists for Islamic terrorism. That's your cup of tea, not mine.

Somehow, because she is muslim, you take the complete opposite approach. If it looks like a bigot, and it smells like a bigot, chance are it IS a bigot. Sorry, but I'm not buying what you're selling. Come back after you learn some American values.

How much are you getting paid to write this bullshit, jsteele? Who's paying for you to do this?

Anonymous wrote:She didn't say nothing she learned years ago would justify the attacks. She actually said she had never been TAUGHT the violent doctrines. She did NOT say that those violent doctrines, which she was never taught, were not a legitimate part of Islamic religious doctrine.

But then why would a small female child have been taught the violent part of radical Islamic doctrine, since presumably she wasn't being indoctrinated to be a warrior?

She simply said that as a small child she wasn't taught the doctrines that the male adult warriors are using to justify their violence now. She didn't renounce those doctrines in any way, shape, or form.

You are batshit crazy, please for the sake of everyone, go take your meds. She already denounced the attacks, so instead of typing up your propaganda on DCUM go watch a youtube video on reading comprehension.

Everything you are proposing is stuff that you inferred from her response. Ill repeat, stuff that YOU inferred based on what she wrote. She said one thing, and now you are arguing about something she did not even write. It's scary because what you are doing is what ISIS does when it twists the interpretation of religion texts. You are like a "non-islamic" ISIS. If Americans are in danger from anyone, it's from the whack-jobs like you that are liable to go shoot into a crowd of peaceful people because of their own paranoia/racism.

Anonymous wrote:She didn't say nothing she learned years ago would justify the attacks. She actually said she had never been TAUGHT the violent doctrines. She did NOT say that those violent doctrines, which she was never taught, were not a legitimate part of Islamic religious doctrine.

But then why would a small female child have been taught the violent part of radical Islamic doctrine, since presumably she wasn't being indoctrinated to be a warrior?

She simply said that as a small child she wasn't taught the doctrines that the male adult warriors are using to justify their violence now. She didn't renounce those doctrines in any way, shape, or form.

How can she denounce doctrines she never learned and doesn't know? And BTW males weren't taught them 30 years ago because these doctrines are not mainstream Islam, but a more recent radical rethinking of Islam.

Can you name these doctrines yourself? Please provide sources.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is due to Isis and its increasingly barbaric and archaic violence against innocents that keeps escalating. The series of beheadings followed by throwing those poor gay men off buildings and posting on youtube tipped the balance for me and many others. That and the islamic world's horrific attitude towards the human rights of women and religious minorities.

Unfortunately that mentality is front and center and there is no strong public example coming from that part of the world that their values are compatible to religious liberty, human rights and freedom of thought and lifestyle.

Perhaps it is a PR issue from the muslim world? Maybe if there was more horror at the idea of sharia law, oppression of women, persecution of gays, Christians, religious minorities, etc coming from public leaders in that part of the world there wouldn't be as much fear of Islam.

Also, whenever US muslims go on TV to speak up, their approach is always "this is not Islam". However Isis and radical imans say over and over that they ARE Islam. I think those muslims would be better off acknowledging this in some way, perhaps labeling them as an animalistic cult of Islam instead of just saying they have nothing to do with Islam. When there are pew polls coming out of that part of the world saying that muslims support things like stoning women and suicide bombings by vast numbers, it is hard to separate the two for many people.

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.

All of which leaves one skeptical of Western democracies’ thunderous declarations regarding the necessity of fighting terrorism. Their war can only be myopic, for it targets the effect rather than the cause. Since ISIS is first and foremost a culture, not a militia, how do you prevent future generations from turning to jihadism when the influence of Fatwa Valley and its clerics and its culture and its immense editorial industry remains intact?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-isis-that-has-made-it.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

You should start a new thread for this discussion since you are addressing a very interesting issue and it's just going to get lost here.