Peaceful Majorites

Take a look at this 4.5 minute long video - Extraordinarily powerful:

http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/127748.html

--------------

Today, before I saw that video above,  I watched a clip of Hillary Clinton using the phrase "Radical Islamic Extremists" or something like that.  But she used the phrase to say there is a good reason why we shouldn't use those terms... because, she said, it is a needless offense to our allies who are Muslim and to the many, many Muslims who are peaceful.

Religions and their texts don't "reform."

People do. 

Perhaps when they are tired of dying and killing one another they might reform themselves.

They also need to grow a thicker skin.  On the one hand they express rage when we insult the Prophet via cartoons etc and expect us to not do this.  Sure it is desrespectful, it is ment to be.  They attempt to bully us into submission through fear and threats when they feel they have the upper hand.  When they meet with OUR indignation and OUR demands that they stop pushing ourrr values they cry "Islamiphobia or racism/persecution.".   And yes some of their claims of such are true.  Some idiots cry out for us to just nuke the Middle East.  That's a worrying train of thought that won't solve anything.  The biggest thing that we cannnnn do though is simply enforce our laws.  A criminal is a criminal regardless of faith.  Maybe stop bending over to appease their demands for changes to our culture in order to accommodate thiers.

I mean the polite thing to do if for example one moves to Japan is to maybe learn that culture and language right?  Doesn't mean one has to become a Shintoism expert but you don't scream at the top of your lungs to insert objectivist values in its place while you are a guest there!

PS: Nice to see you again Steve!

As I said on Galt's Gulch, this Brigitte Gabriel "failed to address the deeper questions of why the "good Germans" or "good Japanese" or "good Russians" went along with the atrocities committed by a violent minority. The fact is that the violent minority only acted out in real life the ideas held by those so-called "good" people. It has been cogently pointed out that the protests against the Bush Administration policies of war, torture, and bailout disappeared when the same policies were carried out by the Obama Administration."

Islam is just another kind of Christianity. Jesus is mentioned 25 times in the Qu'ran. He is called Messiah and Son of God.  Mary is cited 18 times. She is called The Virgin and The Mother of God.  The radical Muslims only want to create a world that would be very familiar to radical Christians: one where homosexuals are hanged and women are stoned for being raped.  

Who cared when Americans financed terrorism in Ireland? The "professional Irish" in Boston, New York, and other cities, funneled millions to Sinn Fein. (The Good Friday Accords were signed in 1998.) The difference is that their enemies, the British, did not carry out reprisal attacks to scare everyone into being deferential, reserved, and under-stated, or demanding that we use good grammar, eat bland food, and agree to keep a stiff upper lip. The British did, indeed, muddle on, while the Irish terrorists planted bombs in England, bombs financed with American money.

 Islam is in no way special from other religions. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out in god is not Great, we pay tribute to Buddhism as a peaceful religion only because we ourselves were not flogged by the priests of Lhasa.   

Brigitte Gabriel is right: we cannot defeat an ideology with bombs. Ayn Rand called this "the war for men's minds." It is the only kind that really matters.

Steve, there is no cure for stupidity. 

😈

At least not MEM's form of it...

(Edited by Jules Troy on 11/26, 7:30pm)

Michael,

There's nothing especially distinctive about Islam as compared to other monotheistic religions.

There are many distinctive differences, but that really isn't to the point.  The point is that Islam calls for the faithful to force others to convert or to be killed.  This is the root of the terrorism that the world is plagued with today.  This is what is behind the formation of ISIS - the new Caliphate. This is what the discussion is about.
---------------------

You are quite correct to point out that the Christian reformations were nothing like what some are currently desiring of Islam.  I have used the word "reformation" in a more general (and admitedly sloppy) fashion.  What we need of Islam is reform - change.  My reason for referring to Christian reformation was to signal that humans have choice and can choose to change particulars of their religion - religions have changed in the past and can do so in the future.  And where Christian reformation was about a more direct and pure connection between the believer and God, any move to a more 'pure' form of Islam has been about a more brutal application of force to impose Sharia.  I and others are calling for a change to Islam that makes it explicitly peaceful and explicitly denies jihad and Sharia.

And I wouldn't call much of what we've seen periodically in the history of Islam 'reformation'.  Theologians might call it that, but it would be better understood as warfare between sects where the disagreement might be stated as who has the most pure understanding of the Koran, when in fact the heart of the disagreement usually goes back to the original fight as to who should have succeeded Mohammed.  
----------------

When people say "Islam needs a Reformation" it shows they understand neither Islam nor the Reformation.

When you say that, it shows you have dropped the context of the discussion.  You drop into a world of academic nuances of historical events in a way that totally ignores the problems we face today, and totally lose sight of the purpose of the discussion.  If the Muslim world does not bring about change in the religion (reform it), then the Jihadists will continue to use it as the moral foundation of their drive to force everyone to convert or die and they will continue to recruit and new terrorist organizations will arise.

Michael,

The roots of terrorism are complex. Boiling it all down to religion/religious belief is a large oversimplification of the problem particularly given the simple observation that some believers are very devout, but disinclined to violence while others are very violent but disinclined to devotion.

I've written in more than one post that both the peaceful Muslims and the violent fundamentalists are all Muslims - they are both practicing Islam.  This is because the religion can and is interpreted that broadly.  And I haven't called for abolishing Islam, but rather to make changes in the religion or how it is understood - changes that will be effective in taking away the moral, religious motivation for forcing others to accept a set of beliefs or die.  Why do you not address?  And by the way, you presume that those inclined to violence are disinclined to devotion... that is so wrong.
----------------

The Koran and Hadith are considered infallible and they are the source of Sharia law.  It is taking this religion and applying it as enforced rules.  That is the basic fact regardless of how many different views there are of the Koran, or how different Islamic sects apply Sharia.  It is mystical in its foundation and epistemology, collectivist in its practice, subjective and tyrannical in its application.  Your view of it is bizarre.

It is the means by which many Islamic authorities destroy individualism and liberty.... by this formulation of tyrannical laws that cover hygiene, etiquette, economics, diet, sexual practices, theological duties, marital laws, criminal laws, military laws, and even dress codes.  
-------------------

I'm well aware that peaceful Muslims believe that jihad means an inner struggle.  But when we are talking about terrorists, that is clearly NOT what we mean in these recent threads.  We mean the the violent jihad.  How can you not grasp that?  When you call for a counter-jihad to counter the fanatics, you don't make sense.  What does that look like?  Is it taking up arms to attack the would-be attackers?  Are you calling for a military approach?  You don't say.  On a thread that attempt to discuss the problem of Islamic terrorism you are proving to be as effective as the Obama administration.
-----------------

You claim that ignorance of history leads to failed US policies, but don't specify any specifics.  You act as if you understand history and therefore should be able to suggest a better path to solving this problem, but you provide no specifics.  You mock American exceptionalism, which if not explained, is sort of a non-concept whose only purpose is to be a rallying cry for Conservatives, and an attack dummy for the leftists.
-----------------

You make your proclamations from some undefined moral high ground where you imply that YOU understand history, YOU understand the religion, YOU understand the Middle East, YOU understand terrorism, while the rest of us are ignorant and probably racist.  My experience is that most of the people who make unsupported claims that they know best and that those who disagree with them are ignorant, and who supply no evidence, and then turn around and call their opponents bigots are usually progressives... or at least that is what they behave like (some anarchists and self-admitted Marxists have similar bad habits) - if this doesn't describe your current or past political philosophy then you'd be well advised to stop arguing like that.
------------------

You asked why all the Christians haven't sent you personal letters condemning the Planned Parenthood shooting.  Why should they?  Are you someone important in the world of Planned Parenthood?  You "demand" all Christians explain to you why their religious beliefs don't commit them to terrorism against Planned Parenthood.  Are you Muslim?  And is that your outraged feeling of being a peaceful Muslim who is offended by references to Islamic terrorists?  Or is this just a very peculiar way of satirically calling any reference to Islamic terrorism wrong since you seem to be taking the position that Islamic terrorism isn't really Islamic?  If it's that, I don't think it is working.