How the Right Manufactures Fear of Muslims

[+Link of Hyrule]

Fear of muslims shouldn't be because of terrorism alone, it should be in part due to the state sanctioned violence which is madated by muslim religious belief. That is more terrifying than terrorists because while terrorist extremists can be rightly wrote off as a minority, you can't say the same about state sanctioned violece.

But the problem I am seeing is that not all Muslim countries have death sentences for these kinds of things. Sure, some do. But some do not. And therefore I think something other than religion is at work. Furthermore, in these countries that do have such extreme laws, even non-Muslims often accept the laws, because it's a culture thing and NOT a religious thing. I've used the example before, but consider how honour killings are part of some Muslim cultures. But people often overlook the fact that in these very same cultures a Christian can and very well might also do such a thing.

I've said that they're evil. Last I checked executing people for being raped went firmly under the 'evil' category. You said any majority would be powerless to change things under a theocracy (which would include moderates), makin them powerless in such countries.

I 'linked it to yours posts' because you mention how great moderates are and how they are the majority. Yet at the same time, those moderates that are supposedly the majority are powerless in muslim countries and can't seem to put an end to the barbaric practicies the governments do within them. That linked to something zaphod said (which you replied to) about moderates metaphorically holding people back while the extremeists did the damage. In those countries the moderates, by doing nothing, let extremeists at all levels within get away with all kinds of atrocities.

They are (imo) the majority worldwide. I can't comment on their numbers in Muslim countries per se, because we just don't have that information. They may or may not be a majority. But in a theocracy, even questioning the status quo can be a problem, so I'm certain that some who may not agree with a law also feel powerless to stop it. I'm not sure you (or I, for that matter) can ever fully understand how it is like to live in a theocracy, when we are so lucky to be living in a democracy. Nevertheless, I can imagine myself in that society, and therefore sympathise with those who do live in such.

[Irrelevant]

Go and live in the pacific islands, lol

You will see extreme Christianity that is state based..having said that its not that bad and I can't wait to go back!

Nowhere else have I ever felt so loved as in the pacific islands where Christianity Is practiced to the extreme...

Edited April 26, 2013 by Irrelevant

[+Link of Hyrule]

Buddhism inspired people to kill? Show me some evidence for this claim please. I await with joyful anticipation. Again, you are confusing racial/tribal conflicts with holy war.

I provided two links in an earlier post that showed exactly where Buddhism has been used for violence. Frank derided those links because they were not current and referred only to medieval society. To me, it doesn't matter WHEN the violence took place. All I'm pointing out is that it DID happen.

No we have not established that. Buddhism does indeed has a canon of scripture, and no where in there will you find exhortations to violence and war, unlike Islam.

That is news to me. I know there are texts expounding on the teachings of Buddha, and some Buddhists use them to inform their way of life, but this is the first I have heard them referred to as a "canon of scripture". I think you're imposing religious terms onto texts that were not written religiously in order to make your claim appear stronger to someone such as I who does believe in a canon of scripture.

Sure, I blame individual Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs who commit atrocities. But Islam has not morally progressed very much since its inception.

On this I think we'll just have to disagree.

The only thing that has changed is that Muslim countries/theocracies are once again in a position of power and wealth, due to oil profits, such that they can continue with their goal of turning Western nations into Caliphates which was put on hold after the end of WW1.

So tell me how Islam has evolved? I mean morally. Show me the equivalent of the Vatican II council that expressed a more just and inclusive teaching towards non-Catholics, especially Jews. I realize Islam has no ultimate supreme leader, but still, you should be able to find conclaves of Muslim religious leaders that came up with a new, evolutionary, teaching of inclusiveness and acceptance. Surely?

I can simply quote moderate imams who make the news. Perhaps I could walk into a Mosque near where I live - there are several, though one of them about a 20-minute drive from where I live is run by one of those extremists I mentioned that make the news here, so I'll avoid that one and go to the dozens of others and ask them. I could talk to the imams/Sheikhs/clerics and get their opinion. Of course, that wouldn't do you any good, because hearing the opinion of a moderate Muslim leader isn't the same as Vatican II, and you already know that such a thing has not happened.

[redhen]

Muslim societies will change for the better with our help too but mostly from a desire from their own, within, who seek change and crave freedom, not through the end of bombing campaign, not through war, but through education.

I would like to think so but a lot of the Arab Spring countries seem to be taken over by hard-liners.

It has also been a problem in Christian countries as well as democractic ones. You yourself perhaps would advocate for less tolerance towards Muslims.

No not less tolerance, equal tolerance, something that does not occur in Muslim nations.

Females are dying just to go to school in Afghanistan, instead of supporting their rights to go to school and their sacrifices made as they do, some would rather focus their energies on simply hating all Muslims based on fear.

I don't hate Muslims, I've never said that. You want me to support girls attending school in Afghanistan? Ok, then we have to go back in again and get rid of the Taliban and end Sharia law. Then maybe go next door and liberate Pakistan.

]Certainly these facts won't change the minds or the narrative of those who hate Islam,[/b]

Actually I was aware of female academic participation in Muslim countries, some more than others. But we both learned some new stats. And I don't hate Islam.

]those who hate are simply not using critical thinking (higher executive function part of the mind) when understanding the situation, they would rather resort to what Fox news and AM radio tells them and continue the narrative of division and intolerance.[/b]

Don't listen to radio. Fox is pretty tame. Much more varied and current info on the Internet.

Ironically they point out the intolerance of other parts of Muslim socieities (plural since there is no general Muslim society they keep portraying) as part of their own (right-wing and in many cases religious) intolerance.

Not suffering an enemy to harm you is not intolerance, it's self defense.

[+Link of Hyrule]

You are right in saying that the polemical title of this thread causes confusion. Yes, of course, it is impossible and stupid to generalize about every single nominal "muslim" in the world. By definition, every muslim can not be a terrorist. Every nominal "muslim" does not get particularly involved in religion.

At the same time, it is perfectly legitimate to discuss the link between islam and terrorism, and that is where the smokescreens go up. The islam-apologists are trying to tell us that there is no such link, because every single one of the 1.8 billion nominal muslims does not carry a pipe bomb. Well... duh!

But at the same time, islamic terrorists proudly explain where they got their ideas from, and islamic clerics openly quote and lay out the Koran suras and Haddith verses which praise and demand terrorism. And the Koran and Haddiths are chock-full of those. How in the world can you blank that out? Some people here want to argue that they know the terrorists better than the terrorists know.... themselves.

You are generalising. You speak as if all the imams/sheikhs/clerics in the world will all agree with terrorism. On one hand, you state that the nominal majority don't actually read the Qu'ran, and simply accept a belief of tolerance because they don't really get involved in their belief. On the other hand, you then go and say that those who actually study the Qu'ran, the clerics who run the mosques, are the ones who understand violence and teach people to blow themselves up. I can't stress how strongly I disagree with this. Even within the Muslim leadership, most are moderates. The clerics who run moderate mosques regularly go on the record for opposing the Muslim terrorists and those who propose extremist ideals.

Besides, that the "peaceful majority" argument is a non-starter, is also shown by the fact that it is only used by islam-apologists. Have you ever heard anyone deny that Nazism is virulent because the "vast majority" of Nazis were personally peaceful? Well, of course they were. But even Britney would laugh you out of the room if you tried to argue that.

So why the double standard?

Speaking of non-sequitur's, this is a perfect example of one. Nazism is a belief in the superiority of a racial group over others, and the inferiority of all others. No matter what I do, I will always be "superior" because I am white. I didn't choose to be white, but I am and therefore that makes me better. Someone else is black (or even worse, a Jew) and therefore they are inferior. They didn't choose to be black, or choose to be a Jew, but because they were born that way, they are less than I am! No matter how you spin it, that is a horrible belief, even if they remain non-violent about it.

On the other hand, religion is something we choose. I can choose to be a Christian, or choose to be a Muslim (laying aside for the moment certain society's that make it illegal to deconvert from Islam and follow something else). Already this is different to Nazism. Even if a Muslim feels they are "superior" (I don't think many do, not any more so than a Christian also believes they are right in their belief on Jesus) it is a matter of a person's choice to believe. It is not based on something we cannot choose (whites/blacks/Jews). It seems like we've just hit that point in the debate where I must invoke Godwin's Law. I'm afraid the thread is just going to die now, that's the usual result of Godwin's Law, after all rational arguments are discussed we are left with Nazism.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[redhen]

To me, it doesn't matter WHEN the violence took place. All I'm pointing out is that it DID happen.

But not in the name of Buddhism.

That is news to me. I know there are texts expounding on the teachings of Buddha, and some Buddhists use them to inform their way of life, but this is the first I have heard them referred to as a "canon of scripture".

Yup, there's a Chinese canon and a Pali canon.

On this I think we'll just have to disagree.

but then you equate co-opting a religion for political/racial/tribal conflicts with holy war/jihad.

I can simply quote moderate imams who make the news.

I can too. The Islamic Society of Boston sent an e-mail to its members advising them not to talk to the FBI. Thanks for the help.

Perhaps I could walk into a Mosque near where I live - there are several, though one of them about a 20-minute drive from where I live is run by one of those extremists I mentioned that make the news here, so I'll avoid that one and go to the dozens of others and ask them.

Muslim extremists in Sydney?

I could talk to the imams/Sheikhs/clerics and get their opinion. Of course, that wouldn't do you any good, because hearing the opinion of a moderate Muslim leader isn't the same as Vatican II, and you already know that such a thing has not happened.

Ok, I already admitted I knew that Islam doesn't have a supreme leader, so that's a fair cop, sorry. But how about more than one moderate Muslim leader? How about a whole bunch? I heard one a couple years ago, I'll have to look for it. Seriously, everything he said made sense.

[redhen]

On the other hand, religion is something we choose. I can choose to be a Christian, or choose to be a Muslim (laying aside for the moment certain society's that make it illegal to deconvert from Islam and follow something else).

not just illegal, by sharia law, but punishable by death.

[Clarakore]

Even if a Muslim feels they are "superior" (I don't think many do, not any more so than a Christian also believes they are right in their belief on Jesus) it is a matter of a person's choice to believe.

That is the problem right there and the enemy of pluralism: Christian and Muslims who believe only their way is right without respecting that other paths are valid. This arrogance allows for intolerance to continue. That is the heart of this thread.

It almost seems as if your view nonchalantly accepts this as valid so you excuse Muslims who do the same since you want to reserve the same rights for Christians...no, just no.

It is both Christians and Muslims who point fingers at each other without accepting others, some might become semi-tolerant in many cases, extend politcal tolerance, but spiritually they see themselves as superior and that needs to end.

All paths are valid, everyone has a chance to go to heaven if they even believe in one. As a Christian, I do.

Until they allow for religious pluralism we will never truly have political pluralism. Religious intolerance has caused much harm in history and it is not a matter of who is worse now since both are equal participants in this sham. It is tribal, outdated, and has no place in a postmodern world.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[Clarakore]

But not in the name of Buddhism.

That view is at odds with the quoted text in an earlier post.

There are ample doctrinal sources that provide Buddhists with a justification for violence such as the Mahayana Chinese version of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Upayakaushalya Sutra, and the Kalachakra Tantra.

Buddhist terrorism.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[redhen]

That view is at odds with the quoted text in an earlier post.

Buddhist terrorism.

I get "Buddhism and violence "

This page has some issues

[redhen]

Religious intolerance has caused much harm in history and it is not a matter of who is worse now since both are equal participants in this sham.

Right, so we just have to wait for the Islamic world to catch up. /sigh

It is tribal, outdated, and has no place in a postmodern world.

Agreed. So how long should the West wait for this evolution?

[Clarakore]

I get "Buddhism and violence "

This page has some issues

Well the passage is still accurate regardless if the claim toward the opposite has been repeated countless times.

Buddhism inspired people to kill? Show me some evidence for this claim please. I await with joyful anticipation. Again, you are confusing racial/tribal conflicts with holy war.

No we have not established that. Buddhism does indeed has a canon of scripture, and no where in there will you find exhortations to violence and war, unlike Islam.

Shall we allow the gravity of repeating a myth to blind us to reality?

One element that is commonly presented when justifying murder is the dehumanization of the intended victim(s). The dehumanization is present in Theravada when monks consider communists or the followers of the Tamil king Elara less than human and thus meritoriously expendable. Within Mayahana doctrine, some humans are designated as icchantikas, those who are those barred from enlightenment.

Mahyana doctrine typically advocates proselytizing, with people undertaking the bodhisattva vows to work toward liberating all sentient being (bodhicitta.) This all-encompassing ethos has an exception with the icchantika. Considered the most vile and debased creatures, they have either committed the worst of deeds or the repudiated the basic tenets of the doctrine; they are classified at a lower level than animals. Some texts, such as the Chinese version of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, consider it more harmful to kill an ant than an icchantika. Within this text, the Buddha eplains that no negative karma accrues from killing them:

"Just as no sinful karma [will be engendered] when on digs the ground, mows grass, fells trees, cuts corpses into pieces and scolds and whips them, the same is true when one kills an icchantika, for which deed [also] no sinful karma [will arise]." (Ming-Wood 1984:68)

Perhaps the most extreme religious rhetoric of dehumanization occurs within Mahayana doctrine: If a person is empty of substance, what is being murdered? One scripture that offers an answer is the Chinese text called the Susthutaati-Paripriccha which is often referred to as How to Kill with the Sword of Wisdom.

...

In some texts, killing or war is justified so long as it is done to defend the religion. In the Tibetan version of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Buddhists, especially kings, are expected to take up weapons and fight to defend their religion (Schmithausen 1999: 57-58). Similar to Theravada doctrine, Mahayana doctrine contains different ethics for rulers than for lay practicioners. The Mongolian text White History of the Tenfold Virtuous Dharma instructs rulers to destroy those against the Buddhist teaching and to implement harsh measures when necessary (Wallace 2010: 93). The South Asian Arya-Bodhisattva-gocara-upayavishay a-vikrurvana-nirdesha Sutra (Satyakaparivata), which is loosely translates as The Noble Teachings through Manifestation of the Subject of Skill-in-Means within the Bodhisattva's Field of Activity, also provides instructions for rulers, which includes ways to administers Buddhist-sanctioned torture, capital punishment, and other forms of violence. In the text, the king is warned to avoid the exercise of excessive compassion and to imprison, terrorize, beat, bind, or harm "uncivilized people" (Jenkins 2010:64).

pgs 52-53

Hmm...

Perhaps the most extreme measure of skill in means to justify violence is found in the chapter "Murder with Skill in Means: The Story of the Compassionate Ship's Captain" from the Upayakaushalya Sutra, or the Skill-in-Means Sutra. In one of his many previous births, the Buddha is the captain of a ship at sea and is told by water deities that a robber onboard the ship intends to kill the five hundred passengers and the captain. Within a dream, the deities implore the captain to use skill in means to prevent this, since all five hundred men are future bodhisattvas and the murder of them would invoke the robber immeasurable lifetimes in the darkest hells. The captain, who in this text is named Great Compassionate (Mahakarunika), wakes and contemplates the predicament for seven days. He eventually realizes:

"There is no means to prevent this man from slaying the merchants and going to the great hells but to kill him: And he thought, "If I were to report this to the merchants, they would kill and slay him with angry thoughts and all go to great hell themselves." And he thought, "If I were to kill this person, I would likewise burn in the great hells for one hundred-thousand eons because of it. Yet I can bear to experience the pains of the great hells, that his person not slay these five hundred merchants and develop so much evil karma. I will kill this person myself." (Tatz 1994:74)

The captain subsequently murders the robber, and the Buddha explains, "For me, samsara was curtailed for one hundred-thousand eons because of that skill in means and great compassion. And the robber died to be reborn in the world of paradise" (ibid.). Here, the skill in means is motivated by compassion, which ameliorated the karmic results of murder.

pg 51

OK, so that was just about general violence, but it could easily be put in the context of holy war, you can disagree. Hoped you like the samsara reference.

Defense does not pertain to simply threats of the state but also include preemptive attacks due to an imminent cosmic war. The most notable of these is found in the Indian and Tibetann Kalachakra Tantra, referred to as the Wheel of Time Tantra. As mentioned by the Buddhologist Lambert Schmithausen, the text describes an eschatological war in which the army of the bodhisattva king of Shambhala finally conquers and annihilates the Muslim forces in order to destroy the barbarian religion and to reestablish Buddhism. We should not overlook the historical context of this text; it is estimated by scholars that it was composed during the Muslim invasions of northern India in the eleventh century.

pg 55

This is the perfect example of if given the right circumstances any community can veer toward extremism and find justification for it within their belief system, be it book or thought.

Context, the environment, the geopolitical situation, has much more to do with religious extremism. Many of us are beginning to understand this...

The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence

Edited April 26, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[+Link of Hyrule]

But not in the name of Buddhism.

So what are they doing it in the name of? Militant sects of Buddhism who tolerate no other view of Buddhism but their own, at the point of a sword when necessary. What are they doing it in the name of?

Yup, there's a Chinese canon and a Pali canon.

And these scriptures are inerrant and must be followed to the letter?

but then you equate co-opting a religion for political/racial/tribal conflicts with holy war/jihad.

Yes, and no. Often violence in the name of a religion is just a smokescreen for a different motive (race, politics, greed, and such). But not all the time, and when these extremists commit violence in the name of their belief, to me it doesn't matter if that belief is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Communism, or any other such - they still represent an extremist minority.

I can too. The Islamic Society of Boston sent an e-mail to its members advising them not to talk to the FBI. Thanks for the help.

Not having looked into the Islamic Society of Boston, I cannot answer for certain, but the email looked quite innocent to me. If you are contacted by law authorities, know your Rights. At no time did I see in that article and email an advisory to not talk to the FBI.

Muslim extremists in Sydney?

Yes, take the following article as an example, where a Sheikh tells his followers that Rugby League is the devil's sport and those who watch it are devil worshippers. He's one of two or three extremist clerics who routinely make the news in Australia.

Ok, I already admitted I knew that Islam doesn't have a supreme leader, so that's a fair cop, sorry. But how about more than one moderate Muslim leader? How about a whole bunch? I heard one a couple years ago, I'll have to look for it. Seriously, everything he said made sense.

I can get a whole bunch. There are dozens of Mosques in Sydney, and only a very small minority of them propose the extremist views.

[Clarakore]

Right, so we just have to wait for the Islamic world to catch up. /sigh

We both play a part. The idea that we have to wait for them to catch up is rooted in the belief that we are superior and they are inferior. That idea poses a challenge to progress.

We have to help them where they suffer and in turn we have to take whatever help and lessons they can offer us.

An adult brute beating on an immature child is better how? But in doing so the adult brute can learn a lesson, maybe in time this adult will become more willing to allow the child room to mature, just as he did.

We are that adult and they are the child (or maybe they are teenagers that we, the adults are afraid of even if we still have a responsiblity toward them). But this is not concrete, when Islam was the light of the world and we were in the Dark Ages they were the adult and we were the child. Roles have reversed. Shall we reverse them again or both grow up and meet at the table as equals?

So how long should we wait for them to catch up? That question might be an illusion.

Agreed. So how long should the West wait for this evolution?

I have a feeling when we outgrow our own It tribal and outdated mindset that they will as well. One can compare notes all day claiming their tribal and outdated mindset leads to worse things than ours but that is like saying one side of the coin is uglier than the other side. We are perfectly symetrical spiritually. Just because we have better access to jobs, education, stable homes, and transportation does on the physical level allow the illusion that they are worse and we are better but we are the same...we are the same.

The greatest illusion is to believe I am here and you are there.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[+Link of Hyrule]

That is the problem right there and the enemy of pluralism:

Perhaps that is because I am not a pluralist and do not agree with pluralism.

Christian and Muslims who believe only their way is right without respecting that other paths are valid. This arrogance allows for intolerance to continue. That is the heart of this thread.

I'm not intolerant of other beliefs. I accept a person's choice to believe as he or she wishes. It doesn't mean I agree with them, though.

It almost seems as if your view nonchalantly accepts this as valid so you excuse Muslims who do the same since you want to reserve the same rights for Christians...no, just no.

It is both Christians and Muslims who point fingers at each other without accepting others, some might become semi-tolerant in many cases, extend politcal tolerance, but spiritually they see themselves as superior and that needs to end.

All paths are valid, everyone has a chance to go to heaven if they even believe in one. As a Christian, I do.

Until they allow for religious pluralism we will never truly have political pluralism. Religious intolerance has caused much harm in history and it is not a matter of who is worse now since both are equal participants in this sham. It is tribal, outdated, and has no place in a postmodern world.

With respect, Jesus taught that his way was the only way. You obviously don't accept that, but as a committed Bible-believing Christian I can't ignore Jesus' own words - "I am the way, the truth and the life, NO ONE comes to the father, except through me".

[Clarakore]

Perhaps that is because I am not a pluralist and do not agree with pluralism.

I'm not intolerant of other beliefs. I accept a person's choice to believe as he or she wishes. It doesn't mean I agree with them, though.

With respect, Jesus taught that his way was the only way. You obviously don't accept that, but as a committed Bible-believing Christian I can't ignore Jesus' own words - "I am the way, the truth and the life, NO ONE comes to the father, except through me".

I am a Bible-believing Christian too (even if you don't consider me one) but that does not mean I believe others on other paths are going to hell (which is probably why you don't consider me one). Only when we move beyond such shallow views that there is only one right way will we find peace. A huge problem might also be that many Christians (not all, as I don't) believe that peace cannot be found on Earth but only in Heaven. So why bother, why try to improve the world, or if some do try they stop short.

Religious pluralism would make things better in the here and now. Some might believe religious pluralism will allow others to go to hell and so they would rather have things not so great now in order to convert them or write them off if they refuse. They sacrifice the well being of others now in the present for some future promise they only reserve for themselves. That is not Godly to me...especially since who are we to reserve salvation just for us? We are not the One who does that.

We can see how the two views are entwined.

Only one path leads to heaven = we don't really need a stable and peaceful world.

Without spiritual tolerance (religious pluralism) we cannot have political tolerance (respecting all cultures and moving toward the creation of a more egalitarian world). The spiritual is the foundation of the physical just as our thoughts will manifest in the world as reality. Change our thoughts and we will change the world.

We exclude or ignore others simply because we don't consider them spiritual equals. Although unsure how anyone could take it upon their mortal selves to do that. I know...because of a tradition, because of the way they focus on certain scriptures while ignoring others...we might not be terrorizing others at present over it but we are no better than those who do if we share that same core concept.

Or we will consider others a threat to our spiritual values or system if they disagree but where is the assurance, the rock, the foundation, the steadfast calmness of the presence of the Holy Spirit?

That core concept needs to be discarded, it does more harm than good, harm all over the world, harm all over some perverted view of the promise. The real promise is not like that.

Christians need to wake up and see how their own views contribute to fear in themselves and to others.

Or we can just Godwin the political dialogue with the other half of the world and call them Nazis, near-Nazis, or something worse..but that would end the conversation and dehumanize them. (Not accusing you of anything, this is speaking toward my views on Christianity in general, especially the American evengelical and fundamentalist brand of it and why this thread was generated to begin with).

Edited April 26, 2013 by Leave Britney alone!

[Glenville86]

KORAN commands to kill infidels:

Allah is an enemy to unbelievers. - Sura 2:98

On unbelievers is the curse of Allah. - Sura 2:161

Slay them wherever ye find them and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. - 2:191

Fight against them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme. (different translation: ) Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely. - Sura 2:193 and 8:39

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. - 2:216

(different translation: ) Prescribed for you is fighting, though it is hateful to you.

..... martyrs.... Enter heaven - Surah 3:140-43

If you should die or be killed in the cause of Allah, His mercy and forgiveness would surely be better than all they riches they amass. If you should die or be killed, before Him you shall all be gathered. - 3:157-8

You must not think that those who were slain in the cause of Allah are dead. They are alive, and well-provided for by their Lord. - Surah 3:169-71

Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fights in the cause of God, whether he is slain or victorious, soon we shall give him a great reward. - Surah 4:74

Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil. - 4:76

But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever you find them. - 4:89

Therefore, we stirred among them enmity and hatred, which shall endure till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will declare to them all that they have done. - 5:14

O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Those of you who make them his friends is one of them. God does not guide an unjust people. - 5:54

Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah's religion reigns supreme - 8:39

O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there are 20 steadfast men among you, they shall vanquish 200; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. - 8:65

It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he has made slaughter in the land. - 8:67

Allah will humble the unbelievers. Allah and His apostle are free from obligations to idol-worshipers. Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers. - 9:2-3

When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. - 9:5

Believers! Know that idolators are unclean. - 9:28

Fight those who believe neither in God nor the Last Day, nor what has been forbidden by God and his messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the tribute and have been humbled. - 9:29 (another source: ) The unbelievers are impure and their abode is hell. (another source: ) Humiliate the non-Muslims to such an extent that they surrender and pay tribute.

Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of Allah, with your wealth and your persons. - 9:41

O Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites. Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end. - 9:73

Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for His cause, kill and be killed. - 9:111

Fight unbelievers who are near to you. 9:123 (different translation:

Believers! Make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find harshness in you. (another source: ) Ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers....

As for those who are slain in the cause of Allah, He will not allow their works to perish. He will vouchsafe them guidance and ennoble their state; He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them. - 10:4-15

Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing hell. - 33:60

Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. - 41:14

When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds, then set them free, either by grace or ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. - 47:4

(different translation: ) When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads, and when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly.

Those who are slain in the way of Allah - he will never let their deeds be lost. Soon will he guide them and improve their condition, and admit them to the Garden, which he has announced for them. - 47:5

Muslims are harsh against the unbelievers, merciful to one another. - 48:25

Muhammad is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. Through them, Allah seeks to enrage the unbelievers. - 48:29

Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate. - 66:9

The unbelievers among the People of the Book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. - 98:51

[redhen]

So what are they doing it in the name of? Militant sects of Buddhism who tolerate no other view of Buddhism but their own, at the point of a sword when necessary. What are they doing it in the name of?

In the name of ego, which itself is disavowed in Buddhism.

And these scriptures are inerrant and must be followed to the letter?

I forget now why you originally claimed that Buddhism had no canon and everyone followed their own interpretation. But no, the only ones who are bound to it are the religious (monks and nuns).

Yes, and no. Often violence in the name of a religion is just a smokescreen for a different motive (race, politics, greed, and such). But not all the time, and when these extremists commit violence in the name of their belief, to me it doesn't matter if that belief is Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Communism, or any other such - they still represent an extremist minority.

Hmm, show me then another religion besides Islam that teaches holy war and actually engages in it. In the 21st century that is.

Not having looked into the Islamic Society of Boston, I cannot answer for certain, but the email looked quite innocent to me. If you are contacted by law authorities, know your Rights. At no time did I see in that article and email an advisory to not talk to the FBI.

This particular mosque is where Tamaerlan Tsarnaev, the Chechen Jihadi terrorist worshiped. The inference is clear, from the e-mail;

"We have been informed that the FBI may be starting to question some of the community members about the two suspects. Insha'Allah we want to help as much as we can, but of course not put ourselves at risk either.

>> "

If you get contacted by the FBI, please know your rights."

So the implication is clear, don't snitch.

Yes, take the following article as an example, where a Sheikh tells his followers that Rugby League is the devil's sport and those who watch it are devil worshippers. He's one of two or three extremist clerics who routinely make the news in Australia.

Well I can safely predict that this kind of home-grown Jihadi extremism will flourish if it's not taken seriously or rendered ineffective by political correctness and the rush to not offend anyone. Same with Canada which is another highly multicultural, Commonwealth nation.

I can get a whole bunch. There are dozens of Mosques in Sydney, and only a very small minority of them propose the extremist views.

Wherever there are Islamic extremists living major Western cities you find creeping Sharia. I can cite examples of girls being humiliated in public schools by making those that are menstruating sit at the back. Yes, that's a picture of menstruating school girls made to sit at the back of class, in Canada, in the 21st century.

You know what the official motto of the city of Toronto is? The coat of arms proudly displays "Diversity our Strength". Which explains why medieval views on cleanliness are allowed in publicly funded schools in the West. I suspect the UK is in the same situation.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Waiting for some Islamic nations to drag themselves out of the dark ages would be alright if they existed in isolation. But they don't. Should Europeans tolerate Muslims demonstrating and advocating murder for those that cause them offence? Most of us in 'western' nations value that we can speak freely, and such behaviour is the antithesis of many of our core values.

Agreed, they most certainly don't exist in isolation. I guess it comes down to again what we mean by 'tolerate'. I'm an American and I believe we have the most liberal laws as far as allowing speech, an approach I happen to agree with, so if we are asking should Muslims be allowed to demonstrate against those causing offense, absolutely. And people should demonstrate against them letting them know that they think the reason they are taking offense is not a good one, and that they have no right not to be offended (i.e. 'grow the hell up'). Calling for the murder of someone else is stickier admittedly as far as the legality of it. But I don't know how many Muslims in Europe were actually calling for murder as a percentage of the millions of Muslim Europeans, let's say in response to that Muhammed cartoon nonsense; that piece of info consistently gets lost in the messages of an American media hungry for spectacles.

Maybe one solution is to more fully engage with more 'moderate' Muslims in our societies. But they often appear oddly quiet when they could say much more about some of those they share their faith with. When the majority of decent Muslims acknowledge that their religion is riddled with archaic thinking - and that they're not just a fringe minority - this will make the way to tolerance smoother.

Agreed again, but in America it is very easy to find statements of American Muslims denouncing terrorism. In addition, there are numerous statements from other Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia, condemning the 9/11 attacks and clearly stating that such actions are contrary to Islam. But unfortunately these have to be looked for, our media environment is not going to publicize condemnations to any degree comparable to violence. And to me, I don't know how much we can really say that their faith is 'shared'; whether or not violence and terrorism is justified is a pretty big point to differ on within a religion. I fear what we want them to do is to constantly make clear that they don't believe in terrorism, just to counteract the cognitive shortcuts we all take because we don't want to analyze the composition of what Muslims actually believe; we all share some responsibility in my view for making huge assumptions that a billion+ Muslims mostly believe the same thing as far as violence, that's not a logical assumption for anyone to be making.

I understand the anger that is provoked by military actions in Muslim countries and how this can create more extremists. We certainly need to examine our own conduct in that regard. The difference, as I see it, is that you will hear many in our nations berating and criticising their governments. Not so many in Islamic nations. If Islam truly is a religion of peace why don't we hear the majority condemn those that prefer violence?

But do that many Islamic nations allow people to freely berate and criticize their governments, let alone allow them to criticize other Muslim ideologies? That's part of the issue, how do we tease apart all of these factors that anger Muslims and drive them to violence, with some legitimacy? I thought I had read a quote here but I guess I stumbled across it last night that I think sums this up pretty nicely, and I paraphrase here, from I believe a young Muslim in maybe Afghanistan: "I don't hate America, I love America, but if America harms one hair on my little sister's head you will have an enemy for life". I really don't think that many of us in Western nations would respond that much differently than that either.

[Frank Merton]

I would like to make one thing as clear as it is possible. Buddhism has scripture, in fact tons and tons of it, much from individual schools, but all accepted by all Buddhists.

It is not however like the way Protestant Christians treat the Bible or Muslims treat the Q'uran. They are writings by wise and good men (maybe a few women too, although Buddhism has its own unfortunate sexist tendencies) respected as such.

There is a sly way in which missionaries are referred to when they appear Bible in hand -- they are "Bible idolaters." (This is my best translation -- the word is the word used for prostrating oneself in front of the statue of the Buddha). Since Buddhism denies that there is even the possibility of actual idolatry -- we know there is no person in the statue, but even if we thought otherwise all we would be doing is honoring the deity or whatever we thought was there. Besides, God would not be offended -- some lowly human causing God any sort of discomfort whatever is ridiculous.

[Frank Merton]

Muslims get a poor press, but its their own fault. All the moderation in the world from a few moderate leaders is constantly drowned by absurd rhetoric from the important ones. Blaming the presses desire for circulation is like putting an open tin of sardines in front of kitty and then being angry at it for eating them.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Muslims get a poor press, but its their own fault. All the moderation in the world from a few moderate leaders is constantly drowned by absurd rhetoric from the important ones.

Who exactly defines who the 'important' Muslim leaders are? Does their importance jump just because they are violent, regardless of their numbers? How far do you want to take this 'logic' that 'it's their own fault', when you're blaming 1 billion Muslims for the actions of some of them? "Christians get poor press, but it's their own fault since the Vatican enabled the molestation of children", right? Like it really needs to be explained that not all Christians, nor Muslims, nor Buddhists, have identical beliefs? I find it very weird and inconsistent that you take this attitude given how sensitive you seem to be when examples of violent Buddhists are trotted out; you seem very quick to make clear other Buddhists bear no responsibility for them. Why don't they share responsibility? Because they personally don't believe violence is justified under their specific beliefs, why should they be blamed for something they don't believe? I think that's an entirely reasonable response. So why are you blaming moderate Muslims for something they don't believe?

Blaming the presses desire for circulation is like putting an open tin of sardines in front of kitty and then being angry at it for eating them.

Absurd. Kitties aren't people. We can change 'blaming the press's uneven coverage because of their desire for circulation' to 'blaming oil companies for massive oil spills that occur as part of their desire for profits' and it's just as 'logical'. I'll give you that it's not just the media, it's the consumers also, but that applies to oil also. Is there likewise no reason to get angry at oil companies for spills?

[Frank Merton]

Yea, kitties manage to make a good living without much work. Important ones? Oh, like the President of Iran?

By the way, it is very counterproductive to respond to someone with a word like, "absurd." It was only because I have read you before and was a bit tolerant that I was able to get beyond that.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Yea, kitties manage to make a good living without much work. Important ones? Oh, like the President of Iran?

By the way, it is very counterproductive to respond to someone with a word like, "absurd." It was only because I have read you before and was a bit tolerant that I was able to get beyond that.

Likewise, it's questionable how productive the postings of how insulted and disgusted you are at other people's comments is, it's not like that attitude encourages free and open communication either. So right now I guess I'm having trouble seeing any logic by which 'counterproductive' is being assigned outside of whose ox is being gored. It's only because I've read you before, and respect what you have to say, that I bothered to respond to you at all; I've learned that there are a few people on UM that there is no point responding to as I don't seem to be sharing the same reality with them, and you are not one of them. I apologize if you didn't like 'absurd', but it's not like I just said that and didn't give you any explanation why I find your statement absurd. I personally would think it more productive to actually explain why your formulation is not 'absurd' or 'invalid' or whatever synonym you find palatable and what is wrong with my reply than to complain about my word choice. I welcome as much as possible being told where I'm wrong and what the failure in my reasoning is so I can correct it ongoing.

And my question remains, to what degree is it 'fair' to blame millions of people for what they do not believe? Right now it largely seems to be 'when other people/the media can't be troubled to differentiate to any level of specificity beyond the general, 'Muslim''. And no I don't find that response to actually be fair.

[F3SS]

And my question remains, to what degree is it 'fair' to blame millions of people for what they do not believe? Right now it largely seems to be 'when other people/the media can't be troubled to differentiate to any level of specificity beyond the general, 'Muslim''. And no I don't find that response to actually be fair.

It isn't. You and others just keep saying that over and over in spite of relentless explanations stating otherwise. The perps are Muslim and will be referred to as such. People are sick of walking on eggshells looking for some PC term like 'freedom fighters'. Give me a break. I've never heard a broadcast going on about what we need to do with all these Muslims. I'm no huge fan of the MSM but I always hear these people referred to as Radical Islamists or Muslim extremists. A clear separation from the other 999 million Muslims. 225 posts and half of them are asking your question and the other half are explaining they know the difference.

I think this record is broken.