Do You Think Muslims Are Violent?

[jonathan180iq]

Sometimes rights require limits. My right to swing my arms stops when my hand hits my neighbors nose.

And your right to practice your religion is not restricted. Your right to talk about Islam is not restricted - nor is my right to refute your talk about your religion because I have a different view... And that's cool. I'm not punching you in the nose and you're not punching me in the nose. We just disagree. I'll challenge you and you have the ability to challenge me. That's how growth works. If you're never challenged, you can't grow.

 

[RAYYAN]

The imams are Islamic religious leaders who could not find child brides to marry because the younger Muslim men get first pick. Out of bitterness they encourage the younger Muslim men to become jihadist so they will get their 72 virgins in paradise and leave the young girls for the older men. Every jihadists can be traced back to an Imam.

We should not take you serious, your posts are childish

 

[Woodrow LI]

I gathered that the images that did the most damage were cooked up by a bunch of imams who travelled around causing trouble and were not part of the original publication. (Where did the Pakistani mobs get all those Danish flags?)

Perhaps you can help me here. Who are imams? Why do they seem to so often cause trouble? Are they really experts on islam?

I am an Imam and I am not an expert on Islam. But I am able to lead the obligatory prayers which is all that is required of an Imam. Typically the Imam will be the oldest person present at prayer time. With my bad luck for living so dang long that is often me. There are no ordained clergy in Islam. All Muslims are equal and considered to be clergy.

As we have no ordained clergy the media seems to assume that any idiot who supports aggression and terrorism speaks as an authority for all Muslims. Those of us who speak of peace and tolerance are no more news worthy than yesterdays chopped liver.

 

[Harikrish]

We should not take you serious, your posts are childish

Every jihadists can be traced backed to an Imam. What is so childish about this disturbing fact?

The majority of jihadists recruits are young men. What is so childish about this disturbing fact?

The older Muslim men all want the baby brides. What is so childish about this shocking fact?

 

[EyeofOdin]

This isn't a black and white topic. Some Islamic cultures are, some aren't.

Some Muslims interpret gender role regulations in the Koran as laws condoning male superoriority, others as a protection for women against lust from men and some as a product of Muhammed's worldview which is inapplicable in the 21st century.

There is more diversity in Islam than the Euro-American right claims. Some Muslims claim that the sacred duty is militant, others say it's equivalent to Christian mission work.

Islam is no different from other spiritual traditions that it has various interpretations and practices based on them.

For example, Christianity sometimes interprets the Abrahamic sacred duty as being mission work (assisting developing countries or nationally domestic poverty while also providing access to their teachings), others as a militant duty, similar to Islamic terrorism actually, by bombing Planned Parenthood facilities, LGBT youth shelters or safe houses or even genocides like the Holocaust, which is not well known that the Nazis were very Christian-based ("Gott mitt uns" was printed on the belt buckles, which means "God with us").

From my own community, Germanic Heathenry, some feel that anyone can practice Heathenry regardless of ethno-linguistic heritage, like members of The Troth. The Asatru Folk Assembly however takes the opposite view that one can only honor the gods of one's polytheistic culture. Wotanism often manifests with racial views similar to that of the Nazis.

Anti-Abrahamism is common because of the anti-colonialist themes in polytheistic/animistic reconstruction, while coexistence is also common. Most Heathens will be able to befriend a Catholic, while still keeping in mind the genocidal history of Christianity to Germanic Europe. On the other end, The Odin Brotherhood regards the Abrahamic population as "The Enemy".

Blanket statements towards communities are misleading, hypocritical and charged with political biases. Every religion, including Islam, has a spectrum of spiritual interpretation manifesting in political variation, the extreme right of which being typically violent. The others can be violent, but usually aren't.

 

[Woodrow LI]

And your right to practice your religion is not restricted. Your right to talk about Islam is not restricted - nor is my right to refute your talk about your religion because I have a different view... And that's cool. I'm not punching you in the nose and you're not punching me in the nose. We just disagree. I'll challenge you and you have the ability to challenge me. That's how growth works. If you're never challenged, you can't grow.

I deeply appreciate sincere disagreement. I strongly support everyone's right to express there opinions and disagree when they believe someone is wrong.

What I do disagree with is the right to be verbally abusive and offensive for the singular purpose of hurting another person. This nonsense of "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me" is a fallacy, offensive words are often more painful than physical abuse

I agree you have the right and duty to point out what you perceive as what is wrong about Islam and what you believe are abuses by Mohammad(saws). What I do not support is the right to publish knowingly offensive caricatures that can only have the purpose of insulting Muslims. .I also do not support acting violently against those who do such.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I found the Fareed Zakaria article worth reading.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

or even genocides like the Holocaust, which is not well known that the Nazis were very Christian-based ("Gott mitt uns" was printed on the belt buckles, which means "God with us").

Not to get off topic, but they really weren't. Hitler was known to say very negative things about Christianity in private. Many of the top Nazis were anti-Christian and into a warped version of Germanic Paganism and occultism. Himmler was basically running a cult based on race and occultism (the SS was as much a religious order as a military group). The SS even had its own rituals and holidays based on Germanic Paganism and occultism. Hitler merely paid lip service to Christianity in public because Germany was a Christian nation. They were merely being pragmatic. But they persecuted the Catholics, the Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses and tried to create a warped version of Christianity that was stripped of its Jewish elements, stripped of its traditional morals and ethics and salvation theology. Many Catholics, Protestants and Jehovah's Witnesses were jailed, put into concentration camps and killed. The Pope wrote an encyclical in 1937 condemning Nazi ideology. After the war, they planned to rid Germany of Christianity because they knew it was incompatible with National Socialism and viewed it as a weakness.

Those belt buckles go back a very long time in German history. The Nazis simply continued to use them, although their idea of God would've been very different from the Christian notion of God.

Sources:
Gott mit uns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religious views of Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Alfred Rosenberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thule Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ideology of the SS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heinrich Himmler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Positive Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
German Christians - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
German Faith Movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Guido von List - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Esoteric Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hitler's Persecution of the Christian Churches
Word for Word/The Case Against the Nazis; How Hitler's Forces Planned To Destroy German Christianity - New York Times
Cornell Law Library - Nuremberg Trials Collection: The Donovan Archive Index
Mit brennender Sorge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[YmirGF]

I found the Fareed Zakaria article worth reading.

You accidentally linked to his profile, Jay, not an article.

 

[YmirGF]

I agree you have the right and duty to point out what you perceive as what is wrong about Islam and what you believe are abuses by Mohammad(saws). What I do not support is the right to publish knowingly offensive caricatures that can only have the purpose of insulting Muslims. .I also do not support acting violently against those who do such.

Then you want censorship and personally, I find that offensive. So, who wins?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You accidentally linked to his profile, Jay, not an article.

Thanks.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I do not support is the right to publish knowingly offensive caricatures that can only have the purpose of insulting Muslims. .I also do not support acting violently against those who do such.

So, you support neither (a) publishing knowingly offensive caricatures, nor (b) the right to publish knowingly offensive caricatures.

Is that right? And what if we were to replace the word 'caricatures' with 'characterizations'?

 

[Woodrow LI]

So, you support neither (a) publishing knowingly offensive caricatures, nor (b) the right to publish knowingly offensive caricatures.

Is that right? And what if we were to replace the word 'caricatures' with 'characterizations'?

Partially wrong. I do not support either when they serve no purpose except to insult and that being the only visible intent.

Just as I do not support racial slurs,Deliberate lies used to mislead, obscenities used to instill hatred or to incite violence.

I might dislike caricature used with the intent of humor or to make a statement, but I do support the right to do such.

I can not see any purpose in doing or saying anything with the intent of causing pain to another be it through words or physical actions.

 

[icehorse]

Partially wrong. I do not support either when they serve no purpose except to insult and that being the only visible intent.

Just as I do not support racial slurs,Deliberate lies used to mislead, obscenities used to instill hatred or to incite violence.

I might dislike caricature used with the intent of humor or to make a statement, but I do support the right to do such.

I can not see any purpose in doing or saying anything with the intent of causing pain to another be it through words or physical actions.

I think you mix things together that oughtn't be mixed. Insulting a person is DIFFERENT than criticizing a person's idea.

 

[columbus]

Partially wrong. I do not support either when they serve no purpose except to insult and that being the only visible intent.

That would not be the case with the Danish cartoon. It was to point out the existence of a violent streak in Muslims that was demonstrated by the violence that followed.

Just as I do not support racial slurs,Deliberate lies used to mislead, obscenities used to instill hatred or to incite violence.

I don't support them either. But I am unwilling to make it a crime to upset someone by telling them a truth they prefer not to hear.

I might dislike caricature used with the intent of humor or to make a statement, but I do support the right to do such.

That is the point to satire. "Black humor" as it were. That is exactly what the Danish cartoon was all about.

I can not see any purpose in doing or saying anything with the intent of causing pain to another be it through words or physical actions.

This cannot be true. You would be advocating the end of punishment of any sort. There are plenty of people who have earned punishment. Violent Muslims among them. A satirical cartoon is just the tip of the iceberg.

What punishment did the folks who attacked the Danish embassy in Pakistan expect to get? What did they get? They are the true reason for that cartoon being made and published in the first place. And they demonstrated that it was accurate, if not complete.

Tom

 

[Woodrow LI]

That would not be the case with the Danish cartoon. It was to point out the existence of a violent streak in Muslims that was demonstrated by the violence that followed.

I don't support them either. But I am unwilling to make it a crime to upset someone by telling them a truth they prefer not to hear.

That is the point to satire. "Black humor" as it were. That is exactly what the Danish cartoon was all about.

This cannot be true. You would be advocating the end of punishment of any sort. There are plenty of people who have earned punishment. Violent Muslims among them. A satirical cartoon is just the tip of the iceberg.

What punishment did the folks who attacked the Danish embassy in Pakistan expect to get? What did they get? They are the true reason for that cartoon being made and published in the first place. And they demonstrated that it was accurate, if not complete.

Tom

What truth was told in any of those cartoons? They did not come across as satire, they came across as a deliberate insult of a minority in Denmark.

Perhaps as you say the intent was to point out the existence of a violent streak in Muslims. But wouldn't verifiable examples of such have been a more peaceful way. to provoke a person into violence is not proof they are normally violent. Even a timid rabbit will bite if provoked, that is not proof rabbits are biters.

The question we can not answer is were they intended to be satire or were they intended to insult the Muslim minority in Denmark?

However the cartoons were shown world wide. They were plastered about every few seconds on an Islamic site I administered.Kept the mods busy deleting them for a pretty good time. I feel the intent was to ridicule and offend us, not to educate or show disagreement.

While I disapprove of the violence some Muslims exhibited, I do not believe the cartoons had any redeeming qualities. As to if they should be illegal, that I do not know, I would say that would depend upon the opinion of the majority if put to a vote.. But I believe the creator of them shares at least partial responsibility for the harm that resulted. Sort of like a Bar tender is partially accountable for serving alcohol to a patron he knows will drive while intoxicated. A hunter has the right to shoot a firearm, but he is censored as to when and where he does.

Censorship is wrong, but sometimes it may be the lesser of evils.

If as you say the intent was to incite Muslims to riot, is that not tantamount to being part of the riots that occurred?

I do advocate free speech, but I do think if it is apparent something is going to result in physical or emotional pain without justification, it should not be allowed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What truth was told in any of those cartoons? They did not come across as satire, they came across as a deliberate insult of a minority in Denmark.

Perhaps as you say the intent was to point out the existence of a violent streak in Muslims. But wouldn't verifiable examples of such have been a more peaceful way. to provoke a person into violence is not proof they are normally violent. Even a timid rabbit will bite if provoked, that is not proof rabbits are biters.

The question we can not answer is were they intended to be satire or were they intended to insult the Muslim minority in Denmark?

However the cartoons were shown world wide. They were plastered about every few seconds on an Islamic site I administered.Kept the mods busy deleting them for a pretty good time. I feel the intent was to ridicule and offend us, not to educate or show disagreement.

While I disapprove of the violence some Muslims exhibited, I do not believe the cartoons had any redeeming qualities. As to if they should be illegal, that I do not know, I would say that would depend upon the opinion of the majority if put to a vote.. But I believe the creator of them shares at least partial responsibility for the harm that resulted. Sort of like a Bar tender is partially accountable for serving alcohol to a patron he knows will drive while intoxicated. A hunter has the right to shoot a firearm, but he is censored as to when and where he does.

Censorship is wrong, but sometimes it may be the lesser of evils.

If as you say the intent was to incite Muslims to riot, is that not tantamount to being part of the riots that occurred?

I do advocate free speech, but I do think if it is apparent something is going to result in physical or emotional pain without justification, it should not be allowed.

I think we need to stop defending and coddling the attitude that insults to a religion should be met with violence and death, or that such responses are understandable or otherwise excusable. You do not have the right not to be offended. That's just the way it is and freedom of expression is more important than protecting your feelings. Christianity is mocked on a daily basis in the West and Jesus is subjected to rather disgusting levels of mockery and hatred. But you don't see Christians forming violent mobs and killing people when it happens, and Christ is our God, unlike how Islam views Muhammad as a mere prophet. We don't like it, but God will deal with those people as He sees fit. We are to just bear it with charity, grace and perseverance. Why can't Muslims do the same? Why do Muslims murder people when they're only suspected of somehow blaspheming Islam? Why did a mob of 1,200 Muslims in Pakistan see fit to beat and burn to death a defenseless Christian couple (who were also slaves, by the way, and the woman was 4 months pregnant) merely because they were accused of defacing a Qur'an? Why is a book more valued than human life in Islam?

 

[icehorse]

Censorship is wrong, but sometimes it may be the lesser of evils.

If as you say the intent was to incite Muslims to riot, is that not tantamount to being part of the riots that occurred?

I do advocate free speech, but I do think if it is apparent something is going to result in physical or emotional pain without justification, it should not be allowed.

Who's to judge? There are a lot of smart people on this forum, I wouldn't let any one of them decide for me what I can and cannot listen to. How about you?

 

[Woodrow LI]

Who's to judge? There are a lot of smart people on this forum, I wouldn't let any one of them decide for me what I can and cannot listen to. How about you?

The only fair judge when it comes to human laws is majority consensus. But just as people have the right to offend, demean and insult I reserve the right to voice my disapproval.

I can and will voice my disagreement about what I believe to be wrong, but I will also abide by the laws and rules of the land. I might be a pacifist, but I am often quite loud as to what I perceive as wrong. I simply do not believe it should be legal to cause another person emotional pain simply to see them in pain. I also do not kicl puppies, stomp on butterflies or pull the wings off flies. Shucks I don't even pull up weeds in my garden because I feel they have just as much right to life as my tomato plants.

I know I can not change the world, but I can voice my opinion that is is wrong to cause any living creature needless stress.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The only fair judge when it comes to human laws is majority consensus.

No, it isn't. That's why we have a Constitution and Supreme Court that can rule laws voted in as unconstitutional.