Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door

[Habib]

Do you honestly believe that this is not a reasonable concept? Seriously?

 

The fact that you provided a PDF with documents by predominantly Western Muslims denouncing terrorism in the name of Allah indicates that at least some Muslims saw the wisdom of separating themselves from their fundamentalist brethren. They clearly felt this was necessary and might possibly be beneficial. My question is, "Why are these Muslims not getting more ink and air time to express their views?" Do you genuinely believe that average Americans with only a passing understanding of Islam would not be moved by the sincere and passionate denouncements of terrorism in the name of jihad by authentic followers of Islam?

 

If by “cosigned” you mean, I do not understand how encouraging peace loving Muslims to speak out against terrorism by other followers of their faith is considered intolerant or hateful... then yeah, I guess I cosigned.

 

I would not hesitate to agree that it would be a good idea for mainstream “peace loving” Christians to denounce the ludicrous actions of Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist, abortion clinic bombers, etc.

 

If you do nothing else in response to this post, I urge you to explain how my suggestion that “peaceful” Muslims be more vocal in denouncing the actions of their “violent/terroristic” brethren is intolerant or hateful.

 

You said that I have put words in your mouth, but then write a lengthy post saying that I have correctly construed your position on this point. And I do disagree with it. They have largely spoken out against terrorism, so I see the incessant claims that they do not as either an impossible litmus test or an unwillingness to listen. I also find the notion that any group must pass such a litmus test to avoid hostile treatment to indeed be intolerant.

 

To deny that violence and terrorism are a component of Islam, both currently and historically is to deny the truth.

 

Violent acts are clearly outlined by Muhammad multiple times throughout the Koran as a proper means of dealing with criminals and infidels. Those who state otherwise have no depth of knowledge about what is actually in the Koran. Violent treatment of infidels is permitted and actually instructed throughout the Koran. It is taught by mullahs around the world to passionate adherents as a means of gaining the rewards of Allah in paradise.

 

Many Muslims decry the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as corrupt due to their general friendliness with the West (primarily to keep their oil revenues flowing.) This is the home to both Mecca and Medina, the cradle of Islam, the religious center toward which over a billion Muslims kneel and pray five times a day.

 

The concept of religious freedom does not exist in Saudi Arabia. It is illegal to voice a non-Muslim prayer anywhere, even in the privacy of one’s own home. Owning or even reading from a Bible is not permitted. Conversion to Christianity is legally punishable by public beheading.

 

Amnesty International reports that the persecution of Christians in Saudi Arabia has "increased dramatically" in recent years. There are more than one thousand reports of Christian workers being arrested, imprisoned and beaten for participating in private worship meetings… not out evangelizing on street corners, but for worshiping in private.

 

I don’t know about you, but the threat of beheading, beating and imprisonment sounds pretty “terrifying” as a response to a person’s mere beliefs. All are endorsed by “learned scholars” of the Koran.

 

The concept that Islam instructs people on how they may “live together in peace and harmony regardless of race, class or beliefs” is apparently nonexistent in Saudi Arabia, one of the more liberal Islamic nations in the Middle East… a nation widely regarded as being too friendly with infidels.

 

I am NOT saying that all Muslims must behave this way to be true followers of the prophet, only that a good number of them in Saudi Arabia apparently believe so.

 

If such violence against non-believers is strongly condemned in the Koran, and Islam is in fact supposed to be a religion of peace to ALL PEOPLE, I do not see why it would be any great task for Islamic scholars to point out the error of Saudi Arabia’s treatment of non-Muslims.

 

Again, it appears I have correctly construed your position. Though, you both say that violence is a component of Islam and that not all Muslims must behave this way to be true followers. This is confusing. I also disagree that Saudi Arabia is among the “liberal” states in the Middle East. You would be hard pressed to find a country more hard pressed for a liberal society, democracy, and, coincidentally, education in the world. They are also a country with the highest concentration of Wahhabis in the world, who certainly do have a violent interpretation of Islam. If the West didn’t glad-hand it to get its oil the kingdom would have likely collapsed. The corollary of your complaint is that the West is propping this backward society up.

 

I have never made such a blanket assertion… but merely that there are many mullahs across the Middle East instructing the faithful (illiterate or otherwise) that violent jihad against infidels is the purest form of the faith.

 

What I will again clearly state, is that if Islam is truly a religion of peace and these mullahs preaching violence and hatred toward the West have no basis whatsoever in Koranic scripture to support their wayward teachings, it should be a simple matter for a vast majority of learned scholars of the Koran to debunk and defuse their vitriolic rants. It should be a simple matter, given time and persistence, for the teachers of peace and tolerance in the faith to root out the terrorists. As it is, I am aware of countless verses to the contrary. Tolerance and faith in the Koran is primarily reserved for fellow followers of the prophet. Violence is instructed and approved by Muhammad numerous times.

 

I do not deny that those who love peace and follow the path of non-violence are indeed Muslims. All I am saying is that there are many who preach and practice the use of violence in propagating the faith with solid justification that they too are faithful. The fact that Muhammad himself is credited with numerous acts of violence and force over non-believers makes it difficult to discredit the violent branch of the faith. You are taking issue with me, when there is ample documentation of mullahs teaching that practitioners of violent jihad are the most faithful adherents of Islam.

 

Their teaching… not mine.

 

Your original post said that those “in the know” consider peaceful Muslims to be secular apostates. I understood that to mean that objective outside observers, such as you consider yourself, believe the terrorists to be truest followers of the faith. Yet, here you merely say that there are violent strains of Islam being taught and practiced and that those who practice peace are also faithful Muslims. Which part have I mistaken? I do not believe anyone in the world denies that there is violence being taught. I have argued from the beginning that interpretation matters. Thus, it should not be surprising that most Muslims are peaceful and friendly, most especially in the West. Furthermore, plenty of ink has been spilled by Muslims concerning the drastic need for reform in the Middle East to combat terrorism, especially through education. I am sympathetic to that argument. After all, it was only until around 50 years ago that this country - the most developed country in the world - allowed full equality among men. And much of the opposition to that were wielding bibles in their hands. I imagine much of the Middle East and Indonesia are significantly behind that curve. I do believe that society and culture matter in the interpretation of religious texts, and it is no surprise that cultures behind the curve of modernization have antiquated interpretations.

 

I hate to break it to you, but there were no Christians in the O.T. The first actual Christian make an appearance more than 400 years after the final text of the O.T. was written.

I do not deny the entirety of the Bible, but as a Christian, I am not bound to all the laws recorded in the Old Testament. Just a few examples are:

• I do not practice the sacrifice of lambs, bulls, doves and other animals at my local temple.
  
• I do not abstain from eating pork, shellfish or fish without scales.
  
• I certainly do not feel that God has appointed me to be a tool to cleanse infidels from the land.
  

I do not believe I am erring in my faith to disregard these laws that were at one time very important to early Jewish followers. It is my understanding that when Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law as a requirement for righteousness: (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23-25; Ephesians 2:15).

 

You are free to present all the violent acts described in the O.T. as proof of whatever you want. You will not find any preachers or teachers of sound Christian doctrine espousing those today… and certainly not without considerable fallout from those who understand the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

The only reasonable comparison in my mind therefore; is between the ultimate authority of the Christian faith and the ultimate authority of the Muslim faith. It is not a dodge for me to say that all other voices and teachings are secondary.

 

Jesus teaches unconditional love to all, Muhammad is more selective.

 

I believe I have your position correct, again. I happen to agree with this, personally, as it is by belief, though I often find myself in the minority. I’ve heard plenty of preachers and Christians invoke the Old Testament. It was thoroughly taught to me, and I’m confident it is still thoroughly taught in Sunday schools across the US today. You even say that you do not deny the entirety of the Bible. How, then, can you say only the New Testament matters to Christians? My point is if you want to compare the Christian bible to the Quran in terms of violence, you have to selectively edit to say that only the Quran contains violence, which is my point. I do not think it is reasonable to say that you believe in the entirety of the bible and also say only half of it is valid for comparison, especially when Christians today study and invoke the Old Testament as part of their faith.

 

And, again, I am not saying that those who justify brutal actions with the Christian bible are correct, I am saying that the possibility to interpret things differently, even wildly differently, exists. As I understand it, you believe there is only one valid interpretation of the Christian texts and one valid interpretation of the Islamic texts. I simply disagree with that. There are large varieties of interpretations of both texts. As a Christian I believe the use of the bible to support genocide and the capture of slaves in the 16th century was deplorable. There are many Muslims today who believe the use of the Quran to support terrorism is similarly deplorable.

[Zoot Soup]

Just sitting down to watch this now. First, I find it awesomely terrible that Soledad OBrien showed up to the mosque wearing a skirt. :lol:

 

Just a question (for mountain ref and Fastbreak in particular)- do you believe the Muslims in Murfreesboro have a right to build a mosque where they want?

[Fastbreak]

Just sitting down to watch this now. First, I find it awesomely terrible that Soledad OBrien showed up to the mosque wearing a skirt. :lol:

 

Just a question (for mountain ref and Fastbreak in particular)- do you believe the Muslims in Murfreesboro have a right to build a mosque where they want?

Yes...

[Clyde]

Without a doubt, I think all religions want to change things. If you are true in your convictions those beliefs will guide everything else from laws you believe in on down to the decisions you make. Problem is since so many religions see things differently we are going to have to draw the line to protect freedom of religion for all so your religion can't encroach on my practicing mine and vice versa.

 

Has the Muslim religion encroached on non-Muslims?

[jericho]

Isn't that true of all religions? Christians want abortion outlawed. That's a change in culture. Christians want gay marriage outlawed. That's a change in culture. Baptists want alcohol banned. Change in culture. Catholics want the DP abolished. Change in culture.

 

Gay marriage is a change in culture we do not want. It isthe gays wanting to change the culture

What baptist preacher doesnt or shouldnt want alchol outlawed

what true christian doesnt want abortion illegal

[hoops5]

I just brewed a fresh pot of coffee---anyone want a cup?

[jericho]

I would love some, but I doubt we are allowed, since no one is allowed anything in America anymore.

[UKMustangFan]

Gay marriage is a change in culture we do not want. It isthe gays wanting to change the culture

What baptist preacher doesnt or shouldnt want alchol outlawed

what true christian doesnt want abortion illegal

 

Who is this "we" you speak of? Why does what you want trump what others want? Why are you so dang special that you get to spew hate about those who are different than you, and it should just be accepted?

[HT721]

Sure Muslims have encroached on Non Muslims it has, ask the Spain about the occupation in their history. Ask the Christians in the Middle East that have had their lives threatened or taken.

 

But it's something all religions have done at one point in history or another.

[Clyde]

Gay marriage is a change in culture we do not want. It isthe gays wanting to change the culture

What baptist preacher doesnt or shouldnt want alchol outlawed

what true christian doesnt want abortion illegal

 

You COMPLETELY missed the point.

[rockmom]

Sure Muslims have encroached on Non Muslims it has, ask the Spain about the occupation in their history. Ask the Christians in the Middle East that have had their lives threatened or taken.

 

But it's something all religions have done at one point in history or another.

 

In all fairness, ask the Muslims about what the Christians did to them centuries ago. In the same vein, ask the Jews what Muslims and Christians have done to them throughout the centuries...in the name of religion.

 

Religious conflicts have been prevelant throughout history. But in my estimation, it's never truely about religion. It's about power. Religion is what people in power use to inspire the masses to fall in line and fight for them. But ultimately, power and riches (monetary or in terms of control) are the core of the conflicts.

[rockmom]

I would love some, but I doubt we are allowed, since no one is allowed anything in America anymore.

 

C'mon. That is complete and utter hyperbole. It doesn't help anything. America enjoys the greatest amount of freedoms of any country in the world. And Americans are allowed more freedoms in this day and age than ever before. Even at the inception of our republic, Americans did not enjoy such great freedom.

[jericho]

Who is this "we" you speak of? Why does what you want trump what others want? Why are you so dang special that you get to spew hate about those who are different than you, and it should just be accepted?

 

Why does what they want trump over what I want. I AM AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE AND HOMOSEXUALS PERIOD. Why are they so special that they get treated better than a straight person, why. Why should they get special treatment.

[UKMustangFan]

Why does what they want trump over what I want. I AM AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE AND HOMOSEXUALS PERIOD. Why are they so special that they get treated better than a straight person, why. Why should they get special treatment.

 

What are you talking about? How do they get treated better than a straight person? What benefits do they receive that we don't? Why are straight people so special that they get treated better than a homosexual person?

 

Just because you're against something doesn't mean you have to be filled with hate, which you are.

[UKMustangFan]

C'mon. That is complete and utter hyperbole. It doesn't help anything. America enjoys the greatest amount of freedoms of any country in the world. And Americans are allowed more freedoms in this day and age than ever before. Even at the inception of our republic, Americans did not enjoy such great freedom.

 

You know what's really ironic about his statement....He's arguing that no one is allowed anything in America anymore while at the same time, arguing that Muslims (who are American citizens) shouldn't be "coming in" and that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed the same benefits as straight people....Hate speak, that's all he spews RM.