Hostage situation in Sydney, Australia

[Negin]

:closedeyes:

 

[Negin]

Hi Negin,

 

to embed a video, when on youtube, get the 'share video' link (not the url from the top, but I think you did that...) and then rather than highlighting text & clicking the linky widget, just paste the link into the body of the post. It will then show up as embedded.

 

I offer you Sam Harris blog post from Oct. It contains a link to a video he did about his most controversial views on Islam.

 

 

Harris very definitely has read the koran & is actually currently working on a book with Maajid Nawaz (also very worth listening to him...He was on w/ Anderson Cooper talking about the Sydney gunman)

 

 

Thank you so much for the embedding tips. I love Sam Harris and can't wait to read (and watch) this. Thank you. 

[Negin]

I offer you Sam Harris blog post from Oct. It contains a link to a video he did about his most controversial views on Islam.

 

 

Harris very definitely has read the koran & is actually currently working on a book with Maajid Nawaz (also very worth listening to him...He was on w/ Anderson Cooper talking about the Sydney gunman)

 

 

I'm in the middle of watching it and it's fabulous, or, can I say, "brilliant"? Thank you!

Need to later look into his books and to find the Anderson Cooper/Maajid Nawaz clip. 

[albeto.]

"ISIS may practice a form of Islam that we find repellent but to pretend that it has nothing to do with the Muslim religion or that its roots are not very much part of the Islamic tradition isn’t a serious statement. Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, has many variations. But unfortunately, the violent and intolerant brand of Islamism that is championed by ISIS is not only not as much of an outlier as many Americans would like to pretend."

 

It seems there's a difficult problem here in determining which expression of religion "counts," and which expression is "extremist." This of course isn't limited to Islam, as both the Jewish and Christian religious texts also have words that incite behavior we would consider to be terrorist by today's standards, and all three have words that inspire behavior we would consider noble and beautiful by today's standards. I think there's a natural and understandable desire to dismiss the dangerous factions for being extremist, to dismiss them from the community that "counts," but that argument rests on a No True Scotsman fallacy and so is logically flawed. 

 

ISIS is no doubt problematic. They pose a danger to society, full stop. But I think we do ourselves a disservice by conflating the issues here. If we want to solve our problems effectively, compassionately, nobly, we would do well to carefully consider what the real problem is. We do this by exploring the details, the contributing variables, the history, the human connection, etc, and analyzing these details rationally, with critical skepticism rather than appeals to emotion. 

 

Personally, I don't think ISIS is the problem. I think it's a symptom. It's an extreme expression of religious belief, but extreme only in context of what exists today. The Catholic church in the year 1500 would be considered extreme Christianity by today's standards, but was at the time the standard. Orthodox Jews have their own versions of extreme behaviors, but I suspect the population is so small it really doesn't catch the public's attention too often. In any case, concepts of what it means to be extreme changes in time, according to cultural values. ISIS is just the latest, and arguably the most shocking. But they're not the biggest, and they're not the most dangerous, and they certainly didn't come up with these ideas themselves. A comparison of events, acts of violence, people injured and killed worldwide would be the way to look at this objectively, and I'm speculating when I say I think ISIS would come in behind some other forces of oppression and violence we've wrestled with as a society, but it is my impression at this time. To be fair, I admit complete ignorance about this.

 

But this is an important problem to address, and as an increasingly tight global community, we're compelled to address them calmly if we want to preserve peace and well-being. I suspect extremism is as natural a human behavior trait as any other, like aggression, or sympathy, or humor. When these traits are graphed, most people fall in the middle of the bell curve, but there are always those on either end of the spectrum. If we decide to somehow chop off the ends of the spectrum, we've simply shrunken our bell curve, not done away with the extremes. This is why I think ISIS is a natural expression of human behavior [in this case, it's in response to religious beliefs]. It is a problem, to be sure, but I think it's symptomatic of more pressing issues to be addressed, and we would do well to resist the temptation to find a scapegoat. 

 

Anyway, I share your frustration with the reaction to the automatic dismissal of ISIS from "real" Islam, but I would encourage you to try and restrain yourself from making comments like "pajama wearing men" or lumping all members of a group together. That's not only unhelpful, but it's offensive, and divisive, and creates unnecessary and unjustifiable problems. I think this could be a really valuable dialog, and I'd like to see it continued. 

[umsami]

 

Do you by any chance, and please be honest with yourself, pass any hatred on to your children? Towards any group? Jews, Israelis, people that persecute you and your family members, anyone? Or do you keep all that stuff festering inside you and not let them sense it? I have never, ever experienced such rudeness before. Now I have to defend myself and get personal back at you. 

 

Once again, you'r eposting based on your own perceived biases.  I grew up Christian in an area with a large Jewish population.  A majority of my friends and family friends are Jewish.  Why would I pass on hatred towards people I love?  I am not a fan of the Israeli army's actions towards Palestinians.  I am not a fan of some of the Palestinians' actions towards Israelis.  I am not a fan of hatred on either side, for that matter.  Stereotyping groups, or lumping them all into one easy peasy category, does nobody any good.

 

I think if you were to read your comments and substitute whatever faith group you belong to for Islam or Muslim, you might see why you were responded to that way.  I'll leave it that way.  You are arguing that hatred against a certain religious group is not real.  It is.  Just as hatred against Christians is real in some countries.  Just as Anti-Semitism is still very real.  Just as racism is very real.  There are people out there who make their living stirring up hate.  It's been very profitable since 9/11 in the States.

 

I'm sorry for your family's loss.  My guess is it may lead back to the Nakba and Suez Canal crisis.  Regardless, I am sorry.

[Stacia]

I've been pondering some of these posts for the past couple of hours & was planning to come post some things. However, it seems as if albeto & I are on the same page in many instances.

 

It seems there's a difficult problem here in determining which expression of religion "counts," and which expression is "extremist." This of course isn't limited to Islam, as both the Jewish and Christian religious texts also have words that incite behavior we would consider to be terrorist by today's standards, and all three have words that inspire behavior we would consider noble and beautiful by today's standards. I think there's a natural and understandable desire to dismiss the dangerous factions for being extremist, to dismiss them from the community that "counts," but that argument rests on a No True Scotsman fallacy and so is logically flawed. 

 

ISIS is no doubt problematic. They pose a danger to society, full stop. But I think we do ourselves a disservice by conflating the issues here. If we want to solve our problems effectively, compassionately, nobly, we would do well to carefully consider what the real problem is. We do this by exploring the details, the contributing variables, the history, the human connection, etc, and analyzing these details rationally, with critical skepticism rather than appeals to emotion. 

 

Personally, I don't think ISIS is the problem. I think it's a symptom. It's an extreme expression of religious belief, but extreme only in context of what exists today. The Catholic church in the year 1500 would be considered extreme Christianity by today's standards, but was at the time the standard. Orthodox Jews have their own versions of extreme behaviors, but I suspect the population is so small it really doesn't catch the public's attention too often. In any case, concepts of what it means to be extreme changes in time, according to cultural values. ISIS is just the latest, and arguably the most shocking. But they're not the biggest, and they're not the most dangerous, and they certainly didn't come up with these ideas themselves. A comparison of events, acts of violence, people injured and killed worldwide would be the way to look at this objectively, and I'm speculating when I say I think ISIS would come in behind some other forces of oppression and violence we've wrestled with as a society, but it is my impression at this time. To be fair, I admit complete ignorance about this.

 

But this is an important problem to address, and as an increasingly tight global community, we're compelled to address them calmly if we want to preserve peace and well-being. I suspect extremism is as natural a human behavior trait as any other, like aggression, or sympathy, or humor. When these traits are graphed, most people fall in the middle of the bell curve, but there are always those on either end of the spectrum. If we decide to somehow chop off the ends of the spectrum, we've simply shrunken our bell curve, not done away with the extremes. This is why I think ISIS is a natural expression of human behavior [in this case, it's in response to religious beliefs]. It is a problem, to be sure, but I think it's symptomatic of more pressing issues to be addressed, and we would do well to resist the temptation to find a scapegoat. 

 

Bingo. That's about what I was planning to say, albeit in slightly different words.

 

And, I think a huge part of these problems in today's society are a reflection of our connected/interwired nature -- we are fed news/updates/info/opinions 24/7, a feast for our eyes, ears, psyches. Marketing works & those who know how to manipulate the systems to promote it will reach wide audiences & get their messages across (whether that message is peace, fear, etc...). So, I think we're dealing with human traits (like albeto mentioned such as extremism, aggression, sympathy, humor) as old as time itself, but with our own cultural/media overlay that gives us not just the info from what is within our sight or walking distance, but also all the info from every other place/peoples on Earth (& sometimes off of Earth) too. It can be overwhelming. But, it's our reality, & as a human race, we need to figure out how to navigate it.
 

[albeto.]

Wow.

 

OK. Please stop.

 

Our Muslim friends on WTM have a LOT to offer us in understanding a very complex issue. It is also PLAIN to see how they suffer when terrible tragedies affect either Westerners, or the many fellow Muslims who suffer at the hands of extremists.

 

They are SMART ladies, and I would hang out with them whether they were wearing a bikini or the full niquab.

 

I am not a fan of religion. That includes Islam, as well as Christianity and Judaism and Hinduism. I think religion makes a too- convenient tool to hijack for political aims.

 

But no matter what I think of religion, what has been said after JS and I stopped posting is HORRIBLE.

 

Sadie, you posted right under my post. Are you replying to me, including me in general? I'm not sure, and I really was hoping I could convey my thoughts without giving a perception of bashing religion. I don't think it's about *religion,* but so much more. It's such a complex issue, and I don't want to add more confusion and angst. If you're responding in part to my comment, then I apologize. Genuinely. I didn't mean to add more upset.

[Stacia]

Btw, if anyone in the US feels that he/she/they have been the victim of a hate incident (but for whatever reason, don't choose to contact police), please consider reporting the incident through the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) website:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-involved/stand-strong-against-hate#

(Scroll down & click on the button "Report hate incidents".)

 

According to the SPLC's website, their current priorities are:

• Children at Risk
• Hate and Extremism
• Immigrant Justice
• LGBT Rights
• Teaching Tolerance

 

About the SPLC:

http://www.splcenter.org/who-we-are

[albeto.]

No, sorry, just a quirk of timing.

 

I agree with all you said, I just don't think umsami and OKBud are the people to deserve copping a really nasty serve from another poster.

 

 

Okay, thanks for saying so.

 

I agree, and think their grace under fire was a pretty classy act.

[Negin]

  :huh:

[Mrs Mungo]

Something weird is happening with the quote function. Trying to post again.

 

I have a good friend from high school who is very white, blue-eyed, very blond, born and raised in Oklahoma who converted to Islam before marrying her husband who is from India. There is a large population of Muslims in India (estimates put it at more people than the entire country of Pakistan), and they tend to be very moderate, largely because India is so diverse. They have 3 beautiful kids. Her dh runs a small tech firm. She is an accountant who mostly does tax stuff. She wears a head covering, but they are far from extremists.

 

Muslims make up close to a quarter of the world's population. To link them all with terrorism is absurd.

 

I'm from the Oklahoma City area. Oklahoma City wasn't attacked by Muslim extremists. It was attacked by white, Christian extremists.

 

The people of Oklahoma City aren't linking all white Christians with extremism.

[umsami]

You know what's really ugly ?

 

We just had a supposedly Islamic incident in my city. What did religious people of good will do that night ? Hold interfaith services for peace - Jew, Christian, Muslim.

 

Can WTM be at least as civil as that ?

 

I think the Internet is wonderful because it can allow people from different backgrounds and such to interact who may never do it.  it allows people who may never know somebody from Australia, or Kazakhstan, or wherever to meet....and have a touch of humanity for that group.  So, if something tragic happens in Australia, it's not just...OMG, those poor Aussies...it's OMG, what about Sadie, what about Rosie?

 

But I think it also makes it easy for people to hide behind anonymity.  To say things that they probably would never say in real life.  This can be good though, because sometimes people can call them on it... at least over a different viewpoint...at least help them to realize that when they say all XYZ people are this....there are real people behind the XYZs.  Real people who have kids, and at least here...have one thing in common with me, they're homeschooling their kids or care about their education or whatnot.  

 

I've yet to meet somebody on WTM that I disagree with everything about.  We may be of different political leanings, or religious leanings, or what not....but usually there's a commonality in a book/curriculum we both liked, or food item, or a request for prayers.  That is always good to remember in threads like this.  Those things can be built upon.

 

When we talk about faiths in our home, we talk about commonalities.  Tonight Hanukkah starts.  My kids know that it's the story of one of Allah(swt)'s miracles that he did for the Jewish people.  That he made the oil last for eight nights, when it should've only lasted for one.  We'll have latkes at least once (my eldest would eat them every day if given the chance) and jelly doughnuts.  We talk about what a great holiday that involves fried foods.

 

When it's Christmas, we talk about how Christians celebrate the birth of Prophet Isa/Jesus.  How we don't really know when he was born, but my guess is that he enjoys the celebration/thoughts regardless.  We also talk about Santa...and the spirit of giving...and how wonderful it is how people are more charitable and wouldn't it be nice if we were like that all year long.

 

When it's Winter Solstice, we talk about that.  We talk about yule, and Thor's tree, and the remembrance of something green.  We talk about how in Iran, they eat watermelon to remember the summer.  I remind them that Iran is a Muslim country and that they still celebrate this.

We talk about Shi'a holidays that we don't celebrate.  While for us ashura is about making Noah's pudding...and remembering Prophet Moses/Musa being freed by Pharaoh....we talk about how for the Shi'a it's a sad holiday.  We talk about how it's understandable that they're upset over the death of the Prophet's grandson.  

[Rosie_0801]

I feel the same way. I have to be honest here. I don't like it one bit. We don't know who's hiding under the black gear. 

 

Oh, honestly. We don't know anything about how any stranger is going to behave whether we can see their face or not.

 

And yes, I know you have a history to make you touchy on this topic, but your history did not happen in my country and it was not committed by any of our Muslim buddies here. Inflaming fear towards Muslims isn't what got you out of your situation but it *can* contribute to causing situations for other people.

[Negin]

:hurray:

[Negin]

:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

McVeigh claimed it was in defense of the US constitution. Does that mean the constitution is bad?

[Negin]

:laugh:

[Rosie_0801]

 

Neither did your history happen in my country. Your experience is not my experience, and vice versa. I think that you would be a bit touchy about this topic if your family members and friends were butchered to death. 

 

No doubt.

 

I hope, though, I would not choose to blame that on 1.5 billion other people in the world who weren't involved, and encourage fear and hatred which would lead to personal attacks against them. I would hope I limited my loathing to the people who actually caused me harm and I would hope I was nice to others so they didn't cause me further harm, or let my baggage get them hurt.

 

You don't live in the same country any more and you shouldn't harm Muslims in your current country over what freaky, nutcase murderers did in your country of origin. It will only cause problems, not cure any.

 

(I certainly have not have lived through anything as unimaginably awful as a massacre but I don't live in a perfect white bread bubble either.)

[Negin]

:lol:

Edited December 18, 2014 by Negin
Rudeness.

[Negin]

:lurk5:

[Negin]

:leaving:

 

Edited December 18, 2014 by Negin
Rudeness.

[Mrs Mungo]

No, it means his understanding of the Constitution was flawed.

Exactly.

[Rosie_0801]

nm 

 

Edited December 17, 2014 by Susan Wise Bauer
I think this is escalating the rhetoric in a way that is not helpful.

[hornblower]

And...130+ children have just been butchered to death. Muslim kids with head-covering mourning mothers.

 

Personal tragedy means nothing if we can't use it to empathise with the pain of others.

 

sadly they were murdered by their co-religionists.

 

In my utopia, peaceful moderates prevail. It is what I think the vast majority of us fervently hope for. 

[Negin]

  :mellow:

[Heidi]

nm

Edited December 17, 2014 by Susan Wise Bauer
Quoted deleted post

[Negin]

:hat:

 

Edited December 18, 2014 by Negin
Rudeness.

[Negin]

:grouphug:

[Rosie_0801]

nm 

 

Edited December 17, 2014 by Susan Wise Bauer
Personal attack.

[Negin]

:gnorsi:

 

Edited December 18, 2014 by Negin
Rudeness.

[albeto.]

I most certainly am not. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are contributing to a culture of fear and hate. I feel extremely insulted. By the way, what's with the rock throwing example? I have not attacked anyone or made them feel fearful to leave their homes. 

 

While I agree with you that disagreeing does not equal contributing to a culture of fear and hate, the comments you made upthread arguably do:

 

[Having the same troubles with the quoting Mrs. Mungo spoke of earlier, so just copy/pasting for now...]:

 

"I feel the same way. I have to be honest here. I don't like it one bit. We don't know who's hiding under the black gear. Remember this just over a week ago? 

So far, three countries (Belgium, France & the Netherlands) have banned the burqa and I wish that others would have similar enlightened laws. If we go to their countries, don't we have to comply and dress according to their laws? I'm not sure if one can be free to wear whatever one wants. I wonder if a person can wear a Nazi flag, for example. I know that here, no one's allowed to wear camo (camo anything!). I think that head scarves and Muslims wearing head scarves too has not been a problem, since the face can be seen. I read how one guy in Britain was asked to remove his bike helmet when he enters most public spaces, like banks, for example. Their reasoning is that they need to see his face. Covering the face may be where they draw the line. I'm still reading up on all this."

 

The example you link is unrelated to Islam, as weapons are concealed all the time, even in lady's restrooms. To suggest the burqa presents a greater threat is an example of contributing to a culture of fear and hate because it is presented as true contrary to the evidence against it. To suggest the intent of a burqua is to "hide" something or someone nefarious under "gear" is to contribute to a culture of fear and hate. To suggest exposure of faces for security reasons is not, in my opinion, contributing to a culture of fear and hate, and while that may be problematic for women whose religious beliefs inspire them to cover, it may present an important safety consideration in public. The conversation is valid, but unrelated to this one. In any case, the implications you've given, subtly yet clearly, is that Muslimas (is that an okay term to use?) are inherently dangerous because of their affiliation with their religion. That, in my opinion, contributes to the culture of fear and hate, and because it goes against all evidence to the contrary, it is an irrational fear. 

[Rosie_0801]

Muslimas (is that an okay term to use?) 

 

I've seen it spelled 'Muslimah.'

 

But I think you mean 'hijabi' and 'niqabi.' :)

[albeto.]

I've seen it spelled 'Muslimah.'

 

But I think you mean 'hijabi' and 'niqabi.' :)

[Amira]

So far, three countries (Belgium, France & the Netherlands) have banned the burqa and I wish that others would have similar enlightened laws. If we go to their countries, don't we have to comply and dress according to their laws? I'm not sure if one can be free to wear whatever one wants. I wonder if a person can wear a Nazi flag, for example. I know that here, no one's allowed to wear camo (camo anything!). I think that head scarves and Muslims wearing head scarves too has not been a problem, since the face can be seen. I read how one guy in Britain was asked to remove his bike helmet when he enters most public spaces, like banks, for example. Their reasoning is that they need to see his face. Covering the face may be where they draw the line. I'm still reading up on this.

 

I've lived and traveled in a number of Muslim countries in the last 19 years and have never had to change the way I dress according to the laws of any of those countries. There are, of course, a very few countries that have legal requirements for what women wear but those are a rare exception. And none of those countries bans me from wearing the religious clothing I wear daily.

[mommaduck]

To me, it seems like you are when you talk of being scared of a Muslim fully covered. Do you also get scared of Christians when another proclaimed Christian commits a crime in the name of God (or any other group)?

Really? Catching up... Someone is scared of a Muslim that is fully covered? How do you know they are Muslim? There are Christians and Pagans that dress similar to Muslims in their coverings (and I'm aren't referring to Chrislam). Many EO/Coptic's wear the same kinds of covering and clothing.

[Negin]

:confused1:

[Negin]

:coolgleamA:

[Susan Wise Bauer]

I have edited some of the posts above. Civility is starting to fade in this thread...please remember all the usual warnings about name-calling, one-line put-downs, etc. Thanks.

 

SWB

[Shahrazad]

I doubt Albeto is completely ignorant. She is a self-admitted anti-theist and likely would tend to agree with Sam Harris. However, that doesn't change the fact you're contributing to an atmosphere of fear and hate.

 

If I recall, you/your family are from Iran, right? Look, I understand what you're saying and if you want to hate *the people who slaughtered your family*, then you're completely within right to do so. But to conflate that with Muslims in general, to say that behavior is in fact a part of Islam is grossly incorrect and unfair. I don't know as much about the particular sect of Shia Islam that is practiced in Iran but I do know that the Shi'ites are a small minority of the Muslims and that the extreme sect of Shia Islam practiced by these groups in Iran are an even smaller group. To answer your question, my husband's family members WERE slaughtered by members of another faith. My FIL was expelled with some of his family during the 1967 exodus and they walked to Jordan. On the way, there were plenty of dead bodies, even dismembered children along the road. My husband's aunt and cousin both died later during another incident though they were just living in their house and harmed no one. Do we now teach our kids hate or that Jewish or Israeli people do this? Absolutely not. And I'd say that we tend to emphasize the idea that both sides in the conflict have blame and do wrong to a large degree in our household. The important issue, to me, is that you can't act or form deep beliefs in this way based on a reaction to wrongdoing by another. You're only responsible for your actions and your morals and morals should not be dependent on whether the one who has done you wrong is 'worse'. I've actually given some speeches on this topic to explain why, to me, I find it worse when a Muslim has killed innocents than when innocent Muslims are killed by another. Because if you have a good end, then we have faith you'll meet your Lord who will reward you for being good in life. But to take another person's life, to harm another creation, that is such an awful deed and so much worse because of how much we're warned against that by both faith and moral dictates.

 Even when innocents are killed, often this has more to do with politics/political gain than actual true, sincere religious conviction (though it does happen). So, yes we understand where you are coming from having family members murdered and so do the Indian Muslims who were slaughtered by Hindus and the Hindus slaughtered by Indian Muslims and the Burmese Muslims slaughtered by Buddhist extremists...etc. Violence begets violence and it is a *cycle* and while I understand blaming the one responsible, you lose me when you expand it to a group or to encompass everyone or even to redirect it toward that person's child (who is innocent of the crime of their parents). Honestly, often times this IS the attitude the extremists have. They think that all of the US or all of the non-Muslims are responsible for their family member that was killed by a drone or the destruction of their village or their child's death. And sociopaths like the leader of these groups feed on this, recruit the mentally ill, the rebellious and ignorant youth, and the people who are seething with anger due to political events and want 'revenge'.

 

I don't like when people tell me what my religion states/believes. Especially when these people have opened up an English translation of the Qur'an, pulled a verse out of context, and disregarded existing tafseer or abrogations. I'm not trying to place myself at some high level but I HAVE studied Islam and was working toward a degree in it before I got into the medical field. I firmly believe that Islam is a religion that forbids violence outside what is necessary for self-defense and especially when it involves harm to innocents and does not abide by rules that are set in our religion regarding war. I also believe we have an emphasis on social justice that many are weak on. So, no, I don't care whether you're Negin or Sam Harris, you're not going to tell me what my faith and Holy Book says on this because I'm quite certain I know it better than you.

 

As for the hijab and niqaab, it would be unfair to ban it because it takes away the freedom of women to choose their dress, whether that is to wear less or more clothes and, as we've covered in other threads, unlike parts of the Muslim world this country and many others are not theocracies and are supposed to be governed in a better, democratic way, correct?

 

ETA: FWIW, I am also sorry about what happened to your family.

[Mom-ninja.]

Negin, I am so sorry about your family. 

[Shahrazad]

I also want to add that this attitude is so disrespectful for the Muslims who are fighting these groups right now, putting their lives on the line like those fighting ISIS and the Kurdish army.

 

Wrote this to a friend a while back:

 

The verses that people like to take out of context to use to say we do (usually the one that is along the lines of 'Kill them wherever you find them' is in the context of the Battles of Badr and Uhud that were taking place at that time as a response to the continued aggression, abuse, and oppression of Muslims in Makkah by the Arab Pagans after the Muslims remained patient for many years and tried to solve it peacefully. There was a declared war, hence the verse of revelation. However, the following verse immediately after says something to the meaning of 'but transgress not for Allah loves not the transgressors.' So even in that context, they were warned not to go beyond the bounds of what is allowable in war.

During (declared) war, according to Islam:

- You cannot kill civilians/non-combatants

- You cannot kill women.

- You cannot kill children.

- You cannot kill the elderly.

- You cannot kill people outside of the time of battle/declared warfare.

- If one of your enemies comes to you and asks for your refuge, you assure their safety until they return to their side.

- You should not kill animals if avoidable.

- You cannot kill yourself.

The most orthodox also tend to believe that there can be no war without an amir (leader) and without the people having been purified and educated in their religion so that they are unified and so that they don't transgress the bounds of what is forbidden to them in fighting. We'd all agree there is no 'amir' right now and of course we don't consider this horrendous joke 'ISIS' to be an actual khilafah. They're what we call khawarij and one of their trademarks (and ways to circumvent all of these rules) is to just make 'takfeer' (ie to say that they're not Muslim and in this case, they will then kill them) on any Muslim who disagrees or stands against them.

The basic precept of the religion is: monotheism. To worship one God and one God alone. Then there are 5 pillars of Islam which are: shahadah (declaring your belief in the faith), salah (prayer 5 times a day), zakat (giving charity), siyam (fasting the month of Ramadan), and hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca). The 'pillars of Iman (belief)' are Belief in Allah/God, Belief in the Angels, Belief in His Books, Belief in His Messengers/Prophets, Belief in the Day of Judgment, and Believe in his Qadr (divine decree).

None of our basic precepts include even jihad done under the aforementioned terms, let alone some basic precept to kill 'infidels'.

Moderate Muslims speak out ALL the time against extremists. To the point many are sick of it and ask why no other racial, religious, or ethnic group have to apologize for people who we don't even know, who have nothing to do with us, and who are apparently following some other religion that what we're following. I used to be at this level but now I'm so sick of what these groups are doing that I do openly apologize and put them down/show that they're wrong according to the most conservative scholars and Islamic texts. But all of the major Muslim organizations speak out against them and most lay Muslims do too if you speak to them. But does NBC, CNN, or FOX seriously want to do a news piece on a 'Muslim who thinks what ISIS/AQ do is wrong'? That is not news. No one cares what I think about it. If you look at the current situation though, the Kurdish Muslims are fighting ISIS and they're protecting Christians and Yazeedis. So, they get undermined and written off as terrorists too for being Muslims?

 

And that is not to mention that most victims of "Islamic" terrorism are Muslims and the majority of terrorism is not perpetrated by Muslims either:

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/06/most-victims-of-islamic-terrorism-are-muslims-and-why-america-is-to-blame-for-it/

^I don't agree with the inflammatory 'why America is to blame for it' but I do think that it shows that politics and anger over political situations have a lot more to do with so called Islamic terrorism than actual religious belief. Religion is just easier to sell to the uneducated masses than the political angle which they know they won't benefit from. Also, while they were terrible people, dictators like Saddam and Qaddafi were very effective in keeping the extremist groups down in their countries via the 'power of the iron fist'.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/surprising-study-on-terrorism-al-qaida-kills-eight-times-more-muslims-than-non-muslims-a-660619.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:m83XZww0RIMJ:www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/al-qaeda-hurts-muslims-most/%3Fpage%3Dall+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

 

“and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.†(i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted)" 6:151

“… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.†5:53

 

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq commanded that his soldiers (during war) not kill monks, priests, women, children, the slaves, the sick and the aged. They were not to sack any town or village, or destroy or ravage any arable land. There was to be no wanton pillaging, no trees were to be cut, and no crops were to be burnt or destroyed. No corpses of the enemy were to be burnt or mutilated. The dead of the enemy were to be buried with due respect, and where requests were made for particular corpses by the enemy, these were to be freely handed over.

[Shahrazad]

Last thing. As mentioned earlier, these groups existed even back in the time of Muhammad and his companions and they were called 'the khawarij'.

 

To give an example of what they were like even 1400 years ago, they did this when they encountered one of the respected Companions of the Prophet who have a very high rank in our faith:

"The Khawaarij confronted Abdullah ibn Khabab during their rally and asked him if he had heard any narrations of the Prophet (may the peace and blessings be upon him) from his father (Khabaab ibn al-Araat) which he could relate to them. He replied "I heard my father narrate from Allah's Messenger that a time will come of rebellion in which one who sits is better than the one who stands, one who stands is better than the one who walks and the one who walks is better than the one who runs." (Muslim:6893) And he said, "If you are alive at that time, be a slave of Allah who is murdered (rather than the one who murders.)" They then asked him if he really heard his father relate that from Allah's Messenger (may the peace and blessings be upon him) and when he replied in the affirmative. They then took him to the edge of a river and chopped off his head and his blood flowed in a stream like the lace of a sandal. Thereafter, they turned to his pregnant wife, cut open her stomach and spilled its contents..."

- From the book 'Talbees Iblees' by Ibn al-Jawzee
The narration goes on to detail some of their actions afterwords trying to act strictly with regards to religious regulations on minute details after having done that which is just completely insane.

“If they (the Khawaarij) were to gain strength, they would cause mischief on earth – in `Iraaq, in Shaam (and everywhere). They would not leave a small boy or a small girl, nor a man or a woman (except that they would kill them). This is because they think that people have got so much corrupted that nothing can reform them except through mass killing.†[al-Bidaayah wal-Nihaayah (10/584-585)]

Sham = Syria/Levant

"When you see the black flags, remain where you are and do not move your hands or your feet. Thereafter there shall appear a feeble folk to whom no concern is given. Their hearts will be like fragments of iron. They are the representatives of the State. They will fulfill neither covenant nor agreement. They will invite to the Truth, though they are not from its people. Their names will be agnomens [i.e., Abu Mus'ab, Abu Bakr, etc.], and their ascriptions will be to villages (or places). Their hair will be long like that of women. [They shall remain so] till they differ among themselves, and then God will bring forth the Truth from whomever He wills." - Ali ibn Abu Talib

Also, from the ahadith regarding them:
Al-Bukhaari (6934) and Muslim (1068) narrated that Yusayr ibn ‘Amr said: I said to Sahl ibn Hunayf: Did you hear the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say anything about the Khawaarij? He said: I heard him say – and he gestured with his hand towards Iraq –: “From there will emerge people who recite the Qur’an, but it will not go past their collarbones. They will pass out of Islam as an arrow passes out of the prey.†

Ibn Maajah (173) narrated that Ibn Abi Awfa said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The Khawaarij are the dogs of Hell.â€

Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah.

[Joker]

Really? Catching up... Someone is scared of a Muslim that is fully covered? How do you know they are Muslim? There are Christians and Pagans that dress similar to Muslims in their coverings (and I'm aren't referring to Chrislam). Many EO/Coptic's wear the same kinds of covering and clothing.

 

I'm confused by your response to me. Did I miss something? I was responding to that specific poster who did say a "Muslim in the full black gear" (post #70).

[Negin]

Negin, I am so sorry about your family. 

:grouphug: Thank you. You've always been incredibly kind and sweet.  :grouphug:

[albeto.]

I did not suggest that the intent of the burqa is to hide something. 

When it comes to exposure of faces for security reasons, that's something for governments to decide (Belgium, the Netherlands & France). Obviously, most governments are not going to do that. 

I agree that the conversation is unrelated to this one. You are right.

I never said or implied that Muslims are inherently dangerous because of their affiliation with their religion. I very humbly (and kindly) suggest that you and anyone else who's interested here should take the time to watch the Sam Harris video that hornblower linked. It really is very insightful. Sam Harris is a genius. The reason I point that out is because you stated that you are completely ignorant with regards to all this. Again, got to love Sam. :)

 

When one equates clothing with hiding weaponry (as your words and your link did), the implication is made that clothing functions to hide weaponry, intentionally or not (I think the intent was implied, but I can't go back and reread your post - one reason I dislike censorship). When you further comment about your own fear for safety, you imply a danger to your safety due to the clothes. That's what I mean by suggesting the intent of the burqa is to hide something (weapons, conveniently, and identity). Please let me know if I misunderstand you.

 

I'd be curious what your correlation is between Muslims and violence if it's not affiliated with the religion. I can't reread your earlier posts to see if I missed what you were saying, but do you consider it a cultural thing, separate from the religion? What was the point of suggesting "the violent and intolerant brand of Islamism that is championed by ISIS is not only not as much of an outlier as many Americans would like to pretend" if not to suggest Islam is by nature a dangerous religion, and individuals, in turn, potentially dangerous attackers? 

 

I know and have a great respect for Sam Harris. I tried listening to that talk earlier today but got distracted. It started off quite slow and uninteresting. I hope it gets better.

[Negin]

:crying:

[Mom-ninja.]

 What was the point of suggesting "the violent and intolerant brand of Islamism that is championed by ISIS is not only not as much of an outlier as many Americans would like to pretend" if not to suggest Islam is by nature a dangerous religion, and individuals, in turn, potentially dangerous attackers? 

 

I know and have a great respect for Sam Harris. I tried listening to that talk earlier today but got distracted. It started off quite slow and uninteresting. I hope it gets better.

No, to me it means that there are many more people who sympathize with Islamists, to varying degrees, than society is ready to admit. 

 

Clearly, not anyone on WTM. 

[umsami]

I've seen it spelled 'Muslimah.'

 

But I think you mean 'hijabi' and 'niqabi.' :)

 

Muslima and Muslimah are both correct transliterations.  I only learned this a few weeks ago, but basically, it's a difference between the transliteration forms popular in England and the US.  I think I see Muslimah more commonly, but both are correct :)

[albeto.]

I doubt Albeto is completely ignorant. She is a self-admitted anti-theist and likely would tend to agree with Sam Harris. However, that doesn't change the fact you're contributing to an atmosphere of fear and hate.

I agree with all of this.

 

I don't like when people tell me what my religion states/believes. Especially when these people have opened up an English translation of the Qur'an, pulled a verse out of context, and disregarded existing tafseer or abrogations. I'm not trying to place myself at some high level but I HAVE studied Islam and was working toward a degree in it before I got into the medical field. I firmly believe that Islam is a religion that forbids violence outside what is necessary for self-defense and especially when it involves harm to innocents and does not abide by rules that are set in our religion regarding war. I also believe we have an emphasis on social justice that many are weak on. So, no, I don't care whether you're Negin or Sam Harris, you're not going to tell me what my faith and Holy Book says on this because I'm quite certain I know it better than you.

I don't agree with this, and partly because this argument relies on a no true scotsman fallacy and is therefore flawed from the beginning. This argument presumes that your studies of Islam are the correct ones, and that those who pursue a more extreme view are wrong. It's asking us to trust you to be the Real Muslim, which is no more possible for me than to trust anyone else is a Real Christian, Real Republican, Real Homeschooler, or Real Parent. It sets up a system where the only measurement available is the one against the standard of the individual. The problem is that other individuals do the same thing, and there exists no objective measure against which to determine accuracy or credibility.

 

I understand you've studied your faith, but so to have others. Furthermore, they use the same methodology you do - read certain texts, read analysis of these texts, interpret personal experience according to certain standards that one determines to be reliable, for personal reasons. Memories, emotions, education, internal and external variables all contribute to one's conclusions in such matters. You are no more "accurate" than any genuine believer of Islam, even if your beliefs do correspond with much of the population of western Muslims today. It just means your beliefs are more popular, more familiar, more respected than those who express an extreme version of the same faith. To paraphrase BLA5/lulu, extremism just means one is more rigid in the faith than me, heretic means one is not as serious as me. The problem is, everyone gets to be the "me," even those we consider extremist. If we're expected to take your word for it, why are we not expected to take someone else's, kwim? Just to say, one doesn't have to be a committed believer to understand the beliefs promoted by a faith, and if we get to pick apart negin's argument, we should get to pick apart mine, and even yours. But truly I mean no offence.

[Shahrazad]

 

 

I don't agree with this, and partly because this argument relies on a no true scotsman fallacy and is therefore flawed from the beginning. This argument presumes that your studies of Islam are the correct ones, and that those who pursue a more extreme view are wrong. It's asking us to trust you to be the Real Muslim, which is no more possible for me than to trust anyone else is a Real Christian, Real Republican, Real Homeschooler, or Real Parent. It sets up a system where the only measurement available is the one against the standard of the individual. The problem is that other individuals do the same thing, and there exists no objective measure against which to determine accuracy or credibility.

 

I understand you've studied your faith, but so to have others. Furthermore, they use the same methodology you do - read certain texts, read analysis of these texts, interpret personal experience according to certain standards that one determines to be reliable, for personal reasons. Memories, emotions, education, internal and external variables all contribute to one's conclusions in such matters. You are no more "accurate" than any genuine believer of Islam, even if your beliefs do correspond with much of the population of western Muslims today. It just means your beliefs are more popular, more familiar, more respected than those who express an extreme version of the same faith. To paraphrase BLA5/lulu, extremism just means one is more rigid in the faith than me, heretic means one is not as serious as me. The problem is, everyone gets to be the "me," even those we consider extremist. If we're expected to take your word for it, why are we not expected to take someone else's, kwim? Just to say, one doesn't have to be a committed believer to understand the beliefs promoted by a faith, and if we get to pick apart negin's argument, we should get to pick apart mine, and even yours. But truly I mean no offence.

 

I don't want to go off into this because we both know we won't agree but I want to clarify that my statement is that the politics of these groups tend to consist of a leader who may be educated (ex: I've heard the leader of ISIS has some study behind him) and knows that this is wrong but justifies it to himself as deserved to to life-matters and uses it to further a political goal and gain power and largely, followers who are uneducated and don't know better but are convinced by a charismatic leader. Many of these groups originate out of a lack of education or knowledge as a whole. No one would argue that the Taliban is well-studied in religion, for example, nor can many of them even read in the original language. I'm very conservative in my religious views, I tend to be a literalist. However, my argument would be that on study, the support for these ideas does not exist in the same way there is scholarship of history in which one view can be correct and one is incorrect and in science, where I am sure you would agree that the view of someone who denies scientific fact is not the same as one who accepts it. I'm not saying that you must accept Islam as being true to believe this, but to accept the ability of people to know what does and does not exist in their religious texts and what has been integrated from cultural and political strife. Even the most orthodox, conservative scholars of Islam who have spent 60+ years studying this have written books to refute these claims that are full of textual evidence. I doubt we'll agree on this. I DO think one needs to be fluent in Arabic and understand linguistic and grammatical nuances that can completely change meaning, know Islamic history, and be well acquainted with the books of tafseer, hadith, and sharh hadith in order to make absolutist statements on what Islam does and doesn't include (eta: and there are non-Muslim scholars of religion who have done this and say the same as what I am saying).