US Muslims struggle with how they should condemn extremism

[lostboy]

I would suggest the so called moderates find true moderates to represent them instead of letting self-appointed suit and tie Jihaddists, such as CAIR do so. As it stands from the outside looking in scores of people are murdered by Islamic terrorists on a frequent basis. But we get fears of backlash, whining about Islamophobia plus a set menu of complaints, alleged victimization etc.

I would suggest Zudhi Jasser may fit the bill, but he is regarded as an Uncle Tom by just about every practicing Muslim, whilst those who are secular or not religious would rather get on with their own lives rather than be stalked by the radicals let into the Country with scarcely a worthwhile background check.

One of your more thoughtful and less egregious posts I think. You are on the right track about Leadership. These sort of leaders are not really ordained by outsiders but must emerge. They set their own agenda, which is probably not the same one you have so be careful what you wish for.

[arjunadawn]

They should condemn it unequivocally, without if and buts, hesitations or reservation and acknowledge

radical muslim terror.....

Not the first cab off the rank on this one. Did we seep in this morning?

"They should condemn it unequivocally..."

Why?

In all the posts by the anti-muslim brigade, I have never seen unequivocal, unreserved, unhesitating condemnation of Jewish terrorists. From all those posters, I have never seen calls against religious hate speech against women's reproductive rights and how it inspires Christian terrorists to murder health care workers in the name of their ideology. I certainly never heard that brigade condemning religiously inspired hated against LGBT people during the many debates on marriage equality.

Muslim people live their lives like we do. They have the same aspirations, hopes and dreams. Most of them, however, do not have the benefits of living in liberal democracies with legal recognition of human rights and sound economic policies that create wealth and opportunity.

You want condemnation of radical, ideologically inspired terrorism? You get them all the time. Religious leaders in the UK, Australia, Europe, American and elsewhere continually condemn terrorist attacks. Bigots, however, ignore these because it doesn't suit their world view and mission to spread their hatred and nastiness around unchecked.

Its positively untrue that those who condemn muslim terrorism condone "Jewish terrorists." Though it may be for some, you did not make this point. The inability to distinguish "anti-muslim" from anti-muslim terrorist is the same fallacy of reasoning that has Obama et al still averring there is no connection to the underlying ideology/texts, in spite of the muslim's world's inability to repudiate this fact and the terrorists' sura and verse citations. This fallacy of policy is what has the multitudes having to create their own narrative of exactly what is going on. It is self evident where islamic terrorism comes from, yet the continued denial forces the narrative to be constructed without guidance or facts by countless millions.

Actually, the world wants condemnation of religiously inspired terrorism not the sterilized "ideological[ly]," this is after all the singular obvious connection and the one that is stubbornly ignored. That you cant even lock into that in your diatribe suggests how unprepared you are to offer your thoughts.

The article clearly suggests "muslim struggle with how they should condemn terrorism" yet you suggest this is a false narrative- the muslim world "continually condemn terrorist attacks." For the oddest reason the majority of planet earth actually do not find that true, including, clearly, the author of this article. Indeed, even in CAIR's pronouncement they indicted the victims for sharing responsibility. In fact, when you dissect the condemnations you refer to, while some are genuine, most never... never rebuke the koranic citations and authority. In fact, in contemporary times, there has only been one studious rebuttal to IS or AQ koranic inspiration and that regarded the burning of a Jordanian pilot. Even on this issue, islamic jurisprudence was equivocal.

Because you don't like those who oppose islamic jihad and cant muster a dispassionate sensible rebuttal does not then invite pejoratives. With such posts you actually harm those you try to defend. The gig is up, in the absence of strength pejorative does not isolate and silence people any longer.

That the moderate muslim world struggles to offer a message defined the problem exactly: scripturally, the extremists are properly cited. It is the moderates who are actually unorthodox. How then to wish to remain islamic and have it defined in the modern age in a way that is meaningful and fraternal with others? This is the very situation islam envisioned long ago and labored to prevent- having islam change with location and times. The fact they have confusion about this and cannot universally decry islamic terrorism suggests how very clearly morals are not universal. It evidenced why islamic jihad finds passive or active solace within muslim communities throughout the world.

Edited December 7, 2015 by arjunadawn

[Andaman Al]

I am not sure what the 'struggle' is here as mentioned in the thread title how about they use a line such as:

" This indiscriminate killing and murder of innocent men, women and children of all nationalities and faiths in the name of Islam must stop. It is abhorrent and as God respecting Muslims we do not want this carrying out in our names or in the name of Allah. This is not jihad, it is murder and the participants are not Martyrs they are murderers and Allah will surely ensure that the only reward for this will be an eternity in Hell"

Now that was easy enough to think up and there was no internal struggle for me there. If i did struggle it could only be because I did not believe all or some of what I was writing. So therein lies the problem! It's a struggle for moderate Muslim leaders!!

Whilst a statement similar to above would appease most of us, it wont work. The one irony with the murderers in ISIS is that they are almost all mercenaries and are in this for money, drugs and sex. Just as most Saudis obviously think Allah can't see over the bridge in to Bahrain every weekend when they go there and get paralytic drunk, ISIS members guess he can't see whose heads they are sawing off in Iraq or Syria.

Unless decisive action is taken against this and any other extreme religion (thinking of some of the Christian elements in the USA here), then religion will be the down fall of humanity. But the billionaires who favour eugenics and control everything and everyone that needs controlling see all this death and destruction as a means to achieve the utopia of a world with only 500 million inhabitants. - Don't expect a solution any time soon - until we take out the private banking families that own us all.

sssshhhh! I think i can hear black helicopters comi..............

Edited December 7, 2015 by Andaman Al

[lostboy]

They should condemn it unequivocally, without if and buts, hesitations or reservation and acknowledge

radical muslim terror.....

Not the first cab off the rank on this one. Did we seep in this morning?

"They should condemn it unequivocally..."

Why?

In all the posts by the anti-muslim brigade, I have never seen unequivocal, unreserved, unhesitating condemnation of Jewish terrorists. From all those posters, I have never seen calls against religious hate speech against women's reproductive rights and how it inspires Christian terrorists to murder health care workers in the name of their ideology. I certainly never heard that brigade condemning religiously inspired hated against LGBT people during the many debates on marriage equality.

Muslim people live their lives like we do. They have the same aspirations, hopes and dreams. Most of them, however, do not have the benefits of living in liberal democracies with legal recognition of human rights and sound economic policies that create wealth and opportunity.

You want condemnation of radical, ideologically inspired terrorism? You get them all the time. Religious leaders in the UK, Australia, Europe, American and elsewhere continually condemn terrorist attacks. Bigots, however, ignore these because it doesn't suit their world view and mission to spread their hatred and nastiness around unchecked.

I do not believe you are following the Australian press closely - the reported criticism by religious leaders of the Islamic faith is not exactly edifying and varies between unconvincing and inadequate. Equally the press I have followed elsewhere ( as in this referred article from the USA ) but including Europe does not inspire the idea they intend to integrate into their 'host nations' anytime soon. Indeed if you peruse the Koran you have the answer you may not wish to see.

The other faiths do have their own idiots and murderers but I have seen condemnation in the strongest terms. Still a work in progress on many issues I will grant you, a lot more work on child abuse is needed. The benefits of living in a liberal democracy are not achieved without a struggle, but for most folk of Muslim persuasion, the enticement of the western welfare is perhaps understandable but fails to change status quo in their homelands. What I think most westerners ( your ref 'anti-Muslim brigade' ) have a problem with is their failure to appreciate the differences in their 'new' home and pointing out the weakness of their hosts in observing human rights and mostly equality between the sexes.

A Muslim colleague once told me that " Islam is the best religion with Muslims being the worst followers " - all of course borrowed from George Bernard Shaw but uttered by a educated and enlightened Muslim.

As I posted previously, don't expect the Leaders on whom you lay all these expectations of condemnation to follow your agenda. After condemning murderous, terrorist attacks, they may say other things that you might find unpalatable and difficult to hear. I have an intellectual interest in religions in their socio-cultural and historical context but am utterly immune to the tenets of any faith however I have undertaken training in anti-racism and anti-sexism as part of official duties quite some time ago. Confronting one's own racism is a cathartic starting point. Same with religious bigotry.

Your main problem seems to be the 'integration' issue i.e. not a fan of multiculturalism. That debate is quite boring to me. It's an old man's debate that is fueled by alcohol and entirely meaningless because new generations have resulted in history passing such old men by. Most Australians alive since World War II will have experienced the cycles of immigration of different ethnicities (and all the complaining about their lack of integration) and all have seen how the 2nd generation integrates but at the same time how Australian culture has adapted and changed in positive ways. The same thing will happen with the 2nd generation Syrians, Afghans, Iraqis etc.

Long live complaining immigrants! Let these fresh eyes point out the deficiencies in Australian culture. Without them we would never have thought of drinking coffee on the sidewalk or learning Bahasa Indonesian language and culture and a whole host of evolutions in Australian society.

I jus spent the last part of November working in Afghanistan. Had a bunch of professional meetings with Directors-General, Deputy Ministers, Embassy Counsellors etc but spent most of my time stuck in Kabul traffic with my driver, who couldn't speak English and I can barely count to three in Dari. Showed me pictures of his 2 young daughters. We are now on Facebook. He was able to take advantage of working with me to seek a position with an international multilateral agency at twice the monthly salary. He didn't wear the mushroom hat but I saw pictures of him in traditional clothes for religious and ceremonial purposes. HIs hopes in life are the same as mine even though we are from entirely different cultures. I had the good fortune to benefit from a western liberal democracy (and be a white male) with free access to education and health care. The biggest problem for implementing the development assistance projects that I was contracted to design in Afghanistan is the flight of capital and human resources. Afghanistan is the 2nd largest nationality in the current flood of refugees to Europe. Local bankers estimate that $120 billion dollars has gone to people smugglers. The operational budget for the Government of Afghanistan this year is $8 billion. People are not flooding to the West to destroy it. They are trying to find a better life.

How do Muslim immigrants or what some people inappropriately call 'moderate' muslims condemn extremism? I don't know. It is not up to non Muslims to tell them how. If they do, then this is just pandering and is meaningless. Muslim immigrants and the societies in which they live should be focussing on how to engage in positive ways with each other. They do not carry the sins of the criminals and terrorists. They are seeking better lives.

[Petchou]

They should condemn it unequivocally, without if and buts, hesitations or reservation and acknowledge

radical muslim terror.....

They don't need. Do you condemn atrocities made by your country, your religion or citizen from both?

[lostboy]

They should condemn it unequivocally, without if and buts, hesitations or reservation and acknowledge

radical muslim terror.....

Not the first cab off the rank on this one. Did we seep in this morning?

"They should condemn it unequivocally..."

Why?

In all the posts by the anti-muslim brigade, I have never seen unequivocal, unreserved, unhesitating condemnation of Jewish terrorists. From all those posters, I have never seen calls against religious hate speech against women's reproductive rights and how it inspires Christian terrorists to murder health care workers in the name of their ideology. I certainly never heard that brigade condemning religiously inspired hated against LGBT people during the many debates on marriage equality.

Muslim people live their lives like we do. They have the same aspirations, hopes and dreams. Most of them, however, do not have the benefits of living in liberal democracies with legal recognition of human rights and sound economic policies that create wealth and opportunity.

You want condemnation of radical, ideologically inspired terrorism? You get them all the time. Religious leaders in the UK, Australia, Europe, American and elsewhere continually condemn terrorist attacks. Bigots, however, ignore these because it doesn't suit their world view and mission to spread their hatred and nastiness around unchecked.

Its positively untrue that those who condemn muslim terrorism condone "Jewish terrorists." Though it may be for some, you did not make this point. The inability to distinguish "anti-muslim" from anti-muslim terrorist is the same fallacy of reasoning that has Obama et al still averring there is no connection to the underlying ideology/texts, in spite of the muslim's world's inability to repudiate this fact and the terrorists' sura and verse citations. This fallacy of policy is what has the multitudes having to create their own narrative of exactly what is going on. It is self evident where islamic terrorism comes from, yet the continued denial forces the narrative to be constructed without guidance or facts by countless millions.

Actually, the world wants condemnation of religiously inspired terrorism not the sterilized "ideological[ly]," this is after all the singular obvious connection and the one that is stubbornly ignored. That you cant even lock into that in your diatribe suggests how unprepared you are to offer your thoughts.

The article clearly suggests "muslim struggle with how they should condemn terrorism" yet you suggest this is a false narrative- the muslim world "continually condemn terrorist attacks." For the oddest reason the majority of planet earth actually do not find that true, including, clearly, the author of this article. Indeed, even in CAIR's pronouncement they indicted the victims for sharing responsibility. In fact, when you dissect the condemnations you refer to, while some are genuine, most never... never rebuke the koranic citations and authority. In fact, in contemporary times, there has only been one studious rebuttal to IS or AQ koranic inspiration and that regarded the burning of a Jordanian pilot. Even on this issue, islamic jurisprudence was equivocal.

Because you don't like those who oppose islamic jihad and cant muster a dispassionate sensible rebuttal does not then invite pejoratives. With such posts you actually harm those you try to defend. The gig is up, in the absence of strength pejorative does not isolate and silence people any longer.

That the moderate muslim world struggles to offer a message defined the problem exactly: scripturally, the extremists are properly cited. It is the moderates who are actually unorthodox. How then to wish to remain islamic and have it defined in the modern age in a way that is meaningful and fraternal with others? This is the very situation islam envisioned long ago and labored to prevent- having islam change with location and times. The fact they have confusion about this and cannot universally decry islamic terrorism suggests how very clearly morals are not universal. It evidenced why islamic jihad finds passive or active solace within muslim communities throughout the world.

Often in your attempts to press your ideological view, you make assumptions that are patently incorrect. How do you assume that I do not like those who oppose terrorists? I have issues with the labelling of terrorists as Islamic, Jewish or Christian but that by no means should be interpreted as support for terrorists or hatred of those who are against terrorists. It would seem that to elaborate your ideological point of view, you must demonise and make use of the kinds of pejoratives that you argue against. If you read my statements that those who condemn muslim terrorists condone Jewish terrorists, then there is either something wrong with my word usage or you are getting a little enthusiastic in your rhetoric (something of a common occurrence in your posts I find). I do not understand how you made that interpretation and believe that you deliberately mis-interpret my statements to fit your rebuttal. I won't get into an argument with you again about intellectual dishonesty, but I think you get my point.

The core of my argument is that it is not up to non Muslims to define what Muslims should do to condemn terrorists. What will satisfy the blood lust of the right wing, anti immigrant, anti PC crowd? The howling masses are like the Shylock demanding his pound of flesh. Isn't it time for a Portia to make the appeal "The quality of mercy is not strained, it dropeth as the gentle rain from heaven" Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice Act 4 Scene 1.

Enough of making muslim jump through hoops directed by non muslims. Let them develop solutions to their challenges. Western societies need to strengthen their law enforcement strategies to deal with terrorism. Terrorism is a criminal act. It is not a military action. It is stopped by police action followed by the presentation of evidence in an open court of law with an unbiased verdict based on that evidence and not other other factors. Just how society has dealt with undesirable acts for centuries.

I believe John Kerry was correct when he said in 2004 that "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but there a nuisance"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/kerrys-undeclared-war.html?_r=0

But of course the right went wild over this use of the word 'nuisance' but he is correct. Statistically, it is a nuisance and can and should be cleared up by police action. Just like the UK bank robbers of th 50's. Just like the New York racketeers of the 80's and 90's. Why do western liberal democracies doubt the very institutions that have made western liberal democracies so successful in providing a structure for people to develop, create wealth, engage in free transactions with others and lead fulfilling lives. One reason is mob chauvinism, unreasoned bigotry and plain old fear (sorry that's three reasons).

Edited December 7, 2015 by lostboy

[arjunadawn]

They should condemn it unequivocally, without if and buts, hesitations or reservation and acknowledge

radical muslim terror.....

Ermmm....they are. The OP is about the debate that has arisen with regard to how they condemn it.

One view, quoted below, seems reasonable to me.

""It reinforces the fallacy that I have something in common with" the Islamic State group, said Sarsour, a prominent Muslim leader from New York. She said she condemns terrorism not as a Muslim, but "as a human" who is outraged and saddened by violence. "

Question (without risking digressing too much): Why do many increasingly believe there is consistent silence from the international islamic community regarding jihad; how does this find traction when both the policies and main media of Western countries are clearly center left or further?

[arjunadawn]

Its positively untrue that those who condemn muslim terrorism condone "Jewish terrorists." Though it may be for some, you did not make this point. The inability to distinguish "anti-muslim" from anti-muslim terrorist is the same fallacy of reasoning that has Obama et al still averring there is no connection to the underlying ideology/texts, in spite of the muslim's world's inability to repudiate this fact and the terrorists' sura and verse citations. This fallacy of policy is what has the multitudes having to create their own narrative of exactly what is going on. It is self evident where islamic terrorism comes from, yet the continued denial forces the narrative to be constructed without guidance or facts by countless millions.

Actually, the world wants condemnation of religiously inspired terrorism not the sterilized "ideological[ly]," this is after all the singular obvious connection and the one that is stubbornly ignored. That you cant even lock into that in your diatribe suggests how unprepared you are to offer your thoughts.

The article clearly suggests "muslim struggle with how they should condemn terrorism" yet you suggest this is a false narrative- the muslim world "continually condemn terrorist attacks." For the oddest reason the majority of planet earth actually do not find that true, including, clearly, the author of this article. Indeed, even in CAIR's pronouncement they indicted the victims for sharing responsibility. In fact, when you dissect the condemnations you refer to, while some are genuine, most never... never rebuke the koranic citations and authority. In fact, in contemporary times, there has only been one studious rebuttal to IS or AQ koranic inspiration and that regarded the burning of a Jordanian pilot. Even on this issue, islamic jurisprudence was equivocal.

Because you don't like those who oppose islamic jihad and cant muster a dispassionate sensible rebuttal does not then invite pejoratives. With such posts you actually harm those you try to defend. The gig is up, in the absence of strength pejorative does not isolate and silence people any longer.

That the moderate muslim world struggles to offer a message defined the problem exactly: scripturally, the extremists are properly cited. It is the moderates who are actually unorthodox. How then to wish to remain islamic and have it defined in the modern age in a way that is meaningful and fraternal with others? This is the very situation islam envisioned long ago and labored to prevent- having islam change with location and times. The fact they have confusion about this and cannot universally decry islamic terrorism suggests how very clearly morals are not universal. It evidenced why islamic jihad finds passive or active solace within muslim communities throughout the world.

Often in your attempts to press your ideological view, you make assumptions that are patently incorrect. How do you assume that I do not like those who oppose terrorists? I have issues with the labelling of terrorists as Islamic, Jewish or Christian but that by no means should be interpreted as support for terrorists or hatred of those who are against terrorists. It would seem that to elaborate your ideological point of view, you must demonise and make use of the kinds of pejoratives that you argue against. If you read my statements that those who condemn muslim terrorists condone Jewish terrorists, then there is either something wrong with my word usage or you are getting a little enthusiastic in your rhetoric (something of a common occurrence in your posts I find). I do not understand how you made that interpretation and believe that you deliberately mis-interpret my statements to fit your rebuttal. I won't get into an argument with you again about intellectual dishonesty, but I think you get my point.

The core of my argument is that it is not up to non Muslims to define what Muslims should do to condemn terrorists. What will satisfy the blood lust of the right wing, anti immigrant, anti PC crowd? The howling masses are like the Shylock demanding his pound of flesh. Isn't it time for a Portia to make the appeal "The quality of mercy is not strained, it dropeth as the gentle rain from heaven" Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice Act 4 Scene 1.

Enough of making muslim jump through hoops directed by non muslims. Let them develop solutions to their challenges. Western societies need to strengthen their law enforcement strategies to deal with terrorism. Terrorism is a criminal act. It is not a military action. It is stopped by police action followed by the presentation of evidence in an open court of law with an unbiased verdict based on that evidence and not other other factors. Just how society has dealt with undesirable acts for centuries.

I believe John Kerry was correct when he said in 2004 that "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but there a nuisance"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/kerrys-undeclared-war.html?_r=0

But of course the right went wild over this use of the word 'nuisance' but he is correct. Statistically, it is a nuisance and can and should be cleared up by police action. Just like the UK bank robbers of th 50's. Just like the New York racketeers of the 80's and 90's. Why do western liberal democracies doubt the very institutions that have made western liberal democracies so successful in providing a structure for people to develop, create wealth, engage in free transactions with others and lead fulfilling lives. One reason is mob chauvinism, unreasoned bigotry and plain old fear (sorry that's three reasons).

It would be untrue that I press a point of view blindly and make assumptions willfully. Sometimes I make mistakes. I should not have said you "like." Agree with what you said or not, it was not presented so badly but I invested "like" into it, where there was no suggestion. I was wrong to do that. I am not a dishonest man. Sometimes I do the same things I indict others for. I sure as hell hope when I am called on it I don't stop seeing when I make mistakes. Otherwise I become exactly what I like least- people who insinuate. Sorry.

[lostboy]

It would be untrue that I press a point of view blindly and make assumptions willfully. Sometimes I make mistakes. I should not have said you "like." Agree with what you said or not, it was not presented so badly but I invested "like" into it, where there was no suggestion. I was wrong to do that. I am not a dishonest man. Sometimes I do the same things I indict others for. I sure as hell hope when I am called on it I don't stop seeing when I make mistakes. Otherwise I become exactly what I like least- people who insinuate. Sorry.

I believe you completely and absolutely no need for apologies.

I was not offended. I was more curious about what I saw as a logical flaw, which if intentional would have been intellectually dishonest (it happens on TVF) but your clarification explains everything quite satisfactorily. It is much more fun to ague with an honest broker than someone in a rage. Those with their hypocrisy on their sleeves are too easy to knock down.

Anyway, please keep on posting. Often your posts inspire me to respond. I wasted 2 hours tonight on TVF when I should have been preparing for an early morning conference call. Damn.

[Andaman Al]

Ignorance is bliss.

Awesome post !!!

[Saradoc1972]

There are some disturbing passages in the Koran on how to treat apostates, 'unbelievers' and Islam dominating everyone else by solipsistic virtue alone. These passages are centuries old, from medieval times, as is the whole book. And these passages are used to justify and give credence to the extremists.

The problem is, that there is no acknowledgement that times have changed since, that societies and cultures have progressed and that there should be a reform/reinterpretation of the book by Islamic scholars. But you can't touch it, the book is holy, and to question is to blaspheme...

So, here is the choice for the religious Muslims worldwide: reform your religion, or continue to be put in the same bag with extremists.

The other choice is of course for Muslims to win that war and wipe everyone else out, just like the book says.

Correct. The Bible has some descriptions of violence, Quran is much more graphic and actually advocates them.

While you find a lot of people trying to argue it only pertained to times of yore and not modern times, that's just not the same as that stuff just not being in there.

Because some guys might just not find that argument appealing, so off he goes.

Like some Muslim clergyman or community leader in Britain put it: "We can't change Quran or Sharia, but you can change your laws, and if you don't there will be rivers of blood."

Amazing how someone can come up with something like that publicly and stay out of jail and in a given host-country.

Islam cannot be reformed, especially since they do not have common institutions like a Pope or orthodox patriarch or a protestant synode or what it's called, and will kill everyone who tries to.

The only thing that can be reformed with a lot of effort and luck are the Muslims, until they keep religion like the overwhelming majority of Westerners. For weddings and a funeral.

Or a big binge over Christmas and Ramadan, if they must..

[connda]

Duplicate

Edited December 7, 2015 by connda

[connda]

If more non-Muslims would take the time to at least have a basic understanding of the Koran, Hadith, and the Sira then there would be a lot less confusion about the way events are playing out. If they did, then they would understand the events in the context of Sunna. Then, "Click!" The light would go on...

Obviously, even the media doesn't understand. 'Nuff said.

Edited December 7, 2015 by connda

[connda]

I live among Muslims. They are peaceful, wonderful people and my friends.

The Muslim religion doesn't preach hate and murder. Extremists in any religion who preach violence are wrong. "You ain't no Muslim bruv, you're an embarrassment" called out by a Muslim to the London idiot with a knife, nails all this xenophobic hate perfectly. Put the bigotry aside and stop blaming an entire religion for the actions of a few.

I read the cowardly rants by the wingnuts and just feel sorry for them.

I didn't hear any of the Christian "forced birthers" apologizing for the crazy man who shot up the Planned Parenthood clinic. Why is that different than all the manufactured outrage of not having all the Muslims apologize?

Explain that to the Turkish soccer fans who shouted Allah Akbar when they were asked for a minute of silence for the victims.

Religion doesn't preach people does and the Quran has some very violent parts.....You can preach the violent part or the peaceful part.

Unfortunately, in a country that is 99.7% Muslim, this act of booing then shouting 'Allah Akbar' when asked for a minute of silence speaks volumes.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/2015/11/18/turkeys-moment-shame-paris-silence-booed/

[Ulic]

They should condemn extremism unreservedly, end of story.

[MichelBangkok]

As Salman Rushdie allegedly once said : “No I do not think it is fair to say that Islam is a violent religion, but I do not believe any writer was in danger with his life for writing about the Amishs. »

[Jingthing]

This Muslim American has some good ideas on how to reform Islam, in the U.S. and globally.

More voices like that, please!

"We say ISIS is not Islamic, and President Obama says it's not Islamic," Jasser tells New Times. "And yet, we sit with the Saudis and respect them being the grand protectors of the Holy Mosque [in Mecca], and we call the Republic of Iran Islamic, and these are the cauldrons that brew the ideas of ISIS. Saudi Arabia has beheaded more people in the last three months than ISIS has in the last year."

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/muslim-phoenix-doctor-seeks-to-save-america-and-islam-from-isis-inspired-extremists-7881682

[AyG]

The Muslim religion doesn't preach hate and murder. Extremists in any religion who preach violence are wrong. "You ain't no Muslim bruv, you're an embarrassment" called out by a Muslim to the London idiot with a knife, nails all this xenophobic hate perfectly. Put the bigotry aside and stop blaming an entire religion for the actions of a few.

Oh dear. The individual who said "You ain't no Muslim bruv" wasn't a Moslem. And he now fears retribution from Moslems.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12048042/You-aint-no-Muslim-bruv-Man-who-shouted-in-Leytonstone-attack-fears-Islamic-State-retribution.html

And of course Islam preaches hate and murder. It's all there in the Koran. Mohammed himself was a mass murderer and preached hatred and intolerance.

The world doesn't need apologists for Islam - it needs facts and clarity about the true nature of this system of methodical subjugation.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[jacky54]

They should condemn the passages in the Koran that inspire violence and denounce the prophets many wars and killings, but they will not be doing either will they.

Edited December 13, 2015 by jacky54

[manarak]

Ignorance is bliss.

Awesome post !!!

nope, it's a shitty post!

It's not about what's written in the books.

Religious peace in the Christian World stems from people and the Church itself not believing in what the bible says... Every priest will tell you to not take the bible literally.

We need an Islam without Jihad and where the Quran is not above secular Law, and where mullahs tell their people that what's written in the Quran is mostly bullshit that should "not be taken literally"

[augustwest]

How about all the American Muslim's send their men to go fight against Daesh and stay there till the job is done. We could integrate them with the Kurds as they are a the only group that seems to be succeeding in this. The US should be doing way more in helping the Kurds with weapons and more men. If they defect we can imprison his entire family. If he is found to be killing people on our side we then execute his family