Protesters rally against Islamic law in dozens of U.S. cities

[Si Thea01]

3 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

For ISIS and their evil ilk, the beauty of people like you is that they don't have to pay you or train you. Of your own volition, you help them spread the hate they want to spread.

 

Why do you willingly help these vile extremists?

Are you suggesting diplomatic approaches.  In the meantime they continue killing other Muslims, beheading the infidels (Us and maybe you), holding children and women captive so they can use them as human shields.

 

I could go on and one but I know how I bore your so I wont.   I was under the impression that now, it is only those who cannot prove who they are and where they come from are those that should be extreme vetted and prevented from entering the US of A.  They are just as happy to see the west being divided, that is one of their goals just in case you didn't know. 

[the guest]

Good on the USA to make a stance on this medieval law. Puts the EU to shame, with their pathetic human rights and political correctness!

[Thakkar]

9 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Are you suggesting diplomatic approaches.  In the meantime they continue killing other Muslims, beheading the infidels (Us and maybe you), holding children and women captive so they can use them as human shields.

 

I could go on and one but I know how I bore your so I wont.   I was under the impression that now, it is only those who cannot prove who they are and where they come from are those that should be extreme vetted and prevented from entering the US of A.  They are just as happy to see the west being divided, that is one of their goals just in case you didn't know. 

 

The extremists want mistrust, hate and division. That is their fuel. Deny them that fuel, and they will eventually wither. 

 

That is not to say we just sit, back, hold hands and sing kumbaya. It doesn't mean we don't track them down and arrest the terrorists where possible, or kill them where necessary. It doesn't mean we don't stop their lines of finance or don't sanction those who finance them. It means we treat the vast majority of Muslims like the ordinary folk they are—folk who have ordinary hopes and dreams, probably not too different than yours or mine. We don't allow the extremists to define the narrative.

 

You're either a lover or a hater. If you're a hater, you're working for ISIS whether you know it or not.

[Morch]

23 hours ago, heybruce said:

A lot of appalling crimes have been committed by white supremacists.  Should  all white people in the US be sent back to Europe?

 

I think that, generally speaking, people have greater tolerance for crimes committed by those who are members of their society, compared to similar crimes committed by outsiders. Islam is still an "outsider" thing. And of course, Muslims aren't necessarily of a single race or ethnicity.

 

[Morch]

3 hours ago, simple1 said:

The general public generally don't know about Muslims speaking out against Islamists for  the reason you identified, under reporting by media, as well as drowned out by the right of centre. e.g. do you personally know that 70,000 Indian Muslim clerics spoke out against Islamists or on a much smaller scale Muslims in Sydney have for years provided charity services for non Muslim homeless? Whereas just one Muslim / refugee commits a criminal offence (not talking about terrorism) it gets coverage.

 

On this forum examples have been provided of Muslim representatives speaking out, including leaders from Malaysia, Egypt and Indonesia, yet the same complaints of no voices raised again and again and again; alternatively reports dismissed as insincere, false, deceitful, posters personally attacked as 'apologists' etc etc 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/70000-indian-muslim-clerics-issue-fatwa-against-isis-the-taliban-al-qaida-and-other-terror-groups-a6768191.html

 

 

 

And then there's that. No real equivalence. Western intervention in the ME in other relevant parts is not driven by religious motives. It relates to economic interests, politics and power plays. Religious wars are, for Westerners, something of the past. So when attacks are carried out in the name of god, it's like what-they're-on-about? When motivations are scored along more familiar lines they are easier to relate to. To put in another way, someone carrying out at attack because his family was killed is, if not acceptable, understandable. Someone carrying out an attack in the name of foreign religion is neither of the above.

[LammyTS1]

Sharia law incompatible with US law?

 

No

 

Sharia law incompatible with present time. 

 

It should not exist in any country worldwide. 

[Morch]

44 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

For ISIS and their evil ilk, the beauty of people like you is that they don't have to pay you or train you. Of your own volition, you help them spread the hate they want to spread.

 

Why do you willingly help these vile extremists?

Seems like you're not doing all that bad sowing "mistrust, hate and division" yourself, by posting in this style. There may be better ways of getting the point across than telling people they collude with such as ISIS. Much as I think these demonstrations are contrived, pointless and damaging - I do recognize that not everyone who disagrees with me is aiding and abetting terrorists.  

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

Seems like you're not doing all that bad sowing "mistrust, hate and division" yourself, by posting in this style. There may be better ways of getting the point across than telling people they collude with such as ISIS. Much as I think these demonstrations are contrived, pointless and damaging - I do recognize that not everyone who disagrees with me is aiding and abetting terrorists.  

 

At least not intentionally.

[Morch]

33 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

The extremists want mistrust, hate and division. That is their fuel. Deny them that fuel, and they will eventually wither. 

 

That is not to say we just sit, back, hold hands and sing kumbaya. It doesn't mean we don't track them down and arrest the terrorists where possible, or kill them where necessary. It doesn't mean we don't stop their lines of finance or don't sanction those who finance them. It means we treat the vast majority of Muslims like the ordinary folk they are—folk who have ordinary hopes and dreams, probably not too different than yours or mine. We don't allow the extremists to define the narrative.

 

You're either a lover or a hater. If you're a hater, you're working for ISIS whether you know it or not.

 

And seeing your last line - no.

There is no requirement to love Islam or Muslims or anyone, for that matter. And there's a whole range of views and emotions between your simplistic either/or.  Either/or is the language of extremists, and to quote a usually spot on poster - "we don't allow extremists to define the narrative".

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

At least not intentionally.

 

The same argument can be turned about (being overly accommodating, sympathetic and understanding is promoting ISIS goals) and is often posted on these topics. To be clear, this is not my argument, just pointing out that labeling other poster as assisting terrorists is not conductive to discussion, nor is it a one way street.

[Thakkar]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

Seems like you're not doing all that bad sowing "mistrust, hate and division" yourself, by posting in this style. There may be better ways of getting the point across than telling people they collude with such as ISIS. Much as I think these demonstrations are contrived, pointless and damaging - I do recognize that not everyone who disagrees with me is aiding and abetting terrorists.  

 

At least not intentionally.

 

Actually, it was intentional—intentionally tongue-in-cheek.

 

The point is, we all of us must resist the extremists' attempts to sow division and hatrade. But expressing it in those words would've been less provocative, and, in my humble opinion, less effective.

 

It's easy t lash out in anger. Even understandable. But it is counter-productive if you want to effectively counter the problem.

 

however it might be noted that, for some people,  the anger may have already been present in the form of bigotry and hatrade of "the other" and terrorist attacks are—for lack of a better term—fortuitous for such people as it allows them to vent their already existing hatrade.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The same argument can be turned about (being overly accommodating, sympathetic and understanding is promoting ISIS goals) and is often posted on these topics. 

And is there an issue out there of which that can't be said?

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And is there an issue out there of which that can't be said?

I dunno, we're talking about a specific issue. Granted, talking about issues at hand is not your "thing".

[USPatriot]

On 6/10/2017 at 5:44 PM, darksidedog said:

Sharia law is antiquated, barbaric and abominable.There is no place for it in civilised society and Muslims need to come out of the Dark Ages and recognise so. Perhaps when they do, they will find integrating with world society will become much easier.

They would rather drag everyone in to the dark ages

Edited June 12, 2017 by USPatriot

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

I dunno, we're talking about a specific issue. Granted, talking about issues at hand is not your "thing".

Just scan the political topics presented here in this form.  Let me know when you find one issue that isn't contentious.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

Actually, it was intentional—intentionally tongue-in-cheek.

 

The point is, we all of us must resist the extremists' attempts to sow division and hatrade. But expressing it in those words would've been less provocative, and, in my humble opinion, less effective.

 

It's easy t lash out in anger. Even understandable. But it is counter-productive if you want to effectively counter the problem.

 

however it might be noted that, for some people,  the anger may have already been present in the form of bigotry and hatrade of "the other" and terrorist attacks are—for lack of a better term—fortuitous for such people as it allows them to vent their already existing hatrade.

 

Resisting extremists' attempts to sow division and hatred, by sowing division and hatred. Lashing out is counter-productive if coming from others, but lashing out at them is effective. Seems like some of Trump's logic is taking a hold.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

Just scan the political topics presented here in this form.  Let me know when you find one issue that isn't contentious.

[USPatriot]

Yup lets trash America.. 3 attacks in europe in 9 weeks and America is racist. Nope just learning from other countries mistakes

[USPatriot]

On 6/10/2017 at 6:18 PM, stevenl said:

Agree with you, but the demonstrators are there showing their anti Muslim stance.

This is just an attempt to hide their bigotry, political correctness of the right.

Or show their belief in America with the right to protest.

 

But the easy way out is to call everyone a hater. So you support sharia law.   Nice

[Thakkar]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Resisting extremists' attempts to sow division and hatred, by sowing division and hatred. Lashing out is counter-productive if coming from others, but lashing out at them is effective. Seems like some of Trump's logic is taking a hold.

 

It seems to me you are intent on forging an argument between us where there really shouldn't be one.

 

If you followed every post on this thread (and the other one On the London attacks) as I have, including the ones that were deleted for their hatefulness, then you'd know that the tenor of many posts is/was to lump muslims in general as the problem, to imply that muslims are some kind of monolith intent on dragging the entire West down by stealth, nefarious infiltration. If this kind of thinking becomes widespread, what does it do but make anyone that does not look like "us" the enemy?

 

Now, I could've written a nuanced screed in response to the kind of "throw all the [derogatory term for muslims] out!" posts, but I concluded it would be simpler and more effective present my response as a love/hate dichotomy followed by a tongue-in-cheek question.

 

I have responded at length because of the respect I had built up for you, having followed your posts in the past.

 

This isn't the place for nuance and wordiness, so if you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to in PM's.

 

Cheers.

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

It seems to me you are intent on forging an argument between us where there really shouldn't be one.

 

If you followed every post on this thread (and the other one On the London attacks) as I have, including the ones that were deleted for their hatefulness, then you'd know that the tenor of many posts is/was to lump muslims in general as the problem, to imply that muslims are some kind of monolith intent on dragging the entire West down by stealth, nefarious infiltration. If this kind of thinking becomes widespread, what does it do but make anyone that does not look like "us" the enemy?

 

Now, I could've written a nuanced screed in response to the kind of "throw all the [derogatory term for muslims] out!" posts, but I concluded it would be simpler and more effective present my response as a love/hate dichotomy followed by a tongue-in-cheek question.

 

I have responded at length because of the respect I had built up for you, having followed your posts in the past.

 

This isn't the place for nuance and wordiness, so if you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to in PM's.

 

Cheers.

 

If you're familiar with my posts you'll know I'm not much impressed by extremists of whichever persuasion and leaning. As you noted, posts going over the top are often deleted. Somehow that's not good enough, and people need to brand those not deemed over the top as assisting terrorists. 

 

Whatever happened to that "I think you should defend to the death their right to march, and then go down and meet them with baseball bats"?

 

[Thakkar]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If you're familiar with my posts you'll know I'm not much impressed by extremists of whichever persuasion and leaning. As you noted, posts going over the top are often deleted. Somehow that's not good enough, and people need to brand those not deemed over the top as assisting terrorists. 

 

Whatever happened to that "I think you should defend to the death their right to march, and then go down and meet them with baseball bats"?

 

I don't know what your above two paragraphs mean.

 

I never disputed the protesters' right to protest. I pointed out that they were protesting against a non-existent issue and that the protest against non-existent sharia law is merely cover for an anti-Muslim vent.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

I don't know what your above two paragraphs mean.

 

I never disputed the protesters' right to protest. I pointed out that they were protesting against a non-existent issue and that the protest against non-existent sharia law is merely cover for an anti-Muslim vent.

 

Yeah, I'm still with the if you're not with us you're assisting ISIS thing. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Way I see it it's a pretty much extreme point of view. But PM works too.

 

[Thakkar]

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, I'm still with the if you're not with us you're assisting ISIS thing. Sorry if it wasn't clear. Way I see it it's a pretty much extreme point of view. But PM works too.

 

 

Ok I get it now, thanks.

I'll discuss in detail by PM.

But just for the public record, in case it wasn't clear (and I thought it was pretty clear), I wasn't saying "love all ordinary Muslims otherwise you're working for ISIS". I was responding in the simplest terms all the "throw all the Muslims out" (I'm paraphrasing here) posts by saying that promoting hate plays into the terrorists hands and to make it doubly clear that I was deliberately oversimplifying the issue the same way these hateful posts were, I added the tongue-in-cheek question.

 

It sounded clever in my head, but granted, not everybody may think so.

 

cheers.

[simple1]

10 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

Are those Indian clerics Sunni or Shia? In any case, Islam is a minority religion in India. Any news from the Pakistani clerics?

 

The point that people are making is that the 'speaking out', by any objective measure, is not nearly enough. People want to see an massive tidal wave of speaking out such that it becomes an unstoppable global phenomenon and leaves no room for any suspicion that fundamentalism receives tacit support from within Islam. A few examples here and there don't cut it.

India has the world's third largest Muslim population at approx 180 million.

 

Business as usual undermining those Muslims speaking out. On the other side of the coin, tell me how many Christian mass demonstrations were there against the Catholic Church members in Rwanda propaganda and support that led to genocide of 800,000 people - believe the answer is none (?) - so let's stop the BS.

Edited June 12, 2017 by simple1

[stevenl]

9 hours ago, USPatriot said:

Or show their belief in America with the right to protest.

 

But the easy way out is to call everyone a hater. So you support sharia law.   Nice

Protest against what? Look at comments in the OP and the thread, protest against Muslims, not against Sharia law.

 

Strange conclusion you come with, nowhere did I show support or will I ever show support for Sharia law.

[spidermike007]

16 hours ago, simple1 said:

The general public generally don't know about Muslims speaking out against Islamists for  the reason you identified, under reporting by media, as well as drowned out by the right of centre. e.g. do you personally know that 70,000 Indian Muslim clerics spoke out against Islamists or on a much smaller scale Muslims in Sydney have for years provided charity services for non Muslim homeless? Whereas just one Muslim / refugee commits a criminal offence (not talking about terrorism) it gets coverage.

 

On this forum examples have been provided of Muslim representatives speaking out, including leaders from Malaysia, Egypt and Indonesia, yet the same complaints of no voices raised again and again and again; alternatively reports dismissed as insincere, false, deceitful, posters personally attacked as 'apologists' etc etc 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/70000-indian-muslim-clerics-issue-fatwa-against-isis-the-taliban-al-qaida-and-other-terror-groups-a6768191.html

 

 

 

The most important aspect of that article, was that it was about Indian Muslims. Most Indian Muslims, even though they might be considered Sunni or Shia, are intimately Sufis. Sufism is one of the most moderate, liberal, and fun loving, of all the Muslim sects. And for that reason, they are universally despised throughout the more ardent regions of the Islamic world. They love to sing, dance, listen to music, and they are passionate about life, something few Muslims of the less tolerant groups associated with Sharia, or Wahhabism can brag about. For that reason, I consider them to be more spiritual, and more genuine, in their religious practice. I do not consider the Wahhabis, nor the other extreme sects of Islam, to have any connection to their creator. None. Their religion is a sad shadow of real Islam, and one without real spirit, joy, benevolence, tolerance, or any of the positive qualities associated with Islam. Instead theirs is associated with fear, paranoia, intolerance, hatred, fatwas, death, destruction, mayhem, the continued support of terror worldwide, and desperation. 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

 

The most important aspect of that article, was that it was about Indian Muslims. Most Indian Muslims, even though they might be considered Sunni or Shia, are intimately Sufis. Sufism is one of the most moderate, liberal, and fun loving, of all the Muslim sects. And for that reason, they are universally despised throughout the more ardent regions of the Islamic world. They love to sing, dance, listen to music, and they are passionate about life, something few Muslims of the less tolerant groups associated with Sharia, or Wahhabism can brag about. For that reason, I consider them to be more spiritual, and more genuine, in their religious practice. I do not consider the Wahhabis, nor the other extreme sects of Islam, to have any connection to their creator. None. Their religion is a sad shadow of real Islam, and one without real spirit, joy, benevolence, tolerance, or any of the positive qualities associated with Islam. Instead theirs is associated with fear, paranoia, intolerance, hatred, fatwas, death, destruction, mayhem, the continued support of terror worldwide, and desperation. 

This used to be the case in Pakistan, too. But the government there chose arms over education, so the impoverished Pakistanis, and they are overwhelmingly impoverished, send their children for a free education at Madrassas. Madrassas that are funded by the Saudis to promulgate Wahhabism. Even in India workers returning from Saudi Arabia are infected with it.  Kerala, which used to have extremely friendly relations among Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, now has lots of problems thanks to workers returning from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States.

[spidermike007]

34 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

This used to be the case in Pakistan, too. But the government there chose arms over education, so the impoverished Pakistanis, and they are overwhelmingly impoverished, send their children for a free education at Madrassas. Madrassas that are funded by the Saudis to promulgate Wahhabism. Even in India workers returning from Saudi Arabia are infected with it.  Kerala, which used to have extremely friendly relations among Christians, Muslims, and Hindus, now has lots of problems thanks to workers returning from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States.

 

In my opinion the Saudis are public enemy number #1, on this planet. They are the primary sponsors of world terror, and this recent spat with Qatar was nothing but a churlish smoke screen, that Cheeto went along with, out of ignorance, and a lack of foreign policy. If it was not for their oil, they would be a pariah in the world community, no doubt. Like you say, the Madrassas are a real problem. They are not teaching world peace, nor love of your fellow man. The unfortunate part of this equation is, that environment is stronger than will power, for most people. So, if you are in an environment, where these hate mongers, disguised as spiritual teachers are plying their ugly trade, you are bound to be affected by it, and to start to buy into the nonsense, and to start drinking the Kool-Aid. Pakistan is public enemy #2.  

[Morch]

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

India has the world's third largest Muslim population at approx 180 million.

 

Business as usual undermining those Muslims speaking out. On the other side of the coin, tell me how many Christian mass demonstrations were there against the Catholic Church members in Rwanda propaganda and support that led to genocide of 800,000 people - believe the answer is none (?) - so let's stop the BS.

 

I think that whatever happens in Africa (and to a lesser extent in other parts of the globe) fails to catch public attention in the West. Call it racist, cultural or ethnocentric if it makes it more accessible. Things taking place "over there" are largely ignored as "irrelevant" (and I'm not suggesting that they are, just commenting on perceptions). Had what you describe actively involve Westerners (read white) it would have been responded to differently. Hence Apartheid was not acceptable, but non-whites killing each other is sort of "their own business". Further, I would suggest that for many Westerners religion is not necessarily a core identity concept, so the relevance of atrocities carried out in the name of Christianity is not perceived as a general "responsibility".