Start A Petition

As Islamist Terrorism Increases, Some Respond ~ By Assailing Israel


World  (tags: Islam, Muslims, jihad, Israel, anti-Semitism, terrorists, terrorism, conflict, death, ethics, freedoms, politics, violence, world )

Gillian
- 1303 days ago - ajc.org
Brussels, the capital of both Belgium and Europe, is on high alert, as authorities fear Islamist attacks and uncover cells and weapons caches.



   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Gillian M (11)
Sunday November 22, 2015, 6:16 am
It would be the stuff of comedy if it weren’t so devastatingly tragic.

France is targeted by radical Islamic forces. The death toll is over 130 people, with hundreds more wounded. This is the second major wave of attacks in the country within the past year. And the threat is far from over.

A Russian airliner in Egyptian airspace is downed by ISIS. Hundreds are murdered. There are no survivors.

A hotel in Mali is attacked by gunmen shouting “Allahu Akbar,” “God Is Great.” One hundred and seventy hostages are taken. A number of them are killed.

Brussels, the capital of both Belgium and Europe, is on high alert, as authorities fear Islamist attacks and uncover cells and weapons caches.

And ISIS claims it’s planning to strike Washington and other major cities.

In the midst of all this, here’s what Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström offered by way of explanation following the Paris carnage:

“Clearly, we have reason to be worried not only here in Sweden but around the world because there are so many who are being radicalized. Here again, you come back to situations like that in the Middle East, where not least the Palestinians see that there isn’t any future. The Palestinians either have to accept a desperate situation or resort to violence.”

Say what?

France confronts murder and mayhem, and this passes for trenchant analysis by the foreign minister of a significant country?

Perhaps it makes life easier for Wallström. After all, she has a readymade, off-the-shelf explanation for such a catastrophe – link it back to Israeli responsibility. And, of course, if that’s the case, then the solution is also obvious – up the heat on the Jewish state, which, by the way, is precisely what her government did one year ago by becoming the first major European country to recognize the “State of Palestine.”

But, unfortunately for her, the tragic events in Paris had nothing whatsoever to do with the Palestinians and everything to do with a jihadist mindset that abhors Western values and beliefs – and sees Stockholm in the very same light as Paris, Brussels, or, for that matter, Jerusalem. Apropos, Madam Minister, have you visited Malmo recently and spoken to the few Jews remaining there about what life is like in the face of the changing demography of Sweden’s third largest city?

And she was not alone.

The European Union, of which Sweden is a part, chose precisely this time to announce the implementation of its labeling of Israeli goods originating from the “occupied territories.”

Never mind that for weeks now Israelis have been living with a murderous spree of attacks by Palestinians on parents, children, you name it.

And never mind that the Palestinian leadership not only has failed to condemn these assaults, but has continued to incite and lionize the perpetrators. Why should inconvenient facts get in the way of cherished theories about approaches to this conflict?

The EU step was taken after 16 member states signed a letter pressing for the action, following earlier discussions on the subject in Brussels. Apropos, the 12 that did not sign deserve recognition and appreciation – Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. Plus, Hungary, which was an original signatory, has now reversed itself and said it will not implement the labeling guidelines.

Berlin’s most famous department store, KaDeWe, promptly put the rules into effect and, among other items, targeted Israeli wines from the Golan Heights.

Think about that for a moment.

Apart from the painfully striking symbolism of this act in the heart of Germany, the EU appears to believe that Israel doesn’t belong in the Golan Heights today.

If not, who does?

Syria, the country that threatened a war of extermination against Israel in 1967 and lost the area in the ensuing battle? If so, which Syria? The Syria of President Assad, who has wreaked such havoc on his nation, and who is in cahoots with Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia? The Syria of ISIS, which controls a broad swath of Syrian territory? Either way, just imagine the consequences for Israel, the region, and the world.

Perhaps to the Brussels establishment these are petty issues that get in the way of their airtight thinking about how Israel ought to act, but for the Jewish state they constitute life-and-death matters.

And now along comes the American Anthropological Association (AAA) and endorses a boycott against Israeli universities.

Is this for real?

Of all the countries in the world, they opt to isolate the only liberal democracy in the Middle East? The only country in the region whose universities have diverse student bodies, and who represent the essence of open scholarly inquiry and academic excellence?

Does the AAA truly believe that by singling out Israel it is advancing the prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians? Or is that not the ultimate goal of the resolution’s authors, who perhaps have more insidious aims in mind when it comes to Israel’s future, while knowing they can count on a gullible group that can be swayed to support them?

Again, the facts of the conflict be damned:

The Palestinians could have had a state of their own, alongside Israel (but, no, not in its place), as far back as 1947 and on multiple occasions since, but consistently refused each offer.

After the 1993 Oslo Accords, which many thought provided new hope, PLO Chairman Arafat revealed the following year in South Africa, in an unguarded moment caught on camera, that the whole thing was a ruse, inspired by the Prophet Mohammed’s deception of the ancient tribe of Quraysh.

PA President Abbas is in the 11th year of his four-year term, doesn’t control Gaza, and was AWOL when Israel agreed to a ten-month settlement freeze to jumpstart the peace talks. Moreover, just this month, Abbas himself admitted that he walked away from the 2008 peace offer by then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

And until today, Israel has stated repeatedly its willingness to take risks for a two-state accord, but, alas, has no credible partner with which to reach an end-of-conflict, end-of-claims final deal.

For the AAA, as for the Swedish foreign minister and, it appears, too many EU nations, the path of least political resistance is to focus obsessively on Israel, irrespective of what else might be going on in the world.

May they wake up before it is too late to the clear and present dangers facing the democratic world – improbable as that might seem in light of their recent actions.

 

Darren Woolsey (218)
Sunday November 22, 2015, 6:34 am
I feel sorry for genuine Muslims everywhere who practice their faith.
These violent and destructive extremists are very dangerous creatures.
 

Gillian M (11)
Sunday November 22, 2015, 7:00 am
Darren, these are the genuine Muslims practising their faith.
 

Darren Woolsey (218)
Sunday November 22, 2015, 8:47 am
Their VERSION of it.
 

Gillian M (11)
Sunday November 22, 2015, 12:00 pm
Exactly as the Quran tells them to and exactly as Mohammed, the perfect male, did.

Darren, not all Muslims follow everything but the Islamic State and terrorism is exactly what Islam is and the imams tell them to do.
 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Sunday November 22, 2015, 12:20 pm


@Darren,

Remember the vast amount of the Islamic world made up of Sunnis and Shia, who want the destruction of the West for its non-submission to Allah, Moh and sharia.

That leaves a majority of genuine Muslims practicing their faith not only in favor of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other jihadi groups, but having these Muslims join their ranks and a majority of them giving succor, weaponry, funds to these groups and other material support as they are supposed to according to Sharia.

You have to get over your brainwashing that terrorism, jihadism is not part of "true" Islam. IT IS an essential part of it, as maintained in the Koran and Hadiths and, for example, the most prestigious Islamic university in the world, Al Azhar.

Why do you think, Darren, that ISIL has recruited Muslims from all over the WORLD. If ISIL's theology were not representative of the majority of Islam, ISIL would be, at best, a local phenomenon, maybe from one or two countries.

But it isn't. Sunni Muslims living in virtually every country in the world have left everything behind to fight in an Islamic eschatological battle to force ALL of the world to SUBMIT (this is the meaning of the world "Islam) to Islam.

You seem to not be able or willing to comprehend this fact, and you naively get it wrong every time.

Sunnis comprise ~85% of the world's Muslims. Shia, another leading percentage of Muslims in the world also hates the West, its values and wants to destroy it has said so repeatedly.

When believers in ideology of forcing Islam down the throats of EVERYBODY in the world say that they are going to take over by killing the persistent unbelievers or by other nonmilitary jihadist vehicles-, why do you, Darren Woolsey, doubt it?

You've got to get over the PC-, Leftist- and Muslim-propaganda, or else you'll be buried along with the rest of Western civilization's long and hard fought ideals, because democracy is anathema to Islam.... unless you decide to become Muslim.

 

Hilary S (65)
Sunday November 22, 2015, 3:17 pm
it is even more disturbing that this is acceptable racism in europe, where WWII antisemitism remains a shameful stain on its liberal democracies.
 

Maggie D (69)
Sunday November 22, 2015, 6:57 pm
Shame on the 16 countries who signed the boycott agreement. The problem is liberal democracies. It seems that the more liberal a country becomes the less ability its people have to think for themselves. The media spreads biased news that is gobbled up by the people who would rather go along with the crowd then question the motives of the media and their leaders.
 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Sunday November 22, 2015, 7:16 pm


Excellent description, Maggie. This is exactly what happens, not only liberal democracies, but even here by a frightening number of people on Care2.

 

Past Member (0)
Monday November 23, 2015, 5:33 am
No hatred could be stopped by itself
 

pam w (139)
Monday November 23, 2015, 7:34 am
I'm surprised the ANTI-ISRAELI mob hasn't shown up YET to dispute Muslim atrocities and lay the blame on Israel.
 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Monday November 23, 2015, 8:07 am


@ Pam w.

I was thinking the same thing. For a group of people who think solar flares on the sun's surface is Israel's fault, perhaps current events are putting things in a more proper context.

As the Palestinian lobby has worked so hard to propagandize and demonize Israel, the truth dawning about people having to live ANYWHERE with Islamic groups may just be dawning on them. But they may also feel this is an aberration that will subside soon. Uh huh.

However, in one article I posted, Parsifal dutifully showed up to blame this whole mess on..... Israel, of course. So even on Care2, they're there waiting for the opportunity. Parsifal's bizarre anti-Israeli rants were a test case to see how well this line of offense would fare.

 

John De Avalon (36)
Monday November 23, 2015, 10:04 am
I think that Swedish Foreign Minister needs a geography lesson - and a reality check.

 

John De Avalon (36)
Monday November 23, 2015, 10:13 am
You would have thought the penny (no pun intended) would have dropped by now.

If you get one group of people hating another group of people, especially when you dehumanize them i.e. portray them as not normal human beings, eventually it will end in violence, and violence without qualms.

The Nazis did the same with not just the Jews, but the Slavs, the gypsies and disabled people too.

The Nazis were only 60 - 70 years ago remember, in the heart of Europe - and Berlin was every bit as cultured and refined as Paris or London.

People need to stop spreading hate!
 

Darren Woolsey (218)
Monday November 23, 2015, 10:42 am
Yeah, John.

I've lost count of the number of times I've actually said, where I live, there is a MASSIVE Muslim population. If they were all Fundamentalist nutcases, and THEY'RE NOT, I would perhaps have cause for concern.

My Muslim neighbor and his wife bring round a baked cake at Christmas. They don't shriek, "you have to believe in Allah or you will die. . . "
 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Monday November 23, 2015, 12:10 pm


The Nazis developed a world-class expertise on propaganda dehumanizing and demonizing Jews, Slavs and the like. This knowledge, by the way, was eagerly shared with the nascent Muslim Brotherhood. Both Nazis, the MB as well as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem agreed that the way to solve the “Jewish problem” was genocide.

In addition, there are some critically important differences between German and cultures like those in Paris and London. One, for example, German culture was unlike the two cultures mentioned, in that it was a hyper-masculine military culture. Yes, Germany may have given birth to some of the greatest musical composers, architects, and technology of the world, but the mentality of most Germans was not equal to that of the cultures mentioned.

In addition, there was a belief in the genetic superiority of Aryans to other peoples, but it was more than that. With that belief, came a whole philosophy and mindset which had as one of its beliefs that with superiority came the right, even responsibility, to enslave or exterminate “inferior” peoples.

Some characteristics of German culture date back to at least Roman times historically, but Nazi Germany was the collective result of a number of factors, including that Germany never experienced the defeat of WWI on their own soil. Nazi German mindsets were also the culmination of widespread nationalism, but the German brand was far more pernicious, and the Romantic period.

Additionally, Nazi Germany arose amidst the unbearable and unrealistic burdens that the Treat of Versailles imposed, like totally out-of-control inflation and the uselessness of pre-Nazi currency.

So we can't afford to make faulty and hyperbolized comparisons like has been done here, no matter how satisfying and self-righteous they make us feel.

To rationally discuss the potential problems with the civilizational and numerous other differences of Islamic cultures, objectives and values is crucial to moving to as close to the truth as we can and truly coming up with a “safe” path through which to navigate.

To not allow discussion of the facts and risks makes it more likely to have a negative response that is much like someone trying to keep the valve-less lid on a pot of boiling water. It will eventually explode. This is the other danger, when PC doesn’t allow for honest and valid discussions: it is a matter of time until things heat up to an explosive condition.

Where are any credible (or even non-credible) native European leaders calling for genocide of the Muslims living in Europe?

Many Muslims in Western countries are living on tenterhooks of vulnerability. They bring with them the histories of the slaughter in Islamic lands of “the other”. They know that if the shoe were on the other foot, there would be no remorse or hesitation at slaughtering Europeans. So they are going out of their way to keep a low profile and be amicable with Europeans amongst whom they live and de-emphasize their religiously-mandated superiority and objective of imposing their religious and political ideology on the world.

Remember that the Koran tells Muslims not to take Christians and Jews as their friends, and to smile at them, but hate them in the hearts.

Are we that presumptuous to absolutely know how followers of Islam feel about us when they deliver a baked cake, or is such an act done to help ensure good will and protection?

There are many, like Anjem Choudhary who are far more open and honest about the vile intentions of Islam in Europe. Why choose to listen to your cake-bearing neighbor, but ignore at your own risk, the leaders of Islam who are telling you what they PLAN to do? Why aren’t you looking at and weighing BOTH sides?

So when a Paris-like attack or the threat that Belgium is weighed under comes, will you be surprised? Do you think you are immune?

Of course this does not mean that there aren’t Muslims who truly appreciate the freedoms that Western civilization gives them relative to their previous cultures, as well as those in a severe state of cognitive dissonance. It is in fact exactly those people to whom we owe the guarantee of protection of their liberties.

One thing is for sure, Europe and much of the U.S. has been cowed by Islamic anger at any discussion of the true nature of Islam. This suppression of honest discussion is accomplished by the use of such words as “Islamophobic” and “racist”, both WRONG, but designed to shame people into silence.

Another response is like the one to Theo Van Gogh, a knife in the back with a note attached to it. So Europe and quite a bit of the U.S. have been steadily succumbing to this self-censorship, and it is absolutely obvious to me, that this is a losing strategy in the mid- and long-term.

 

Darren Woolsey (218)
Monday November 23, 2015, 12:54 pm
Yes, the darker elements of humankind have constructed very sophisticated ways of persecuting, demonizing and destroying other people, they basically don't like, or want to erase from history because of some twisted, deluded and warped ideology.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Monday November 23, 2015, 4:13 pm
Hi Penny,

Here's the problem with people acting "exactly as the Quran tells them to": It's always up for interpretation. The same words, to two different audiences, mean two different things, so Muslims are always caught between following the words and following the message.

Here's a modern analogy; Consider a neighborhood where households throw out three standard-sized bags of garbage per week. Telling them to throw out two bags per week means telling them to cut their waste, but not immediately overhaul their entire lifestyles and sacrifice other goals and their well-being to do it. Now imagine the same words in a neighborhood where people only produce one bag of garbage per week. The message, that they should consume and waste more, is totally different despite the words being the same.

The Koran's original audience was pre-Islamic Arabs, who lived in what we would now call an incredibly barbaric society, further from modern society than the contents of the Koran demanded. Its words conveyed a message to them that was, I understand, fairly reasonable: "Be better, but don't go so far so fast as to completely destroy your society and end up dead." Now Muslims can do "exactly as the Quran tells them to" and end up like Westerners, or end up like ISIS, or end up anywhere in between because of the ambiguity introduced by the changes in society since it was first written.

As for the idea of emulating Mohammed, remember that morality doesn't make a person good or bad by some standards from 1,400 years in the future. It makes a person better or worse than his or her surroundings. People can be good or evil despite being a product of their times and places. This is not moral relativism, with some values being okay for some people and not for others: It's just a matter of morality being a matter of values rather than directly one of acts, and how values must interact with standards to translate into acts. A modern emulation of Mohammed then runs into the same ambiguity as that of directly following the Koran: "Try to be the best of the 21st century, or abandon all progress of the last 1,400 years and try to be the best of the 6th century?"

Back to the article itself, yeah, the whole "blame Israel" thing is absolutely insane in this case, and incredibly dangerous. The European Left has pulled its political pendulum too far, and now it's losing its grip. When the pendulum swings back, if this keeps going, the xenophobia will not only extend to European Muslims, who are already pretty doomed, but to Jews as well. It's worrisome, to say the least.
 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Monday November 23, 2015, 4:51 pm


Muslims are choosing to live in 21st century Europe. It is their choice to live according to the laws or live in their enclaves and go by Western standards of morality.

While pre-Islam Arab culture may have been brutal, epidemic Islamic honor killings in the present, forcing women to cover their entire bodies and faces, not allowing them to go outside without a male relative with them, not allowing them to work, forcing them to have sex with their husbands because they have no choice, aka marital rape, female genital mutilation, throwing acid into the faces of women who reject men, “temporary marriages” (aka religious prostitution) forced on them by fathers wanting money, are just some of the horrors that today's Muslimas have to face. This brutality towards women today is the product of misogyny deeply embedded in Arab culture, but never really corrected, and in some cases, made worse. It has no excuse. It needs no fatuous analogy.

Taxpayers in the West are footing the bills for Muslims to have four wives in four separate households, when polygamy is illegal, but governments avert their eyes.

Sweden, Denmark and other European countries have become rape and crime capitals of the world, because after all, Mohammed said it's okay to take non-Muslims and rape them and even force them to be sex slaves and steal from non-Muslims.

Pakistanis in England have raped and groomed thousands of native, non-Muslim British girls for prostitution rings, but that's okay, because Mohammed would have allowed it.

One would hope the Left AND the Right will come to their senses.

The thing about the Jews is fundamentally a maxim, the reality of several thousand years’ of history. One way or another, the Jews get screwed by one side or another. So sitting back and doing little about this is harming the Jews there, too. If your prediction should prove to be true, it would be time for Jews to leave Europe en mass.

 

Gillian M (11)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 3:43 am
In a recent poll of Muslims living in the UK, over three quarters of them supported the Charlie Hebdo massacre as well as the killing of 4 Jews in the hypermarket in Paris.

There is a difference between Islam and other religions, no other religion demands the murder or forced conversion of other religions nor the payment of tax for the right to live.

Nor have I ever seen Darren condemn the fact that Islam is incompatible with democracy because women and non-Muslims are not equal to Muslim males. Nor have I heard a peep from anyone about the fact that Islam is incompatible with the UN Convention of Human Rights which has been proven on several occasions in the Court of Human Rights with the rider that their decision should not be enforced due to public safety.

I have yet to see Baptists riot over the blasphemy of Jesus nor have I seen Protestants hang Muslims for damaging the New Testament. Did I miss either of these events?
 

Gillian M (11)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 3:48 am
Stephen, you are missing out on the fact that neither the Old nor the New Testament is being used on a day to day basis to control the behavior of either Christians or Jews.

Unfortunately, a large number of Muslims follow what is in the Quran as it is written. Follow this from the Religion of Peace

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God; however this works both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?
 

Darren Woolsey (218)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 3:50 am
You miss a lot when you're blinded by your own prejudices.
 

Gillian M (11)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 4:11 am
Yes Darren, I see that you do on a daily basis but it doesn't stop you using Israeli products or research!
 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 6:30 am


"You miss a lot when you're blinded by your own prejudices."

Yes, Darren, you have proved that point amply.

 

John De Avalon (36)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 6:47 am
WW2 really came about as a result of Germany's humiliation and the financial penalties which led on to the devastating economic collapse. And economic chaos is a breeding ground for extremism and the promotion of extremist views.

Nazism emerged from that chaos. To be fair Hitler did a marvellous job at rebuilding Germany, and restoring prosperity and national pride. You have to acknowledge and understand that bit to fathom WHY the German people were happy to follow him once his focus turned to the militaristic side of things.

The Prussians had a militaristic leaning certainly, but no, overall the Germans were no different to the English or French.

The lesson is to be forward thinking, and to employ wisdom and strive to build bridges instead of walls.

The core philosophy of extremist Muslims is to drive a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims. This creates division and social tensions. Resentment starts to fester. This resentment turns to hate. An alienated, hateful community will soon find its way to violence.

Some fires can only be left to burn themselves out, and this is one - 'you' cannot sit round a table with a cup of tea and talk things through with fanatics like these, so ...
But in the long term, there are a lot of Muslims and a lot of non-Muslims. We could have WW3. Or we could try and foster a fairer, friendlier, more just world. Being mindful of the things which can trigger tensions in our communities i.e. levels of immigration beyond the capability of our society to absorb and integrate, and unemployment.
And we need to be intolerant of those who seek to promote hateful agendas.
 

John De Avalon (36)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 7:03 am
Many years ago, I had a passion for penpalling. I had a penpal in Iran. Decided to go for it after much thought. Why the hesitation? Because back then, the only Iranians you saw were on the BBC News burning flags, whacking themselves on the forehead with stones till they bled and shouting 'Death to America'!

And 'all Iranians were like that'!

She was a sweet, gentle, loving little thing whose worries, dreams, hopes, and aspirations were exactly the same as anyone else.

The point is - what Darren is alluding to I perceive - don't be fooled. Sure there are bad people - of all faiths - going about, but most people are good at heart.
And by teaching them a better, higher way ...
 

Darren Woolsey (218)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 7:36 am
Penny:
"Yes Darren, I see that you do on a daily basis but it doesn't stop you using Israeli products or research! "

Of course it won't. I might think Benjamin Netanyahu is a nutcase leader, but if an Israeli product is worth buying, it's worth buying.

I don't wholesale boycott anything just because a few bad apples are contained within.

Silly girl with a hate complex.
 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 7:39 am


Thanks for sharing your experiences, John. I had a good Iranian friend many years ago, who was like a kid brother to me. He said that back in Iran (this was pre-Khomeini Iran), his parents had taken lots of flack for naming him (a Muslim) Davood, rather than the more traditional Daood.

By and large, the Iranian people can't stand the Mullocracy and hate living under this totalitarian regime. A substantial part of the population wants to have good and diplomatic relations even with Israel, and they are horrified about their own country's nuclear ambitions.

But as in the Shah's time, Savak, the secret police, were hated and feared, and now in post-Khomeini Iran, their secret police organs are hated and feared, if not more.

The Iranian people have a lot of sense. They have a proud history and are ashamed of what their country has become. Iran has a greater illegal drug problem than even the U.S. (this also holds true for Saudi Arabia).

Again, the problem is not with "Muslims" per se, because the vast majority of Iranians are at least nominally Muslim. The problem is with Islam as a political ideology and many of its repressive religious aspects, though not all.

We need to distinguish between the "pious", fundamentalist Muslims who either engage in jihadi activities or support them materially, as sharia calls on them to do, and the ones who, through no fault of their own, were born into Muslim families, but reject the horrors of Islam and its enforcers.

 

Darren Woolsey (218)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 7:40 am
Patricia:
"You miss a lot when you're blinded by your own prejudices."
Yes, Darren, you have proved that point amply. "

Please show me where I've denounced whole races and religions.

I HAVE criticized countlessly and will continue to do so, power-possessors who exploit and subjugate their own populations. I have also criticized the human ego, which is responsible for a LOT of the hatred extant in our world.

To denounce an entire race or religion based upon the deluded, twisted and corrupted of a few, is very very dangerous, and also naive.
 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 7:43 am

@ Warren

You are engaging in ad hominem attacks against Penny. These type of personal attacks and name calling almost always signify that your POV lacks substance and substantiation.

I would hope that you could address the issues in an informed way, rather than resort to juvenile and personal attacks.

 

Darren Woolsey (218)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 8:10 am
One's being attracts. . .

Re-read some of my stuff above then ponder
 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 8:28 am


@ Warren re your 7:40 am comments

Let’s break down your comments. To say that you demonstrate prejudice does not mean, in your case, that you have denounced whole races and religions.

That you have not done so is meritorious, and I think you are to be commended for that.

And I would definitely agree with you that the human ego is responsible for a LOT of the hatred extant in the world. BTW, that certainly holds true for Islam’s founder, Mohammed, if you read the cruel and bizarre things he did and said.

“To denounce an entire race….. etc.”

First of all, what “race” is Islam? This is a prejudice in itself, that you see it as such. There are followers of Islam in virtually every racial group on earth. So the accusation of being against the political ideology and even a number of aspects of the religion itself, is not only not racist, but strongly suggests that you have swallowed Islam’s apologists’ use of manipulation, and in turn are spitting out the same fallacious arguments.

I think many people have been specific about what they object to, and to ignore that and say that they denounce “an entire race of religion” is just dishonest or disingenuous.

Personally, and I know this is true for many others, we do not hate all Muslims, because they are people, who are subject to many influences, and there are those who know nothing else.

We, again fault the political ideology and a number of aspects of the religion itself. Some of aspects of the religion are benign. However, the aspects that are not benign are quite malignant when put into practice, and indeed, they are being put into practice all over the world.

I’m assuming that you would agree with the majority of things that we oppose about its political ideology and religious aspects. For example, Islam’s concept of women as property for sex, service to Muslim men and serve as a human incubato , “like a field to be tillled”.

I’m guessing that you probably would oppose the Islamic principle that non-Muslims are perfectly acceptable to be made into sex-slaves, as Mohammed and his followers did. By the way, this is not some antiquated practice, but has and is CURRENTLY practiced by many countries, including Saudi Arabia, to say nothing of ISIS’s practice of raping and making into sex slaves both Yazidi and Christian girls.

In fact, Islamists in Egypt and Pakistan, for instance, have a huge record of kidnapping non-Muslim girls (often Christians and Sikhs), raping them, forcing them to convert to Islam, forcing them to marry, where they are often just one of several wives, and never allowing them to see their families again.

We see that it Sweden and other European countries, crimes such as rape by Muslim immigrants of native Swedes has skyrocketed to the point where Sweden is called the “Rape Capital of the World.” Again, the Muslims who engage in this behavior have not a trace of guilt about it, because after all, they are following the example of Islam’s “Perfect Man”, and the rape is halal.

In the U.K., scores of Pakistani Muslim (euphemistically referred to as “Asians” in the news, so as not to offend Muslims and get them upset) have raped, groomed and prostituted more than a thousand young native British girls, and again, there was no remorse on the part of the Muslims who did this, because it’s acceptable in Islam.

And there are many, many more examples of things in Islam, I strongly suspect you would find abhorrent. Yet, you almost unfailingly rush to defend Islam against criticism it deserves, and THIS, Warren, is a prejudice.

When you give carte blanche approval to a whole political ideology and religion that has so many integral aspects of it that are abhorrent to you, this is a prejudice.

If you would like, I’ve only given one example, but there are many, many, many more that, again, I believe you would find horrendous and if you understood, you would not defend.

Let’s use the example of wudu, which I consider perfectly acceptable and even laudable. Another example: prostrating oneself on the ground in submission to their creator – I have no problem with that.
This discussion can be very, very detailed, and I would be happy to engage in with you. Just let me know.

 

Darren Woolsey (218)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 8:54 am
Firstly Patricia, I take part in many conversations with people from different backgrounds, and my starting point is I have no prejudice against any race, religion, culture, male, or female, or animal.

Secondly, I call someone silly when I see them lumping a whole culture into one basket, and label them as barbaric or destructive, especially when they've not demonstrated first hand experience of practical knowledge of that culture and/or society.

Thirdly, virtually every argument / debate I've taken part in on CARE2 has as its background a LITERAL Interpretation of a religion or sacred/spiritual text. This implies a person's LACK of understanding of spiritual / and /or religious texts. I don't take ANY religious and/or spiritual text at "face value" as my critics and detractors do. Their issue, not mine. So, Jihad IS an "inner battle" or "inner struggle" To suggest otherwise, it to reduce a religious and/or spiritual text to a low-grade literal understanding.

Fourthly, ALL systems of thought and belief are fine in theory, but when practiced by humankind with their egoistic and vane flaws, are diluted, misunderstood, misrepresented, twisted and misapplied to others. This happens in every religion, in every culture, in every society, with varying degrees.

I've you've MET Muslims, as opposed to JUST read about some of the Sects/Cults actions, then you'll know there's a difference between genuine practitioners of those religions and what a seriously deranged ego will make out of what they BELIEVE they're read, rather than struggled to understand.
 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 9:22 am


Darren, that’s a very good thing that you’ve taken part in many conversations with people from different backgrounds, and your starting point is that you have no prejudice AGAINST any race…. etc.

In fact, so have I, and it’s a little ironic, that you would pre-judge me to the point that you are implying that I have not, when you’ve never asked me, and you either didn’t see my comments to John D about Iranians, or you’ve dismissed them.

But Darren, it is important to see that prejudice does not just mean “against”. Prejudice – the act or thought of pre-judging – also includes prejudging “for” or in the positive.

Take for example the case of a serial murderer in Pennsylvania a few years ago, whose name escapes me right now (I believe I saw this story on “60 Minutes”). He looked like a nice guy, and there were a group of individuals who came together to campaign on his behalf and champion him on the legal field.

He told them, with what they perceived as the utmost truth and sincerity, that he did not commit those murders, and their gut and his alibis and use of conspiracy theories, convinced them that the legal system in this town/county MUST be wrong. They spent a lot of money, time and emotional investment (and to an extent their credibility) trying to convince others that this guy was really innocent.

They came to consistently deny accusations against him, claimed that they “knew him better than others”, saw that he was good at heart, so therefore any accusation against him was faulty and those who didn’t believe him were wrong and prejudiced.

In the end, it was proven incontrovertibly that he was, in fact, guilty of the murders, and he finally had to admit it in court.

So in this case, who was pre-judging (wrongly) in the positive sense, before all the evidence was in?

There are many other examples of prejudice in the positive.

Will get back to your other points in a while.
 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 9:58 am


Further, is it not presumptive, even possibly haughty, of you to assume that Penny has “little first hand experience of practical knowledge of that culture and/or society”.

Rather than using ad hominem attacks, you could have simply asked her along the lines of, “Penny, what practical knowledge…… do you have to make such a statement?” Instead you attacked.

You might find it illuminating to find why Penny holds the opinions she does.

Did Penny actually write that all “Muslims” were “barbaric or destructive”? Or was she rather talking about Jihadists, which according to sharia have a responsibility to wage jihad. Going a step further, Sharia dictates that any Muslims ARE NOT ABLE TO wage military jihad against non-Muslims, they must give part of their Zakat, alms, to material support of Jihad and the Mujahideen (fighters) (as I have substantiated directly to you elsewhere yesterday).

If someone believes that so and so should be killed, but they don’t actually commit the act of murder, but pay the killer to murder, are they not guilty as well? I believe that in American law, at least, they are.
So if the Umma, the whole of the people of believers in the tenets of Sharia are contributing to charities that materially support military jihad fighters, is Penny wrong to say that either directly murdering or financially supporting murder of non-Muslims, as dictated by Sharia, is not barbaric or destructive?
I would submit that the vast majority of believing Muslims in the world DO this.

You, correspondingly, have not demonstrated that with your “practical knowledge of that culture/people” that you have ever made an inquiry into this.

And yet, this is only one facet of what can make the political ideology and goals of the Umma justifiably be called barbaric, at the very least, and wholly not in accord with human rights.

Would you agree with the tenets of Islam, that say that non-Muslims must either convert to Islam, pay a heavy protection tax called Jizya (if they are monotheists) or else be murdered?

This is, in fact, how Islam has treated other peoples throughout its history and how it has conquered and continues to conquer vast swaths of the earth. Its goal is TOTAL submission of the entire earth to Islam. (This is the well-known concept of Dar al-Harb.)

I consider this evil, and because it is an integral part of Islam, as so many other things that I consider evil are, I would say that to non-Muslims (and other Muslims, too, for other reasons) Islam is largely evil.

 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 10:31 am


Darren, the VAST majority of the Muslim world takes the Koran and Hadiths LITERALLY.

Any who don’t take it literally are an exception to this overwhelming rule, and as such are often justified for fearing for their lives, especially when living in Dar al-Islam, or the house of Islam/Islamic society.

This is because Islam says it is PERFECT, and to not agree with its tenets puts its believers into a state of Fitna (which is defined as "temptation, trial; sedition, civil strife"), an Arabic word with extensive connotations of trial, affliction, or distress. A word freighted with important historical implications, it is also widely used in modern Arabic.)

It is largely IRRELEVANT that YOU don’t take any religious, etc. text at “face value. This is what I meant earlier when I said that your tendency, in fact much of the tendency of the West, is to project your own opinions and values onto Muslims.

What IS relevant is what the majority of the Islamic world does and believes.

I, too, have met and spoken at length with Muslims and even counted some of them among my friends. That does not negate the fact that when Muslims are the dominant force in most countries, literal interpretation AND implementation of Sharia is a life-or-death obligation. (The countries of the Middle East where dictators such as Mubarak dominated the political scene, is an aberration to the rule, due to aberrational historical realities.)

It is a somewhat different story when non-Muslims dominate. Then the course of action for BELIEVING Muslims is to lay low, be friendly to non-Muslim residents of the host country and wait for the opportunity to gain the upper hand.

When that happens, the behavior of Muslims towards non-Muslims changes profoundly. You are living in a non-Muslim-dominated country, and as such you are witnessing an “adaptive” behavior that will change if and when Muslims become the dominant force, and they are certainly trying to do just that.

I say this, of course, knowing that there will be exceptions to the RULE, yet the rule it is.

We haven’t even touched on the four types of deception Muslims are allowed, and we can talk about them, but the bottom line is that deception/lying is allowed, and even ENCOURAGED, if it promotes the cause of Islam.

Therefore Islam allows its representatives to lie about itself when it is deemed to advance. For example, “Islam means peace.” It also allows Muslims to be friendly to non-believers, as long as the believers hate the non-Muslims in their hearts.

So how do you know if the friendliness of the Muslims you have experience with is sincere or practiced with a tremendous amount of contempt lying below the friendly façade? How do you know you are not being “played”?

 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 10:55 am


To address your fourth point, that “ALL systems of thought and belief are fine in theory……”

First of all, I think if you thought about this a little more deeply, not even YOU would agree with this statement.

For example, is NAZISM “fine in theory”, but for its practice? Was the belief system that Stalin held and killed millions of people under, fine? Were the types of Communism that Pol Pot, or Mao, or North Korea believes in fine in theory?

While I would agree that there are many Islamic sects with some significant differences in interpretation, there are some hard, cold, ugly facts that come right out of the Koran and Hadiths that are held to be universal.

85% of the Islamic world is Sunni, so most other sects, with the exception of the Shia, don’t make a heck of a lot of difference. And even many of these sects are systematically harassed and murdered by the more dominant Islamic sects.

Are there individuals or groups or political parties that have, let’s say, incorporated ideas from the West into their thinking and ruling styles, thereby “practicing a diluted, misunderstood, misrepresented, twisted, etc., form of Islam”? Yes, there have been.

And what has generally happened to them, let’s say in the upheaval of the “Arab Spring”? They were forced from office, jailed, tortured and murdered, for the most part.

Thank goodness SECULAR, or non-Muslim Brotherhood and non-Salafi Egyptians had the good sense and courage to take their country back!!! But for the exception of Tunisia, most of the rest of the Islamic world, as fundamentalist Sunni or Shia rule returns in that vacuum that leaders of the Western world, including the president of the U.S., have left, human rights, democratic ideals, freedoms and liberties have been systematically shut down, and the world has become much darker and more frightening for it.

 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 11:09 am


To your fifth point, which is primarily a rehashing of your other points, I’ve addressed them, but could do so in more detail if necessary.

“Genuine practitioners” of genuinely evil ideologies, regardless of their individual egos, are still evil. In fact, it’s the one who have the strong egos, the courage, fortitude to undergo trials and tribulations, and often torture and murder, because they recognize that their political ideology and/or religion is evil, who are the ones that deviate, and the ones whom I applaud.

I have met a number of these people and/or heard them speak, and I will tell you, THANK GOD, for their egos and not practicing the evil that Islam is to the non-Muslim and often Muslim world!!!! THANK GOD they deviated from their religion’s evil teachings!!!

There are a number of these Muslims and ex-Muslims who I salute, I laud, I bow my head to them with sheer amazement and appreciation at the awesomeness of their thinking and deeds, their incredible honesty and integrity, their incredible courage.

And while I’ve already told you about Tawfik Hamid a little bit, there are others. I would be happy to tell you about more who you should definitely know about.

 

Darren Woolsey (218)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 11:54 am
"To address your fourth point, that “ALL systems of thought and belief are fine in theory……”

First of all, I think if you thought about this a little more deeply, not even YOU would agree with this statement."

Actually, I would.

You need to read P.D. Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching.

"On paper" any theory can seem plausible and fine, but when it is tried to be put into practice with human beings, they all mostly come unstuck. That includes Nazism.

To paraphrase P.D. Ouspensky, who was a philosopher and mathematician and student of G.I. Gurdjieff, "No one ever does anything deliberately in the interests of evil, for the sake of evil. Everyone acts in the interests of good, as THEY UNDERSTAND it.

In other words, if you haven't already cottoned on, EVERYONE believes in the rightness of their own particular cause, whether or not it's deemed bad and/or evil by everyone else.
 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 12:38 pm


“On paper”……

Okay, then we need to define “fine”. What are some things that you consider “good” and what are some things you would consider “evil”?

What are the fundamental negative constructs of Nazism?

- a form of fascism, forbidding of parliamentary democracy, totalitarianism

- racial hierarchy where the “Aryan race” is the Master Race, including genocide of those not in the Master Race

- Antisemitic to the point of wanting to murder not only every Jew, but even people who were only a ¼ Jewish (plus others)

- Even Germans with mental and physical disabilities must be destroyed

- Slavs and others can be exterminated or enslaved, because the are "inferior"

- Belief in the unmitigated “right” of territorial expansionism, at the expense of any non-Germans (Poles, Czechs, etc.)

- Expropriation of other non-Master Race's homes, animals, belongings, rights.

Which of these are fine?

“No one ever does anything deliberately in the interests of evil, for the sake of evil. Everyone acts in the interests of good, as THEY UNDERSTAND it. “

So, he said it, and that makes it true and sacrosanct?

It sounds like the epitome of moral relativity, which is essentially morally bankrupt and ultimately meaningless, especially here on Care2, where most people have some very strong convictions about things that are evil.

If nothing is evil, because what’s evil works for some, then there’s little point to the discussion.

Is it okay if I come over to the UK and murder you and your family? That would free up food and your homes to give to Muslims who think that they have a right and, you're just making them wait for it. We’d have less people breathing our precious oxygen. Wouldn’t that be good? Less people would be using fossil fuels and making climate change worse. We could leave more forest growth and turn over less land to agriculture. Cleaner water. Less people would be consumers Those are good reasons, aren’t they? ;)


 

Darren Woolsey (218)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 2:08 pm
"“No one ever does anything deliberately in the interests of evil, for the sake of evil. Everyone acts in the interests of good, as THEY UNDERSTAND it. “

So, he said it, and that makes it true and sacrosanct?"

Doesn't it?

What can you and can't you verify?
 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 2:26 pm


Darren, I'm not really sure what you're saying here. I am guess that you are questioning whether this guy actually said that you which you quote? No, if that's the issue. I am not questioning it. I am taking on faith that you quoted and this guys really wrote the book, etc.

Just because someone writes something, and it can be quoted, doesn't necessarily make that person's opinion true to the degree that it is beyond question, as if uttered by the gods. He very clearly has an opinion. And it might be true or partially true. It still doesn't answer the other questions I've asked and the issues I've responded to that you raised, which you seemed to have conveniently glossed over.

This red herring about can I verify seems like you're grasping at straws of avoidance.

Can you respond to my responses and stop being evasive?

 

Gillian M (11)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 3:34 pm
Patricia, I'm not sure Darren knows what he's talking about half the time.

Darren merely spouts the rubbish that the other Judeophobes come up with because he is incapable of thinking for himself. We have repeatedly pointed out that there is a difference between a hate filled ideology and Muslims. An example of the hate filled ideology can be sen everytime jess opens her mouth and spits out anti-Semitism. This racism is a big part of Islam where it clearly states that Muslims must not be friends with Jews or Christians. It is seen every time Abbas opens his mouth to encourage children to kill. CHILDREN! And it is seen when terrorists target non-Muslims such as Paris, Mali, 9/11 or 7/7. It is seen when you are the wrong Muslim such as Beirut.

These atrocities are not condemned by you, you support them and I'm not sure which is worse, the perpetrator or those that cannot see that they are supporting these massacres. And, your naivity won't stop them beheading you either.

 

Gillian M (11)
Tuesday November 24, 2015, 3:35 pm
And you have proven the point, these are Muslim terrorists who murdered over a hundred people and hurt hundreds of thousands, not just physically but emotionally. Nor is there any word for those Muslims who will suffer because of those that follow Islam.
 

Gillian M (11)
Wednesday November 25, 2015, 3:20 am
Patricia, sorry, when I said youI meant Darren and his Judeophobic friends.
 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Wednesday November 25, 2015, 5:24 am


Thanks, Penny. Understood. :)

 

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday November 25, 2015, 9:41 am
Hi Penny :)

The Old and New Testaments, both as written and as intended, are being used today as a basis for behavior by a lot of Jews and Christians. The difference is that they mostly live in countries with an approach to nation-building that has encouraged progress over the centuries while Muslims living in what is effectively the territory of the old Caliphate do not.

Yup, there are a lot of verses in the Koan discussing in detail how to engage in violence, limits on it (and lack thereof), etc. There are two legitimate sides to it that I just want to mention before getting into how it's handled now, and I definitely agree with you about the troublesome way too many modern Muslims interpret it today.

The first is that of nation-building: The original audience of the Koran was pre-Islamic Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula. Looking at old maps of Alexander the Great's empire, the Roman Empire, Persia, Babylon, the Israelite empire, and Byzantium, what comes out is that the Arabian Peninsula was never part of them. It had no tradition of national expansion by war. All wars in the area were tribal wars of perpetual raiding which ended only when one tribe or the other ceased to exist, with wars ending only by genocide. Many of the verses in the link you gave describe how to conquer, rather than annihilate, an enemy and force assimilation (including, for example, the one about cutting off the "heads and fingertips" of a conquered people, in the Babylonian tradition as in biblical records of the Babylonian Exile). Conquest by assimilation works by having the defeated nation ceases to exist as its members are incorporated into victorious one, rather than (in the traditions of the time and place) having it be annihilated physically. Elsewhere, like in Europe and China, the alternative form of conquest is a one-sided peace agreement between nations which integrates them into a multinational state.

The end-result is that the Caliphate was a nation which relied upon intolerance for its social cohesion. Tolerance is primarily valued elsewhere because it is seen as a route to internal peace and social progress. The Koran describes an alternate route to peace, and the understanding of the role of tolerance in social progress was not widespread until about a thousand years after the Koran was written. That's why its intolerance is open-ended: It's seen as a method to establish harmonious peace within the nation it outlines. They promote intolerance with the same reasons, and so the same zeal, with which we promote tolerance. Many modern Muslims, however, recognize the intent of the strategy and pursue the objective using our strategy so s to avoid sacrificing social progress for it.

The second is the way many other Muslims interpret the verses: They see "fighting for God", or "jihad", as a war not with non-Muslims, but with evil itself directly. The whole "no compromise" thing is the same as the "avoiding temptation" thing seen in Christianity. The idea of pursuing it until it is destroyed is interpreted to mean that we should always try for better rather than be satisfied and complacent.

You're right, though, and I think I can add something to what you said earlier about too many Muslims interpreting it as a bloody fight against non-Muslims. The nation-building method described in the Koran, with assimilation rather than integration, leads to homogeneity in civic discourse so even with free expression there would be no interactions to produce social progress. We should keep in mind, however, that nearly half of Muslims live in Southeast Asia outside of Aceh (where there was a wave-migration from the Caliphate, effectively transplanting it there) and a whole lot of Muslims in Europe did not come in wave-migration and have assimilated.
 

Gillian M (11)
Wednesday November 25, 2015, 12:54 pm
Stephen, are you apologising or justifying?

The history of Mohammed is that he wanted what he wanted. He was a bandit and to encourage people to join him he gave them a share of the spoils. He gave them women and children because that was what the men wanted. Join me and get whatever you want. Mohammed was a rapist, he took whatever woman he wanted such as his daughter-in-law because Allah wanted him to - yes, right. Mohammed was untrustworthy and a liar. Heard of the Banu Qurayza? http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-qurayza.htm

Mohammed and his followers were saved by tribes of Jews and he lived amongst them shilst raiding caravans. He treated them appallingly by killing all of the pubescent boys and men as well as enslaving the women. He was incestuous, he had sex with his dead aunt, so a necrophiliac and he married his baby niece, Aisha, sexually abused her then forcibly had sex with her when she was 9 years old so a pedophile.

As the perfect male, Muslims are supposed to emulate him. Mohammed said that you must not be friends with the children of the book ie Jews and Christians. You must slaughter them, convert them or make them pay jizya (a tax). Any agreement with them is not binding, heard of the Barbary Wars?

And, how do you get more people to follow you and say that you are wonderful? You conquor them, a bit at a time. Offer them women, children and booty to join you.

Islam is very popular with people who are followers, remember "Of Mice & Men" by Steinbeck? The joils are full of Muslims, a disproportionate percentage of the population.

If you want more try
Understanding Muhammad: A Psychobiography of Allahs Prophet
 

Darren Woolsey (218)
Thursday November 26, 2015, 5:53 am
Revenge and/or automatic reaction is the only option that is available when you have sleep-walking individuals who aren't aware of themselves and others. Putin is just a more powerful "personality" who has buttons that can be pressed to achieve a reaction.
 

Stephen Brian (23)
Sunday November 29, 2015, 8:06 am
Hi Penny :)

I'm not really apologizing or justifying. Mohammed's acts and statements, by modern standards, were absolutely unacceptable, as is the society which maintains the standards f his time. What I'm saying, mostly, is that however society improves in the next few centuries, however we are judged 500 years from now, cannot make us all evil. Morality does not necessarily translate into acceptable acts. It translates into acts more acceptable than would otherwise be expected, but does not negate the fact that we are products of our societies, and the reverse is also true: A repugnant society does not negate the individual morality of people of it, though it does change the practical manifestation of their morality as they are still its products.

Does that mean we should not fight them, if they come to kill us, or that we should not imprison them if they commit crimes? No, an enemy is an enemy and a criminal is a criminal. It being remarkable that the enemy is less implacable than expected or the criminal is less vile does not negate the threat or crime. Perhaps as importantly, an enemy acting on the global stage acts as a member of global society, and as such lives by the same standards we do and ought to be better. A criminal who individually moral but criminal as a product of his or her society, living in our societies, would have ceased to be extraordinarily good upon arrival. I consider legal and moral judgments to be two separate things, and have no problem with punishing or, if necessary, even killing what I consider to be morally good people.

When it comes to Mohammed, a simple bandit cannot build a following like he had. Even a tyrant couldn't hope to manage that. The only way to acquire a large longstanding following is by earning people's loyalty. That means offering them something better than they had before, or at least making them believe that it is better, but it is very difficult to fool large numbers of people for multiple generations. (Just look at Europe now, with the ideological Left having convinced people it is better than pragmatic center and all the problems to which it is blind having built up over decades). Mohammed offered Arabs the potential to become a major power like they saw just to the north over the preceding millennium. He broke treaties, he pillaged, and he did quite a few other things nobody today would accept, but it was still better than what came before.

When it comes to Islam in general, I think there is a much better predictor of trouble than the religion itself, and I believe there is a well-documented history feeding this trouble. It's Caliphate culture, which once had a 100% correlation with Islam, but hasn't in at least about 800 years. There is still a strong correlation, but the religion and that culture are far from the same thing. Look at the old Caliphate as modified by human migration, and wave-migration to Aceh in Indonesia: That's where the problem is. It's not in Bangladesh, or Malaysia, or deep in India, or Indonesia outside Aceh. I'm talking about something like 30% of Muslims, not even including Western assimilated Muslims or sub-Saharan Africa.
 

Patricia Martinez (63)
Sunday November 29, 2015, 1:35 pm


Mohammed's first (pre-Islamic) wife had her own business. You can pretty much kiss that goodbye for Muslim women.

In pre-Islamic Arabia, people could adopt children and treat them as their own kin. Mohammed did away with that, too (because it was convenient). So because it was convenient for him, and a lot of people were upset, suddenly Mohammed said that it wasn't HIS decision, but allah's

"Muhammad's Marriage to Zainab Bint Jashsh

Muhammad's marriage to Zainab, who was the wife of his adopted son, led to many accusations against Muhammad. The dissimulators said, "Muhammad prohibits the wives of the son while he himself marries the wife of his son Zaid." These incidents are not in harmony with the ethics and conventions that Muhammad introduced to mankind, as Muslims claim. Abdullah Ibn Umar narrated: "We have always called him [namely Zaid] Zaid Ibn Muhammad." Abdullah Ibn Umar said, "We only called him Zaid Ibn Muhammad till the verse "Muhammad is not the father of any of your men' was revealed.""

Muslims are STILL burying daughters alive, despite Mohammed's directive not to (as well as "honor killings).

These are some ways that have been a definite step back for women with the advent of Islam.

 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)


Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World





 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.