You know, if the Communists invade a Muslim country I don't think the Communists will win. Those Muslims are pretty stubborn at defending their lands.

And it is an argument, as can be seen here, that Christians will see as supporting their morally bankrupt religion. — Banno

That one definitely gets one of these: :100:

I love how it brought this out of the woodwork:

Christianity is far from morally bankrupt. I am a part of the Salvation Army, and these people are completely sincere as well as ethical. — Ilya B Shambat

Yet those damn dirty Moslems be evil, I tells thee! :lol:

What's with the title? Islam isn't a region. Islam is a religion, like Christianity, from which it is derived, much like Christianity is derived from Judaism. Islam has adherents in the West, some of whom I know personally, and they are lovely people, far from morally bankrupt.

It is kind of backwards to espouse views about conservatives being mostly bigoted and homophobic on one hand yet defending a religion, the members of whom applaud terrorism quite openly in numerous countries with high muslim populations, yet you’re willing to lump together others to suit your agenda. — I like sushi

I have no agenda. With respect to terrorism, white nationalism is more of a danger than terrorism espoused by Muslim extremists:

"On Wednesday, the Anti-Defamation League released a report finding that attackers with ties to right-wing extremist movements killed at least 50 people in 2018. That was close to the total number of Americans killed by domestic extremists, meaning that the far right had an almost absolute monopoly on lethal terrorism in the United States last year."

Source:https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/homegrown-terrorists-2018-were-almost-all-right-wing/581284/


Report: Domestic Terrorism Is Still a Greater Threat Than Islamic Extremism

"According to FBI data, 150 Americans were arrested for planning to engage in acts of domestic terrorism in 2017, compared to 110 international suspects; in 2018, the ratio was 120 to 100......

The rise in domestic terrorism — as profiled in a captivating New York Times Magazine report from 2018 — is largely driven by an uptick in far-right extremism. Of the 263 acts of domestic terrorism that occurred between 2010 and the end of 2017, 92, around a third, were committed by Americans on the far right. “If you have politicians saying things like our nation is under attack, that there are these marauding bands of immigrants coming into the country, that plays into this right-wing narrative,” Gary LaFree, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, told the Post. “They begin to think it’s okay to use violence.”

Source:http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/domestic-terror-still-greater-threat-than-islamic-extremism.html

No agenda necessary, just speaking facts.

I do imagine that the vast majority of muslims in western countries are perfectly respectable people with perfectly respectable ideas and views (firsthand experience would back this up). — I like sushi

So I take it, if they're not in western countries they're not respectful of others views?

You seem obsessed with viewing all human affairs through a US lens. — I like sushi

You seem to lack the intellectual depth at providing a correct worldview of religion. This is not just anecdotal its facts a common trait by someone who has never traveled outside their own house let alone to another country.

"And of His signs are the night and day and the sun and moon. Do not prostrate to the sun or to the moon, but prostate to Allah, who created them, if it should be Him that you worship" — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Of course I knew this, my point was merely to show how stupid evangelical Christians were/are.

I've heard the anti-Muslim immigration and to be honest, I support it, — Judaka

This is why such individuals who think like this fail at life...

:up:

No agenda necessary, just speaking facts. — Anaxagoras

You’re providing “facts” to evade. You say on one hand that most, if not all, conservatives are bigoted homophobes yet complain about others saying something akin to this even when they’re not actually saying such a thing (anyone can look and see above what you’ve posted; insinuation and either purposeful misinterpretation (for reasons unknown), non-purposeful misinterpretation (due to underlying personal agenda that has blinded balanced thought), or plain bloody-minded stupidity.

I’m leaning hard toward the latter (maybe due to nothing more than human ire I hope) considering I said it seemed like you were only able to see things through a US lens and then you reply talking about home grown terrorists (US),reports in the NY Times (US) and some other talk about “Americans killed by domestic terrorists”. Please consider this gives reasonable weight to my comment about your view being through a US lens only. What is more bizarre still is this as a direct response to my remark about you seeming to view this through a US lens:

You seem to lack the intellectual depth at providing a correct worldview of religion. This is not just anecdotal its facts a common trait by someone who has never traveled outside their own house let alone to another country.

Correct me if I’m wrong but are not ALL of your responses in that post viewing terrorism ONLY through a US lens. I can only assume you accidentally deleted some of the text you meant to post in the quote above? I ask because it doesn’t make much sense, but you seem to be trying to insult me? I do most certainly lack the intellectual depth to provide a correct worldview of religion as does everyone. The second sentence is missing punctuation or words.

Thank you Mr Phil... Much appreciated. YouTube video is a great suggestion. Can you recommend a reliable video I can watch. Based on the information you mentioned I believe you already researched this subject yourself. Anything you perticularly liked about what a human should do or don't do based on Islam?

You say on one hand that most, if not all, conservatives are bigoted homophobes — I like sushi

The truth is the pursuit of laws here in the United States (conservatives are trying to create legislation to make it illegal for abortion just recently they're trying to make having a fetal heartbeat grounds for one to not have an abortion). In addition this is the political lean which tries to move goal posts by arguing about terrorism but statistically its adherents are the main proponents of domestic terror. So no, it is not deflection it is speaking fact. Where it becomes a problem for you is whether it is logical to say most, all, or some.

onsidering I said it seemed like you were only able to see things through a US lens and then you reply talking about home grown terrorists (US),reports in the NY Times (US) and some other talk about “Americans killed by domestic terrorists”. — I like sushi

Yes because I am speaking from an American position because from where I sit in the media, Americans are the ones with the issues concerning so-called "Islamic terrorism" yet turn a blind eye to the domestic terrorist. Now even if you were to take away the American position and speak generally you'd understand that the mathematical numbers do not support the general presupposition of that morally speaking the West is superior and that there is some intrinsic issue with Islam. This is just downright bigoted and not supported by facts.

Please consider this gives reasonable weight to my comment about your view being through a US lens only. — I like sushi

Because I'm an America like I said previously and I live here. If you're not going to supply a general worldview that gives weight in support of the OP then I can only go by my own perspective just as you are doing yours.

I can only assume you accidentally deleted some of the text you meant to post in the quote above? — I like sushi

Huh?

I ask because it doesn’t make much sense, but you seem to be trying to insult me? — I like sushi

No. What I'm saying is that the general consensus about what we think about the West with respect to the world and more specifically with the general Muslim community is largely due to the fact that many of you have not traveled outside your respective country to actually get to know other humans on the side of the globe as I have. I've learned long enough that our cultural perceptions regarding Muslims and other minority groups are largely due to media skewing facts and fear mongering.

Look, I'm not trying to insult you, but your worldview regarding people of different cultures and religions is very shortsighted not to mention the slightest bit correct. Are there extremist who call themselves Muslims and are there issues within the Muslim community outside the United States and other western countries? Yes. But the fact of the matter is, is that the OP has an agenda and judging by the Op's fascination with talking about Islam, I'm willing to bet they have anti-Islam sentiments and not some real philosophical issue.

Americans are the ones with the issues concerning so-called "Islamic terrorism" yet turn a blind eye to the domestic terrorist. — Anaxagoras

I don't think so. At least the government doesn't.

Actually the security apparatus of the US government has taken a well balanced view on what are the terrorist threats to America. The FBI looks at various groups irrespectively of their political stand. Hence starting with Al Qaeda or right-wing militias, you have animal rights groups also followed. You have pro-gun movements and anti-gun movements kept tabs on. It's actually quite different from what the media, especially outlets like Fox News center on. And they know what the actual threat is.

For the past several years, reports have indicated that domestic terrorists — specifically acts of mass violence by white men — are a far greater threat than actions perpetrated by Islamic extremists. According to the Washington Post, the trend continues: Internal FBI figures reviewed by the paper show more domestic terror suspects were arrested in 2018 than “those allegedly inspired by international terror groups.”

According to FBI data, 150 Americans were arrested for planning to engage in acts of domestic terrorism in 2017, compared to 110 international suspects; in 2018, the ratio was 120 to 100. An FBI official claims that the decrease in the arrests of potential terrorists inspired by ISIS or Al-Qaeda in 2018 can be attributed to a growing number of Americans attempting to join the Islamic State abroad.

The bureau investigates thousands of Americans for charges related to terrorism every year, though, as the Post notes, the public only is aware of dozens of the high-profile suspects charged with violent crimes, or the plans to carry them out.

(See Report: Domestic Terrorism Is Still a Greater Threat Than Islamic Extremism)

Shortsighted because I’ve questioned the intent of the OP and the wording (no reply from the OP btw)? Shortsighted because I look at the state of things on a global scale compared to just the US? I’m shortsighted because you’ve traveled somewhere? Shortsighted because I am well aware that “Conservative” doesn’t mean mostly homophobic, bigoted and/or anti-abortion?

I’m not the one making sweeping statements about groups of people here YOU ARE. Furthermore I commented because your nonsensical reply to that frake? Drake? Whatever named member was purposefully skewed to make out he was saying several things he wasn’t.

I think these videos with Imam Tawhidi are well-balanced.

I don't think so. At least the government doesn't. — ssu

I just posted an article regarding this but let me show you again:

"According to FBI data, 150 Americans were arrested for planning to engage in acts of domestic terrorism in 2017, compared to 110 international suspects; in 2018, the ratio was 120 to 100."

When it comes to double standards in the United States, it seems that the goal posts tend to move when proponents of terrorism or terrorist acts are broken down by race. In regards to the Huffington post in the media there is the phenomena of categorizing acts in relation to terrorism based on the race of the individual. The Huffington Post cites such contradiction in the following:

"Early Sunday afternoon, Devin Kelley, a 26-year-old white male, walked into First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas with an AR-15 rifle and killed 26 people while wounding 20 others. Victims ages ranged from 1 to 72 years old. The scene was horrifying and heartbreaking but familiar.


According to data from the Gun Violence Archive, it was the 307th mass shooting in the United States this year......


If the attack is perpetrated by someone of the Islamic faith, the president immediately labels it terrorism and calls for new laws to be instituted and old ones abolished in order to make sure no more evil brown people worm their way into our pristine utopia. When the mass murderer is a white person, which is the most common scenario, it’s nearly always framed as a mental health issue. It’s never terrorism. Terrorism is something brown people do. And there are never any solutions proposed. Trump acknowledges the tragedy, sends his thoughts and prayers and then essentially says, it was a crazy guy ― what can you do?"

Source:https://www.huffpost.com/entry/its-terrorism-if-youre-brown-its-mental-health_b_5a0098bce4b076eaaae271a6

Actually the security apparatus of the US government has taken a well balanced view on what are the terrorist threats to America. — ssu

That is the problem from my vantage point the American government doesn't. Because people are still dying by domestic terrorist than international. Citing my source, you don't realize that this administration is pouring more resources into international terrorism more specifically terrorism carried about by Muslim fanatics than white nationalist. Did you not forget what Trump said after 50 people in both mosques were killed when asked the question on whether white nationalism was a growing issue?



Apparently the focus of this administration and its concern in the media does not reflect the FBI opinion. If Ahmed went into a Catholic church and killed 50 people, the court of public opinion in the states would most certainly view this as terrorism due to the fact that there is a suspect and his name is Ahmed. White guy who is a right wing nationalist does the same, we are looking at his mental status.

Because people are still dying by domestic terrorist than international. — Anaxagoras

did you mean " Because more people are still dying or by domestic terrorist than international?

or

Because people are still dying by domestic terrorist than international. — Anaxagoras

Probably the only thing that seems self evident is universal basic freedoms
— aporiap

What I think needs to be justified are universal basic rights
— aporiap — Banno

I wasn't thinking of self-evident proposals. Rather, there are some propositions, the denial of which tells us about the denier.

But this dodges the glaring problem of grounding. I agree it seems more than callous to deny basic rights, it feels disgusting, but that doesn't provide a formal grounding or justification.

"lol are you seriously recommending the news as a source of vital information in order to understand a group of people? haha, imagine if someone asked me where they should research what the right wing believe, or who the 'alt-right' was. If I pointed them to the news as a valid source of information on the topic they're likely to think everyone's alt-right and they all hate everyone who isn't a white cis-gendered male with a trump tattoo and a 'make America great again' hat."

Oh yeah, and I'm exactly like those people.

Shortsighted because I look at the state of things on a global scale compared to just the US? I — I like sushi

We're having a discussion and therefore if you're postulating a claim that is meant to be plausible, you could at least substantiate your claims with evidence, not jargon. If you haven't noticed we're beyond the realm of having a complete philosophical discussion filled with dialectical arguments and jargon and word manipulation. So far your claims which are general are postulated under the supposed premise that globally, your position regarding the greater Muslim community is correct. I've challenged you and the OP to prove so and to no avail have you supported your arguments with actual evidence. Instead you want to maintain your dialectical stance.

I’m shortsighted because you’ve traveled somewhere? — I like sushi

No, you're short sighted because you haven't traveled, doesn't matter what I think however when you travel and actually meet Muslims from abroad, your position is wider than the localized viewpoints that you have of the world.

Shortsighted because I am well aware that “Conservative” doesn’t mean mostly homophobic, bigoted and/or anti-abortion? — I like sushi

I never equated the two, although there are many members among that base that hold those viewpoints. More importantly this senseless back and forth I am having with you is nonsense, so you're right. Once you begin to substantiate your claims with evidence outside using dialectical arguments to form your own "truism" then we can begin to have a productive debate otherwise I'm done with the back and forth arguments that cannot produce substance from your end.

I love the correction. I wonder why some of you are so busy correcting members on online discussion boards when you could be taking professorships at esteemed universities. But yes I did mean:

" Because more people are still dying or by domestic terrorist than international? — christian2017

We're having a discussion and therefore if you're postulating a claim that is meant to be plausible, you could at least substantiate your claims with evidence, not jargon. If you haven't noticed we're beyond the realm of having a complete philosophical discussion filled with dialectical arguments and jargon and word manipulation. So far your claims which are general are postulated under the supposed premise that globally, your position regarding the greater Muslim community is correct. I've challenged you and the OP to prove so and to no avail have you supported your arguments with actual evidence. Instead you want to maintain your dialectical stance. — Anaxagoras

Word manipulation? Jargon? You’ve challenged me to support what argument?

Have you provided “evidence” other than posting articles from the US? No. Then you accuse me of being “shortsighted”?

No, you're short sighted because you haven't traveled, doesn't matter what I think however when you travel and actually meet Muslims from abroad, your position is wider than the localized viewpoints that you have of the world. — Anaxagoras

Did I say I haven’t traveled? No. You assume SO much it is a VERY bad habit you have. Please attend to it. I’d be glad to hear of your experiences with muslims abroad if you’d be willing to share them? I won’t dismiss it as “anecdotal” evidence so don’t worry about that. I a genuinely interested in people’s views. I’m not massively interested in engaging with people who assume a whole lot about others but my patience is something I’ve been working on over the past few years.

I never equated the two, although there are many members among that base that hold those viewpoints. More importantly this senseless back and forth I am having with you is nonsense, so you're right. Once you begin to substantiate your claims with evidence outside using dialectical arguments to form your own "truism" then we can begin to have a productive debate otherwise I'm done with the back and forth arguments that cannot produce substance from your end. — Anaxagoras

Either you’re lying or forgetful. I asked you to amend your words in another thread where you said “conservatives are homophobic” which you then amended by saying something along the lines of “mostly if not all, in my experience”. Now you’re tagging on anti-abortion, which is generally an attitude taken on by “devoutly” religious people - following this line should I now start saying all muslims are conservatives as they’re religious or is it only the homophobic muslims that are conservatives? See how silly that is, yet you accuse me of manipulating word!?

You also seem to think I’m siding with the OP? I asked on the first page what the intent was of conflating Jihadists with the larger Muslim population. I asked again and received no reply. Just because I point out your foolery it doesn’t mean I am on this or that side of the argument.

The premise of the OP is deeply flawed. Somewhere it turned into a view of terrorism based on the US only when the comparison is between The West and Islam. It is an unfair comparison imo. The issue with Islam is its transition into secular society which has been antagonised by war in the middle east. Without a shadow of a doubt the most dangerous and brutal terror acts over the past few years have been surrounded by Islam BUT far more people have died at the hands of acts of terror based around Catholicism (IRA) yet that is also wrapped up in independence. The infighting in the middle east has a long history between different sects.

The OP is badly written and thought out; no argument from me there! I am addressing the statement in the title as a question. I would say any religion is less moral if it exists outside of a secular system - I don’t see how dogma can be moral.

Because I said the muslims I’ve met in the west have been reasonable it doesn’t mean that I think all muslims elsewhere are unreasonable (again, a habit of assuming the very worst you have - why is this?) What is apparent is that many hold the same views across the world:

https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-morality/

As for the moral comparison with what is being loosely termed “west” and “muslim” I would suggest you take a quick look at how widely accepted so called “honor killings” are?

Here’s some more stats:

https://www.pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/chapter-3-views-of-religion-and-morality/

Note the overwhelmingly skewed attitudes towards homosexuality among predominantly muslim countries compared to western countries (the US being a exception in the trend probably due to the bible belt). On the next page of that survey you’ll also see a telling correlation between religiosity and poverty - and maybe this plays into the extreme views shown in Africa too regarding homosexuality?

Of course you could then dismiss the data and say the stats have been manipulated too. I imagine you’re happy with the stats that actually show how muslims are pretty much like everyone else except in regards to the extremists attitudes and “honor killings” (which is something more embedded in “culture” than just religion; meaning I’m not sure how much religion plays a role in family honor and that the religious justification was probably tagged on later).

Be Kind, well-balanced might be too strong a word. Tawhidi whitewashes islam to a big extent but at least he's doing it for the right reasons and also tries to be somewhat critical of his own tradition. That's probably the most you can ask from a muslim in this day and age where anything critical is automatically labeled as islamophobic.

Hi George, thank you for that. Those are very long videos :) I started to watch one of them and although it offer some insights I was looking for something else. I don't know much about Muslim beliefs so a video that tackle one of those with be great. Based on what I read from Mr Phil I assume it should be a paragraph from the tafsir.

'Tafsir' is just interpretation. Different people have different interpretations. I suggest Robert Spencer's 'The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran'. If you want to familiarize yourself with the book, there are videos on youtube. Robert Spencer's 'The Basics of Islam' series is also available.





Also, be suspicious of people who want to school you in private, where no criticism can be applied. That's not too far from indoctrination, which is also typical of islam today; a look at islamic schools should convince you of that.

Maybe I missed your general view in this thread (not unsurprisingly!). Would you say that “The West” upholds a stronger “moral” stance than muslim countries? To me this seems blatantly obvious.

As for how individual “westerners” and/or “muslims” act and talk, in moral sense, I wouldn’t make many sweeping generalisations other than to state that intolerance goes hand in hand with harder religious positions.

Maybe we can have a reasonable exchange here, but I’ve a feeling that we’re likely to agree for the most part. I’ve expressed before my view of “religion” as being similar to “patriotism,” and it that light I’d even say that “nationalism” (not necessarily White Nationalism), just plain old hyper-conservatism, bears little difference to “patriotism”.

Note: someone has a thread asking about the difference between Patriotism and Nationalism so maybe we’d be better suited to talk about that there if you fancy.

Link: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5464/patriotism-and-nationalism

There's nothing sectarian in this 'fatwa'. That Tawhidi is sectarian is a lie. He's critical of Iranian clerics and other Shia.

As I said, one can't be critical of islam without becoming 'islamophobic', 'controversial' or something similar. I've given the views of a muslim who tries to be critical to a certain degree and then I've offered the views of a non-muslim who is critical of things that Twahidi tries to whitewash (for good reasons, but it's whitewashing nevertheless). Be Kind can judge for himself.

There's nothing sectarian about that. He even says 'hardline interpretation', implying that there are other interpretations. Since the teachings he refers to are the things jihadists quote (when they don't quote the koran) he's right to point out that they have everything to do with them. He just doesn't go far enough because he tries to save the day for islam.

ou’ve challenged me to support what argument? — I like sushi

With evidence like a research link or two, or three or something that I can read that may substantiate your claim not "well I think you're wrong because of X, Y, and Z."

Have you provided “evidence” other than posting articles from the US? No. Then you accuse me of being “shortsighted”? — I like sushi

Would you prefer research articles? So i provide evidence but because it is from America (more specifically the FBI that looks at global data) it is no good. So you tell me which source do you prefer? difference between you and I is I can actually get the material to provide which would validate my viewpoint, you on the other hand have words which in the case of plausibility is not going to help you here.

Did I say I haven’t traveled? No. — I like sushi

Have you been to a Muslim household? Have you ever been to a mosque? Have you ever discussed with an Alim, or an Imam or a Shaykh about the general principles of Islam?

You assume SO much it is a VERY bad habit you have. — I like sushi

Because your behavior in your words have demonstrated a slight bit of ignorance on worldly cultures.

but I'm done...

As I said, one can't be critical of islam without becoming 'islamophobic', 'controversial' or something similar. — George K

You can be critical of a religious faith without proclaiming pejorative remarks about it. It's called constructive criticism, the problem with discussions like these is the idea of a person's constructive criticism. If by being constructive you believe by talking about all the negatives of a community without making distinctions and isolating them from other members then it is problematic. then there is also personal bias that comes into play.

I love the correction. I wonder why some of you are so busy correcting members on online discussion boards when you could be taking professorships at esteemed universities. But yes I did mean:

" Because more people are still dying or by domestic terrorist than international? — Anaxagoras

Sounds like your a liberal elite. I like liberals quite often but the liberal elite are the real problem.

"Because more people are still dying by domestic terrorist than international?"

No way. People are killed in Israel all the time by terrorists. People are killed and maimed all through out europe by terrorists all the time and in the United States most people are murdered due to domestic crimes or gang warfare. Try again. You are seriously delusional.

Sounds like your a liberal elite. — christian2017

You don't know me in real life but okay.

No way. People are killed in Israel all the time by terrorists. — christian2017

Do you have anything to substantiate this claim of yours? Meaning, since you are saying more people in Israel are dying more than U.S. Americans, can you substantiate the claim using an objective source?

People are killed and maimed all through out europe by terrorists all the time and in the United States most people are murdered due to domestic crimes — christian2017

What is your point? I clearly said people in the United States are killed more by domestic terrorists than international ones.

If you scrolled up you'd see that I listed a link which headlined:

Report: Domestic Terrorism Is Still a Greater Threat Than Islamic Extremism

"The bureau investigates thousands of Americans for charges related to terrorism every year, though, as the Post notes, the public only is aware of dozens of the high-profile suspects charged with violent crimes, or the plans to carry them out. “Sometimes, it’s the violence that motivates someone more than any particular ideology,” an FBI official told the Post. It’s a theory that certainly applies to the most recent high-profile case of domestic terror: Coast Guard Lieutenant Christopher Hasson, who was arrested for stockpiling weapons for a domestic terror plot targeting journalists and politicians, including Chris Hayes, Ilhan Omar, and much of the 2020 Democratic field. “I am dreaming of a way to kill almost every last person on the Earth,” Hasson allegedly wrote."

Source:http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/domestic-terror-still-greater-threat-than-islamic-extremism.html

If you weren't so lazy you'd see this link to a couple individuals I responded to here regarding that, so congratulations on looking stupid. Because I'm not disagreeing with you when you said:

in the United States most people are murdered due to domestic crimes or gang warfare. — christian2017

Which is why the position I took at least from the American position is that the media in the United States highlights so much regarding Islamic extremism yet we are dealing with domestic issues. I, in addition to that, stated that if we look at 1.8 billion Muslims at least 0.00001% of that population is committed to terrorism (these are just guessed numbers). Since you mentioned Europe and around the world according to this article by the Pacific standard:

"In 2017, researchers with the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, or START (which is hosted at the University of Maryland), told ABC News that Muslims are "absolutely" the most likely people to be victims of terrorist attacks worldwide."

Source:https://psmag.com/news/most-terrorist-victims-are-muslim

So in actuality everywhere Muslims are more victims of terrorism, it is just that on the west we tend to show significance when it happens on our soil.