Islamophobia

[rigney]

Some months back on this forum I was accused of being an Islamophobic. While I am not one, the following link and the continuing escalation of wars between Muslims in the middle east is evidence that Americans should be more cautious and concerned than they seem to be.

Choose any religion you wish, but only the religion, not its mandates. "This is America" and laws enacted by a duly elected congress are all that is needed to protect each of us, and our liberties.

 

http://www.youtube.com/embed/A3YQANdvvbY

Edited April 5, 2011 by rigney

[lemur]

Rigney, the issue is that you should separate Islam from terrorism. Terrorism can be committed in the name of any religion but that doesn't make the religion the cause of the terrorism. You can't say that people who don't commit terrorism are exceptions to the nature of their religion. That would be like saying that people who work for the military and love peace are exceptions to the nature of the military as an institution of war. Please stop propagating the idea that religion is a cause for terrorism unless you are willing to have people attribute terrorism to whatever religion you subscribe to, including atheism, secular nationalism, science, or whatever ideological club you identify with.

[CaptainPanic]

rigney,

Talk to the Irish, British, Northern Irish and ask how much terror there was committed there in the name of Catholicism and/or Protestantism.

Or how about the Basques (France/Spain)? That's not even religiously motivated... still terrorism though.

Ask Sri Lankans, and find our that the Tamil Tigers are mostly Hindu/Catholic/Protestant. Definitely considered terrorism.

The Colombian FARC? Terrorism.

 

Basically, look just a little further than the local propaganda, and find out that it's complete nonsense to relate Islam to terrorism. There are (1) plenty of other religions or groups that take up arms and commit terrorism on large scales and (2) plenty of Muslims who live in peace and condemn the violence just as much as we do.

[rigney]

#2 Today, 08:01 AM lemur

Rigney, the issue is that you should separate Islam from terrorism. Terrorism can be committed in the name of any religion but that doesn't make the religion the cause of the terrorism.

 

Tell me something Lemur, where did I use either word, "Terrorist or Terrorism"? To me there is little or no difference between being a Muslim, Hindu, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic or any number of faiths. Just don't try converting an entire nation to one way of thinking. Most folks here in the States enjoy the freedoms of politics and religon. I doubt if any of them would care for the "change".

Edited April 5, 2011 by rigney

[CaptainPanic]

Tell me something Lemur, where did I use either word, "Terrorist or Terrorism"? To me there is little or no difference between being a Muslim, Hindu, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic or any number of faiths. Just don't try converting an entire nation to one way of thinking. Most folks here in the States enjoy the freedoms of politics and religon. I doubt if any of them would care for the "change".

In post 1 you mention wars in the Middle East (which are heavily associated with terrorism for the last decade). You mention the word "islamophobia", which brings the Islam into the discussion. Then you warn your fellow countrymen.

 

I completely agree that you carefully avoid using several words, and specifically the words 'Muslim terrorism'... but it oozes out of your post on all sides.

[zapatos]

At the risk of being shot down in flames...

 

Why should we separate Islam from terrorism? It seems to me that many muslims are motivated to commit acts of violence by their religion and spiritual leaders. And if they are so motivated then why pretend they are not?

 

Separating the two because some muslims are not motivated to commit acts of violence seems no more valid than connecting the two because some muslims are motivated to commit acts of violence.

 

And the fact that others commit violence in the name of religion has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Islam is a cause of violence.

[rigney]

rigney,

Talk to the Irish, British, Northern Irish and ask how much terror there was committed there in the name of Catholicism and/or Protestantism.

Or how about the Basques (France/Spain)? That's not even religiously motivated... still terrorism though.

Ask Sri Lankans, and find our that the Tamil Tigers are mostly Hindu/Catholic/Protestant. Definitely considered terrorism.

The Colombian FARC? Terrorism.

 

Basically, look just a little further than the local propaganda, and find out that it's complete nonsense to relate Islam to terrorism. There are (1) plenty of other religions or groups that take up arms and commit terrorism on large scales and (2) plenty of Muslims who live in peace and condemn the violence just as much as we do.

 

The same question I asked Lemur, where did I use the word terrorist or terrorism? Many of you seem to read too much into a statement. Now that you have mentioned all of the Civil Wars that are going on or have gone on, we once had one here in America. Not to perpetuate a solitary religion, but to save a nation with multiple beliefs. Was it wrong to do so? Only time will tell!

 

rigney,

Talk to the Irish, British, Northern Irish and ask how much terror there was committed there in the name of Catholicism and/or Protestantism.

Or how about the Basques (France/Spain)? That's not even religiously motivated... still terrorism though.

Ask Sri Lankans, and find our that the Tamil Tigers are mostly Hindu/Catholic/Protestant. Definitely considered terrorism.

The Colombian FARC? Terrorism.

 

Basically, look just a little further than the local propaganda, and find out that it's complete nonsense to relate Islam to terrorism. There are (1) plenty of other religions or groups that take up arms and commit terrorism on large scales and (2) plenty of Muslims who live in peace and condemn the violence just as much as we do.

Local propoganda? Are you living under a rock or mushroom?.

I note that you read little into a quotation other than that which you wish to extract for your own visceral thought. Let me reiterate, "I do not hate Muslims, Jews or any denomination of Gentile, etc". Most are honest, law abiding citizens who many times profess no religon at all when asked. Which ever, "That is their own business". Just don't try shoving any religon down my throat. Is that plain enough?

Edited April 5, 2011 by rigney

[mississippichem]

At the risk of being shot down in flames...

 

Why should we separate Islam from terrorism? It seems to me that many muslims are motivated to commit acts of violence by their religion and spiritual leaders. And if they are so motivated then why pretend they are not?

 

Separating the two because some muslims are not motivated to commit acts of violence seems no more valid than connecting the two because some muslims are motivated to commit acts of violence.

 

And the fact that others commit violence in the name of religion has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Islam is a cause of violence.

 

I agree. Acknowledging that there is much Islamo-terrorism is not the same as denying the existence of non-Islamic-terrorists.

 

The Islamic terrorism that worries me is not so much the rare acts of terror against the western world. Its the terrible things they do to themselves, to their own people. Being a staunch atheist, I find all religions oppressive and silly. However, I'm not very ashamed to admit that I find Islam to be an order of magnitude more violent than other modern religions.

 

Christianity had its terrible days as well, (see the Crusades). But now days, which religion is the one that actively tramples womens' rights? Which religion sets itself up in theocracies and exploits the ignorance of the people? I don't feel as though I'm being Islamophobic by saying this; I truly hate all religions equally If anyone wants an anti-Christianity rant in the name of fairness I will gladly contribute.

[Phi for All]

Separating the two because some muslims are not motivated to commit acts of violence seems no more valid than connecting the two because some muslims are motivated to commit acts of violence.

It may not seem valid because you have misrepresented the situation. The vast majority of muslims are NOT motivated to commit acts of violence, and only a small fraction of muslims are so motivated.

 

It may be more relevant to say that extreme stances are what characterize terrorism, whether they be religious, political, cultural or economic in nature.

[CaptainPanic]

rigney,

If you message is that you do not wish to get a religion 'shoved down your throat' (assuming you're American), why do you post a youtube movie about France? That seems as relevant to your local situation as a hurricane warning in Florida when there's a storm in Iceland.

 

zapatos,

Your particular choice of words suggest that you think that a majority ('many') of Muslims wants to commit acts of violence while a minority ('some') do not. I think you fully deserve to be shot down in flames, like you anticipated yourself already. But instead, I think I'll just report your post for breaking SFN rule 1c.

[jackson33]

rigney; I don't have the time to go over six/seven years of posting, but the same folks that fought everything religious in American Government was/is on par with the end of time. Yet whenever the Muslim Religion is mentioned, which is practiced BY MOST of the 1.5B people, it's perfectly fine if religion is not only intolerant of other cultures, is BASED ON SHARIA principles. Those being the interpretations of the societies chief clergy, the "imam". That is, not only are the cultures decided, but the laws and the enforcement of those laws are decided by one or a few of the entire society. I think you probably already know, but the French Government and believe the British Governments, which have been trying to incorporate the Muslim Culture's (plural an understatement), have decalared multi-culteralism HAS BEEN A FAILURE.

 

lemur, while neither did rigey or the link mention terrorism, rather extreme cultural differences, maybe on the video some reference to blind adherence to a FAITH, we are not in an apparent World War with anyone I'm aware of other than Islamic Terrorist. There are again 1.5B people claiming Muslim as their faith and that's fine, but how many are actively trying to get the radicals in their flock, under control. One religious nutcase in Florida, burns a Koran, which is perfectly legal under US Law and over half of media jumps on his case, while no one particularly cared a full shipment of Bibles was burned in Saudi Arabia in 2009.

 

CP; Local terrorism has nothing to do with what either the "Muslim Brotherhood" or maybe 50 Muslim Terrorist Oriented Groups who have declared is a Worldwide movement to bring down, what's nothing more than a cultural, legal, Governing SYSTEM. The correct argument here, would be that ALL religions in years long gone by, practiced the same policies, but only one is, in part, still hung up in a 15th Century mentality.

[ydoaPs]

Jackson, what does Sharia have to do with the US? Oh yeah, nothing. Got any relevant issues? If there was an actual threat of Sharia in the US, the "folks that fought everything religious in American Government" would do the same for it. Here in the US we have this little thing called the Establishment Clause.

[zapatos]

It may not seem valid because you have misrepresented the situation. The vast majority of muslims are NOT motivated to commit acts of violence, and only a small fraction of muslims are so motivated.

 

It may be more relevant to say that extreme stances are what characterize terrorism, whether they be religious, political, cultural or economic in nature.

I'm not sure in what way I have misrepresented the situation as I gave no percentages and didn't use words such as 'majority' and 'minority'. But anyway, maybe the question is not so much if people are motivated to commit acts of violence, but whether or not the religion supports acts of violence. Because if the religion and spiritual leaders support violence then I would say Islam and violence are linked whether anyone decides they should commit violence or not. Just like I'd say Nazism supports racism because that is what the leaders taught, whether or not it received much support from all those in the Nazi party.

 

zapatos,

Your particular choice of words suggest that you think that a majority ('many') of Muslims wants to commit acts of violence while a minority ('some') do not. I think you fully deserve to be shot down in flames, like you anticipated yourself already. But instead, I think I'll just report your post for breaking SFN rule 1c.

Your decision to think the worst of me given my history on this site is interesting. Given the following definition of 'many' I'm curious as to how you assumed I meant 'most' instead of definition 1. or 2.

 

man·y (mn)

adj. more (môr, mr), most (mst)

1. Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous: many a child; many another day.

2. Amounting to or consisting of a large indefinite number: many friends.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/many

 

Unless it is because the first time I used the word 'some' I meant 'the minority of ', and the second time I used the word 'some' I meant 'the majority of'.

 

Separating the two because some muslims are not motivated to commit acts of violence seems no more valid than connecting the two because some muslims are motivated to commit acts of violence.

 

The reason I thought I might be shot down in flames was not because I thought I was making inflammatory remarks, but because of the frequency of knee-jerk reactions to volatile subjects. It's like discussing religion and politics at a party. You almost always get a negative reaction from someone who uses their own feelings and biases to color your remarks.

[Phi for All]

I'm not sure in what way I have misrepresented the situation as I gave no percentages and didn't use words such as 'majority' and 'minority'. But anyway, maybe the question is not so much if people are motivated to commit acts of violence, but whether or not the religion supports acts of violence. Because if the religion and spiritual leaders support violence then I would say Islam and violence are linked whether anyone decides they should commit violence or not. Just like I'd say Nazism supports racism because that is what the leaders taught, whether or not it received much support from all those in the Nazi party.

Again, saying that, "if the religion and spiritual leaders support violence then I would say Islam and violence are linked whether anyone decides they should commit violence or not" is a misrepresentation of Islam. Not all muslim religious leaders support violence, in fact the vast majority don't. Some Christian leaders preach intolerance of certain lifestyles, but it's a misrepresentation to say that Christianity hates gay people.

[zapatos]

Again, saying that, "if the religion and spiritual leaders support violence then I would say Islam and violence are linked whether anyone decides they should commit violence or not" is a misrepresentation of Islam. Not all muslim religious leaders support violence, in fact the vast majority don't. Some Christian leaders preach intolerance of certain lifestyles, but it's a misrepresentation to say that Christianity hates gay people.

I probably would have been better off saying "if some portion of the religion and spiritual leaders support violence then I would say Islam and violence are linked in those particular cases whether anyone decides they should commit violence or not". That would have prevented any confusion about my point of view, which I agree is important when discussing these types of issues. It would have been less important if I had been talking about baseball. It wouldn't have mattered as much if I said 'The Yankees had a bad season' instead of 'Some aspects of the Yankees season was bad'.

 

Point taken. I'll try to be more precise next time.

[rigney]

Jackson, what does Sharia have to do with the US? Oh yeah, nothing. Got any relevant issues? If there was an actual threat of Sharia in the US, the "folks that fought everything religious in American Government" would do the same for it. Here in the US we have this little thing called the Establishment Clause.

ydops, I simply don't understand how a person with your intellect and who has honorably served his country as you have, can be so benevolent to a system that you obviously know little or nothing about. The internet!. Go there and read just a small portion of what the radicalism of Sharia Law might bring to America, and the fact it is already here. I don't hate Muslims!. But if another religon, including Atheism tried to dominate our free system of faiths, believe me; I would be just as pissed. Edited April 5, 2011 by rigney

[jackson33]

Jackson, what does Sharia have to do with the US? Oh yeah, nothing. Got any relevant issues? If there was an actual threat of Sharia in the US, the "folks that fought everything religious in American Government" would do the same for it. Here in the US we have this little thing called the Establishment Clause. [/Quote]

 

ydoaPs; Not wanting to go off topic here, the people that do not accept anything religious in the US, seem to have no problems with religions in other societies and I was discussing the French. If I were and it was on topic, the current Administration has invoked the Muslim Religion, not only into NASA's purpose, but has been sending representations to foreign Muslim gatherings, apparently all with your approval.

 

Controversy is swirling around President Barack Obama's choice of a young American Muslim lawyer, Rashad Hussain, to serve as his special envoy to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. Behind this fracas looms the even larger question of whether the U.S. should be sending the OIC any special envoy at all. [/Quote]

 

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/02/does-obama-really-need-to-send-an-envoy-to-the-organization-of-the-islamic-conference.html

 

During a recent interview on Al Jazeera, NASA administrator Charles Bolden discussed President Obama’s efforts to improve Muslim outreach and said that Obama “wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering.” [/Quote]

 

http://jayforde.com/obama-to-nasa-director-promote-islamic-contribution-to-science/

[Phi for All]

I probably would have been better off saying "if some portion of the religion and spiritual leaders support violence then I would say Islam and violence are linked in those particular cases whether anyone decides they should commit violence or not".

This does clarify your meaning, thank you.

 

I still question why Islam as a whole should be linked to specific extremist acts, though. Again, if Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church celebrates the death of gay people by attending their funerals and preaching that "God hates fags", I don't even link that sentiment to all Baptists, much less all Christians.

 

Extremists have many different ideologies. When certain extremists happen to be a religious leader, doesn't that just make them a more dangerous, infectious extremist rather than a leader of a dangerous, infectious religion?

 

Pro-Life extremists sometimes shoot doctors who perform abortions. Not all of these belong to a certain religion, or are necessarily religiously motivated. It seems more of a moral decision for them. And while other Pro-Life supporters may tacitly cheer that another abortion doctor has been removed, they themselves wouldn't actively support such violent, extreme actions. This is how I see many muslims being "linked" to terrorism. They may secretly applaud when targets they view as oppressive and detrimental get killed, but actively they wouldn't join in on the violence and openly don't lend any support to the extremists.

[lemur]

Tell me something Lemur, where did I use either word, "Terrorist or Terrorism"?

So you're making a distinction between "war," which you mention, and "terrorism" which you don't? Why do you start picking bones instead of just saying what you meant and what you don't mean and what your reasoning is?

 

 

Just don't try converting an entire nation to one way of thinking. Most folks here in the States enjoy the freedoms of politics and religon. I doubt if any of them would care for the "change".

What is this all about? You're telling me not to "try converting an entire nation to one way of thinking" as if either "nations" think as wholes or that I'm trying to convert anyone to anything. If you are so fixated on some way of thinking that you think "the nation" wouldn't care to "change" from, why don't you just propagate that until you've converted me and whoever else to accept your way of thinking?

 

In the mean time, don't be so defensive and just discuss what you think, please.

 

 

 

ydops, I simply don't understand how a person with your intellect and who has honorably served his country as you have, can be so benevolent to a system that you obviously know little or nothing about. The internet!. Go there and read just a small portion of what the radicalism of Sharia Law might bring to America, and the fact it is already here. I don't hate Muslims!. But if another religon, including Atheism tried to dominate our free system of faiths, believe me; I would be just as pissed.

Don't you realize that accusing some person(s) or ideology of attempting to dominate others in under free democracy is basically a call to undermine the accused, by force if necessary? The problem is that Islam is not doing anything to dominate the government, as far as I know. In fact, I don't even think the government is doing anything to dominate the government, so what is all this concern with domination? Are you just really interested in finding some excuse to launch a crusade against some threat to engender military spending or something like that?

 

 

 

[rigney]

This does clarify your meaning, thank you.

 

I still question why Islam as a whole should be linked to specific extremist acts, though. Again, if Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church celebrates the death of gay people by attending their funerals and preaching that "God hates fags", I don't even link that sentiment to all Baptists, much less all Christians.

 

Extremists have many different ideologies. When certain extremists happen to be a religious leader, doesn't that just make them a more dangerous, infectious extremist rather than a leader of a dangerous, infectious religion?

 

Pro-Life extremists sometimes shoot doctors who perform abortions. Not all of these belong to a certain religion, or are necessarily religiously motivated. It seems more of a moral decision for them. And while other Pro-Life supporters may tacitly cheer that another abortion doctor has been removed, they themselves wouldn't actively support such violent, extreme actions. This is how I see many muslims being "linked" to terrorism. They may secretly applaud when targets they view as oppressive and detrimental get killed, but actively they wouldn't join in on the violence and openly don't lend any support to the extremists.

I couldn't agree with you more. "Cowards Lurk, Doers Do". Only an end game can determine the winner or loser. Americans have spent 4 hundred years making this country what it is, and don't need a foreign interloper to dominate a populations beliefs.

[zapatos]

This does clarify your meaning, thank you.

 

I still question why Islam as a whole should be linked to specific extremist acts, though. Again, if Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church celebrates the death of gay people by attending their funerals and preaching that "God hates fags", I don't even link that sentiment to all Baptists, much less all Christians.

 

Extremists have many different ideologies. When certain extremists happen to be a religious leader, doesn't that just make them a more dangerous, infectious extremist rather than a leader of a dangerous, infectious religion?

 

Pro-Life extremists sometimes shoot doctors who perform abortions. Not all of these belong to a certain religion, or are necessarily religiously motivated. It seems more of a moral decision for them. And while other Pro-Life supporters may tacitly cheer that another abortion doctor has been removed, they themselves wouldn't actively support such violent, extreme actions. This is how I see many muslims being "linked" to terrorism. They may secretly applaud when targets they view as oppressive and detrimental get killed, but actively they wouldn't join in on the violence and openly don't lend any support to the extremists.

It seems to me to be a matter of degree. Very few people act like Fred Phelps or shooters of abortion doctors. And when they do they are roundly condemned by nearly everyone in the organization they belong to. Thus people don't tend to correlate the actions of these to the organization they belong to.

 

There are relatively more people who are willing to strap on explosives and give their lives while invoking the name of their god because they believe their religion tells them it is just. If someone burns a bible I don't necessarily expect that someone will die because of it, but if a church in Florida burns a Koran I feel confident that people will soon die. If someone writes a book critical of Islam I expect that person has just put their life at risk. When I hear of a man killing his daughter because she shamed the family, I am not surprised if it turns out he is Muslim.

 

At one end of the spectrum you have people like Phelps. Generally people will not criticize the Baptist religion because one person who is Baptist takes an extreme view of that religion.

 

On the other end of the spectrum you have people like the Neo Nazi National Alliance. Almost everyone will agree their group is linked to anti-semitism.

 

And as you move from one end of the spectrum to the other, you move from finding no links to the organization to feeling there is a link with the organization.

 

I think Islam falls somewhere between the two extremes. Not enough extremists to feel the religion is violent; not few enough extremists to feel the extremists in no way represent the organization; but enough extremists to feel there is some connection between the extremists and the organization.

 

Another example is unions in the US. If I said unions are historically supporters of Democrats, I think that is about right and I wouldn't hear too many objections. But of course not all unions or their members supports Democrats, but enough of them do to let people make that connection.

 

And I think that is what has happened with Islam. Enough violence takes place in the name of Islam for people to start making a connection between the extremists and the religion. Not really accurate and not fair to those who are not extremists, but what are you going to do? That is going to be the perception of many.

[rigney]

So you're making a distinction between "war," which you mention, and "terrorism" which you don't? Why do you start picking bones instead of just saying what you meant and what you don't mean and what your reasoning is?

 

 

 

What is this all about? You're telling me not to "try converting an entire nation to one way of thinking" as if either "nations" think as wholes or that I'm trying to convert anyone to anything. If you are so fixated on some way of thinking that you think "the nation" wouldn't care to "change" from, why don't you just propagate that until you've converted me and whoever else to accept your way of thinking?

 

In the mean time, don't be so defensive and just discuss what you think, please.

 

 

 

 

Don't you realize that accusing some person(s) or ideology of attempting to dominate others in under free democracy is basically a call to undermine the accused, by force if necessary? The problem is that Islam is not doing anything to dominate the government, as far as I know. In fact, I don't even think the government is doing anything to dominate the government, so what is all this concern with domination? Are you just really interested in finding some excuse to launch a crusade against some threat to engender military spending or something like that?

Are you a Muslim? If so, I say that with all due respect. Otherwise, I say it with malice. Using such a narrative as you present, I would consider you an idiot trying to subvert your own homeland. If that's the case, it is disgusting. As Americans, most of us would cansider you a traitor. No malicious intent, that is; unless the shoe fits. Edited April 5, 2011 by rigney

[lemur]

Are you a Muslim? If so, I say that with all due respect. Otherwise, I say it with malice. Using such a narrative as you present, I would consider you an idiot trying to subvert your own homeland. If that's the case, it is disgusting. As Americans, most of us would cansider you a traitor. No malicious intent, that is; unless the shoe fits.

People saying things like that used to make me feel shamefully afraid I might be a "traitor." It took me a long time to realize that people who try to shame other people into lockstepping in any way are actually the ones in conflict with republican democracy. The problem is that those of us who "love freedom and democracy" don't get to use the same manipulative shaming and other anti-democratic ideologies like this to try to push other people into "falling in line" with some form of authoritarianism. Therefore I won't call you a traitor, because you're not - you're just expressing your opinion by right of your own free speech - nevertheless it is also my right to freely say that if anything is traitorous and subversive to democracy, it is motivating people to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion by spreading the belief that freedom of religion is dangerous when it is respected for Islam.

 

I always cite this quote from Bush's speech, but I'll go ahead and post it:

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.

 

http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/bush-war-on-terror-speech_2.htm

[jackson33]

lemur; What Bush said in 2001, was premature to the eventual outcomes of his future efforts and has been used by everyone, later denouncing both his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I took it then and remain convinced, he was pleading with Muslim Societies around the World to help stop these minor elements in THEIR societies from creating further havoc on the world, less than 2 weeks after 911 and to a US Congress. In changing the course of American Policy, from criminal acts, to acts of war and a sincere effort to get the Afghan Government to apprehend and extradite "the Taliban leaders". If the Afghan Government, had simply complied, no less than the US would have if the circumstances had been reversed, a whole lot of things would be different today.

 

Factually since; In poll after poll in the Muslim world or with in Muslim Communities in Democratic States, great percentages of Muslims have said, they supported to some degree bin Laden and other groups, throwing in Sharia it has often gone above 50%. For instance in 2007, six years AFTER 911, in Afghanistan who is supposedly helping our coalition, bin Laden still had a 46% approval rating (much more than Bush then had and 5% above Obama's current rate), al Qaeda 43% and even the Taliban had a 38% approval rating.

 

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-09-11/politics/poll.pakistanis_1_approval-rating-poll-qaeda?_s=PM:POLITICS

 

Personally I really don't like getting involved in these discussions, since I honestly feel Muslims could get along within other societies and do feel the polls are somewhat disingenuous being only males in many place are even allowed to speak. In Israel for instance Muslims and the JEWISH, in the State seem to get along just fine. About a quarter of Israel's Citizens are of Arab decent. Did you know there are Mosque in Israel, but in most Muslim States there are no Synagogue's or Temples....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_citizens_of_Israel

[Mr Skeptic]

Pro-Life extremists sometimes shoot doctors who perform abortions. Not all of these belong to a certain religion, or are necessarily religiously motivated. It seems more of a moral decision for them. And while other Pro-Life supporters may tacitly cheer that another abortion doctor has been removed, they themselves wouldn't actively support such violent, extreme actions. This is how I see many muslims being "linked" to terrorism. They may secretly applaud when targets they view as oppressive and detrimental get killed, but actively they wouldn't join in on the violence and openly don't lend any support to the extremists.

 

That's an example that I particularly like, because most of us will be familiar with a group or even a specific person who our society accepts and allows, but who would approve of a terrorist act. It is of course a whole continuum;

1) denounce killing of abortion doctors

2) remain silent about the killing of abortion doctors

3) quietly rejoice about the killing of abortion doctors or think they had it coming or might have deserved it

4) publicly praise the killing of abortion doctors or the people who did it (possibly with careful wording)

5) materially support/donate to groups that promote among other things the killing of abortion doctors

6) materially support/donate to groups that kill abortion doctors

7) actually killing of abortion doctors oneself

 

At what point does this become socially unacceptable, and at what point does it become illegal? And what if you replace "killing abortion doctors" with "killing infidels"? Now at what point does this become socially unacceptable, and at what point does it become illegal? Do the answers match?

 

And that is the problem I have with Islam... I don't think they're doing enough to actively oppose terrorism in their own ranks. But to be honest, neither is our country doing enough to actively oppose killing abortion doctors or homophobia or a lot of other things (including Islamophobia). Nor honestly do I think it could be done, not via the legal system anyhow, and via social pressure it might be done but would require a generation to die out to complete this (as racism is today despite both social and legal opposition). And worse, we're part of the problem by treating Islam with hostility, what can we expect but hostility right back, and lets not be a kid and argue about who started it. And even more, our policies also mean less interaction between us and Muslims, and so we don't get together and see that we're actually very much alike and not scary or evil like some might have told us.