Finally: Moderate Muslims speak out. Somewhat loudly.

[Fern]

Finally: Moderate Muslims speak out. Somewhat loudly.

IMO, this far more than merely "speaking out".

This is an effort to combat Islamic radicalization. I think probably the most effective way to combat it too. There are far too many mosques doing the opposite - radicalizing young Islamics. We need more Muslims groups doing this to combat them.

I think the best most effective solution, and one that requires no killing or prison, comes from the Muslims themselves. We need to encourage and support (financially etc) this type of preventive-radicalization program for young people as part of our overall counter-terrorism effort.

The best way to deal with a terrorist is to never allow him/her to become one in the 1st place.

Fern

 

[nobodyknows]

Sigh...

This happens everyday.. I'm googled out though, maybe check out the thread where some poster is saying the Iraqi mil is ready to take over, or check out the Afghan army threads just to mention a few.

Yes, I'm sure you can find all kinds of lip service but when it comes to moderate muslims actually going after and capturing/brining to justice the radicals it's pretty rare.

Rumsfield was claiming the Iraqi Army was close to getting ready to "take over' before the 2004 election. I hope Obama is right this time. We screwed the pooch by invading Iraq, there so called "democracy" wasn't worth one American boy's life IMHO.

All I can say is that I think if radicals in this country kidnapped Muslim journalists and beheaded them I think we would find them pretty fast. We have this thing called "law" over here and we do our best to enforce it.

I've come to the conclusion that most of the aprox 1.8 billion Muslims can justify most anything that they see as coming their way because deep down they think we are infidels. There religion just isn't compatible with our western civilization and the way we are used to doing things.

 

[irishScott]

Yes, I'm sure you can find all kinds of lip service but when it comes to moderate muslims actually going after and capturing/brining to justice the radicals it's pretty rare.

Rumsfield was claiming the Iraqi Army was close to getting ready to "take over' before the 2004 election. I hope Obama is right this time. We screwed the pooch by invading Iraq, there so called "democracy" wasn't worth one American boy's life IMHO.

All I can say is that I think if radicals in this country kidnapped Muslim journalists and beheaded them I think we would find them pretty fast. We have this thing called "law" over here and we do our best to enforce it.

I've come to the conclusion that most of the aprox 1.8 billion Muslims can justify most anything that they see as coming their way because deep down they think we are infidels. There religion just isn't compatible with our western civilization and the way we are used to doing things.

Yep. I'm actually reading "Inside the Jihad" by Omar Nasiri, a former French spy who (supposedly) made it to the Al-Qaeda camps, lived among them for a ridiculously long time, then came back. Sure some of it might be BS, but a lot sounds legit and the publisher says they confirmed what details they could. In any case, on sincere point he makes is that the Mujaheddin have a very strict code of honor about not killing enemy-non-combatants. The problem lies in who is considered an enemy combatant. Theoretically, anyone helping the enemy in any way, be they man woman or child, is subject to being considered an "enemy combatant". So basically their code of honor is sound on paper but so limited in scope it's basically just a feel-good measure.

 

[Atreus21]

Islam IS a religion of terrorism and intolerance. These camps are comical. They need to purge themselves of the arab culture if they want to join the modern world.
Judaism is a religion of intolerance. Zionism is a movement based on intolerance and terrorism.
Christianity is a religion that has a million different branches that's populated by self righteous hypocrites. Oh yeah and Christians are some of the biggest offenders of genocide, wars and intolerance.
Hindu's in India (e.g. BJP) are intolerant and violent (see gujurat riots).

See a common theme here? I love making sweeping judgements based on generalizations.

Fixed.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't know, I've never been a huge fan of judging someone by the actions of others over whom that person has no control. Mostly because it lacks a certain sense of fairness, but also because I know that the action I "observe" are usually the actions presented by a media that's more interested in spectacle than honesty.

Do I really know how "Muslims" as a group act and think? Not really, since I can't observe all Muslims directly, so I'm forced to rely on a media that covers what it does to sell advertising and get viewers. And even if I COULD figure out what "Muslims" do and think, how can I place responsibility for that on the head of someone who simply shares the religion and does not do or say those things? I think it's far more intelligent to judge individuals on their individual actions. Blaming them for the actions and thoughts of a group they are only loosely connected to is just lazy.

In other words, the premise of this thread is silly. I applaud the person who started this group in an effort to fight terrorism himself, but he is absolutely under no obligation to do so.

I usually agree with you, and I do largely agree with your first two paragraphs here, but I can't get on board with your conclusion. The point was made earlier in this thread that fellow Muslims making religious arguments provide far and away the best hope for convincing Muslims to not support and/or participate in terrorism. This raises the following moral question: when one is capable of preventing a wrong but fails to do so through inaction, to what degree is that person morally culpable? I don't know the answer to that question because it is an abstract proposition. However, my sense is that the culpability is in no way comparable to that of the active wrongdoer, but it is also at a value somewhere above zero.

Edmund Burke's oft quoted, "all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" certainly bears reflection here.

So I agree that it is a fallacy to lump all Muslims in with terrorists, but I'm not following you all the way to your conclusion.

- wolf

 

[hydroponik]

Islam is a scourge on the civilized world.

What they call a "good" pious and devout muslim are the ones terrorizing the world and subjugating their victims. They preach hate and their supremacy over infidels, or non-muslims.

Mohamed was a smart motherfucker, because if someone within the religion tries to teach reform or moderation, they are branded as traitors and are subject to death threats. Even today, no one can contradict his teachings which is why Islam will never be able to reform and join the rest of the civilized world. While Christianity and Judaism have been able to reform after a violent past, this will be almost impossible in islam.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Yes, I'm sure you can find all kinds of lip service but when it comes to moderate muslims actually going after and capturing/brining to justice the radicals it's pretty rare.

What? but// what? lip service??

Ok let me sound this out for you. You have a group of moderate Iraqi, Afghan,Saudi,American Muslim soldiers.
They go out on patrol and hunt down and kill extremists. Risking their own lives in doing so.
I don't know how to put it any clearer. This happens everyday all over the world.
There are Muslims speaking out and fighting everyday against the extremists.

drunken babble

I won't even bother with you, being Irish and all. And you know what everyone says about the Irish

 

[5150Joker]

I won't even bother with you, being Irish and all. And you know what everyone says about the Irish

That they're descendants of drunk potato and clay eaters? Most of the white trash in California happen to be Irish.

 

[Madwand1]

Do I really know how "Muslims" as a group act and think? Not really, since I can't observe all Muslims directly
[...]
In other words, the premise of this thread is silly. I applaud the person who started this group in an effort to fight terrorism himself, but he is absolutely under no obligation to do so.

A good post, but I'll snip and snipe anyways.

First, there are some means for judging what Muslims, to some extent, think as a whole -- by looking at the literature they follow. Second, while the association with random Muslims or their actions is understandably undesirable, the affinity, or at least claim, that both have for Islam is equally strong, so the voice which is amplified with explosions must be answered if that voice isn't going to be the only one heard and thought to be representative and in control.

The battle for Islam is by nature not one of arms, but of ideas, and the ideas which represent Islam range from the very fine to the very opposite, and there's no way out of this mess other than to supplant the coarse interpretations with different ones.

The act of committing indiscriminate carnage to others and self is a profoundly weak one, which amply illustrates the fact that that person has entirely failed to understand anything, and in desperation is resorting to simple mindless violence.

The West does better by not limiting the engagement to arms at that level, and while even the sheltering the intellectual voice which might otherwise be bloodied is valuable, I don't think it should stop there.

It's a vanity for any religion to imagine that only it is given, and of those three, the texts of Islam elaborates this point best. The duty therefore of peaceful coexistence is mandated clearly to Islam, and that it isn't followed is an item for its policy. That duty however, is shared no less by any other follower of a religion, and no doubt this could be done better all around, and aided by a better understanding.