Islam - What's your view on it?

[Sanji Himura]

The truth is only a low blow if it is publicly known that you cannot come to terms with it. I fail to see why @TenEightyOne 's statement is dismissible simply because it makes you uncomfortable.

I'm not just dismissing it without cause here. From 1815 to roughly the emergence of ISIS in the public mainstream, the middle east in general has had no trouble with the US for one reason only, they didn't kidnap Americans for ransom as public policy.

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams held a meeting in London in March of 1786 with an ambassador of the pasha of Tripoli at the time, a Mr. Abdul Rahman. During that meeting, Jefferson and Adams both took careful notes of the meeting, getting Rahman's words on public record. What he said was in explaining the kidnapping of American sailors in the Mediterranean was that, "[the Ottoman Empire] was founded on the laws of their prophet." He also went on to say, as written by Jefferson and Adams, "It was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war with them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all that they could take as prisoners, and that every [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise." [Source: It IS About Islam by Glenn Beck, pg. 4]

 

[FoRiZon]

Anyone didnt consider that American army does kidnap several random Afghan people and accuse them for being terrorist without solid evidence?

I remember seeing some link to it. I just have to search it up again.

 

[W3H5]

Anyone didnt consider that American army does kidnap several random Afghan people and accuse them for being terrorist without solid evidence?

Anyone remember that there are a large population of people on this planet that believe in God and miracles without solid evidence?

I understand what you're trying to say, but on the flip side it's true that Islamic militants in Afghanistan or elsewhere were/ are killing others based on a God that there is no solid evidence for.

It may appear wrong that these people are abducted on the suspicion of being a terrorist, but that's the way that many people have been arrested in western countries and their arrests have foiled potential terror plots. Solid evidence would be to wait for them to commit acts of terrorism, like bombings, and then arrest them as terrorists. What good does that do to all the people who die? If it's a suicide bomber then that person cannot be apprehended with solid evidence until they are in the act of carrying out a bombing, because once they carry out the attack they are gone and cannot be held accountable.

It's called pre-emptive action. If those people are being held without a shred of evidence it's probably a human rights violation (which matters little since under Sharia modern international human rights are largely disagreed with or rewritten) but if that person is suspected of being involved in terrorist activity then it is in the interest of the many that one is detained.

Even robots have a version of this ideal in the form of a 0th Law.

Do you agree that one average person's human rights are worth more than that of 100 others? It's a tough call, but if the one person in question is suspected of aiming to breach the human rights of the other 100, and even the slightest evidence is available to support this then the balance shifts massively.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not just dismissing it without cause here. From 1815 to roughly the emergence of ISIS in the public mainstream, the middle east in general has had no trouble with the US for one reason only, they didn't kidnap Americans for ransom as public policy.

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams held a meeting in London in March of 1786 with an ambassador of the pasha of Tripoli at the time, a Mr. Abdul Rahman. During that meeting, Jefferson and Adams both took careful notes of the meeting, getting Rahman's words on public record. What he said was in explaining the kidnapping of American sailors in the Mediterranean was that, "[the Ottoman Empire] was founded on the laws of their prophet." He also went on to say, as written by Jefferson and Adams, "It was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war with them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all that they could take as prisoners, and that every [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise." [Source: It IS About Islam by Glenn Beck, pg. 4]

How odd, I wonder why so many Americans have been taken hostage in the Middle East in the last 40 years? You also seem to think that only the Americans were around there in that time too, remember that many other countries were trampling around that area a thousand years before America was even a twinkle in the milkman's eye.

The stats stand and I fail to see how you can claim that their specific distribution is entirely to do with that one incident or meeting. As important as Jefferson and Adams are to history, they're not important to all history.

Even robots have a version of this ideal in the form of a 0th Law.

Just saying... the Three Laws of Robotics (including the later 0th law) are from novels, not a mainstream Robotics standard (however ideal)?

That does give them the same level of credibility as the Ten Commandments, obviously...

 

[W3H5]

That does give them the same level of credibility as the Ten Commandments, obviously...

It's funny you should mention that because if the Laws are slightly modified, applied to humanity and reversed so they read from 0 - 3 - 1 - 2 they would make an excellent moral code. It was Asimov himself who said that he based the Laws on human morality.

In short:

0 - A human should care for / protect humankind.
1 - A human should protect his or her own life unless that rule conflicts with the highest Law*.
2 - A human should not harm another human being, or through inaction, allow another to come to harm unless that action conflicts with higher Laws.
3 - A human should follow orders** except when such orders conflict with higher Laws.

*Highest or higher Law(s) refers to those above, running down from 0 as the highest to 3 at the bottom.
**In this example "follow orders" would refer to social and state laws, e.g. police, teachers, parents, whatever.

Just saying... the Three Laws of Robotics (including the later 0th law) are from novels, not a mainstream Robotics standard (however ideal)?

I'm aware of their fictitious nature [Laws of Robotics] but most holy books aren't from a mainstream historical standard, as emphasised by the part of your post that I quoted first.

 

[LeMansAid]

A religion of peace; misguided by extremists.

I'm sick of hearing about it being a "religion of peace".

Peace should be a natural state. It should not be a positive - but rather, a neutral. Just as I don't want to hear that gay people are wonderful people, or that women are mighty, or that black people are law abiding, I don't want to hear that Muslims are peaceful. They're all everything, and the acceptance of that utter, utter greyness is true freedom of attitude. Anything else, and I'll deem that the person has something to sell - and I'm not buying.

* Not aimed at you @Castrol96. Your post was just the spark.

 

[Imari]

Peace should be a natural state.

It should be, but it isn't. For very simple reasons; people are designed to look out for themselves and those closest to them. If they see the opportunity to make their situation better at little cost to themselves then they will, regardless of what the cost might be to people more distant (relationship-wise) from them.

That's unlikely to change any time soon. Or ever.

Do you agree that one average person's human rights are worth more than that of 100 others? It's a tough call, but if the one person in question is suspected of aiming to breach the human rights of the other 100, and even the slightest evidence is available to support this then the balance shifts massively.

It's tough, because it's a slippery slope and it's very, very abusable by those in power. If all it takes to put someone in Guantanamo is suspicion, then that's game over for pretty much anyone that the powers that be don't like. Everyone has done something wrong at some point, and if somehow you haven't it's fairly trivial to cast doubt on that too.

I think 100 people's lives are worth more than 1 person's life. But I won't lock up one person and throw away the key simply on the suspicion that they might injure or kill, no matter how many others I think they might be targetting. If they're going to do it, then at some point beforehand there's evidence.

I don't think living in a society where anyone can be locked up (or worse) simply on suspicion of a criminal act is better than taking my chances on not being hit by a random terrorist. I put up with potential threats to my life every day, crossing the road, using aeroplanes, eating radioactive bananas. Terrorists are just another tiny fraction of a statistic.

On the other hand, a government that can just get rid of anyone they don't like is very 1984. Surprisingly scary, and far more likely to actually effect what you can and can't do in your everyday life.

 

[W3H5]

@Imari
I also don't agree that locking someone up on minimal evidence and then detaining them is very acceptable and yes, those wielding the power to do so must be beyond corruption and resist abusing it. That is a separate subject I suppose.

You're claiming that you'd take a chance on a potential terrorist incident rather than want a terror suspect to be investigated and perhaps remanded in custody to determine whether they are a threat or not?

You've used crossing the road as a comparison to a terror attack. Everyday actions are calculated risks, they can't be compared to acts of mass murder, if you ask me.

 

[W3H5]

Sorry. Double post.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You're claiming that you'd take a chance on a potential terrorist incident rather than want a terror suspect to be investigated and perhaps remanded in custody to determine whether they are a threat or not?

I can't speak for @Imari but I'll take the point you put to him

If you want to eliminate all outside chances of coming to harm then, as per the statistics I posted earlier, more serious consideration should be given to locking up American toddlers for starters. If, in the case of anti-terrorism investigations, there's apparently good cause to continue to investigate then that's what should be done. Arrests should also be possible to allow questioning. However, as with the arrest of any citizen there should be transparency and fair opportunity for habeus corpus and proper judicial oversight. My personal worry is that "anti-terror" is becoming a carte-blanche excuse for allowing thought-policing.

 

[Imari]

@Imari
I also don't agree that locking someone up on minimal evidence and then detaining them is very acceptable and yes, those wielding the power to do so must be beyond corruption and resist abusing it. That is a separate subject I suppose.

You're claiming that you'd take a chance on a potential terrorist incident rather than want a terror suspect to be investigated and perhaps remanded in custody to determine whether they are a threat or not?

That's a different thing. Investigation was never mentioned, and you don't necessarily need to infringe anyone's rights to investigate them. I'm fine with limited terms of detainment to allow further investigation as well, if that's necessary. That's sort of how the police work now, they can arrest you if they have suspicion, but they have to be able to back it up with some actual evidence pretty damn quickly afterwards.

I don't agree with straight up detention of anyone simply suspected of terrorism, without limits, the need for evidence or due process.

That's the distinction. If all you've got is suspicion, then either wait until you get evidence, or in certain serious cases you use limited detainment while you get evidence in a hurry. I don't agree with treating someone as you would a terrorist when all you have is suspicion. That's what happens in war zones, by necessity it should be said, and I don't think there's much to be gained by behaving as though we're in a state of war every day of our lives when we're not.

Nobody is beyond corruption, and no system is immune to someone turning up who will abuse it. I would prefer to take my risks with terrorists, who can be dealt with in a number of other ways and are frankly not that big a threat to most people in countries that aren't at war, than hand over total power of detention to any government.

Nobody can be trusted with that much power, and nobody should be trusted with that much power.

You've used crossing the road as a comparison to a terror attack. Everyday actions are calculated risks, they can't be compared to acts of mass murder, if you ask me.

I see what you mean, but in a certain way they can. Your everyday life places you at a certain risk of some types of injury, simply from the places and actions that you take. Terrorism can be reduced to statistics, just like drink driving and plane crashes, and so on a national level you have a certain chance of being caught in a terror attack and being injured or killed as well.

You can choose to minimise this risk by avoiding likely terror targets, just as you can avoid vehicular injury by not using cars, trains, planes, etc. But it would likely interfere with your daily life, and the statistical likelihood is not really very high, so you choose to accept it. Just as you accept that maybe you'll be a bystanding casualty in a bank robbery shootout, or a high speed cop chase, or when the local flour mill explodes.

🤬 happens, and while terrorists seem scary in most countries it's the media doing all the work. You're less in danger of being involved in a terrorist attack than just about any other potentially deadly thing that you take for granted, which is why I used trivial things like crossing the road. It seems silly to compare them, but purely from a perspective of risk that you can't personally mitigate, they can be treated in very similar ways.

I came across an interesting article that demonstrates the scale of how much of not-a-problem terrorism is in Australia:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/09/04/the-real-threat-of-terrorism-to-australians-by-the-numbers/

Basically, money could be better spent dealing with pretty much any other cause of death than terrorism. That gives me little incentive to voluntarily give up my freedoms, which some might say are quite valuable, to attempt to maybe counter this tiny, tiny threat.

 

[W3H5]

I understand that being on the foul end of a terror attack is probably as likely as dying from swallowing a sock but would you not want terror suspects brought in for questioning and their properties searched as a precaution, obviously if the apprehension and search is done fairly and doesn't breach human rights?

If it was a suspected drug dealer in question I'd expect the same course of action taken even though the direct threat of violence is much less from a drug dealer. Why should a terror suspect, who would pose a much higher direct threat of violence, be treated any differently? This isn't just Muslim terrorists of course, anyone suspected to be perpetrating acts of terror or violence, or in the process of planning such acts, should face the same consequences.

@Imari, just saw your post there as I posted my response.

I agree with you that detention without evidence and only based on suspicion is foul play and unfair.

The original point that brought up the terrorism conversation was about Afghanistan. That region of the world and its neighbours (everybody needs good neighbours, sing it with me...) are prone to frequent terror attacks by radical Muslims on others that include Muslims. While we can measure the statistical likelihood of being involved in a terror attack in the safety of our own countries in very small percentages that isn't going to be the case for the poor bastards in the war torn parts of the Persian area, where these attacks are as common as regular car crashes.

Furthermore, I'm sure statistics on the likelihood of being involved in a terrorist attack (in our countries where Muslims are minorities) are based on actual events that have come to pass and don't factor in attempts thwarted by intelligence agencies or the police.

 

[ECGadget]

@W3HS To answer your earlier post about Islam and peace, you're right about one thing without a doubt, and that is that there are parts of the Qur'an that can be interpreted in such a way as to lead to violence. However, this brings us back to the whole point of the study of the Qur'an and why neither of us can explain the Qur'an of the top of our heads. The reason the Qur'an has certain verses is either to relate to certain incidents (which we covered before) or to deter sinning. An example, if we were told not to destroy anothers property but were not told of any penalty if you did, most likely out of our own human curiosity we may try because we know that nothing would happen to us. In that way, the Qur'an declares things like "The sinners will be given an eternal punishment" etc etc NOT for Muslims to take judgement into their own hands but as a warning, which is what those who have studied the Qur'an then explain in what is known as a "Tafsir/Tafseer". As for treatment of sinners by humankind, there is nothing in the Qur'an (apart from that related to specific incident) that says Muslims are to treat sinners in such and such way, and again a study of any verses like this shows that there is nothing of the sort.
Also, we always have to consider the Hadith when looking at the Qur'an, simply because one without the other does not always work. Whilst some verses of the Qur'an are clear cut and need no explanation (Example: "Say: He is Allah, the one. The Eteral, Absolute. He Begets not, nor was he begotten. And there are none comparable to him"), the majority are not so simple. And example of that is a chapter titled "The Fig".
The first three verses in this is "By the fig and the olive. And Mount Sinai. And this secure city."
On it's own, it seems to be God swearing by two fruits, a mountain and a random city. But when the whole thing is explained further (and this is with years and years of research into it by hundreds of scholars from all over the globe) it seems to be that The Fig is referring to Syria (where the best figs were once grown), the Olive is the land of Palestine/Israel (where olives are still grown I believe). The mountain is just that, and the city is referring to the city of Makkah, in which the chapter was revealed. And so the oath that is being taken here is not upon fruit and a random city but four places on Earth. And this is what Tafsir is. I would say the fault does not lie with Islam, but it does lie with people (either Muslims, those claiming to be Muslim or not Muslim) who think that they can just take the Qur'an and face value and be done with it.

Personally, I do not even take Harry Potter at face value, so if I dig into the story and everything behind a book written (quite fantastically I may add) by a Human, how could I take a book that is deemed to be the word of God (as compiled into a book by a Human, which in itself is an interesting story as to how that happened) at face value.

The reason we say "Islam is a religion of Peace" (sorry @LeMansAid!) is because the very word Islam comes from the root letters in arabic "seen", "laam", "meem". s-l-m. Those three letters mean peace. Which is why when Muslims greet they say "Sallam". Same root. Of course, considering what ISIS do, what dictators in Muslim countries do etc etc, it makes it pretty hard to believe that. The only way to show it is for a Muslim to be peaceful and show that religion of peace as it is.

On that note though, one thing I agree with with @LeMansAid is that peace in itself should be a neutral, but it sadly isn't. Muslims are peaceful. Muslims are also violent. Muslims can also be criminals. Muslims can also be heros. It is all very true. What isn't true though this that Islam teaches Muslims to be violent and criminals. That's the key point we need to all understand here. And to just further help this whole post along so far, here are some Hadith and quotes from the Qur'an.

Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers (60:8) - With regards to treating even those who fought you and fought against Islam.

Do not argue with the people of the scripture (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) except in the nicest possible manner - unless they transgress - and say, "We believe in what was revealed to us and in what was revealed to you, and our god and your god is one and the same; to Him we are submitters." (29:49) - Referring specifically to the Jews and the Christians

O you who believe, no people shall ridicule other people, for they may be better than they. Nor shall any women ridicule other women, for they may be better than they. Nor shall you mock one another, or make fun of your names. Evil indeed is the reversion to wickedness after attaining faith. Anyone who does not repent after this, these are the transgressors. (49:11) - A message explaining that mocking other people for whatever reason is against the teachings of Islam.

And insult not those whom they (disbelievers) worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge... (6:108) - Clear message there that shows that even if someone who does not believe in Islam was to insult God, a Muslim should not insult them.

The best friend in the sight of Allah is the one who is good to his companions; and the best neighbour in the sight of Allah is the one who is good to his neighbours. - Hadith. Note it does not mention Muslim in any of this. In fact, there is an instance in which a companion asked the Prophet Muhammad which neighbour takes preference in care, a Muslim or non Muslim. The answer was whichever neighbour your door is closer to, regardless of religion.



Hope that helps there @W3HS (and thanks for getting the Neighbours theme stuck in my head!)

Moving on to the idea of acting on suspicion... that is a very slippery slope. On the one hand I support arresting people in an effort to prevent deaths. On the other hand, it all becomes very political and very much like a George Orwell story when that happens. Because I could call the police and report anyone I wanted to and bang, they are going to be nicked. They could have not broken a single law but for the safety of the people and to search for a non existant weapon they are in a cell for a while. That is wrong. Now if there is clear evidence then yes I think an arrest would be in order. But otherwise most these systems have some amount of corruption/bias that is constantly changing. Don't get me wrong, I think the Police do a brilliant job preventing crimes (especially terrorist related) but where is the line drawn. If we discuss terrorism, will there come a time were we are arrested for that? If we discuss murder, are we to be arrested on suspicion of wanting to commit murder? That's the main problem here.

Also, just something to put out there. Surely those gunmen who shot students on campus and the one who shot those poor worshippers in a Church should be classed as terrorists? I do not know about you guys but I define a terrorist as someone who terrorises a community by committing targetted criminal acts, particularly homicide. So by that definition I think America has far less gunmen and far more terrorists. Just a random thought there...

 

[Imari]

I understand that being on the foul end of a terror attack is probably as likely as dying from swallowing a sock but would you not want terror suspects brought in for questioning and their properties searched as a precaution, obviously if the apprehension and search is done fairly and doesn't breach human rights?

But that's just normal police work, isn't it? I haven't objected to that at all and I don't. I thought I explained above that normal police work was fine, but obviously not.

The original point that brought up the terrorism conversation was about Afghanistan. That region of the world and its neighbours (everybody needs good neighbours, sing it with me...) are prone to frequent terror attacks by radical Muslims on others that include Muslims. While we can measure the statistical likelihood of being involved in a terror attack in the safety of our own countries in very small percentages that isn't going to be the case for the poor bastards in the war torn parts of the Persian area, where these attacks are as common as regular car crashes.

But the rules go out the window when you're in a war zone. In a war zone, anything goes, and the American army can do what they like.

What made me assume that you were advocating bringing the same tactics to western countries was the following.

It may appear wrong that these people are abducted on the suspicion of being a terrorist, but that's the way that many people have been arrested in western countries and their arrests have foiled potential terror plots. Solid evidence would be to wait for them to commit acts of terrorism, like bombings, and then arrest them as terrorists. What good does that do to all the people who die? If it's a suicide bomber then that person cannot be apprehended with solid evidence until they are in the act of carrying out a bombing, because once they carry out the attack they are gone and cannot be held accountable.

Seemed to me that you were advocating arresting people in the west the same way as they would be in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, I'm sure statistics on the likelihood of being involved in a terrorist attack (in our countries where Muslims are minorities) are based on actual events that have come to pass and don't factor in attempts thwarted by intelligence agencies or the police.

Read the article I posted. They do a little back-of-an-envelope math, because there have been four terrorist attacks stopped in AU since 9/11. Even assuming that those four were all incredibly successful at killing people (61 deaths per event), adding that number on would mean that the number of terrorist deaths in the last 40 years was a bit less than the amount of people that died falling out of bed from 2003-2012.

360 deaths in 40 years is not a lot in a country of 20 million, and that's the absolute worst case scenario.

But, you might say, our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have surely stopped lots of terrorist attacks with all those extra powers and extra money? That’s debatable. Institutions like ASIO and the AFP already had extensive powers and lots of funding before 9/11 to deal with terrorism. What they got after that were additional powers and funding, including some powers never used. Whether these additional powers and funding made any difference in the performance of agencies isn’t clear. But ASIO insists that four “mass casualty attacks” have been stopped by the actions of security agencies since 9/11 in Australia.

Let’s go with that. What would those four attacks have done?

The problem is, history says terrorist attacks are, by and large, bad at killing people. The global terrorism database (which is downloadable) contains details of every terrorist attack since 1970, from Northern Ireland to South Sudan, from al-Qaeda to the ANC. It shows that around half of all terrorist attacks since 1970 haven’t inflicted any casualties. The average casualties of all terrorist attacks, including perpetrators, is 2.25. And that number hasn’t significantly escalated in the era of al-Qaeda — since 2000, the average death toll, including perpetrators, has been 2.27. So four terrorist assaults in Australia would not, on average, have reached double figures.

But let’s assume otherwise. The average death toll from attacks by al-Qaeda and its various offshoots is, according to the database, 7.5. But let’s strike out al-Qaeda in Iraq (AKA Islamic State, currently being touted as the enemy du jour) and al-Qaeda in Yemen, and al-Qaeda in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb, and stick with straight, vanilla al-Qaeda, which has carried out 9/11 and dozens of other attacks both in the West and (mainly) in the Middle East. The average toll from their attacks is 61, mainly because of 9/11. Let’s assume that, of the four mass casualty attacks that have been stopped, each would have cost 61 lives. This would place them in the top 0.2% of all terrorist attacks in the last forty-plus years, but let’s assume it anyway. Four attacks of that scale would bring the total Australian death toll from terrorism to just under 360.

That’s around 80 more than have died from exposure to cold in 2003-12, but well short of the 417 who have died falling out of beds (falls are a significant cause of death and injury for older Australians).

 

[novcze]

Dutch Muslim Immigrant kids warn: convert or die

 

[Dennisch]

Can't brainwash them early enough.

 

[FoRiZon]

Dutch Muslim Immigrant kids warn: convert or die

Well looks like he has been raised by ISIS. Bless him, he should know better.

But you dont really judge the whole religion solely by this, right?

 

[Michael88]

Well looks like he has been raised by ISIS. Bless him, he should know better.

But you dont really judge the whole religion solely by this, right?

Dunno, the Quran is full of violence against the disbelievers and crazy stuff. Can you be a Muslim without having read and believing in the Quran?

Same goes for the old testament, can you be a law abiding and trustworthy non-violent citizen if you believe in the old testament which commands you to kill adulterers and women to marry their rapist etc?

Truth is, both are books from ancient times when people were still very uncivilized, barbaric and moronic. We have evolved from that, the Islam, just as people believing in the old Testament have no place in modern society anymore.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Well looks like he has been raised by ISIS. Bless him, he should know better.

But you dont really judge the whole religion solely by this, right?

No, but we can't ignore it either.

 

[Imari]

Can't brainwash them early enough.

It's true. Get in early enough and you've probably got a convert for life. Adults tend to ask awkward questions.

 

[GBO Possum]

But you dont really judge the whole religion solely by this, right?

No, not solely.

However, I and others, have noticed that the vast majority of suicide bombings have been performed by people exposed to Islam, and the vast majority of spectacular acts of violence inspired by faith/beliefs are performed by people exposed to Islam.

The important thing is evidence, not belief, and the evidence is there in front of us.

Which is not to say that Islam is the only religion which inspires awful acts. Just yesterday I saw the new movie "Spotlight" about the Boston Globe's investigation of the abuse of kids by a Christian religious cult called Roman Catholic. Great movie, by the way. Do watch it.

One could go on to name a whole lot of horrible acts inspired by religions. However, that doesn't absolve Islam.

I wish I could see a way to cure the world of Islam (and the rest), or modify Islam so it doesn't foment these awful act.

 

[Imari]

No, not solely.

However, I and others, have noticed that the vast majority of suicide bombings have been performed by people exposed to Islam, and the vast majority of spectacular acts of violence inspired by faith/beliefs are performed by people exposed to Islam.

The important thing is evidence, not belief, and the evidence is there in front of us.

Funnily enough though, it isn't.

You hear about all the violent acts inspired by Islam, because it makes a great story at the moment and plays into the prevailing moral panic. But there are plenty of atrocities being carried out by people from other religions, or people who are acting for non-religions reasons.

As we've just been through slightly higher up on this page, the risk of dying to an Islamist terror attack in Australia is somewhat less than the risk of death by falling off a chair. It's massively overblown in terms of it's actual threat to people, just about anything else is more deadly.

As far as I can tell, outside of a few areas of the world where there is actual war going on with Muslims on at least one side, Muslim terrorism doesn't really seem to be overperforming compared to terrorism from any other source, which is also rare. And arguably, if there's a war on it's not terrorism any more, it's just war by whatever means necessary.

Muslim terrorists are just not that successful in terms of pure numbers, especially in the West, but everyone makes a big fuss when even one person is killed. Score one for the terrorists: all they wanted was publicity and fear and they just got it.

 

[Joel]

Muslim terrorists are just not that successful in terms of pure numbers, especially in the West, but everyone makes a big fuss when even one person is killed. Score one for the terrorists: all they wanted was publicity and fear and they just got it.

I heard someone on the radio this morning talking about this and how silly the fear is when you really look at the numbers. The example given was that after 9/11, people were afraid to fly and started driving more. This increased driving lead to ~1200 more driving deaths.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

[Source: It IS About Islam by Glenn Beck, pg. 4]

And that's where the credibility of your source went down the toilet. The incident he describes may well have happened, but because it's Glenn Beck, you know that it's completely compromised by bias.

 

[McLaren]

Well looks like he has been raised by ISIS. Bless him, he should know better.

But you dont really judge the whole religion solely by this, right?

Pay attention to what 1 of those kids said, though.

Finally, it comes to...It has to be an Islamic State. Where a Muslim simply can live according to the Islamic rules. Further, we don't need anything else. That's the only thing we need.

Thus, I have to convert myself to Islam?

Yes. If you will live there.

The problem is that the majority of the world doesn't live there. Those kids don't even live there. You can't tell me you haven't seen the numerous reports of how Muslims in foreign countries would like those countries to adapt to Islamic preachings in some form or another. We had a group in north Texas shut down because they were attempting to practice Shariah Law, despite the fact that everyone involved was a US citizen & thus, some of those people were being denied what that entails. We have had a couple reports of how Muslims would like their work places to allow them an hour of prayer. They were rightfully denied.

There is definitely some strength behind the claims that Muslims would like people to conform to their religion in some way or another. That's what fuels those who tell them to go back to the Middle East. It's extreme, but it has some justification. They're in other countries, they need to learn how to practice Islam without asking the host country to change laws to suit them.

China has been the most vocal & I believe has banned fasting during Ramadan this year among a couple other things.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There is definitely some strength behind the claims that Muslims would like people to conform to their religion in some way or another.

There's a difference between a moderate follower of a religion saying they'd like more people to follow their religion and an extremist killer saying the same thing.

Pretty much all you said is true of American government, particularly in certain states... no?

 

[ECGadget]

I think any Muslim that is trying to force people to conform to their standards is rather wrong. That being said, I see nothing wrong in a Muslim asking for some time out for their prayers. THAT being said though, they cannot expect employers to give that without giving something back; for example making every minute (and yes I do mean every minute literally) back up that they took out for prayers at the end of each day without fail.

As for the banning of Ramadhan, that is just stupidity at a whole new level and I wholly disagree with it. Nobody gets hurt when a Muslim fasts, prayers happen at night so they do not even get in the way of work. So the reasons are more political I fear.

Now, when it comes to Shariah law, I do agree. The only way it should be allowed to be practised, even in the smallest way (such as allowing an Islamic marriage ceremony as well as a registry at the office) it should have permission of the state.
On top of that, no single aspect of Shariah law should be emposed upon anyone else within that state, and if it is then well that in itself is against the teachings of Islam.

As for that child... Well that was scary to read. Because it shows how little these people know. They seem to be holding on to the dark age of imperialism, an age that went against the very ideals of Islam and they need to be reeducated, shown right from wrong, not put in front of a reporter and asked questions like these. Get the boy some help, a doctor, a learned imam, a therapist, or whatever.

Last point, I am not having a pop at you @McLaren! Just trying to really clarify the finer points and try to break culture, misunderstanding, AND highlight that Muslims across the whole world, do need to learn more about their own religion. Because the more they learn, the more they will understand that there are things they do wrong everyday because they are either ignorant, or too arrogant or they hold a resentment towards people they should not have.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Shariah law has a place here in America and that is in your home, your place of worship, and between those who think alike in the same way Christians are allowed to practice their cooky ideas in the same ways if not more (see anti gay marriage activists) . Now if someone was to come out and practice sharia in a way that would be violent or hurtful to others(even if they agree) they still must face full penalty of the law here or wherever that may be. In terms of what @McLaren says about how a certain population of Muslims would like to spread their religion zi believe he is correct, but depending on his meaning behind his words I think he is wrong. I would not want to live in a Christian theocracy just as much as I would not want to live in a Muslim theocracy. There is a huge population of Christian funnies in the states who want to spread Their flavor of Christianity throughout the states and consequently the world.

 

[McLaren]

There's a difference between a moderate follower of a religion saying they'd like more people to follow their religion and an extremist killer saying the same thing.

Pretty much all you said is true of American government, particularly in certain states... no?

These are moderate followers asking these host countries to change. An extremist isn't going to ask a workplace to give them a prayer hour.

I think any Muslim that is trying to force people to conform to their standards is rather wrong. That being said, I see nothing wrong in a Muslim asking for some time out for their prayers. THAT being said though, they cannot expect employers to give that without giving something back; for example making every minute (and yes I do mean every minute literally) back up that they took out for prayers at the end of each day without fail.

You go to work, to work. If you want to prayer, you do so on your own time or in a short time span. If you give Muslims time out from work, you must allow all religions that same time out. This is where workplaces end up on a thin line of how to allow it. The company made the right decision.

Last point, I am not having a pop at you @McLaren! Just trying to really clarify the finer points and try to break culture, misunderstanding, AND highlight that Muslims across the whole world, do need to learn more about their own religion. Because the more they learn, the more they will understand that there are things they do wrong everyday because they are either ignorant, or too arrogant or they hold a resentment towards people they should not have.

That could be said for all religious followers. But, you don't see any religion but Muslims being shown wanting foreign places to adapt to them, but not the other way around.

Christians are probably the 2nd closest broadcast religion due to their stance on gay marriage.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

There were quite a few arguments saying Kim Davis should be allowed the religious freedom to not sign off on gay marriages for the exact same reason a Muslim would want to have prayer time. I'm not sure if she got that right, but it's one in the same.