Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[ozymandias]

Well, at least that's your standard Tea Partyer, more or less. I never said they were, but since I don't agree with any conservative and right-wing movement, I wouldn't like either. I can certainly see in the next few decades muslims going towards the Republican Party, if it stays a right-wing party anyway (it started off as a progressive party but became Right Wing in the 60s). Isn't Zalmay Khalilzad a Republican?

I'm not sure I can see that. Around here, the repubs are often racist (or at least support racist policies) and anti-non-christian. It would be hard to see that mesh with Islam...

Would be fun to watch, though.

[imb706]

Around here, the repubs are often racist

Well, sure some republicans in the deep south are racist, no doubt about it but look at Bobby Jindal, he's a republican. The chairman of the party is a black man. Surely if it remains right wing, muslim americans will eventually become card carrying members of the party. Probably.

[ozymandias]

That is not what I meant at all, I would never insult you especially since you have contributed alot to PF.

Understood. Maybe it was just Monday morning, and I needed caffeine, but I understand what you mean now that I have had some coffee.

Thank you for the compliment.

What I did mean in simple words was,
"I'd rather live my life believing in God and die to find out that He doesn't exist than to live REJECTING belief in Him and die to find out He exists."

This is simply Pascal's wager -- and it assumes a lot of things. This is a classic argument for religion, but one of the most serious flaws *I* see in it is what if you believe in the wrong god, or in the wrong way, and simply anger whatever god is out there?

This is more of argument for faith than faith in any one god, for one thing -- and for another does not constitute proof that a god exists.

Even if the Wager were 100% flawless, that does not provide proof a good exists, simply an argument for belief -- which are two different things, much like the earlier discussion about morality stemming from a god.

Athiests on the other hand, have already made up their mind,

Not true -- agnostic atheists, of which I am one, have no such stipulation -- they are open minded, do not feel the evidence they have seen is conclusive, but still see no reason to have faith.

they can not prove if he does or does not exist.

Nor can anyone.

While Muslims have faith, if he does is exist "Partayyy,Brooklyn style" If he does not, oh well our destiny would be the same.

This gets into a whole philosophical debate about whether or not it is possible to choose what to believe, for one thing -- one of my favorite topics.

It also opens up the can of worms that I was born a skeptic, which, if a god exists, is how that god made me -- would I really be punished for being the way I was created? Especially if said god had the ability and know-how to convince me -- and knows that I would otherwise die unsaved? Furthermore, morally, ethically, and logically -- would that be a god I would want to worship?

I am trying to be careful and stay in the vein of your post and discuss the reasons for faith, as opposed to evidence that a god does exist -- mind if we try to keep the two issues separate, at least for now?

[/quote]

once again, if you thought I attempted to insult you, I apologize.[/QUOTE]

No harm, no foul.

[ozymandias]

Well, sure some republicans in the deep south are racist, no doubt about it but look at Bobby Jindal, he's a republican. The chairman of the party is a black man. Surely if it remains right wing, muslim americans will eventually become card carrying members of the party. Probably.

I'm not in the south ;-)

It's an interesting question, though.

[tor_khan]

Not true. The expectation is to protest, to draw attention to it -- even to fight the military. It is even expected that more terrorists will be created at times, but the hope is that the military action will eventually reduce the terrorism over all.

Insurgent is not the same as a terrorist -- it is closer to a freedom fighter -- and is a perfectly valid reaction, as long as you stick to military targets. Bomb the military base. Attack the guards at road blocks. Don't bomb buses. Don't shoot up markets.

Not true, at least in America. You might have a case if you said 'radical Muslims' or 'extremist Muslims', but definitely not all Muslims.

Interesting. Are you allowed to 'encourage' attacks on military targets in (say) places like Afghanistan?

Does it become an act of treason for an American to encourage non-Americans to attack their own? What is treason anyway?

I realise this is NOT what you are advocating, but I'm merely exploring the possibility that it may read as such.

[imb706]

Zalmay Khalilzad, who is a Pashtun, isnt he part of the republicans? I believe he was an Ambassador to the UN?

I did list him in an earlier post and yes he was.

[tor_khan]

Nice to see you here Tor_khan

Da kho zama kor de ... tsa khyaal? Kala kala zu khpal zaan dalta hom khkara kam ...

[ozymandias]

Interesting. Are you allowed to 'encourage' attacks on military targets in (say) places like Afghanistan?

Honestly, I have no idea what legal ground I stand on in this regards. If I *did* go to court, my defense would be that I was advocating attacking the military in contrast to attacking civilians. The military inherently accepts the risks of being attacked, is better prepared to defend and respond in the case of an attack, and since we have a volunteer army, they signed up knowing the risks -- the public cannot make that claim.

Not to mention the whole first amendment thing ;-)

I feel that morally, and ethically, I am on safe ground. Legally, I have no idea. After Bush destroyed much of our rights, who knows.

Does it become an act of treason for an American to encourage non-Americans to attack their own? What is treason anyway?

I would say no -- I think it's the same case as 'instigating'. Right now, this is a fairly abstract conversation, and I have no reason to believe that I am encouraging an actual attack -- this is a hypothetical discussion, as I do not believe I am talking to any actual terrorists or freedom fighters. If I was saying this to Bin Laden -- the story would be different.

I'm not sure what defines treason these days off hand -- but I think it is related to taking actual action against the US.

I realise this is NOT what you are advocating, but I'm merely exploring the possibility that it may read as such.

It's a very fair question. I lambasted people for supporting terrorism for using very similar language to what I used, so this is a fair target, and a very apt question. I very clearly do support the rights of any and all humans to take up arms against an invading military force -- as long as they restrict to military targets.

I do not feel terrorism is justified, even in the face of terrorism, however.

[tor_khan]

Thank you Ozymandias

I think that was a very thoughtful response ...

... I know that at heart most people just want peace and the freedom, yes freedom to live out a life in a way that suits them even if to people in the mid-West their culture seems distant and outlandish ...

... I apologise to Americans in advance, but not everyone wants the American way shoved down their gullet ...

[imb706]

Not that I disagree with your assessment of the Mid-West, but to most of the world, the Islamic culture is outlandish and bizarre. It certainly is to me. It's like someone transported people from the 12th Century into the modern day.

[ozymandias]

Thank you Ozymandias

I think that was a very thoughtful response ...

Thank you.

... I know that at heart most people just want peace and the freedom, yes freedom to live out a life in a way that suits them even if to people in the mid-West their culture seems distant and outlandish ...

... I apologise to Americans in advance, but not everyone wants the American way shoved down their gullet ...

I agree, for the most part -- but I think that each and every person should be allowed the decision on their own. This means free speech for them do decide how to live, and free access to 'open' news, so they can make an informed decision.

To me, that is the *true* American way. It is what the founding fathers attempted to create, and it is the core of what they did, what they said, what they wrote, and the country that they established very carefully.

If we disagree that each person has the right to decide on their own, then we will truly clash -- but you are simply saying not everyone wants 'McDonalds, CocaCola, and Disney World' we agree and are very much on the same page.

[ozymandias]

Well, Then we can discuss if the Islam is the one. If it is, Id say you give it benefit of the doubt. We can take your Shahadah and everything will be happy.

I'd say that in order for me to follow any religion, that religion must prove both the existence of a god, as well as the fact that their god is the one. Sorry, but that is the way my mind works -- I am not going to follow something illogical (to me) just because I give it the benefit of the doubt -- especially something as far reaching as religion.

But for that you have to agree God does exist. And then we can continue. If you disagree his existence, the argument is void cause you cant prove he does not exist.

The onus is on you to prove that one does exist. I fully acknowledged the fact that the non-existence of a being like a god (or aliens, for that matter) can never be proven. The only thing even close to that that atheists can prove is that a specific god (based on the specific claims and description) does not exist.

I can prove he does exist.

If so, you would be the first person in the history of the world to do so.

If we use the quote provided,It would make sense to say he does exist just for the sake of your afterlife and humanity.

Not at all. What if Islam is wrong, and Baptists are right? Following Islam would just piss that god off -- if not more than atheist, then at least as bad. What if the 'true god' was actually Zeus? He might be pretty peeved...

[ozymandias]

But you cant prove that he does not exist. Don't you live with a slight bit of a guilt? That me might indeed exist?

No.. why would I feel *guilty* of all things? The majority of people who believe in a god feel he is powerful. If he wanted to be believed in, he would provide *some* sort of evidence he exists, right? Besides, you cannot prove I do not have a dragon in my garage -- shouldn't you feel just as guilty you don't believe in him?

Again, not evidence for belief in a god, anyway -- you are presenting logical arguments that would be equally be true in the absence of a god.

Well, if it was a book that has not been altered or changed in the past 1400s that does not have any contradictions,

I don't believe this. Granted, it was in English, but I was able to find contradictions between both know science, and itself.

don't you think you would be interested in knowing why nearly 2billion follow it?

That's why I am here -- the world's second most popular religion does interest me.

I mean Muslims have contributed a lot, Algebra and etc.

Again, not an argument for a god -- the existence, or non-existence of a god makes no difference to the contribution of Muslims to society.

[/quote]

What if it isnt? We all know the bible is altered with. It has contradictions left and right, so I think it would make sense if we agree that it was a book from the past.[/QUOTE]

Again, you are making the mistake of arguing your god over another, and not the existence of a god in general.

Besides, even the unaltered versions of the bible contain flaws -- including books from prophets that Islam accepts.

[ozymandias]

Well once you have faith. You will examine a great feeling. You are probably missing out on a lot.

You are probably missing a lot, attributing things to a god rather than science. See? That lack of argument goes both ways.

That is silly.

I concur. It is equally silly to claim atheists need to claim the absence of a god.

The point is, why don't you give the benefit of the doubt? would you live you entire life in denial and then find out he does exist?

Again, not an argument for existence, but rather an argument for belief. You are not going to win over many atheists with that. Why don't you give the dragon in my garage the benefit of the doubt?

Besides, if I do die an unbeliever, it still falls to your god, they are still to blame for creating a skeptic, and then failing to give evidence. It would be wrong to be less than I was made to be, would it not?

This is all signs, you are here on PF to learn about him. As you can see, the guy is trying.

Not really -- I came here to have some entertaining conversations. If your god is trying to convince me, he is going to need more than a few weak arguments that I have seen and refuted hundreds of times before. He might have to step up the action with some real evidence and facts.

Good luck on that one.

No luck needed for a done deal.

And that is why we appreciate and respect you here.


I am arguing their expired book over ours.

Ad that is the problem. Even if you *do* 'win' over their 'expired book', so what? I still have no reason to believe in a god. Remember, I am an atheist, not a Christian. I don't care which religion is less implausible if they are all still implausible. You have two separate arguments, and you seem to be ignoring the most critical one. To turn it around, and beat my example to death, it would be like me trying to convince you that the dragon in my garage is red, as opposed to green. If you don't believe I have a dragon, the details about the dragon do not make a difference to you, right?

No, Islam says those books were the past. We believe in the bible being the book of God in the PAST.

Even in the PAST Moses never lead the Jews out of Egypt. Even in the PAST, Noah never survived a worldwide flood. Even in the PAST, the world was not flat. Just because you 'moved on' doesn't mean the books were not flawed to begin with.

Not now, as you can see the bible is a mess right now. Even you can go and add a verse and say "Oh thy!, Cursing on PF is allowed"/

I can do that to the Koran, too -- other than the fact that I would need to get a translator to get the Arabic right.

[ozymandias]

Ozymandias.

How did he fail?

Not giving evidence to a skeptic.

He is giving you so many options.

Exactly 0 is not many.

He even has you in a religious forum. InshAllah you will convert oneday, it will take time though.

Feel free to think that. I won't be holding my breath.

Honestly, this is the part of religious discussions that annoy me the most.

First of all, show a little respect for my opinion and choices and don't try to convert me. I am here for a discussion, not everything needs to turn to a recruitment opportunity. Second, it would be nice if we maintained a rational conversation. This started out well -- and then you brought in the hand waving and irrational statements. Makes it hard for me to maintain interest.

And you can't ever alter the Quran.

Sure can. Technically, I already have -- although it was just highlighting, and sticky notes, and not permanent additions..

Sure you can sit and create your own book. The Quran is memorized by millions of people from word to word page to page. Good luck with that .

So I add my own changes and start teaching off that book. It's happened before.

Those books were never the way they are right now. They have now been altered. It's clear they are not in their present frm.

Right, and the *ORIGINAL* (or at least oldest versions known to man) are still wrong -- and these wrong versions are still part of your religion, so I would not go on about how false they are too much...