Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[ozymandias]

Hitler was a christian.

I am aware of this -- but like I said it's a common misconception that Hitler not only was Atheist, but he killed for atheist reasons.

Yes but what makes you so sure that athists wont resort to violence?

It's a matter of common sense. Throughout the history of the world religion has been consistently used as justification and motivation for violence -- atheist has not. At best, it has sat on the sidelines while violent people did their thing -- but at least it was not used to encourage.

If relgion clearly says thou shal not kill but the so called faithful kill, does that not go against their faith?

For one thing, you are assuming that killing goes against the faith of all religious people -- and this is clearly not true. Both Islam, and Christianity are notorious for having people believe that not only does killing not go against their faith -- but their faith demands killing.

Also you cant just assume that they were killed for political purposes,

You are right -- that is why I am not just 'assuming' -- I am stating a commonly accepted historical fact based on the teachings, beliefs, internal documentations, public speeches, and logic that shows how these actions furthered a political agenda, but not necessarily an atheistic one.

if you dont beleive in faith, then what stops you from slaughtering the whole of mankind because what have you got to loose?

Self respect. Morals. Concern of the pain and suffering of others. You know -- those things that should prevent you from hurting others even if you *DO* believe in a god.

I find your implication that if you did not believe in a god that you would be an amoral sociopath with no concern for those around you frightening.

It is possible to be considerate and compassionate without religion -- in fact it is impossible for a Christian or Muslim to do an altruistic act while staying true to their religious and philosophical ideals -- but an atheist can easily be altruistic.

What will stop you from Killing Somebody, according to you, there is no punishment for your crime

When did I *EVER* even imply that? Please stop pretending I am making claims I am not.

or a judgement in the afterlife?

This is terrifying -- the only reason you don't go around massacring everyone, stealing everything, and vandalizing everything is the fact that you are concerned with how an invisible watcher is charting your every action and will reward or punish you after you die? What about human laws, human punishment, or even common sense consequences of your actions? Why do you ignore these?

Do you beleive in the death penalty?

No, as no system of justice is flawless, and death is an irrevocable decision at this time. It is not hard to find stories of people imprisioned for life, only to be later exonerated on new evidence, such as DNA, decades later. While you cannot give them back their decades of imprisonment, you can atleast let them live the rest of their lives.

Unlike Islam, I do not feel the death penalty is justified, as if you kill a single innocent person, their blood will be on everyone's hands.

should a rapist be killed,tortured for his/her crime?

Nope. See above.

As a side note, I also do not think the *VICTIM* needs to be punished, either.

Of course, i agree, the faithful do have a long history of bloodshed etc, that is not something i would disagree with but what makes athiests so much better than the faithful?

Answering literally, I would say that it is the lack of a religion that they can twist to justify horrendous actions.

Speaking more figuratively, history and past actions show us that they are better people *with regards to their theistic stance* and thus can been deemed better in that regard *and that regard only*.

Atheists still kill, and still do crimes -- but at least they are not doing it *because* they are atheist -- their crimes are far more detached from their faith -- or lack of it.

As a side note, in the US, studies have shown that while atheists make up 8% of the population of the country, they only make up 0.2% of the prison inmates.

Christians? 80% of the free people, and 80% of the inmates.

Islam? here is the kicker -- Islamic 'morals' somehow managed to get 7.2% of all inmates on their side, even though they only make up 1-3% of the free population.

It is natural for mankind to kill,slaughter,invade, control minorities etc, they say, without violence, there is no life cycle to continue life, but if you are telling youngsters, that hey you can sleep with 1000's of women, rape people, drink as much as you want because there is no punishment for this, so what reason can be provide for people not to do such things.

Ok, I'm really trying to be polite here -- but exactly who is saying this? Not a single damn sane person, neither here, not wandering around this planet.

You are ignoring laws. You are ignoring morals. You are assuming that atheists are immune to STDs -- hell, immune to all disease. You are assuming that somehow, if you become an atheist, there magically ceases to be any concequences for your actions.

Atheists fully aknowledge that actions have concequences -- and infact, this is *yet another* reason that atheists are likely less criminal. While a theist may be willing to commit a crime (murder a doctor, or suicide bomb) and suffer (life in prisonment) or die (blow themselves up) in order to receive a reward in the afterlife -- to an atheist *THIS IS ALL THERE IS*. I would say that this makes the atheist more compassionate, caring, and careful of life than a theist. Why kill that man, and spend the rest of your existance in prison? Why let that poor child suffer for their whole existance? There is no afterlife to reward them for being a good person -- so we must do that here. There is no afterlife to punish the evil -- so we must do that here.

You not only take the facts and twist them into the exact opposite of what they are, but make up lies about what your opponents believe.

You are being absurd, and downright insulting when you insist on creating a strawman argument inorder to try and discredit a view point you do not like. In addition to the strawman fallacy, you also just invoked the 'apeal to ridicule' fallacy, by using your transparent strawman to try and make the points you are attempting to refute (that *YOU* made up, I might add) appear rediculious.

If you cannot take this discussion seriously, and make even a moderate effort to be reasonable and civil, this discussion cannot continue.

You have every right to say, or believe what you are posting -- but that is one of my biggest pet peeves -- the inability to even argue the discussion at hand, and instead making up fictional arguments from your opponents to try and refute.

[ozymandias]

This is irrelevant. This is not a reflection on Islamic teachings.

It very much is.

What religion is Saudia Arabia? What religion do you think their religious police enforce?

Here is a hint, quoted from the article: " According to the al-Eqtisadiah daily, firemen confronted police after they tried to keep the girls inside because they were not wearing the headscarves and abayas (black robes) required by the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islam."

[ozymandias]

Well....If a person drew a Holocaust cartoon and got attacked, then jews would also say he got what he deserved.

What exactly is your point? Just because Jewish people can be wrong, you can too? Two wrongs make a right?

Do you get some kind of buzz by provoking people and getting them upset?

No sir. I do, however, see the value in protecting and defending universal human rights and opposing the rule of terrorists.

Opportunists such as the danish cartoonist should be questioned on why they drew the cartoons,

The answer is two words : "Free speech". Or in three? "Because he could". What more reason does he need?

same as in your case, since you dont have a faith or beleive in morals,

For the last time, please stop lying about what I have said. Not only *do* I believe in morals, I have posted quite a lot on this subject and stated this quite clearly.

Either you are neglecting to even skim through what I have posted, or you are deliberately ignoring what I have said, and going out of your way to lie and be dishonest about what you read. Since you seem to think that the only reason to be moral is in the light of religion, how do you think your god and prophet feel about your actions right now?

what stops you from having a dog as a girlfriend?

Alright. Please stop with the absurd comparisons. My only reply is that I will point out that you just basically admitted that you are sexually and romantically attracted to at least one dog -- and that the only reason you do not act on these feelings is because you believe in a god.

[ozymandias]

Since you claim to be a Man of science, then can you kindly explain why humans react to sensitive issues such as this cartoons?

Over reaction and poor social skills, most likely resulting from how they were raised, compounded with failing to learn to dissassociate emotional agitation from physical violence.

if a individual mocks the photos publicly of your loved deceased grandmother, wont you want to give the guy a big punch in his face for mocking those close and loved by you?

No. I might be angry and upset -- but I am civilized and able to separate emotional anger from violence.

isnt this a natural reaction?

If that was a natural reaction, murder would be considered an acceptable resolution to every argument.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

It very much is.

What religion is Saudia Arabia? What religion do you think their religious police enforce?

Here is a hint, quoted from the article: " According to the al-Eqtisadiah daily, firemen confronted police after they tried to keep the girls inside because they were not wearing the headscarves and abayas (black robes) required by the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islam."

Key word!

It is good to be critical, but that also has its limits. Just a brotherly advice.

[ozymandias]

Key word!

It is good to be critical, but that also has its limits. Just a brotherly advice.

It's still Islam. The point stands.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

It's still Islam. The point stands.

An "interpretation" of Islam. If this is Islam, that is their interpretation is what Islam teaches, then the onus is on you to prove that what they did was a teaching of Islam.

I, as a Muslim, am saying that what they did is not found in Islam.

[MazloomyarMaseed]

You say Muslims and Christians, but what about jews on Palestinians? or are jews out of the question in your eyes?

But since you dont beleive in Faith, then what stops you having a dog as a girlfriend since science doesnt oppose it right? same with Homosexuality? does science oppose Homosexuality?

[ozymandias]

An "interpretation" of Islam. If this is Islam, that is their interpretation is what Islam teaches, then the onus is on you to prove that what they did was a teaching of Islam.

I, as a Muslim, am saying that what they did is not found in Islam.

I'm not sure why you think that the onus is on *me*. I am an outsider, and can take their word that it is Islam. It matches up with the definition in the dictionary, and they are globally accepted as an example of an Islamic country, and they claim to be Muslim, so it is *their* claim, versus *your* claim -- and you appear to simply be relying on the No True Scotsman argument to prove they are not Islamic. I would say that since the country is pretty universally recognized as an Islamic country, those making a substantial claim otherwise bear the burden of proof.

Furthermore, a quick google search resulted in this: "Due to the legal framework of the country, which does not provide legal protection for freedom of religion, the public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited. Though according to a 2009 Pew Forum report, there are about 25 million people who are Muslims, or 97 percent of the total population" which further reenforces the point that this is an Islamic country.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

As an "outsider" what gives you the right to pick and choose what is or what is not Islam? How can you justify your conclusions to be true and correct by simply observing Muslims without understanding their religion based on their own holy book to which they are instructed to follow? How can you judge Muslims as an "outsider" based on their actions when Hadhrat Muhammad (saw) himself has said that people will deviate from what he taught and in turn corrupt "scholars" will lead the rest of his followers astray?

You have clearly demonstrated being biased and heavily siding with what you see rather than what is instructed.

If you want to be fair then judge Islam as a whole--don't pick and choose.

I am here to further clarify. Choose any topic of interest and let us discuss it. At the end, draw your conclusion.

[ozymandias]

You say Muslims and Christians, but what about jews on Palestinians? or are jews out of the question in your eyes?

Since you didn't quote anything, and the question was poorly framed and failed to include context of this question, I am not sure what you are asking here. I assume you are jumping back several posts to my comment about altruism and will respond as such:

I was actually naming Islam and Christianity as a sort of 'shorthand' for the term 'Abrahamic religions' or 'Yawehstic religions' as many people are unfamiliar with those terms, or are uncomfortable with them. The comment about altruism includes all faiths that involve being judged and rewarded for the sum of your actions. This includes Judiasm, as well as some aboriginal faiths, etc.

It boils down to the fact that if your religion teaches that you will be rewarded or punished based on your actions, you simply *CANNOT* proform an altruistic act that follows your faith, as on some level you are gaining something for that act.

An atheist can help a poor person and be altruistic, but a religious (again, speaking of the 'reward' faiths only) person believes that they will be ultimately rewarded.

But since you dont beleive in Faith, then what stops you having a dog as a girlfriend since science doesnt oppose it right?

Once again, why would you think that science would not oppose that?

Before I answer that, I would like you to let us know why you are sexually attracted to dogs.

Personally, I am not attracted to a literal dog, nor would I find a physical or social relationship with an animal fulfilling, and thus have no desire to be intimate with a dog. Again, you will have to enlighten us as to why you do -- and the only thing preventing you from acting these things out is your faith in a god.

Putting aside my personal distaste for beastiality, I cannot imagine that the physical acts involved with that relationship would be pleasant for the dog, and even if nothing else, concern for the suffering of the animal would prevent that.

Furthermore, I believe that every legitimate relationship is two sided -- both parties have to be of sound mind and allowed to enter into the relationship with full knowledge. Much like a dog cannot enter into a legal countract, I don't feel that they can enter a 'dating' style relationship.

Let's not stop there, though. Personally, I think that dating an animal is morally and ethically on the same ground as an adult dating a young child. While 18 (16 in some places) is an arbitrary age (and may be too high, or too low, depending on the child), I would say that anytime an adult dates someone immature they are being amoral. Even a 14 or 15 year old being dated by a 17 or 18 year old is pushing it.

Let's continue -- any person of sound mind dating a 'special needs' person, is in the same boat -- again, asuming the special needs are severe.

[/quote]

same with Homosexuality? does science oppose Homosexuality?[/QUOTE]

Do you really understand what science is? This is a pretty absurd question, but I will play along.

Speeking purely from an evolutionary standpoint (which is not all of 'science') there is nothing any more wrong with a homosexual couple than a couple that willingly chooses not to have kids, or are medically prevented from having kids. Assuming all parties are relatively the same age, and of sound mind, what is the problem with it?

Speaking from a non-theistic standpoint -- which is what you *SHOULD* be asking, again, there is no problem, for the same reasons already given, as well as the simple fact that their private lives, if entered willingly and consentually, are not really any of my business. Why *should* it be opposed, other than the arbitrary rules of an unproven diety passed down?

[ozymandias]

As an "outsider" what gives you the right to pick and choose what is or what is not Islam?

I'm not, and in fact I rejected that duty. I abstain from making that claim, and simply stated that since they self-identified with Islam, their behavior is consistent with the dictionary definition *AND* the conclusions drawn by scholar's whose life's work is studying these issues, I have no grounds to reject the claim that they are Muslim.

If you wish to provide said grounds, I will gladly look at them and reassess my opinion at that time -- but until then, I have to go with the conclusions of themselves, and the scholars.

How can you justify your conclusions to be true and correct by simply observing Muslims without understanding their religion based on their own holy book to which they are instructed to follow?

I am seeking that knowledge while I am here, and attempting to increase what I already know -- but that is beside the point. I am letting those that *DO* know the book draw the conclusions, and I see no reason to reject them.

This is exactly the same way I asses *any* field I am not an expert in. If a biologist tells me that house cats are related to lions, I look at what I know, and see that it meshes up with what I am told and decide what to do from there. If I was told that a Panda is closer related to the common canine, I might look into it a little more deeply. I am fully willing to be wrong and correct my assessment in the light of further evidence -- that's the scientific method in a very basic form.

How can you judge Muslims as an "outsider" based on their actions when Hadhrat Muhammad (saw) himself has said that people will deviate from what he taught and in turn corrupt "scholars" will lead the rest of his followers astray?

Just because they deviate does not mean they are no longer Muslim. At worse, that makes the misguided Muslims, or 'bad' Muslims.

Besides, I will leave the decision as to how much deviation is too much to the scholars who spend years researching this -- and they have pretty much universally agreed that Saudi Arabia is Muslim. I do not know enough about your faith and teachings to disagree with the experts.

You have clearly demonstrated being biased and heavily siding with what you see rather than what is instructed.

Once again, you are assuming that *THEY* are the ones that deviated, and not *you*. This is, yet again, up to you to prove.

If you want to be fair then judge Islam as a whole--don't pick and choose.

That is *EXACTLY* what I am doing. I am looking at the religion known as Islam -- and not just what *YOU* say is Islam, which conveniently allows you to reject anything you do not like as 'non-Islamic'.

I'm not the one picking and choosing, I have a firm, and clear criteria for what I consider Islam, which I have already laid out. It is *you* that is using a nebulous, wavy definition and picking and choosing what to call Islam.

I am here to further clarify. Choose any topic of interest and let us discuss it. At the end, draw your conclusion.

I'm content letting the discussion flow. I doubt any conclusion will ever be made -- I hope to die before I finish learning.

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

I never said that they were not Muslim. Yes, they are Muslim, but their actions do not reflect Islam.

Based on what you have said, are you saying that you have never come across a peaceful Muslim?

You might be thinking that you are learning truths, but you are just wasting your time. You are not looking in the right places.

[ozymandias]

I never said that they were not Muslim. Yes, they are Muslim, but their actions do not reflect Islam.

How so? They are doing actions in the name of Islam.

Based on what you have said, are you saying that you have never come across a peaceful Muslim?

I have to admit this is getting frustrating, answering the same thing over and over again. I might have to start a FAQ about me.

I am not saying this. In fact I have stated quite the opposite on many occasions.

You might be thinking that you are learning truths, but you are just wasting your time. You are not looking in the right places.

A discussion in a forum with Muslim people is not a good place to learn about Islam?

[MeemWawMeemNoon]

Yes, "in the name of Islam." This does not reflect Islamic teachings.

What is it that you are trying to accomplish here, maybe I missed your point in this whole mumbo jumbo?

A discussion in a forum with Muslim people is not a good place to learn about Islam?

You do realize what you just said--what I have been claiming the whole time--you are biased. This is very hypocritical of you. You rather learn about Islam from those who are not Muslim and will say whatever it takes to discredit Islam.

I think this enough for me. You have lost all credibility.