Top 12 Ways to Guarantee Another Terrorist Attack:

[elohiym]

By that standard Westboro speaks for you.

You're just being a provocative schmuck... once again. My answer to that question that should have been obvious (if he had been reading the thread) is that if the story is true his comments are reprehensible. Since you have essentially said the same thing, you're a moron for trying to provoke me about my opinion.

 

[Granite]

You're just being a provocative schmuck... once again. My answer to that question that should have been obvious (if he had been reading the thread) is that if the story is true his comments are reprehensible. Since you have essentially said the same thing, your a moron for trying to provoke me about my opinion.

I didn't need to try very hard, from the looks of it. If you want to rely on the worst representatives of any given faith to supposedly speak with full authority on that faith's behalf be willing to acknowledge that standard cuts both ways.

Or better yet, don't.

 

[elohiym]

:thumb: Here's a good link from Pew to get it started: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/

What I get from that is far more than 15% to 25% of all Muslims want Sahria law, and from a related link that most Muslims believe suicide bombings are sometimes* justified (*"rarely/never"). That article confirmed and heightened my concerns, frankly.

 

[Town Heretic]

What I get from that is far more than 15% to 25% of all Muslims want Sahria law

As I've noted, a great many would like the family and civil end open to Muslims. The criminal portion is less enthusiastically and frequently supported and both are meant as options for Muslims, not those outside of the faith. Also, Muslims in the West and in places where there are democratic traditions have an appreciably decreased affinity for Sharia at all.

and from a related link that most Muslims believe suicide bombings are sometimes* justified (*"rarely/never"). That article confirmed and heightened my concerns, frankly.

"Muslims around the world strongly reject violence in the name of Islam. Asked specifically about suicide bombing, clear majorities in most countries say such acts are rarely or never justified as a means of defending Islam from its enemies."​

Rarely and never were, unfortunately, made bedfellows in the inquiry.

Now given you seem concerned about a link between Sharia and violence, from the study:

Similarly, the survey finds no consistent link between support for enshrining sharia as official law and attitudes toward religiously motivated violence.​

Also, the study noted that half of the Muslims in those countries were concerned about religious extremism. Most Muslims supported religious liberty and had a favorable view of democracy. In 31 of 38 predominantly Muslim countries Muslims said that other faiths were allowed to freely practice their religions and that they saw that freedom as a good thing.

 

[kenjacobsen]

1. Continue killing civilians with our Air Force drone program.
2. Keep supporting tyranny in the Muslim world like we have done for the past 50 years.
3. Continue our military presence on the Arabian peninsula, especially in Saudi Arabia which hosts two of Islams most holy sites.
4. Continue to support Israel as they continue to treat the Palestinians as animals.
5. Continue to support Israel as they continue to steal land from the Palestinians.
6. Continue to get oil from the Mid East at prices way below market value.
7. Continue to choose sides in sectarian civil wars.
8. Keep ignoring international law.
9. Keep punishing Muslim people through sanctions for what their leaders are doing.
10. Keep invading Muslim countries.
11. Keep treating refugees with indifference to their plight.
12. Keep validating the Muslim narrative that the West is out to get Islam.

An intelligent post on Theology Online for a change!
Now THAT is a miracle.

 

[meshak]

An intelligent post on Theology Online for a change!
Now THAT is a miracle.

yes.

 

[Eric h]

Originally Posted by Eric h
You could be right if the following is true...

A recent study has found that in 2015 alone the US dropped over 23,000 bombs on SIX predominantly Muslim countries (Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia).

http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/...ntries-in-2015

The comparatively low amount of munitions expended that year suggest limited bombings of a relatively small number of targets.

23,000 American bombs hardly seems a relatively small number, would they have killed more people than all the suicide bombs detonated during 2015?

 

[Granite]

23,000 American bombs hardly seems a relatively small number, would they have killed more people than all the suicide bombs detonated during 2015?

Our old ordinance is still blowing people to bits in Laos. Go us.

 

[Krsto]

"Modern Islamic scholarship ... :blabla:" Post some sources. If there are truly well over one billion Muslims opposed to ISIS and "the wrong interpretations," what is the evidence of that?

Check out this rebuttal of ISIS by about 120 Muslim scholars. Notice some are the top clerics in several Muslim countries. These fellows are the brain trust for Moderate Islam, the ones the "laity" rely on for an informed opinion. The Executive Summary is a quick read:

http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/pdf/Booklet-English.pdf

 

[Krsto]

An intelligent post on Theology Online for a change!
Now THAT is a miracle.

I know, right?

 

[Krsto]

What I get from that is far more than 15% to 25% of all Muslims want Sahria law, and from a related link that most Muslims believe suicide bombings are sometimes* justified (*"rarely/never"). That article confirmed and heightened my concerns, frankly.

Sure, lots of Muslims want Sharia Law, but then so do a lot of Christians, though for different reasons, and we already have Sharia Law in the USA.

Let me explain.

In many states in courts dealing with family law cases the parties can agree to avoid the civil court and go to a mediator, if all parties agree to it. That mediator can be a Rabbi, an Imam, or a Pastor who makes a ruling based on their interpretations of their respective religious texts. Christians going through a divorce want a mediator who understands people who quote scriptures for justifying their actions and simply don't trust secular judges to deal with it satisfactorily, and so recognize that if Christians should get an alternative court so should the Jews and Muslims, for 1st Amendment reasons. The vast majority of Muslims who favor Sharia Law favor it for Muslims, not for non-Muslims, and these alternative family law courts we already have here are what many have in mind, at least for the US, most likely. As Townie says, most don't want the criminal code of Islamic Law.

 

[Krsto]

How? ISIS Enshrines a Theology of Rape.

The story is from the New York Times. Do you have a problem with that source, too?

No but what's your point in bringing it up?

 

[Krsto]

She (1PM) and I don't have a perverted view of jihad because our view is the same as the correct view you espouse above. The highlighted portion is subjective and what concerns us, obviously.

Why are you concerned about people who want to defend themselves against aggressors?

 

[elohiym]

23,000 American bombs hardly seems a relatively small number...

My point is they are compared to actual round the clock bombing during the Gulf War.

 

[elohiym]

Check out this rebuttal of ISIS by about 120 Muslim scholars. Notice some are the top clerics in several Muslim countries. These fellows are the brain trust for Moderate Islam, the ones the "laity" rely on for an informed opinion. The Executive Summary is a quick read:

http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/pdf/Booklet-English.pdf

I read the entire document this morning. Setting my criticisms of their brand of Islam aside, my main concern is that the document isn't a representation of what the majority of Islam believes. Here is Islam by country. Make a list of every Muslim country not represented by the signatories and then add up the numbers to see how the document you offer only represents a minority of Islam.

Thanks for posting it. :e4e:

 

[elohiym]

Why are you concerned about people who want to defend themselves against aggressors?

I wrote: "The highlighted portion is subjective and what concerns us, obviously.

 

[elohiym]

No but what's your point in bringing it up?

That's part of how they recruit, with promises of sex slaves in this life and the next.

 

[Krsto]

I read the entire document this morning. Setting my criticisms of their brand of Islam aside, my main concern is that the document isn't a representation of what the majority of Islam believes. Here is Islam by country. Make a list of every Muslim country not represented by the signatories and then add up the numbers to see how the document you offer only represents a minority of Islam.

Thanks for posting it. :e4e:

The writers simply made a way for scholars, and others, to sign on. The fact nobody from some country signed on doesn't mean the document doesn't represent their views, it only means no Muslim of note knew about the document in time to sign it. My point was that several top clerics/scholars from a number of Sunni Muslim countries DID sign it, because they represent mainstream Sunni Islam. They are a good representative sample of the whole lot, not the ISIS degenerates.

The big question here is who are you going to look at to represent a whole religion, like Catholicism? The Vatican or the Marxist rebels in Latin America, who also claim to be following Catholic theology? Your hatred of Muslims causes you to chose ISIS, while my love for Muslims causes me to choose their great body of scholars to whom Muslims look to to define their faith. Though a lot of Muslims don't mind it when the West gets a poke in the eye on 9/11 or in Paris, people like Bagdadi aren't getting much respect for his way of doing things or his illegitimate caliphate. I'm guessing if Iraqis, for example, could meet us fair and square, as a military might who can prevent foreign invasions, al Qaeda and ISIS would be of zero use to them. Military prowess is so much more satisfying than the we-shall-die-as-folk-legends-going-up-against-a-superpower that the USA and Russia provide for them.

 

[Krsto]

I wrote: "The highlighted portion is subjective and what concerns us, obviously.

I understand your concern, because "defending against threats" can be interpreted quite a number of ways, so is subjective, but Islamic Law is actually quite specific about it, assuming anyone is actually following Islamic Law. Islamic Law regarding warfare is actually very similar to Christian based Just War Theory, so restrictive that if Bush Jr. had been a faithful Muslim he could not have invaded Iraq just because he though they had weapons of mass destruction, and if Israel were following Islamic Law Israel could not have bombed that nuke reactor in Syria in '07 just because they thought Assad was developing a nuke bomb. According to Islamic Law, as with Just War Theory, preemptive strikes are not allowed. A preemptive strike is when you neutralize someone's ability to do harm, regardless of their intentions. A strike is only allowed when you have credible evidence that an attack is underway, which is the only way one can discern intention. This is the same rule adopted by the United Nations in authorizing acts of war. It's very specific, and very restrictive, because it's designed to prevent wars. This is the rule followed by the Muslim Ulama (scholars) to which the vast majority of Sunni Muslims look for practical application of the Quran and Hadith.

Of course this begs the question of why so many Muslim heads of state are so aggressive, and the answer to that is because they are like so many Muslim leaders since Mo's time, they are more interested in wealth and power than in being good Muslims. The scholars have for centuries tried to wrest their religion from those who have hijacked it but it's been an uphill battle and the West certainly hasn't made it any easier on them by trying to control them for the sake of their Resource Idolatry.

 

[Krsto]

That's part of how they recruit, with promises of sex slaves in this life and the next.

ISIS has been around long enough now that experts have done enough in-person research to find out the prime motivators for ISIS are the same as for al-Qaeda: politics, not religion. The new dimension added by ISIS is an apocalyptic vision, but it's not their prime motivator or recruiting talking point, and promises of 72 virgins or sex slaves certainly isn't either. Not saying you won't find some ISIS raghead looking forward to the day but it's more icing on the cake than gut motivation. Most of the fighters aren't all that religious, many not even Muslim, just gang banger low lifers from the inner city attracted to things that go boom and a sense of camaraderie you get in a cult.