Manhattan explosion

[Cosmic Yak]

Depends on how the narrative gets framed. For example one such framing could say that evidently enough wasn't done as the attacks were perpetrated (Dad perhaps should have just shot him). In such a framing, in order for Muslims to effectively combat Islamic extremism some Muslims may need to be more, well, extreme than the extremists.



Certainly not a narrative or framing I endorse.

Neither do I, and I have never posted anything remotely resembing such a statement. In fact, I posted the opposite: opposing extremism isn' extremist, it is just.
My point, which is either being misunderstood or deliberately strawmannned, is that the Muslim community should be trying to prevent the radicalisation process that is leading somany to join ISIS abroad, or commit atrocities in their own countries. Anjem Choudhary is a good example of this. He stayed one step ahead of the law for years, whilst being a major groomer of terrorists. It beggars belief that no-one in the wider Muslim community know what he and his various organisations were doing. All that needed to be done was for someone to report him. Years went by, and this didn't happen. This is not an isolated incident. Channel 4's documentary Undercover Mosque revealed the messages of hatred and intolerance being preached in mosques all over the UK. Why did the supposedly peaceful and tolerant Muslim majority not do something about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque

I am not advocating shooting anyone. I am saying that Muslims need to own Muslim problems. Expel the extremists. Expose them. Reach out to the lost youth and guide them away from murder. I really don't see this as being controversial.

 

[smartcooky]

This is not an isolated incident. Channel 4's documentary Undercover Mosque revealed the messages of hatred and intolerance being preached in mosques all over the UK. Why did the supposedly peaceful and tolerant Muslim majority not do something about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque

Why am I not surprised?

 

[McHrozni]

Why am I not surprised?

It gets better. Charges were brought against the makers of the documentary, because they supposedly took the content out of context to the point of lying.

The result of that lawsuit is quite telling, from the Wikipedia link:

On 15 May 2008 when the matter came to the High Court, West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service apologised to the makers of the documentary for accusing them of distortion and agreed to a payment of £100,000.

(...)

It added that the Ofcom report showed the documentary had "accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context". The police statement concluded: "We accept, without reservation, the conclusions of Ofcom and apologise to the programme makers for the damage and distress caused by our original press release." The same statement was later posted on the Crown Prosecution Service website.

A'isha and others, you don't have forever to get Islam in order. There is much to do, time is short, and yet you devote all your energies towards shooting the messengers. This can not end well.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I am not advocating shooting anyone. I am saying that Muslims need to own Muslim problems. Expel the extremists. Expose them. Reach out to the lost youth and guide them away from murder. I really don't see this as being controversial.

I recommended that once in another thread. I was compared to STASI by the usual suspects.

McHrozni

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

If I wanted to discuss the actual "Manhattan explosions" case, would this be the correct thread for that or should I seek elsewhere?

 

[The Man]

Neither do I, and I have never posted anything remotely resembing such a statement. In fact, I posted the opposite: opposing extremism isn' extremist, it is just.

As I have never said you posted anything "remotely resembing such a statement" you objection is irrelevant. Also whether opposing extremism is extreme would depend on how that specific opposition was enacted, so simply labeling it as "just" demonstrates the point I was making.

My point, which is either being misunderstood or deliberately strawmannned, is that the Muslim community should be trying to prevent the radicalisation process that is leading somany to join ISIS abroad, or commit atrocities in their own countries. Anjem Choudhary is a good example of this. He stayed one step ahead of the law for years, whilst being a major groomer of terrorists. It beggars belief that no-one in the wider Muslim community know what he and his various organisations were doing. All that needed to be done was for someone to report him. Years went by, and this didn't happen. This is not an isolated incident. Channel 4's documentary Undercover Mosque revealed the messages of hatred and intolerance being preached in mosques all over the UK. Why did the supposedly peaceful and tolerant Muslim majority not do something about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque


I am not advocating shooting anyone. I am saying that Muslims need to own Muslim problems. Expel the extremists. Expose them. Reach out to the lost youth and guide them away from murder. I really don't see this as being controversial.

I didn't say that was controversial or that you were "advocating shooting anyone". Just demonstrating the catch 22 that can happen in extreme narratives. Peaceful, benevolent and law abiding people may be seen as not doing enough while those that fight and more actively oppose can the seen as just another extremist faction of an ideology. Again it depends on how one frames the narrative, which itself can be rather extreme.

 

[tyr_13]

You apparently misunderstood my post completely. That's normal for an apologist.

I'll give you a clue, I first proposed a solution that would see Islam coexist with the progress of human civilization. It's a workable solution that you apparently completely missed. I then proposed two scenarios under which Islam could indeed be destroyed, but in a way you are quite unwilling to address.

Tell me, suppose all Muslims decide their religion must be somewhat different, and make alterations to it, all at once and take out the crap that kills people. What's wrong with that?

I don't expect an answer, because there isn't one. That doesn't mean I won't pester you for it incessantly, because that's precisely what you denounced as "hilarious".

Furthermore, please point out where I denied many Muslims are different already. If you can't you owe me an apology McHrozni

You need to get together with yourself and reconcile these. As I pointed out in the part you snipped from my post, your proposed solution that doesn't involve the destruction of Islam has already happened for most Muslims in the west. If you don't deny it, then stop denying it.

Stop calling me an apologist. Your name calling is silly. I've never denied ISIS or other extremist threats, nor even pulled punches with criticisms of Saudi Arabia or even Islam in general. That I don't agree with your criticisms is not being an apologist. Get better arguments.

Your argument is self-contradictory in many ways, so don't be surprised with a critical thinking forum keeps pointing it out. Again, the very example in this thread speaks against your argument.

 

[A'isha]

I see that A'isa has completely given up on attempting to defend Islam from it's most serious errors and will only defend it with a pathetic "But, but France blew up a civilian ship 20 years ago too!" and pretend this is an argument.

That's how failure looks like, A'isha. You might want to reassess what is it you believe in.

You regularly abandon threads where I point out your nonsense, and yet I go one day without responding to your genocidal ******** and you're already claiming victory?

... if you give up in this little Jihad of yours, you're going to hell. You need to either win or die trying.

You're going to have to rectify the giant gaping holes in your knowledge of Islam before you attain credibility as an Imam. Case in point:

Incidentally and not directly related, but what inner struggles exist that can end up fatal?

Because "jihad" simply means to strive, and needs a modifier about what to strive for. That's why there exist specific and separate terms for "inner struggle" (jihad an-nafs) and "military jihad" (jihad qitāl or jihad bil-saif).

In any case, the passage you quoted doesn't even mention jihad. It talks about infirū (to rush forth, related to nafara), modifying fī sabīli llāhi (for the sake of Allah). The passage has to specify, since (like the word jihad itself), fī sabīli llāhi can apply to a whole bunch of things Muslims can do which don't involve warfare, such as in the common phrase uhibuk fī sabīli llāhi, "I love you for Allah's sake", originally from Abu Dawud 5125:

"A man was with the Prophet and a man passed by him and said: Messenger of Allah! I love this man. The Messenger of Allah then asked: Have you informed him? He replied: No. He said: Inform him. He then went to him and said: I love you for Allah's sake. He replied: May He for Whose sake you love me love you!"

 

[A'isha]

Why did the supposedly peaceful and tolerant Muslim majority not do something about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque

Of course they did. Choudary has long been a joke among most British Muslims, and he only got the attention he did because the UK press loved to interview him. The authorities were well aware of him and his activities years before they finally got around to convicting him (he was the founder and member of something like three separate groups that had been proscribed before that documentary was broadcast).

As with the perpetrator of the attacks in the OP, it seems that even when the authorities have been fully alerted to the extremist views of someone and yet choose to do nothing, Muslims are blamed for the authorities' inaction.

 

[Dipayan]

Deleted

 

[The Man]

Neither do I, and I have never posted anything remotely resembing such a statement. In fact, I posted the opposite: opposing extremism isn' extremist, it is just.
My point, which is either being misunderstood or deliberately strawmannned, is that the Muslim community should be trying to prevent the radicalisation process that is leading somany to join ISIS abroad, or commit atrocities in their own countries. Anjem Choudhary is a good example of this. He stayed one step ahead of the law for years, whilst being a major groomer of terrorists. It beggars belief that no-one in the wider Muslim community know what he and his various organisations were doing. All that needed to be done was for someone to report him. Years went by, and this didn't happen. This is not an isolated incident. Channel 4's documentary Undercover Mosque revealed the messages of hatred and intolerance being preached in mosques all over the UK. Why did the supposedly peaceful and tolerant Muslim majority not do something about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque

I am not advocating shooting anyone. I am saying that Muslims need to own Muslim problems. Expel the extremists. Expose them. Reach out to the lost youth and guide them away from murder. I really don't see this as being controversial.

Sorry Cosmic Yak, I meant to address the middle and more substantial portion of your post before but simply didn't have the time at that time. Let me try to give you an example from my own experience. I've been riding road motorcycles since I was 18, 37 years. I'm aware of the more extreme motorcycle enthusiasts, into violence, drugs or just disruptive and dangerous street exhibition. As a non-violent and law abiding motorcyclist I just don't associate with those more extreme elements of that community. I couldn't tell you what they are planing, doing or just talking about as I intentionally don't engage with them. I'd either have to be or pretend to be one of them to do that. Same thing for street crime and gangs in my vicinity. Either of which have more potential to directly impact me than any extremist from any religious ideology. Which are of course other circles I just don't travel in.

 

[A'isha]

U.S. officials say American Muslims do report extremist threats

Muslim-Americans have repeatedly informed authorities of fellow Muslims they fear might be turning to extremism, law enforcement officials say, contrary to a claim by presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump this week.

"They don't report them," Trump said in a CNN interview on Monday, in the wake of the mass shooting at an Orlando nightclub of 49 people by an American Muslim who claimed allegiance to Islamic State. "For some reason, the Muslim community does not report people like this."

But FBI director James Comey said, "They do not want people committing violence, either in their community or in the name of their faith, and so some of our most productive relationships are with people who see things and tell us things who happen to be Muslim.

“It’s at the heart of the FBI’s effectiveness to have good relationships with these folks,” Comey said at a press conference following the Orlando shootings.

Andrew Ames, a spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Washington field office, told Reuters on Wednesday that the agency has a “robust” relationship with the local Muslim community. FBI agents operating in the area have received reports about suspicious activity and other issues from community members.

Michael Downing, deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department and head of its Counterterrorism and Special Operations Bureau, said the city's Muslim community has been cooperative in reporting "red flags."

“I personally have been called by community members about several things, very significant things,” Downing told Reuters. “What we say to communities is that we don’t want you to profile humans, we want you to profile behavior.”

[...]

A Reuters review of court records also produced examples of Muslim-Americans informing law enforcement of possible radicalization within their families.

Suspecting that her then 17-year-old son, Ali Amin, was radicalizing, Amani Ibrahim followed the advice of a local imam and reported her fears to law enforcement officials, according to court records. In August 2015, Amin was sentenced to 11 years in prison for conspiring to provide material support to Islamic State after he helped a schoolmate travel to join the extremist group.

In 2014, the sister of Abdi Nur contacted Minneapolis police to report her younger brother missing. She later showed federal agents messages she received, in which he said he had “gone to join the brothers” and promised to see her in the afterlife. Nur has been charged with conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist group, but is still at large.

And in 2014, Adam Shafi’s father, Sal Shafi, told officials in the U.S. embassy in Cairo that he was worried his son was radicalizing after Adam went missing during a family trip in Egypt.

Adam Shafi soon rejoined his family, but was arrested in July 2015 after trying to board a flight to Turkey from San Francisco airport. He was charged with attempting to provide material support to al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda linked group in Syria.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Of course they did. Choudary has long been a joke among most British Muslims, and he only got the attention he did because the UK press loved to interview him. The authorities were well aware of him and his activities years before they finally got around to convicting him (he was the founder and member of something like three separate groups that had been proscribed before that documentary was broadcast).

A joke? This man had links to almost every British Islamic terrorist of the last few years, and was responsible for sending at least 300 jihadis to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS.
I'd like to see you explain to the family of Lee Rigby, for example, how you think the man who groomed, led and inspired his killer was a joke. I for one am not laughing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...em-choudary-behind-bars-after-drumming-up-su/

 

[A'isha]

A joke?

He's a terrorist toady and a buffoon, and wouldn't have had anywhere near the influence he's had if the UK press had simply stopped paying attention to him or if the UK authorities had done something about him years ago.

This man had links to almost every British Islamic terrorist of the last few years, and was responsible for sending at least 300 jihadis to Syria and Iraq to join ISIS.

Which the authorities in the UK have known for years, and still did nothing about him until this year. Don't blame Muslims for the inaction of the authorities who knew exactly what he was and what he stood for.

 

[smartcooky]

He's a terrorist toady and a buffoon, and wouldn't have had anywhere near the influence he's had if the UK press had simply stopped paying attention to him or if the UK authorities had done something about him years ago.



Which the authorities in the UK have known for years, and still did nothing about him until this year. Don't blame Muslims for the inaction of the authorities who knew exactly what he was and what he stood for.

The problem here is that in the Western World we have something called "The Law" part of which is something called "Freedom of Speech". These hamper our ability to effectively deal with the Anjem Choudarys of this world, so our options for dealing with a person who says things we don't like, are limited. Beheading, cutting his hands off, and sending a few gunmen to his workplace to kill him and his workmates are not among them.

 

[A'isha]

The problem here is that in the Western World we have something called "The Law" part of which is something called "Freedom of Speech". These hamper our ability to effectively deal with the Anjem Choudarys of this world, so our options for dealing with a person who says things we don't like, are limited.

So don't blame Muslims for his ability to run around the UK freely and spout his hateful nonsense, then. They didn't exactly force the BBC and Sky and the tabloids to keep giving him a platform from which to spread his ********.

 

[marplots]

And I posted it as such. Read my post in entirety for a change and you'll see.

McHrozni

It's as relevant as bringing up the US Civil War and a call to arms as motivation for current bigotry against blacks. In other words - not relevant at all. If you have to go back to something that happened 500 years ago to complain about, modern Islam is doing pretty well.

 

[marplots]

I am not advocating shooting anyone. I am saying that Muslims need to own Muslim problems. Expel the extremists. Expose them. Reach out to the lost youth and guide them away from murder. I really don't see this as being controversial.

They do all those things. It isn't controversial, unless we choose to ignore them doing all those things.

Pro tip: Doing all those things does not stop terrorism.

 

[Belgian thought]

The problem here is that in the Western World we have something called "The Law" part of which is something called "Freedom of Speech". These hamper our ability to effectively deal with the Anjem Choudarys of this world, so our options for dealing with a person who says things we don't like, are limited. Beheading, cutting his hands off, and sending a few gunmen to his workplace to kill him and his workmates are not among them.

So don't blame Muslims for his ability to run around the UK freely and spout his hateful nonsense, then. They didn't exactly force the BBC and Sky and the tabloids to keep giving him a platform from which to spread his ********.

So why do not more Muslims use their "free speech" and condone it?

Those attending that mosque from that Channel 4 programme in an earlier post had every freedom within a secular society to apply their free speech - they didn't.

What stopped them? - Surely not Islam...

As an aside, the only ex-Muslims i have ever met still stood up for their (ex) Muslim brothers (sisters were not mentioned).

It does appear to be a vile cult and not worthy of any apology.

You commented as follows:

"The Cairo Declaration was put together by the governments of some Muslim-majority nations, governments which don't even and never have adhered to it themselves, so it's kind of hard to assert that the Declaration is really all that representative of what those governments actually believe."

And, what is the source of "it"? - Surely not Islam...

Finally, I found this video from some recent ex-Muslim who has gone truly back to humanity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rkhk2imOOk

As my earlier post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11513326#post11513326- both speakers from this video seem to contradict the criterion from point 1) and are therefore unlikely to go to point 2).
Hurrah

 

[A'isha]

So why do not more Muslims use their "free speech" and condone it?

If you mean "condemn it", they do.

Those attending that mosque from that Channel 4 programme in an earlier post had every freedom within a secular society to apply their free speech - they didn't.

The question "where all all the non-extremists at an extremist mosque" kind of answers itself. Muslims aren't forced to gonto the nearest mosque whether they approve of it or not. Muslims, like the members of any other kind of congregation, go to the mosques and choose the imams they want based on individual preference.

As described in the sequel documentary, the mosques in question are heavily influenced by Wahhabist ideology, thanks to money from Saudi Arabia. Muslims who object to that sort of thing (and there are many of them) aren't exactly likely to stick around a place like that for very long. [EDIT: If they even would go to any of those mosques in the first place, considering which specific mosques were in the documentary]

You commented as follows:

"The Cairo Declaration was put together by the governments of some Muslim-majority nations, governments which don't even and never have adhered to it themselves, so it's kind of hard to assert that the Declaration is really all that representative of what those governments actually believe."

And, what is the source of "it"? - Surely not Islam

If it's "Islam" (as you or anyone else define it) and they don't actually follow it, then they can't exactly be said to be following Islam. If it's not "Islam", then that kneecaps your entire claim.