Manhattan explosion

[Planigale]

Because, unlike in the West, Saudi Arabia has an official state version of Islam, with an established religious hierarchy regulated by the government, and crack down (with the full force of that hierarchy and that government) on versions of Islam that differ from and oppose the official version. It's not at all like the UK, where the state church is CofE but you can still be Catholic or Lutheran or even Muslim of Jewish.

Hence your comparison is not just invalid, but makes me go

For UK read England (CoE = Church of England). The rest of the UK does not have a state religion in the same way as England.

 

[Planigale]

You know, I don't make a point to stalk people from forums to figure out as many intimate details about their lives as possible.



It's weird for someone who was raised into nonsense but has grown out of it to defend it from all criticism, come hell or high water.



If Bapists start blowing up planes, airports and shooting up concerts in the name of Jesus, I'll do just that. Until then I really don't see any particular need for it.



That's not the case in the slightest. Fighting against someone who has a lot to lose is a whole lot easier than someone who has nothing to live for in the first place. I suspect this is a major reason behind polygamy in Islam - it creates a large body of young males whose only chance of ever seeing a woman is to go to war to either capture one, loot enough wealth to marry, or die and go to paradise (another problem with Islam right here).

Unlike a dirty hate-preacher and his band of confirmed bachelors such a dictator has a lot to lose. It's hugely unlikely that an Islamic pope (or however you'd call him) would ever want to risk his privileged earthly life in favor of anything especially bad.

If he did, we could always do a modern variant of Paul Revere and send in the Minutemen. It's not ideal, but it has an adequate precedents and also adequate legal and moral backing.

McHrozni

So what was the driver for Mormons?

 

[Planigale]

Ah, so you were just trying to make some kind of dumb pseduo-tu-quoque rhetorical point, rather than making any kind of actual argument.



Except, as I pointed out in my post there (which you conveniently edited out), I even tried giving you the benefit of the doubt and reading your words as if you meant "some Muslims", and pointed out how that resulted in a nonsensical sentence. Now look what happens if you do the thing that I did for you but you didn't, apparently, want to reciprocate (because then you couldn't play your little gotcha games, I guess):

"At least currently, the completely decentralized nature of Islam means that someone like [the Saudi government (and all its associated state religious apparatus)] can't get control of the whole religion and enforce their own particular viewpoint on all Muslims everywhere (particularly since they're doing their damndest to try and pull that off anyway)."

In fact, reading my sentence there as if I wasn't talking about the the Saudi government (and all its associated state religious apparatus) in the context of and in response to your specific statement that I "bemoan the fact that there is no mechanism within Islam to perform this function, yet seem reluctant to suggest that one be put in place", but was instead answering you by (for some inexplicable reason) actually talking about individual civilian Muslims living in Saudi Arabia is nonsensical. It literally makes no sense at all, and the only reason you're even making this forced attempt at reading it that way is so you can try to make your weak little "Looks like the broad brush is on the other foot now, hah hah!" rhetorical gotcha.



Okay.

"Imran Awan, a criminologist and expert on terrorism and extremism, said: 'My view is that it's almost like a continuous narrative – I'm not sure if it's to do with piquing their audience – but I think he fuels everything that is anti-British. In a way many people believe he is one of the key links to radicalising young people and, if he is one of those people, it is giving him the oxygen of publicity he so badly craves.'

Awan, a lecturer at Birmingham City University, said he felt uncomfortable with Choudary using the collective 'we' in his interview. 'That I found uncomfortable because it implies he's talking for us, myself as a Muslim and the law-abiding Muslim community. He doesn't speak for myself or the law-abiding Muslim community.'

He added: 'As a Muslim and as a criminologist the whole idea is trying to counter the extremist narrative and you can genuinely do that – but inviting people like him on the show all you do is give him a platform.'"



Hannity works for one of the "other media outlets" I mentioned, Fox News, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Sky and most of the UK tabloids that love to give all kinds of attention to Choudary. His interview with Choudary appears in the "related videos" lists on YouTube for the videos you linked to, and I brought him up to illustrate the pointlessness of using "well, the non-Muslim host kept saying he was wrong" as a defense to the charge that he was presented as "the" Muslim point of view on shows where he appeared. I selected him because I wanted to show that the problem goes beyond merely the four videos you linked (which themselves are bad enough), and as an American he was familiar to me so I used him as my example.

I'm curious why you think an American TV host like Sean Hannity gave a British figure like Anjem Choudary a solo appearance on his American show, though.

EDIT: Oh, and as a side note, in today's news the Iraqi Christian town of Qaraqosh, occupied by ISIS two years ago, is currently being assaulted by an allied force of Iraqi army units, Kurdish Peshmerga, and Christian militia, as part of the larger campaign to free Mosul from ISIS' grip.

Any Iranian backed Shia militia participating?

 

[McHrozni]

So what was the driver for Mormons?

Driver for Mormons to do what? Explain the question in more detail please.

McHrozni

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Any Iranian backed Shia militia participating?

In the assault of Mosul, actually, no:

Shia paramilitaries will not be involved in the assault on Mosul, but will be tasked with securing areas around the city instead.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/17/middleeast/mosul-isis-operation-begins-iraq/

I'm sure there is some sound tactical reason for this, which has nothing to do with the propensity of peaceful, unified and co-operative members of the various denominations of the Dar-ul-Islam to tear each other apart at every available oportunity....

 

[Planigale]

Driver for Mormons to do what? Explain the question in more detail please.

McHrozni

The reason for polygamy is 'it creates a large body of young males whose only chance of ever seeing a woman is to go to war to either capture one, loot enough wealth to marry, or die and go to paradise'. Is that why Mormons adopted polygamy?

The truth is that polygamy was the pre-existing social norm at the time that Islam arose. Also see the Old Testament, how many wives did Solomon have? Monogamy was very much a consequence of (non christian) Roman Empire.

Polygamy is the 'normal' state in most societies, monogamy is the abnormal - although rightly imo now the dominant ethos.

 

[McHrozni]

The reason for polygamy is 'it creates a large body of young males whose only chance of ever seeing a woman is to go to war to either capture one, loot enough wealth to marry, or die and go to paradise'. Is that why Mormons adopted polygamy?

I have no idea why Mormons adopted polygamy. I always thought it was because the founders of the religion wanted to have several females to have intercourse with, with little to no deeper meaning to it. Unlike with Islam the Mormons have had no history of violent conquests and the issue of polygamy remains controversial for the church, often disavowed and rarely practiced. It stands to reason their practices could have different reasoning behind them.

The truth is that polygamy was the pre-existing social norm at the time that Islam arose. Also see the Old Testament, how many wives did Solomon have? Monogamy was very much a consequence of (non christian) Roman Empire.

I explicitly said it was a pre-existing thing in 7th century Arabia, but at the same time it was adopted and made sacrosanct in Islam, with Muslims being permitted up to four wives and unlimited sex slaves (not featured in Mormonism) each, but Mohamed was allowed to have an unlimited number of wives. If Islam was conceived as a religion that would conquer the world it made perfect sense to adopt polygamy in it in this manner.
There are other reasons that could also adequately explain this - Mohamed as a sex addict is one - but they ignore the other volumes of evidence of Islam being created specifically to conquer the world by force. This is the simplest explanation, it makes no unnecessary assumptions and it has ample historical evidence behind it. You'll be quite hard-pressed to disprove it.

McHrozni

 

[catsmate]

Because, unlike in the West, Saudi Arabia has an official state version of Islam, with an established religious hierarchy regulated by the government, and crack down (with the full force of that hierarchy and that government) on versions of Islam that differ from and oppose the official version. It's not at all like the UK, where the state church is CofE but you can still be Catholic or Lutheran or even Muslim of Jewish.

Not to mention that the Anglican church covers pretty much everything from Methodism-lite to Anglo-Catholicism.

Hence your comparison is not just invalid, but makes me go

Indeed.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Because, unlike in the West, Saudi Arabia has an official state version of Islam, with an established religious hierarchy regulated by the government, and crack down (with the full force of that hierarchy and that government) on versions of Islam that differ from and oppose the official version. It's not at all like the UK, where the state church is CofE but you can still be Catholic or Lutheran or even Muslim of Jewish.

Not to mention that the Anglican church covers pretty much everything from Methodism-lite to Anglo-Catholicism.

Hence your comparison is not just invalid, but makes me go

Indeed.

It appears you did not read my original post, to which A'isha was replying.
Here it is again:

Interesting.
You keep saying how you don't like all Muslims to be stereotyped, and how extremists don't represent all Muslims, or even a majority of Muslim opinion.

How then does this apparent indignation square with your depiction of Saudis? You depict them as being all of one voice and opinion, and all members of an intolerant version of Islam you reject and abhor.

It seems to me that you are doing to the 29 million inhabitants of Saudi Arabia what you are accusing and condemning others here of doing.

Please list your reasons why all the excuses you have made for extremism in the West do not apply to Saudi Arabia. For example:

• They cannot be held responsible for imams in mosques they do not attend.
• They cannot control what is preached in mosques they do not attend and are not members of.
• The views of a minority of extremists cannot be viewed as representative of the peaceful, tolerant majority.

A'isha talked about "the Saudis". Not "the Saudi government". Not "the Wahabbis". The Saudis. As she had laid in to me about talking about "Muslims" or "British Muslims", it seemed only reasonable to apply the same standards to her own posts.
I lived for 4 years in Riyadh, and I know for a fact that many Saudis are nothing like she depicts them to be. I also know that 3% of Saudis self-identify as atheists. For A'isha to then use the lazy epithet "Saudis" to encompass all this, and then castigate me for (as she saw it) doing the same thing, is hypocrisy.
I would be interested to hear, Catsmate, what you think about this.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

So what was the driver for Mormons?

There was no driver. They had to walk.

 

[tyr_13]

You have (twice) claimed that I am being dishonest, but I can assure you I am not. I am trying very hard to understand the point you are trying to make (and yes, English is my first language): I just don't think you're expressing it very well.
When you say 'control over mosques', what exactly do you mean? Do you mean what version of Islam is followed there? Do you mean the espousal of extremist views, and ways of controlling that? Do you mean the legal status of mosques as institutions?
All of these are different. If you could be more precise in your definitions, then perhaps we could get somewhere.

I was not the one making the claim, so you'll have to ask those who want some authority to have control over the mosques (as opposed to some or a mosque) what they meant, what form this control can take (as in this mechanism I keep requesting be named). As I understand their arguments, it's that they want Muslims to stop being Muslims, and do this by having some Muslims change what religious beliefs and words other Muslims may say or claim as Islamic.

In short; they don't believe in the concepts of freedom of religion nor of association.

But go ask them. My objection to your goalpost moving was that controlling a mosque or some mosques is obviously not what the people you were addressing were talking about, regardless of the nature of that 'control'. It doesn't matter if you were the one to set the goalposts originally or not.

No, I just said the same thing over again. As I said, I don't think you're reading my posts very thoroughly.
If you disagree, then please explain how you think the goalposts have moved.

I have explained that repeatedly and did so again above. It is a lie to say A'isha said that no one controls any mosques. What was said in the context of the discussion was only that no one controls mosques as a category. There is no authority who who can say, 'don't say these things in mosques' and it be done, even if there are authorities who could say 'don't say these things in my mosque' and it be done.

You mentioned this mechanism. Why don't you try to be clearer, and then we can deal with this as well.

I'm starting to think that you aren't being dishonest, but are extremely confused. I'm asking for a mechanism. I don't know what mechanism they think could be used. I'm skeptical of a lawful mechanism that could be employed by many Muslims that is not already being employed. It is simply a description of how others seem to see it. It is not something I claim exists. I'm asking you what mechanism could be employed.

That's what you said. I was asking for clarification, and you threw it back in my face. That wasn't very helpful.

Again, you don't understand my repeated explanations. I don't know if you're doing this because you're confused, or you're only pretending to. It is not 'throwing it back in your face' when I've been asking you for it to begin with. Your question makes no sense in the context. I'm not claiming a solution.

No, I have not and am not ignoring that. In fact, just the opposite. You seem to have forgotten that the High Wycombe story originally found its way into this discussion because I linked to it. The story is about a Muslim in that town who reported extremist preaching to the authorities, and received death threats from other Muslims as a result.
A'isha refused to believe it, because of the site I initially found it on, even though I cautioned her against doing that. I then followed up, and showed that the story is indeed true. (A'isha has yet to acknowledge that, BTW).
I then did some more digging, and came up with the Finsbury Mosque incident, in which Muslims, working with the British authorities, went into that mosque and evicted the extremists.

I don't know what you think this example shows that supports your argument. It seems to support what I and others have been saying. Muslims are reporting, they are helping, and it can and does work.

This led to the setting up of MINAB, an organisation expressly designed to overcome the obstacles that you and A'isha keeo going on about. This organisation did not achieve anything near its potential, due to a lack of finance from the Muslim community, and ( and here I'm speculating) a lack of will to make it work.
The reporting so far- which I freely acknowledge (again)- has been on an ad hoc basis. What is needed, what I am calling for, and what you seem not to understand, is a formal, national, multi-sect mechanism to allow this to happen. It is imperative we do so, and that we can protect those who do blow the whistle. Yet, if I suggest this impetus comes from Muslims, I am told that this is impossible, because no-one can supervise mosques except for the single one of which they are a member. It cannot come from Muslim organisations, because that would lead to Saudi-style opression, and it is impossible to create a multi-sect umbrella organisation in Islam,and it cannot come from the state, again because of a rejection of government "surveillance". I kept on at A'isha for a solution to this problem until she answered, and her eventual answer was 'I don't know'.
Let me ask you the same question. I think we can both agree that the reporting of extremism (and again I'm specifically talking about the UK here), is not adequately preventing the radicalisation of some of Britain's Muslim youth, nor is it leading to the shutting down of mosques that foster this, nor the expelling of extremist preachers. What od you suggest be done about it?

Do you think that an organization like that would find much instant success for any religion with strongly competing and adversarial sects? Such an effort is going to take many years, and largely fail, and for the same reasons there isn't such a thing for Protestants and Catholics in the UK, nor for Mormons and Protestants in the US. The same reasons there are different sects to being with keep them from coming together easily for such an effort. Also, few want to allow such outside control. It will take time and trust for such efforts to bear fruit.

That trust is completely undermined by the rhetoric of people like McHrozni, which only makes Muslims more distrustful of any outside interference. And why wouldn't they be afraid with people like that talking about gas chambers?

This example is bad for two reasons. One, Dominoes would just love to take control of Pizza Hut Northwest if it got the chance, and will to do so if it can. It's called competition and market share.

That makes it a bad example?

Second, expanding business share is a tad less urgent to preventing from innocent people being killed in the name of the religion you claim to be a part of.

That doesn't invalidated the analogy. Every analogy breaks down somewhere.

You might want to completely reconstruct your entire narrative. No one is saying the task ahead of Muslims is an easy one. It's not. No one is saying their current power structure is adequate to the task, it's obviously not. This isn't a valid reason for them not to do it though, especially given the stakes involved.

McHrozni

My narrative is fine, but I'll reconstruct some examples for you because you dislike analogies.

Do you demand that the Protestants and Catholics give up their freedom of religion and association to deal with the troubles in the UK? Do you ask the same of Mormons and hold the actions of FLDS against them? Should the various sects of FLDS be forced to adhere to what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints says is Mormonism and it's practices? Should there be a reporting systems specifically for them aside from normal law enforcement? Are the mainstream Mormons to have some control over FLDS, or suffer some consequences akin to those you think the Muslims should suffer, in type if not in magnitude?

I've read your special pleadings and found them hollow. I still believe in the worth of many human rights, and don't see them as dismissable even in times of war and terrorism.

 

[McHrozni]

That makes it a bad example?

Saying Muslims shouldn't be expected to act in a way Pizza hut would act because Pizza hut wouldn't act in that way is indeed a rather poor argument.

My narrative is fine, but I'll reconstruct some examples for you because you dislike analogies.

Do you demand that the Protestants and Catholics give up their freedom of religion and association to deal with the troubles in the UK? Do you ask the same of Mormons and hold the actions of FLDS against them? Should the various sects of FLDS be forced to adhere to what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints says is Mormonism and it's practices? Should there be a reporting systems specifically for them aside from normal law enforcement? Are the mainstream Mormons to have some control over FLDS, or suffer some consequences akin to those you think the Muslims should suffer, in type if not in magnitude?

What are the consequences I think Muslims should suffer again? Please link to them if you can.

That said, no one is asking anyone to give up freedom of religion. We just need to accept freedom of religion does have it's limits, for example you are not free to worship your god (or God) by killing people and you are not allowed to ignore your co-religionists who do and pretend you've done nothing wrong. Failure to report a crime of this magnitude is, in itself, a crime (accessory after the fact I believe). Freedom of religion does not cover that and it should not cover that.

In other words, if Mormons (or any other Christian denomination or sect) begin to act in the way some Muslims do right now, I will fully expect other Christian denominations to do their part in stopping them. Until that happens I'm content with the way things stand right now.

I've read your special pleadings and found them hollow. I still believe in the worth of many human rights, and don't see them as dismissable even in times of war and terrorism.

The only special thing is the 20,000+ terrorist attacks yearly done in the name of Islam versus maybe 20 or so in the name of all other religions combined - and this is not even the full extent of the problem, it's just terrorism, the most visible and talked about issue. There is no special plea, just a very special religion.

Furthermore even human rights have their limits:

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

This is precisely what Islamic extremists do. Claiming it is their Human right to do so isn't just obscene, it is actually incorrect.

McHrozni

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I was not the one making the claim, so you'll have to ask those who want some authority to have control over the mosques (as opposed to some or a mosque) what they meant, what form this control can take (as in this mechanism I keep requesting be named). As I understand their arguments, it's that they want Muslims to stop being Muslims, and do this by having some Muslims change what religious beliefs and words other Muslims may say or claim as Islamic.

In short; they don't believe in the concepts of freedom of religion nor of association.

Your "they" in this argument is me. I want some authority to have some control over mosques. Does this mean that I want "Muslims to stop being Muslims"? Well, that depends. Do I want people to stop talking like this? Then, absolutely, yes:

Dr. Ijaz Mian on the subject of non-Muslim laws: "You cannot accept the rule of the kaffir…[w]e have to rule ourselves and we have to rule the others."[3]
Abu Usamah saying of apostates: "If the imam wants to crucify him he should crucify him. The person is put up on the wood and he's left there to bleed to death for three days."[4]
Abu Usamah speaking on the deficiency of women's minds: "Allah has created the woman, even if she gets a PhD, deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal the one witness of the man."[4]
Praises the killer of a British soldier serving in Afghanistan, stating "The hero of Islam is the one who separated his head from his shoulders."[5]
Abdullah el-Faisal: "You have to bomb the Indian businesses, and as for the Jews you kill them physically."[6]
Advocates violent Jihad against the non-Muslims and predicting that an army of Muslims will arise against the non-Muslims in England.[3]
Dr Bilal Philips on marriage with girls before puberty: "The prophet Muhammad practically outlined the rules regarding marriage prior to puberty. With his practice, he clarified what is permissible, and that is why we shouldn't have any issues about an older man marrying a younger woman, which is looked down upon by this society today, but we know that Prophet Mohammed practised it, it wasn’t abuse or exploitation, it was marriage."[4]
Condemns Muslim integration into British society.[3]
Calls for the overthrow of the British government and democracy.[7] "[T]hey will fight in the cause of Allah. I encourage all of you to be from amongst them, to begin to cultivate ourselves for the time that is fast approaching where the tables are going to turn and the Muslims are going to be in the position of being uppermost in strength, and when that happens, people won’t get killed – unjustly."[6]
Dr. Mian: "You are in a situation in which you have to live like a state within a state, until you take over."[8]
Al Jibali: "By the age of ten, it becomes an obligation on us to force her to wear hijab, and if she doesn’t wear hijab, we hit her."[6]
Dr. Mian praised the Saudi religious police practice of imprisoning people who do not pray: "They send the police, and they say, well, if you don’t come for prayer, close your shop, we will arrest you But if you don’t, then we have to bring the punishment on you, you will be killed, and nobody will pray on you."[6]
Abu Usamah saying that homosexuals should be killed by throwing them off a cliff, stating "throw [the homosexual] off the mountain."[6]

A'isha's argument was that the sects of Islam that operated these mosques would, as a matter of course, preach this kind of thinking. If that is the case, then, absolutely, this is totally unacceptable. If this is how you define Islam, as these preachers and these denominations clearly do, then this has to stop or be stopped. Freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of speech do not cover incitement to hatred, violence or the overthrow of democracy.

I have explained that repeatedly and did so again above. It is a lie to say A'isha said that no one controls any mosques. What was said in the context of the discussion was only that no one controls mosques as a category. There is no authority who who can say, 'don't say these things in mosques' and it be done, even if there are authorities who could say 'don't say these things in my mosque' and it be done.

In the context of the UK that simply is not the case. The Charities Commission is in overall control of all charitable organisations, of which mosques are a part.

I'm starting to think that you aren't being dishonest, but are extremely confused. I'm asking for a mechanism. I don't know what mechanism they think could be used. I'm skeptical of a lawful mechanism that could be employed by many Muslims that is not already being employed. It is simply a description of how others seem to see it. It is not something I claim exists. I'm asking you what mechanism could be employed.

Answered above.

Again, you don't understand my repeated explanations. I don't know if you're doing this because you're confused, or you're only pretending to. It is not 'throwing it back in your face' when I've been asking you for it to begin with. Your question makes no sense in the context. I'm not claiming a solution.

Your repeated accusations of dishonesty on my part are becoming tiresome. I am trying to have a serious, open and honest discussion, and having you constantly question my motives and my morals is unkind, unpleasant and unacceptable.

I don't know what you think this example shows that supports your argument. It seems to support what I and others have been saying. Muslims are reporting, they are helping, and it can and does work.

So you are grudgingly acknowledging that the story is true. That is progress, and I thank you for that.
My point is that one whistleblower raised the alarm, and many people in his community, rather than thanking him for his courage, threatened to kill him. A'isha was saying that "most Muslims" were actively trying to rid their mosques and communities of extremists. My example showed that this is not the case.

Do you think that an organization like that would find much instant success for any religion with strongly competing and adversarial sects? Such an effort is going to take many years, and largely fail, and for the same reasons there isn't such a thing for Protestants and Catholics in the UK, nor for Mormons and Protestants in the US. The same reasons there are different sects to being with keep them from coming together easily for such an effort. Also, few want to allow such outside control. It will take time and trust for such efforts to bear fruit.

And while the various and competing sects of Islam bicker or ignore the problem, people are dying all over the world. There simply isn't time for these internecine conflicts to be resolved.
Furthermore, the whole point of MINAB is that it wasn't "outside control": it was independent of the British government, and was to be run by Muslims themselves.
Finally, if Islam is such a peaceful religion, why do they have such a problem with working together to prevent violence?

That trust is completely undermined by the rhetoric of people like McHrozni, which only makes Muslims more distrustful of any outside interference. And why wouldn't they be afraid with people like that talking about gas chambers?

If you are going to allege that the views of people like McHrozni were instrumental in causing the failure of MINAB, I think it only reasonable that you support this with some evidence.

 

[tyr_13]

Saying Muslims shouldn't be expected to act in a way Pizza hut would act because Pizza hut wouldn't act in that way is indeed a rather poor argument.

Wow, you're very lost. Why do you think that mosques wouldn't welcome new worshipers from rival sects? The lawful mechanisms for both are roughly the same as well. Convince them your 'product' is better and gain 'market share'.

What are the consequences I think Muslims should suffer again? Please link to them if you can.

You said they will end up in gas chambers (not a 'should' there) and you obviously think they should be rebuked in very clear ways. You're also comfortable telling them that if they don't think violently conquering the world is part of Islam, they aren't following Islam while at the same time demanding that they get other Muslims to do exactly what you criticize them for and not really follow Islam.

But you tell me. Muslims tell you to go pound sand with your ideas of Islam being inherently violent and that they are responsible for what other Muslims do; what consequences do you think they should suffer?

That said, no one is asking anyone to give up freedom of religion. We just need to accept freedom of religion does have it's limits, for example you are not free to worship your god (or God) by killing people and you are not allowed to ignore your co-religionists who do and pretend you've done nothing wrong. Failure to report a crime of this magnitude is, in itself, a crime (accessory after the fact I believe). Freedom of religion does not cover that and it should not cover that.

No one is asking that Muslims be exempt from any of that, nor from reporting crimes. You're demanding they believe differently than they do, while at the same time calling that different way not Islam, and that they be responsible for other sects with other ideas not agreeing with them. That is giving up freedom of religion. If you can demand people change their belief rather than their actions, you're demanding they not have free religious belief.

And nice skipping the freedom of association. What if a given Muslim doesn't want anything to do with those asshats who preach intolerance and violence? You're demanding they do associate with them. Even more bizarre, you're assuming that because they're both Muslims, they already do associate with each other. This is untrue..

In other words, if Mormons (or any other Christian denomination or sect) begin to act in the way some Muslims do right now, I will fully expect other Christian denominations to do their part in stopping them. Until that happens I'm content with the way things stand right now.

Are you ignorant of Mormon history? There were wars. If you think 'doing their part' is forcing other Mormons to believe as they believe, through magic it appears, then your standards are untenable.

Why aren't you doing what you demand of Muslims?

The only special thing is the 20,000+ terrorist attacks yearly done in the name of Islam versus maybe 20 or so in the name of all other religions combined - and this is not even the full extent of the problem, it's just terrorism, the most visible and talked about issue. There is no special plea, just a very special religion.

Furthermore even human rights have their limits:

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

This is precisely what Islamic extremists do. Claiming it is their Human right to do so isn't just obscene, it is actually incorrect.

McHrozni

I'm still not impressed by your special pleading, least of all when it's a circular argument.

You'll have to get me to agree that other Muslims are responsible for or have agency over what Muslim extremists do for that to matter. You have not, so your argument fails.

 

[tyr_13]

Your "they" in this argument is me. I want some authority to have some control over mosques.

Depending on what you mean by 'control', then yes, you don't want freedom of religion. If you hold what some sects preach against other Muslims who don't agree with those sects, then you don't want freedom of association.

Does this mean that I want "Muslims to stop being Muslims"? Well, that depends. Do I want people to stop talking like this? Then, absolutely, yes:


A'isha's argument was that the sects of Islam that operated these mosques would, as a matter of course, preach this kind of thinking. If that is the case, then, absolutely, this is totally unacceptable. If this is how you define Islam, as these preachers and these denominations clearly do, then this has to stop or be stopped. Freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of speech do not cover incitement to hatred, violence or the overthrow of democracy.

You, me, and A'isha all want that to stop too. You're arguing a straw man, and trying to tar those who disagree with your other implications with defending despicable violence seekers. Is it any wonder I see so many aspects of your argument dishonest? I simply find that more plausible than you not understanding so much of what is said.

In the context of the UK that simply is not the case. The Charities Commission is in overall control of all charitable organisations, of which mosques are a part.

What do you mean by 'control' here?

Answered above.

No it wasn't. Try again.

Your repeated accusations of dishonesty on my part are becoming tiresome. I am trying to have a serious, open and honest discussion, and having you constantly question my motives and my morals is unkind, unpleasant and unacceptable.

Having you changing sets and setting up straw men, while trying to tie horrible straw men to others is also unpleasant and unacceptable. Calling your arguments dishonest is mild compared to implying others are supporting Islamists.

So you are grudgingly acknowledging that the story is true. That is progress, and I thank you for that.

Why grudging? I haven't looked into that specific aspect, but was just going off the assumption it was honestly presented. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, even though most times I've been cited such stories, they've been either wildly exaggerated or completely fabricated. Until just now, I never indicated I doubted it.

My point is that one whistleblower raised the alarm, and many people in his community, rather than thanking him for his courage, threatened to kill him. A'isha was saying that "most Muslims" were actively trying to rid their mosques and communities of extremists. My example showed that this is not the case.

Your example does no such thing. That is not a valid sample size to determine that, and again you're manipulating the sets to play fast and loose with conclusions. Muslims in that town are not the equivalent of most Muslims in the UK, which in turn are not the equivalent of most Muslims. These things are not interchangeable.

Also, many threatened to kill him? What is many?

And while the various and competing sects of Islam bicker or ignore the problem, people are dying all over the world. There simply isn't time for these internecine conflicts to be resolved.
Furthermore, the whole point of MINAB is that it wasn't "outside control": it was independent of the British government, and was to be run by Muslims themselves.

But those Muslims don't agree on things. Why does another Muslim have more obligation or right to control what other Muslims are allowed to believe than any other fellow citizen does?

Those conflicts between the sects aren't going to just be resolved. They still exist in all the major religions, and most of the minor ones too. The violence can however be moved past without combining all the sects.

Finally, if Islam is such a peaceful religion, why do they have such a problem with working together to prevent violence?

Why do some Christians still murder when their religion is pretty clearly against it? These are complex problems with multiple vectors, and Islam or no Islam, many of these conflicts would still be going on. It's about controlling others.

If you are going to allege that the views of people like McHrozni were instrumental in causing the failure of MINAB, I think it only reasonable that you support this with some evidence.

What form or evidence would you accept? I have the feeling that any Muslim complaining about such views would be considered part of the problem anyway, and more evidence Islam refuses to help.

Well, not a feeling really. An educated guess based on experience in this and other threads.

 

[McHrozni]

Wow, you're very lost. Why do you think that mosques wouldn't welcome new worshipers from rival sects? The lawful mechanisms for both are roughly the same as well. Convince them your 'product' is better and gain 'market share'.

Hey if you think it's ridiculous, we are in agreement.

The thing is you see ... it was your argument in the first place.

You said they will end up in gas chambers (not a 'should' there) and you obviously think they should be rebuked in very clear ways. You're also comfortable telling them that if they don't think violently conquering the world is part of Islam, they aren't following Islam while at the same time demanding that they get other Muslims to do exactly what you criticize them for and not really follow Islam.

You're quite lost indeed. Tell me, which parts of my positions are you uncomfortable with? Because anything that seems wrong is probably something you didn't understand (or didn't want to understand).

But you tell me. Muslims tell you to go pound sand with your ideas of Islam being inherently violent and that they are responsible for what other Muslims do; what consequences do you think they should suffer?

Eternal damnation, obviously. Their holy texts say so.

As for this world, the question is very complex and in all likelihood has no correct answers. I never claimed to know what should be done with them, merely with what will be done and how that needs to be stopped before it goes too far. One of the reasons for that is I don't think it's just. What would be just is not a judgment I'm prepared to make. In fact, I think there are no just solutions, and this includes nothing happening to them at all.

No one is asking that Muslims be exempt from any of that, nor from reporting crimes. You're demanding they believe differently than they do, while at the same time calling that different way not Islam, and that they be responsible for other sects with other ideas not agreeing with them. That is giving up freedom of religion. If you can demand people change their belief rather than their actions, you're demanding they not have free religious belief.

Freedom of religion does not extend to being accessory to murder. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly says so. You were told this before.

And nice skipping the freedom of association. What if a given Muslim doesn't want anything to do with those asshats who preach intolerance and violence? You're demanding they do associate with them. Even more bizarre, you're assuming that because they're both Muslims, they already do associate with each other. This is untrue..

I don't demand they do it, I'm telling horrible things will happen to them if they don't. They're free to ignore the advice if they want to, but the results are likely to be very horrible for all of us if they do.

Are you ignorant of Mormon history? There were wars. If you think 'doing their part' is forcing other Mormons to believe as they believe, through magic it appears, then your standards are untenable.

Why aren't you doing what you demand of Muslims?

There were three wars involving Mormons, all in mid 19th-century, all of which took place in what was then complete backwater of the US, with a grand total of maybe 100 dead - fewer than were killed in Paris in a couple of hours earlier this year.

Mormon wars were of trivial importance and are long in the past. Islamic supremacism and it's ugly results have been with us for 14 centuries and are outright exploding in the past several decades. I consider the first historical trivia and the second an important current issue. Any sane answer to the question you posed will not differ in a significant way.

I'm still not impressed by your special pleading, least of all when it's a circular argument.

You'll have to get me to agree that other Muslims are responsible for or have agency over what Muslim extremists do for that to matter. You have not, so your argument fails.

Curiously you earlier understood the difference between "will" and "should". The only difference between then and now is that here you use present tense instead of future tense. If this is not understandable for you then maybe it's not my logic that's flawed, but your understanding of the language we use. I don't provide lessons for that I'm afraid.

McHrozni

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Depending on what you mean by 'control', then yes, you don't want freedom of religion. If you hold what some sects preach against other Muslims who don't agree with those sects, then you don't want freedom of association.




You, me, and A'isha all want that to stop too. You're arguing a straw man, and trying to tar those who disagree with your other implications with defending despicable violence seekers. Is it any wonder I see so many aspects of your argument dishonest? I simply find that more plausible than you not understanding so much of what is said.





What do you mean by 'control' here?





No it wasn't. Try again.






Having you changing sets and setting up straw men, while trying to tie horrible straw men to others is also unpleasant and unacceptable. Calling your arguments dishonest is mild compared to implying others are supporting Islamists.






Why grudging? I haven't looked into that specific aspect, but was just going off the assumption it was honestly presented. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, even though most times I've been cited such stories, they've been either wildly exaggerated or completely fabricated. Until just now, I never indicated I doubted it.




Your example does no such thing. That is not a valid sample size to determine that, and again you're manipulating the sets to play fast and loose with conclusions. Muslims in that town are not the equivalent of most Muslims in the UK, which in turn are not the equivalent of most Muslims. These things are not interchangeable.

Also, many threatened to kill him? What is many?





But those Muslims don't agree on things. Why does another Muslim have more obligation or right to control what other Muslims are allowed to believe than any other fellow citizen does?

Those conflicts between the sects aren't going to just be resolved. They still exist in all the major religions, and most of the minor ones too. The violence can however be moved past without combining all the sects.



Why do some Christians still murder when their religion is pretty clearly against it? These are complex problems with multiple vectors, and Islam or no Islam, many of these conflicts would still be going on. It's about controlling others.



What form or evidence would you accept? I have the feeling that any Muslim complaining about such views would be considered part of the problem anyway, and more evidence Islam refuses to help.

Well, not a feeling really. An educated guess based on experience in this and other threads.

I could go through this point by point, but, seeing as this post is made of equal parts straw and snark, I really don't see the point.
Instead, I'd like to ask you why you are here. What is your purpose in joining this discussion? You see, I entered this debate because I wanted to discuss the problem of the radicalisation of young Muslims, which has led to the Manhattan explosions as well as countless other atrocities, and what can be done about it.
I have explored means of expelling extremist preachers from mosques, looked at what can happen to Muslim whistleblowers, and given some suggestions and examples of confronting extremists in practice.
I have looked back on the last couple of pages of this thread, and all you have brought to the table is negativity. You pick away at my posts, amd McHrozni's, throwing out accusations of dishonesty and strawmanning, but you have not made a single positive point. Are you simply spoiling for a fight, or do you have an actual point to make?
We are looking at an issue that is costing lives, dividing communities and countries, and which involves all sorts of other factors such as freedom of speech versus hate crimes. Rather than constantly attacking other posters, why do you not address the topic? What do you think should be done? Do you have anything positive to say at all, because what you have done so far has not moved the discussion forward one step.

 

[tyr_13]

Hey if you think it's ridiculous, we are in agreement.

The thing is you see ... it was your argument in the first place.

What are you talking about? I don't think it ridiculous that pizza chains compete for customers, nor that likewise competing sects of Islam...compete for followers. You think this makes it a bad analogy for some unknown reason.

You're quite lost indeed. Tell me, which parts of my positions are you uncomfortable with? Because anything that seems wrong is probably something you didn't understand (or didn't want to understand).

That's actually pretty easy...

Eternal damnation, obviously. Their holy texts say so.

As for this world, the question is very complex and in all likelihood has no correct answers. I never claimed to know what should be done with them, merely with what will be done and how that needs to be stopped before it goes too far. One of the reasons for that is I don't think it's just. What would be just is not a judgment I'm prepared to make. In fact, I think there are no just solutions, and this includes nothing happening to them at all.

...because it's this right here. Muslims who don't preach hate or violence, don't condone it, do report it when they know about it, should very well have nothing happen to them. They're innocent and it's only just that no more happen to them than happens to you or me.

You think something should happen to them, and that it will in the form of gas chambers, and further that it's their own fault if they don't 'take your advice'. No, to some degree it's everyone's fault if something like that happens, but no more innocent Muslims than anyone else who tried to stop it. It's the people who don't try to stop it that would be more to blame, and those actively doing it most to blame. This happens to be why I'm so vehemently critical of ideas like yours that innocent Muslims bare responsibility for what Islamists are doing.

Freedom of religion does not extend to being accessory to murder. Even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly says so. You were told this before.

Good thing no one is arguing otherwise. I have not, so stop accusing me of it.

I don't demand they do it, I'm telling horrible things will happen to them if they don't. They're free to ignore the advice if they want to, but the results are likely to be very horrible for all of us if they do.

And after all, something beyond what is happening should happen to them, according to you in this very post.

There were three wars involving Mormons, all in mid 19th-century, all of which took place in what was then complete backwater of the US, with a grand total of maybe 100 dead - fewer than were killed in Paris in a couple of hours earlier this year.

Mormon wars were of trivial importance and are long in the past. Islamic supremacism and it's ugly results have been with us for 14 centuries and are outright exploding in the past several decades. I consider the first historical trivia and the second an important current issue. Any sane answer to the question you posed will not differ in a significant way.

It's always problematic to compare incidents from the past for level of violence when the populations are today greater and the means of violence much more effective (although so are the means of survivalability of violence). That said, there doesn't have to be an equivalency in magnitude for equivalency in kind. Besides that, problems with FLDS continue to this day. Child brides and repeated rape with absolute control over followers practiced by the FLDS is not the fault of mainstream Mormons, even if the FLDS is practicing closer to what their older holy texts say. In this same way, peaceful Muslims are not responsible for what ISIS does.

Curiously you earlier understood the difference between "will" and "should". The only difference between then and now is that here you use present tense instead of future tense. If this is not understandable for you then maybe it's not my logic that's flawed, but your understanding of the language we use. I don't provide lessons for that I'm afraid.

McHrozni

You don't wish to defend your argument on that level, so don't expect it to be given weight. It fails at a basic point.

 

[tyr_13]

I could go through this point by point, but, seeing as this post is made of equal parts straw and snark, I really don't see the point.
Instead, I'd like to ask you why you are here. What is your purpose in joining this discussion?

It is bad form to address the arguer of their motives instead of the argument, but I'll play along.

I'm calling out what I see as bad and harmful arguments, especially ones that have already been more calmly and completely addressed just to be twisted or ignored. It's important that lurkers don't mistake people like A'isha giving up on lengthy, well informed replies (likely due to issues with her cancer for those in the stands), as conceding. It bothers me when the posters with the most 'vigor' to keep posting can give the impression that some consensus is reached. That I'm not doing it as artfully or tactfully as I am capable (I am being very adversarial in this thread) of is for many reasons.

The primary being that I am fully of the opinion that normalizing the idea that Muslims who are peaceful and trying are more responsible for what Islamists do than anyone else is will lead to violence against them or at the very least be counter-productive to any advancement on the issue being made. This idea would further be used against other unpopular groups. As I said earlier, if for no other reason (like morality) an atheist would be motivated to do this from self-interest because they'll come for us too. Not my motive, but if someone needs more, there it is.

You see, I entered this debate because I wanted to discuss the problem of the radicalisation of young Muslims, which has led to the Manhattan explosions as well as countless other atrocities, and what can be done about it.
I have explored means of expelling extremist preachers from mosques, looked at what can happen to Muslim whistleblowers, and given some suggestions and examples of confronting extremists in practice.
I have looked back on the last couple of pages of this thread, and all you have brought to the table is negativity. You pick away at my posts, amd McHrozni's, throwing out accusations of dishonesty and strawmanning, but you have not made a single positive point. Are you simply spoiling for a fight, or do you have an actual point to make?
We are looking at an issue that is costing lives, dividing communities and countries, and which involves all sorts of other factors such as freedom of speech versus hate crimes. Rather than constantly attacking other posters, why do you not address the topic? What do you think should be done? Do you have anything positive to say at all, because what you have done so far has not moved the discussion forward one step.

See my highlighted post in the one above this one. I don't need to make a 'positive point' to argue against that one. Besides that, I view my main contention as a positive point. Being skeptical of arguments is useful anyway, but arguing against what I believe will contribute to the harm is more important.

I think that much of what should be done is being done. It will take time and more people will die. There is no better solution. People get the 'tree of liberty' quote wrong a lot with this point. Sometimes the least harmful thing still includes lots of bad happening from time to time to avoid greater harms, like those gas chambers mentioned before.

It's nice that you're concerned about this problem, but your motivation doesn't make your arguments correct.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

It is bad form to address the arguer of their motives instead of the argument, but I'll play along.

I was addressing the point of your arguments, or my perceived lack of it. I believe this to be entirely within the MA.

I'm calling out what I see as bad and harmful arguments, especially ones that have already been more calmly and completely addressed just to be twisted or ignored. It's important that lurkers don't mistake people like A'isha giving up on lengthy, well informed replies (likely due to issues with her cancer for those in the stands), as conceding. It bothers me when the posters with the most 'vigor' to keep posting can give the impression that some consensus is reached. That I'm not doing it as artfully or tactfully as I am capable (I am being very adversarial in this thread) of is for many reasons.

That's great, but I haven't said, hinted or even implied that any kind of consensus has been reached. Nor have I claimed victory because of A'isha's absence (all the best, by the way). I also think that my posts have been well-substantiated, and I have not twisted or ignored any of the main points made against my arguments.
It seems then, from what you have said here, that you are being deliberately confrontational and negative, not because of anything I have said, but for other reasons you don't want to share. I'm not convinced this makes you look good.

The primary being that I am fully of the opinion that normalizing the idea that Muslims who are peaceful and trying are more responsible for what Islamists do than anyone else is will lead to violence against them or at the very least be counter-productive to any advancement on the issue being made. This idea would further be used against other unpopular groups. As I said earlier, if for no other reason (like morality) an atheist would be motivated to do this from self-interest because they'll come for us too. Not my motive, but if someone needs more, there it is.

Well at least you have stated a positive point. I may not agree with it, but it is at least a start.

See my highlighted post in the one above this one. I don't need to make a 'positive point' to argue against that one. Besides that, I view my main contention as a positive point. Being skeptical of arguments is useful anyway, but arguing against what I believe will contribute to the harm is more important.

I have consistently argued that something needs to be done about extremist preachers. Are you saying that this idea is harmful?

I think that much of what should be done is being done. It will take time and more people will die. There is no better solution. People get the 'tree of liberty' quote wrong a lot with this point. Sometimes the least harmful thing still includes lots of bad happening from time to time to avoid greater harms, like those gas chambers mentioned before.

And yet you claim complete ignorance about what is being done in the UK, and ridicule the idea that anything should be done in the first place.
For the record: what exactly do you think is being done to deal with extremism and radicalisation?

It's nice that you're concerned about this problem, but your motivation doesn't make your arguments correct.

My arguments, summarised, are thus:
There are mechanisms within the UK that allow for Muslims to expel extremist preachers from mosques.
There are laws in the UK prohibiting hate speech.
The first line of defence against Muslim extremism is Muslims themselves. They should take a more proactive stance in policing what goes on in their religious establishments.
The second line of defence should be a multi-denominational, nationwide, independent MUslim-run organisation with the power to expel extremist preachers.
The third line of defence should be the laws of the UK itself.
I have stated this many times, and I still cannot see why you object so strongly to this. What are your reasons for this opposition, to what to me seems like a perfectly reasonable solution?