Another thread linked to the silly Mosque (Muslims Please Read)

[slowfiveoh]

Mornin!

So I have some questions for the Muslims in this community, that may shed a lot of light on your political, and religious approaches. Most importantly, it may help alleviate concern from those who may indeed be needlessly frustrated and/or concerned with the construction of a Mosque at or near, ground zero.

So please answer the following questions, so that you may put the typical American mindset at ease (Well, those on this forum anyhow).

#1. Do you believe Allah wants all non-believers dead?


#2. What are your personal feelings towards terrorist units operating under the pretenses of Islamic faith?


#3. What are the self professed "True Followers of Mohammed", those who practice Islam doing proactively, to distance themselves from said extremists who carry out murder in the name of Islam?


#4. Freedom, and Constitutional liberties aside (Which we all know are universal and important anyways), do you believe the building of a Mosque, which ideologically speaking, represents the same extremists, is the wisest thing to do as a representation of Islamic intent in the US?


#5. Do you believe Sharias law should be imposed in the US and allowed to function under the guise of seperation of Church and State?



Thanks for your attention in advance, and believe me. Eager eyes will be watching.

Put people at ease,...if you can.

 

[Tawnos]

M

#3. What are the self professed "True Followers of Mohammed", those who practice Islam doing proactively, to distance themselves from said extremists who carry out murder in the name of Islam?


#4. Freedom, and Constitutional liberties aside (Which we all know are universal and important anyways), do you believe the building of a Mosque, which ideologically speaking, represents the same extremists, is the wisest thing to do as a representation of Islamic intent in the US?

I'm not a Muslim, but I do have to say these two questions are leading and somewhat offensive. The first because the notion a group should have to proactively distance themselves from terrorists implies you think without such an action, they are implicitly linked. The second because it's the same ******** concern trolling that's already happened in two other treads and addressed thoroughly.

Group association based on a small group of extremists is asinine. It's the same as blaming all Americans for the acts of a soldier/group of soldiers who inappropriately tortures a POW. Unless a person or group is actively saying "yeah, terrorism is awesome and justified in the name of the sky wizard!" you should presume the group does not support such barbarism.

As for the last bit, you beg the question when you say "ideologically speaking, represents the same extremists." No, a muslim community center does not represent those extremists any more than the YMCA represents the crusaders or modern christian terrorists. It's intellectually dishonest to suggest a link or association, and pulling out the "it's insensitive" bullcrap is wearing thin. Know what's really insensitive? People like you who are calling Muslims terrorist supporters or representatives of extremists because they want to build a f'ing community center in a place they have every right and reason to. That is insensitive, not the planned Muslim community center.

 

[simmonsjoe]

Massive Comprehension Fail

You obviously didn't read any of my comprehensive posts.


#1 - This question asks about someone's belief, irregardless of facts. (which I have given you extensively on this question)

#2 - Anyone who agrees they are 'terrorist' will feel the same way, so your question is flawed. (you realize terrorist and their supporters don't consider themselves terrorist?)

#3 - See Townos's post. One is not required to prove his innocence. This concept fundamentally violates the principles America was founded on..

#4 - See Townos's post. also, wtf? Terrorist 'ideology' isn't based in Islam. It is simply cloaked in it.

#5 - False premise. Not only have I disproved this, I've talked about the origins of "Sharia Law" which mostly isn't based on the Qu'ran.
--
You repeatedly use the same false premises, no matter how much it's been pointed out to you. It is obvious you've not paid attention to anything I've written in the past. If you had you wouldn't of insulted me with these questions.
Moreover the reason you keep returning the argument to this 'insensitive' ******** is because you've been whipped soundly on all other fronts. Why you can't be open and honest with yourself, that you have a prejudice born out of ignorance, and use this as a learning and growing experience is beyond me. Man up already.

 

[slowfiveoh]

I'm not a Muslim, but I do have to say these two questions are leading and somewhat offensive. The first because the notion a group should have to proactively distance themselves from terrorists implies you think without such an action, they are implicitly linked. The second because it's the same ******** concern trolling that's already happened in two other treads and addressed thoroughly.

The questions are not, and would not be "offensive" if they were simply taken at face value, as they were meant to be applied. The implication is not to associate all of Islam with the actions of a few, but merely to provide substantiation to those who immediately link Islam, with terrorist activity.

I do not believe that all of Islam is indicitive of terrorism, and vice-versa.

Group association based on a small group of extremists is asinine. It's the same as blaming all Americans for the acts of a soldier/group of soldiers who inappropriately tortures a POW. Unless a person or group is actively saying "yeah, terrorism is awesome and justified in the name of the sky wizard!" you should presume the group does not support such barbarism.

Ah but the correlation here is not the same. You cannot state that it is comparable to Abu-Ghraib, when in direct response to said incident, the US Military as a whole was apologetic, and rejected the idea that this kind of treatment would EVER be acceptable.

A good parallel would be Muslim leaders speaking out AGAINST the activities of terrorist organizations on a regular basis, compounding the ideology that they espouse that they are indeed a "Religion of Peace".

If the US Army failed to release any statement whatsoever in regards to the terrible actions at US Prison Camps in Iraq/Afghanistan, that would be a good comparative to modern Islam.

SO the questions were asked in absolutely appropriate context.

I would appreciate if they could be answered.

As for the last bit, you beg the question when you say "ideologically speaking, represents the same extremists." No, a muslim community center does not represent those extremists any more than the YMCA represents the crusaders or modern christian terrorists.

There is no disconnect in many minds. That is the purpose of this thread.

To provide a solid answer instead of deflecting the questions through ad-hominem, and strawman attacks, is the purpose. To say nothing, is indicitive of a whole other thing.

I mean no intellectual harm to anyone through the asking of questions in this venue. I merely am posing the questions so we can use them as a reference.

So here is my question now...

Where are the simple answers? Why are you deflecting?

It's intellectually dishonest to suggest a link or association, and pulling out the "it's insensitive" bullcrap is wearing thin. Know what's really insensitive? People like you who are calling Muslims terrorist supporters or representatives of extremists because they want to build a f'ing community center in a place they have every right and reason to. That is insensitive, not the planned Muslim community center.

Where did I call somebody a "terrorist supporter"?

Will you kindly, politely, step back from the computer and take a look at your hostile approach?

Did you even take half a second to think about your reply, or what I posted?

Drop the attitude.
Drop the ad-hominem.
Drop the BS.


Simply answer the questions.

Is this so hard to ask?

Is it so hard to ask the average everyday Muslim what he thinks about these extremists acting out in the name of their religion?

Less deflection. More honest answers.

Thanks!

You obviously didn't read any of my comprehensive posts.

I read many of them. I found the ones about verses that were clearly taken way out of context very interesting, even if I do not agree with everything you have stated.

#1 - This question asks about someone's belief, irregardless of facts. (which I have given you extensively on this question)

You have not. I am asking for a well rounded, intellectualized response to a very legitimate question.

Can you answer it?

#2 - Anyone who agrees they are 'terrorist' will feel the same way, so your question is flawed. (you realize terrorist and their supporters don't consider themselves terrorist?)

I did not ask for your round-about, deflecting, poorly constructed response you have given here. I asked quite clearly for the response of a peace loving Muslim to give their personal insight. Nothing more, nothing less.

Keep dancing around though.

#3 - See Townos's post. One is not required to prove his innocence. This concept fundamentally violates the principles America was founded on..

Piss poor response again.

When you have such a rampant amount of terrorist organizations operating under the guise of "islam", it would behoove, and damn near become a necessity to distance onesself from those who perform these hateful acts.

Let me type this in plain English so you can comprehend this...

I AM NOT STATING YOU, OR ALL ISLAMIC PEOPLE ARE TERRORISTS. I AM ASKING WHAT, IF ANY STEPS, HAVE THE TRUE FOLLOWERS OF ISLAM DONE TO DENY THE LEGITIMACY OF SAID ACTIONS. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY PUBLIC STATEMENTS, SPEECHES, OR OTHERWISE?

God damn man, nothing more, nothing less.

#4

- See Townos's post. also, wtf? Terrorist 'ideology' isn't based in Islam. It is simply cloaked in it.

This is actually the entire point of this thread. Not your mindless bantering and attacking me.

#5 - False premise. Not only have I disproved this, I've talked about the origins of "Sharia Law" which mostly isn't based on the Qu'ran.

I believe you. I am merely providing a forum with which you can annotate why this is something you do not agree with. Instead, you went on the attack, in the worst possible way. Shaming yourself in the process.

--

You repeatedly use the same false premises, no matter how much it's been pointed out to you. It is obvious you've not paid attention to anything I've written in the past. If you had you wouldn't of insulted me with these questions.

OH HOW DARE I INSULT YOU WITH QUESTIONS?!?! IGNORANT PIGDOG I AM!

Moreover the reason you keep returning the argument to this 'insensitive' ******** is because you've been whipped soundly on all other fronts. Why you can't be open and honest with yourself, that you have a prejudice born out of ignorance, and use this as a learning and growing experience is beyond me. Man up already.

I have been "soundly whipped"? WTF are you talking about?

Have you even taken a second to read my posts?

I said to build the damn thing. I do agree the timing is off, and I personally feel the followers of Islam could do a bit better to express to the world their disgust with terrorist actions under the guise of of their faith. That's it though.

Have an Islam party in the damn thing I don't care. LOL

Also, nice try in trying to paint me as "ignorant" or "prejudice". That's absolutely amazing. Did you come to this conclusion all by yourself?

Stop trying to attack my character. Good job in blowing up an innocent thread though.


One simple word of advice to you guy.

Slow down, read, and don't get your panties in a twist.

This was meant to be a positive thread which you just took a big, steaming, piling crap in.

Frankly, I am not surprised.

 

[sFe]

There's quite a few threads on this topic and the like over at usacarry. The general consensus there is "Kill them all, let the 'real' god sort them out".

 

[eye95]

I am not going to visit that site. However, I strongly doubt that such is the "consensus." If it is, then I am sure I don't want to visit the site.

 

[Tawnos]

The questions are not, and would not be "offensive" if they were simply taken at face value, as they were meant to be applied. The implication is not to associate all of Islam with the actions of a few, but merely to provide substantiation to those who immediately link Islam, with terrorist activity.

I do not believe that all of Islam is indicitive of terrorism, and vice-versa.

I quote:

#4. Freedom, and Constitutional liberties aside (Which we all know are universal and important anyways), do you believe the building of a Mosque, which ideologically speaking, represents the same extremists, is the wisest thing to do as a representation of Islamic intent in the US?

This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question." An example is the childhood taunt of "does your mother know you're gay" - the fact the party being teased is gay is presumed in the question being asked, so either answer grants legitimacy to the question's false pretense. By stating "which represents extremists" you've inherently taken for fact that building a community center is a representation of extremism.


I'm going to take the same questions you've posted, and apply them to gun owners the way an anti might (all bad grammar kept in its original form).

#1. Do you believe the gun lobby supports the blood of children running through our streets?

#2. What are your personal feelings about the murders committed with a firearm every day in your country?

#3. What are the self professed "Responsible gun owners", those who carry firearms doing proactively, to distance themselves from said murderers who do so with guns borne because it is "their right"?

#4. Freedom, and Constitutional liberties aside (Which we all know are universal and important anyways), do you believe the Heller decision, which ideologically speaking, represents the same murderers, is the wisest thing to do as a representation of pro-gun intent in the US?

#5. Do you believe militia service should be imposed in the US and allowed to function under the guise of the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[wrightme]

Very well paraphrased, Tawnos. Maybe, maybe, that will let him see how his questions appear from eyes other than his own.

 

[slowfiveoh]

I quote:

This is a logical fallacy called "begging the question." An example is the childhood taunt of "does your mother know you're gay" - the fact the party being teased is gay is presumed in the question being asked, so either answer grants legitimacy to the question's false pretense. By stating "which represents extremists" you've inherently taken for fact that building a community center is a representation of extremism.

It is an absolute fact that due to the claims of extremists, the religion of Islam has been unfairly cast on the world as the religion of terror. I am not specifying that Islam "IS" the religion of terrorism. I am merely specifying that it has, as a matter of fact, been cast as such by those terrorists. This mold has worked its way into the preoccupying thoughts of those who do not even realize the depth of their erroneous judgment. Remember that a lack of confirming knowledge that Islam is peaceful, unfortunately, gives the wrong impression to the mindless wanderers.

HENCE THE PURPOSE FOR THESE QUESTIONS!

Hence why you still don't get it, and dream up the silly reply you respond with below.

I'm going to take the same questions you've posted, and apply them to gun owners the way an anti might (all bad grammar kept in its original form).

Show me the poor grammar. Although, I do see where you are running out of credible material to insult me with, so you digress incorrectly to stating I have poor grammar.

I'd be happy to converse with you any time on the utilization of the English language, or perhaps compositional styles such as MLA or otherwise.

What a laughing stock of an argument.

#1. Do you believe the gun lobby supports the blood of children running through our streets?

I do not. Through diplomatic approaches and upholding of a positive image, the "gun lobby" are really just peaceful Americans exercising their inalienable right to self defense.
We support the lawful, and life embracing purposes for maintaining our firearms, and reject the idea that a firearm should ever be used for criminal purposes.

(WOW! That was EASY! )

#2. What are your personal feelings about the murders committed with a firearm every day in your country?

Tragic. Of course this is a product of people not really being able to defend themselves by hindering laws specifically placed as a road block to law abiding citizens possessing equitable means to defend ones self.

(Oh my God this is so totally unfair amirite?)

#3. What are the self professed "Responsible gun owners", those who carry firearms doing proactively, to distance themselves from said murderers who do so with guns borne because it is "their right"?

Well, it is clear that there are efforts to besmirch the good name of law abiding firearms owners by somehow attaching them to the actions of criminal elements. This holds true over the years of "Anti-Firearms" lobbying that has specifically imposed limitations on the law abiding citizen under the guise of "Crime Prevention".

As a collective effort, many firearms owners and organizations are banding together to squash this disappointing perception. While many still believe these false perceptions, organizations like OpenCarry.Org are fostering the responsible side. This presents the positive aspects to firearm ownership, and offers the countering perspective that law abiding citizens are truly not the problem.

(Oh man these questions are so unfair! Except not at all, and VERy realistic questions :lol: )

#4. Freedom, and Constitutional liberties aside (Which we all know are universal and important anyways), do you believe the Heller decision, which ideologically speaking, represents the same murderers, is the wisest thing to do as a representation of pro-gun intent in the US?

I do believe there is the focus through various campaigns, such as the Brady Campaign for example, who love to append the idea that "Heller empowers criminals" to the masses in an attempt to get them to vote their way. Just as a minor example, this gives them leverage to lobby for political strength, and push their agendas through.

Consequently, this has truly affected the minds and hearts of many Americans, and substantiated this false image.

I believe Heller was a fantastic choice that empowers the law abiding citizen as an individual to exercise their constitutional rights, as well as defend themselves in a capacity that demonstrates the true utility and peaceful nature of firearms owners across the nation. This affirmation (Heller) specifically brings to light the peaceful, every day carrying of firearms by law abiding citizens. You can't ask for a better venue for a demonstration of peace.

(Easy questions guy.)

#5. Do you believe militia service should be imposed in the US and allowed to function under the guise of the right to keep and bear arms?

It is hard to impose something that is pretty descriptive in definition. The "militia" is all of us anyways. I'd be happy to hear a counterpoint to this commentary though, as well as participating in a debate if deemed necessary.


All those answers and I didn't have to wet my drawers in offense.
Nor did I have to refer to any of you as bitter or prejudiced by twisting the questions in a manner which did not suit me.

Amazing.

Now can someone answer the questions in a well articulated, peaceful, composed manner?

Perhaps without crying like little children or inferring that another man may be a child?

That would be great!

 

[simmonsjoe]

ignore feature

Tawnos don't waist your time with this guy anymore. He isn't worth it. He doesn't care about facts as long as he can continue viewing the world the way he wants.

 

[slowfiveoh]

Tawnos don't waist your time with this guy anymore.View attachment 3842 He isn't worth it. He doesn't care about facts as long as he can continue viewing the world the way he wants.

You guys are amazing.

Can't answer some simple, honest, and direct questions.


Probably viewed more of this world than you, or your buddy. Deep down, people think Islam and terrorism are one. I am actually perturbed by this view.

Sorry to see you are not, and sorry to see you are not credible enough to answer some simple questions.

Now would a Muslim who is actually capable of public interfacing, step up and offer some responses to the questions I have asked?

Or is feigning offense to the very questions the low sinking level of stupidity-in-response that I should expect?

 

[Tawnos]

It is an absolute fact that due to the claims of extremists, the religion of Islam has been unfairly cast on the world as the religion of terror. I am not specifying that Islam "IS" the religion of terrorism. I am merely specifying that it has, as a matter of fact, been cast as such by those terrorists. This mold has worked its way into the preoccupying thoughts of those who do not even realize the depth of their erroneous judgment. Remember that a lack of confirming knowledge that Islam is peaceful, unfortunately, gives the wrong impression to the mindless wanderers.

HENCE THE PURPOSE FOR THESE QUESTIONS!

Hence why you still don't get it, and dream up the silly reply you respond with below.



Show me the poor grammar. Although, I do see where you are running out of credible material to insult me with, so you digress incorrectly to stating I have poor grammar.

Gah, just spent a long time fixing all the grammar in your post only to lose it because the post token expired and the forum didn't cache the response. Suffice it to say, you have numerous errors in your original post, and when I was imitating the post, I wanted to make it clear that the error pre-existed, and I simply carried it forward. Had I not done so, you could have easily edited your grammatical mistakes and then I would look like I'm incapable of writing well, a charge I take seriously.

It's clear to me you don't know what it means to beg the question. As such, I will take my leave of you and the derp you're bringing to this thread. Until you learn to phrase things in a manner that does not presuppose a fact, I can only surmise you believe those statements you've interjected into your questions, and will respond accordingly.

Like I said originally, only two questions really irked me, and they were the ones you had to spend the most time defusing, because they were clearly loaded questions. Consider, you answered in a single paragraph everything but #3 and #4, and for those, you even claimed the exact same thing I'm pointing out. That is, you said "Well, it is clear that there are efforts to besmirch the good name of law abiding firearms owners by somehow attaching them to the actions of criminal elements." - How is this *any* different than your attempts to besmirch Muslims by somehow attaching them to the actions of criminal terrorists?

The same realization permeates your answer to #4, where you state "there is the focus through various campaigns ... who love to append the idea that 'Heller empowers criminals' to the masses in an attempt to get them to vote their way." I ask you to reread your original number 4, and see how you love to append the idea that this community center represents extremists. You use that interjection as a means to tilt the conversation in terms that suit your needs. If the community center did represent extremists, then you might have a point, but it does not, so by making that association in the question, you attempt to sway opinion towards your disapproval of the center.

Am I getting through to you?

Again, I can't answer these questions from the point of view of a Muslim, as I'm not one. I can only answer as an atheist, detached and saddened by the whole spectacle of FAIL going on.

 

[March Hare]

Question #3, above.

The thing that I find saddening is the perceived imbalance in the reactions of the Muslim world to events.

As an example;
A cartoonist draws a picture that is perceived as offensive by Muslims, the Islamic world goes ballistic, calling for him to be arrested, censored, or, in some cases, killed outright.

An Islamic faction parks a truck bomb in a market place and kills dozens of civilians, from the same Islamic world, subdued murmurs, at best.

Where is the condemnation and outrage for killings such as those?

It may just be that we don't get to hear it, but that's how the Muslim world is increasingly seen; non Muslim insults Islam, death and destruction, Muslims kill Muslims, silence.

I believe that the rest of the Islamic world needs to stand up and speak out against this violent minority, if they don't, the world will continue equate Islam with the terrorists.

I think the essence of question number three could use an answer from the Muslim world.

This is, of course, just my personal observation.
Please forgive any errors in my grammar, I was a science major.

Flame away...
-MH

 

[slowfiveoh]

It's clear to me you don't know what it means to beg the question. As such, I will take my leave of you and the derp you're bringing to this thread. Until you learn to phrase things in a manner that does not presuppose a fact, I can only surmise you believe those statements you've interjected into your questions, and will respond accordingly.

Your assessment is incorrect, and your translation of my supposed "loaded questions" is patently wrong as well. I will certainly elaborate to the point as this continues.

Like I said originally, only two questions really irked me, and they were the ones you had to spend the most time defusing, because they were clearly loaded questions. Consider, you answered in a single paragraph everything but #3 and #4, and for those, you even claimed the exact same thing I'm pointing out.

#3 and #4 were in fact questions that fairly placed in perspective the common perception of many Americans, and many other global inidividuals impacted by terrorism. You changed this to a question related to firearms ownership. In doing so you actually failed to recognize one consistent truth about both of the questions you claim to have a problem with. The perceptions in both cases are absolutely valid, and present in todays society.

I am betting that you, and simmonsjoe, along with myself, are all disgusted with this mentality. That would probably be a fair assessment I am sure.

Your disgust however, the same as mine, does not change a valid and poignant truth.

That is the simple fact here that you are not grasping.

That is, you said "Well, it is clear that there are efforts to besmirch the good name of law abiding firearms owners by somehow attaching them to the actions of criminal elements." - How is this *any* different than your attempts to besmirch Muslims by somehow attaching them to the actions of criminal terrorists?

Conceptual fail.

The questions were posed in a manner consistent with a sampled public opinion. Therefore the body of the question is absolutely correct in concept.

The question did not offend me, because the perspective was valid. To state that it is not, is to not face the reality laid out before you.

This is where the claimed "offense" is laughable, because if a particular subset of beliefs as it pertains to a group does not apply to you, but you believe yourself to be a member of said group, the best you could hope for is a positive advocacy for your cause.

This is the entire purpose for organizations like OCDO. An organization meant to show the truth behind a particular subset of beliefs. It is the advocacy and active display of peaceful carrying of firearms that offsets the hyperbole espoused by elements out to hurt the cause. Some of which, do so under guise of supporting or advocating for it.

An example would be, the special interest advocacy that some people claim the NRA engages in.

The same realization permeates your answer to #4, where you state "there is the focus through various campaigns ... who love to append the idea that 'Heller empowers criminals' to the masses in an attempt to get them to vote their way." I ask you to reread your original number 4, and see how you love to append the idea that this community center represents extremists.

Your assessments are failing on the basis of not understanding the sound foundation to the questions. By focusing on grammatical errors, or concepts in its use, you are missing the entire, legitimate, and well substantiated meaning behind the questions.

You state that I "love to append the idea that the community center represents extremists".

Wrong. Again, conceptual fail.

I acknowledge the REALITY that it somehow IS perceived as a representation of terrorist by a majority of any significant sampling. Hencewhy we have multiple threads on the topic.

Or are you in denial that this perception exists, or is a representation of any given majority?

Who is being ignorant?

So you are adamanly denying, since you do not agree with the concept of the question, that the reality exists?

You use that interjection as a means to tilt the conversation in terms that suit your needs. If the community center did represent extremists, then you might have a point, but it does not, so by making that association in the question, you attempt to sway opinion towards your disapproval of the center.

Incorrect. I use that specific format, because it is indicitive of a majority mindset.

Am I getting through to you?

I am truly hoping that you are capable of grasping the simple realiy of the questions, and how they represent a majoity opinion.

The questions are not loaded. They are based on fact, whether that fact is a tangible asset, or a state of mind inidicitive of a body of people.

Again, I can't answer these questions from the point of view of a Muslim, as I'm not one. I can only answer as an atheist, detached and saddened by the whole spectacle of FAIL going on.

I agree, as I am of a similar belief structure. However, what you need to realize is that the clinging to a particular belief structure is not likely to implode and simply vanish. Therefore, starting a dialogue consistent with public belief is a great way to assuage any illegitimate fears, such as those present in the Mosque threads and discussions about said Mosque/Community Center.

Am I getting through to you?

Have a good day.



Edit: Pro-Tip for Captain Grammar.

CTRL-A, CTRL-C are your friends before hitting the submit button.

 

[simmonsjoe]

Your Correct, You DON'T HEAR IT.

The thing that I find saddening is the perceived imbalance in the reactions of the Muslim world to events.

As an example;
A cartoonist draws a picture that is perceived as offensive by Muslims, the Islamic world goes ballistic, calling for him to be arrested, censored, or, in some cases, killed outright.

An Islamic faction parks a truck bomb in a market place and kills dozens of civilians, from the same Islamic world, subdued murmurs, at best.

Where is the condemnation and outrage for killings such as those?

It may just be that we don't get to hear it, but that's how the Muslim world is increasingly seen; non Muslim insults Islam, death and destruction, Muslims kill Muslims, silence.

I believe that the rest of the Islamic world needs to stand up and speak out against this violent minority, if they don't, the world will continue equate Islam with the terrorists.

I think the essence of question number three could use an answer from the Muslim world.

This is, of course, just my personal observation.
Please forgive any errors in my grammar, I was a science major.

Flame away...
-MH

You don't hear it because you don't want to. The media doesn't talk about stuff that isn't sensational. I know many Muslims(obviously). I've met only a few who do NOT condemn terrorist actions. The biggest thing you keep overlooking, is the most common target of terrorist is OTHER MUSLIMS. Why you require VICTIMS to become political activist is beyond me. I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMEONE ELSE'S ACTIONS.

Most Muslims can't find any common ground with others to discuss terrorist because there is no correlation to what you say terrorists are, and what they actually are. They keep talking about how Islam is peaceful and such, because they need you to understand what Islam actually is. Although terrorists may be Muslim, their actions are not based in Islam.

Islam IS NOT A NAME. It is a STATE OF BEING. When you call terrorists 'Islamic terrorist' or 'Muslim terrorist' or similar, you are actually saying "submitting to the will of God through terroristism." To those who understand what this means, they can't condemn it. This is because in order for this to be condemned, it has to be accepted as true. When you say "Islamic Terrorist" it shows such a fundamental lack of understanding, that dialogue is almost impossible. This is why many Muslims instead defend and explain Islam, because until you understand what Islam is, your talking on two different levels, and a dialogue about terrorist becomes very difficult.

Take myself for instance. I spend more time trying to define and explain what Islam is, and what terrorist really are, and what actually drives them, than anything else. I've rarely gotten the chance to actually discuss terrorism in the Muslim world and how to deal with it.

Another reason we don't discuss it is we have become discouraged. There are many forces that WANT TO INTENTIONALLY mislead Americans about Islam. Our intent when going over to Afghanistan and Iraq was reasonable. It was even justified as far as the Qu'ran was concerned. Terrorist misled people as to America's intentions as a recruitment tool. More and more Americans, however, have been misled about Islam. The end goal is a full scale war, by certain parties on BOTH SIDES.

 

[Tawnos]

You did not ever phrase your questions in terms of public opinion. If you had, the "idealogically speaking" would not be stated as fact, but would instead read something along the lines of "To many in the American public, building an Islamic building near ground zero represents extremism. Do you think that park 51 represents extremism? If so, is it appropriate for that center to be built there?" Notice how I state the assumptions and allow the answerer to make their own answers. In contrast, you have begged the question, where the fact that the building actually represents extremists (and not just in the opinion of certain public fools) is presupposed in the wording of the question. If a person directly answers the question being presented, i.e. "is it okay to build there", they have intrinsically acknowledged the inbuilt presupposition of extremist representation.

"The building represents extremists" is no more a valid and poignant truth than "cars represent drunk drivers" or "guns represent murderers". The fact you continue to claim them as truth rather than ignorant opinion astonishes me and appears to be no more than JAQing off.

 

[slowfiveoh]

"The building represents extremists" is no more a valid and poignant truth than "cars represent drunk drivers" or "guns represent murderers". The fact you continue to claim them as truth rather than ignorant opinion astonishes me and appears to be no more than JAQing off.

Another philosophical failure.

I have proven that there is a tie-in to precisely what I was stating.

Your ignorance of the facts even in the face of them, is astonishing to me.

You support the advocacy for Open Carry BECAUSE of the inappropriate bias we are all subjected to by the media, and the state of mind that factually exists by many plebians.

Then on the other side you reject the reality of said state of mind when you pretend to be offended by real world, real life things.

Reject reality Tawnos, and supplement your own.


simmonsjoe,

Beautiful response. Thank you. Even though your accusatory comments are directed towards me, AFTER I have specifically stated that I do not agree with the "cloaking" of terrorism under the guise of Islam.

This could have been a major PR success had you articulately, and politely responded to each question with real life, direct, and concise answers.

Answering the questions does NOT concede to association, but what it DOES do is allow a venue for a peaceful response to the primary questions plaguing the minds of others in this nation, and abroad.

To not believe that people are attaching "Terror" to a religion focused on peace, is to blindly turn your eye and simply hope it goes away.

Reading your posts I have indeed learned quite a bit (Like internet postings about "kill the infidel" verses in the Qu'ran is pretty much ********), and by asking these questions, I provided a venue for you to embrace the true meaning of your religion, and offer rebuttal.

Instead, you and Tawnos have pretty much relentlessly assaulted me, instead of, again, using a prime moment for forum PR.

The instant "offense" is also pretty sad in itself. While I understand the underlying impetus behind said offense, the aggressive response only solidifies it to those from the outside looking in.

So why don't you take the high road properly suited to "the religion of peace", and answer the questions, using news clippings, articles, and other sources (The Qu'ran perhaps?) to state your points?

Do it meaningfully.

Do it purposefully.

Deliver your message with a statement of peace, from the religion of such.

Too much to ask?

 

[Tawnos]

Another philosophical failure.

I have proven that there is a tie-in to precisely what I was stating.

do you believe the building of a Mosque, which ideologically speaking, represents the same extremists, is the wisest thing to do as a representation of Islamic intent in the US?

You BEGGED THE QUESTION. Is it that hard to acknowledge? You have proven nothing but a stubborn unwillingness to learn what the logical fallacy "begging the question" is. It does not mean "raise the question" like it's so often misused. "Prove" all you want, but without adjusting the question, it's worse than useless: it's insulting. As stated, the question assumes it's true that Park 51 represents extremism, and requires the answerer to respond to whether it's appropriate to support such extremism. The question does NOT ask whether the development actually supports extremism, nor does it make it clear that the ingrained "fact" is mere public opinion as viewed through your eyes.

One last try...

The way you write, I have to ask: do you still beat your wife?

 

[slowfiveoh]

You BEGGED THE QUESTION. Is it that hard to acknowledge?

I formatted the questions in a manner reflecting the common fears and reflected perspectives of the general public.

For your misinformed and highly idealic information, here is a post that was submitted just a few posts above, that proves at least #4 is valid.

The thing that I find saddening is the perceived imbalance in the reactions of the Muslim world to events.

As an example;
A cartoonist draws a picture that is perceived as offensive by Muslims, the Islamic world goes ballistic, calling for him to be arrested, censored, or, in some cases, killed outright.

An Islamic faction parks a truck bomb in a market place and kills dozens of civilians, from the same Islamic world, subdued murmurs, at best.

Where is the condemnation and outrage for killings such as those?

It may just be that we don't get to hear it, but that's how the Muslim world is increasingly seen; non Muslim insults Islam, death and destruction, Muslims kill Muslims, silence.

I believe that the rest of the Islamic world needs to stand up and speak out against this violent minority, if they don't, the world will continue equate Islam with the terrorists.

I think the essence of question number three could use an answer from the Muslim world.

This is, of course, just my personal observation.
Please forgive any errors in my grammar, I was a science major.

Flame away...
-MH

The question was not "begged". This post is PROOF you cannot refute that there is credibility and substantiation to the structure of the questions.

You will ignore this though, as if the substance has no impact on the phrasing of the question.

You have proven nothing but a stubborn unwillingness to learn what the logical fallacy "begging the question" is.

"Begging the question" is only meritorious as an accusation when the question "being begged" is not steeped in fact.

The unfortunate truth is fortunately, in this argument, on my side.

Your attempt to prohibit or limit the question being asked when it has substantial backing which I have provided proof of, truly shows that you would prefer the questions be avoided all together.

What an emotive drama queen.

It does not mean "raise the question" like it's so often misused.

I am very well informed as to the definition of the statement. Thanks, but try again please.

"Prove" all you want, but without adjusting the question, it's worse than useless: it's insulting.

...or it is a representation of the factual mindset projected and/or buried by the Average American, that would not be asked in such a manner that would address the actual misplaced perceptions and fears attached to it.

This is the reality you are rejecting under the guise of "insult".

If I were to word the questions differently, I would not receive a response conducive to the conversation at hand. That is a fact.

When one has fears, it is best to directly confront them to alleviate them.

As stated, the question assumes it's true that Park 51 represents extremism, and requires the answerer to respond to whether it's appropriate to support such extremism.

Let's take a look at the question, and see something that you missed:

#4. Freedom, and Constitutional liberties aside (Which we all know are universal and important anyways), do you believe the building of a Mosque, which ideologically speaking, represents the same extremists, is the wisest thing to do as a representation of Islamic intent in the US?

You may be wonderful at grammar, but your comprehension sucks:

Adjective

S: (adj) ideological (of or pertaining to or characteristic of an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation)

Were you competent at basic comprehension, you would understand that an ideological belief structure does not necessarily represent the proper or factual side of any particular subject matter. This is why there are debates (Gee...like those of a Mosque on an Open Carry forum?) where different parties contribute to a common idea. They "usually" have an "ideological standing" from which they draw their belief structure.

Stick with grammar. Your comprehension is lacking, and frankly insulting.

The question does NOT ask whether the development actually supports extremism, nor does it make it clear that the ingrained "fact" is mere public opinion as viewed through your eyes.

Nope. It just makes it clear that through particular ideological beliefs, there is in fact a perceived symbolism that the Mosque/Development/Center is indicative of "Islam Victory" over the US.

One last try...

The way you write, I have to ask: do you still beat your wife?

Transitional fail.

You are not including structural components of the questions at hand. To create a parallel to demonstrate your transitional fail, let me ask the following:

"Do you still kill infidels?".

I am beginning to doubt you are even remotely near as good at the English language as you proclaim.


Let me demonstrate your failings, oh Edgar Poe of OCDO.

Question #1:
-Do you believe Allah wants all non-believers dead?-

Purpose: Fair question. Is there specific scripture or other supporting writings in the Qu'ran that specify that non-believers must die?

Question #2:
-What are your personal feelings towards terrorist units operating under the pretenses of Islamic faith?-

Purpose: Genuine question asking what the feeling is in general amongst the Muslim community in regards to terrorists carrying out acts in the name of their religion.

Question #3:
-What are the self professed "True Followers of Mohammed", those who practice Islam doing proactively, to distance themselves from said extremists who carry out murder in the name of Islam?-

Purpose: Are there any awareness activities that the Muslim community is engaging in to counter the ideological growth that is stirring in certain populaces that create an unfair stigma attaching terror to a religion of peace? Is the Muslim community doing any outreach programs, or has anybody taken a stand to preach out against the activities of terrorist cells operating under the guise of the "religion of peace"?

Question #4:
-Freedom, and Constitutional liberties aside (Which we all know are universal and important anyways), do you believe the building of a Mosque, which ideologically speaking, represents the same extremists, is the wisest thing to do as a representation of Islamic intent in the US?-

Purpose: Are Muslim communities aware of the scarring that has been left on this nation as a result of terrorist attacks under the false canvas of Islamic belief? If so, is there a positive impetus behind the building of a Mosque at or near ground zero? Is it an attempt to positively reinforce a negative action by those who are not hiding behind Islam, and using it as justification to commit murder or genocide?

Question #5:
-Do you believe Sharias law should be imposed in the US and allowed to function under the guise of seperation of Church and State?-

Purpose: I have to admit there was a personal curiosity about this. simmonsjoe has expressed that Sharias Law is something that has been "concocted" by specific followers that is not particularly dictated or proscribed by the Qu'ran. I was hoping for an informative response, maybe even some history, that tells us a bit about the roots of this and whether or not it is something that could/should be implemented in this country from the Muslim perspective.



Now. Since you have proven beyond the reasonable shadow of a doubt that you are trying to incite wordplay to vilify my questions, do you finally get it?

Are you man enough to own up to your mistake in the interpretation of my question?

In two words; "Doubt it".

 

[Tawnos]

I just think you're too stupid to be worth wasting any more time on, and I hope I never have the misfortune of running into you here in WA.