Kris, Saamiyaar and TBT

Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

I will talk to Obama once I identify your Moderate muslims. As of now, a moderate muslim is one who silently supports the radical muslims.

*My paki muslim boss is a moderate....and I am waiting for a second one still.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

I will talk to Obama once I identify your Moderate muslims. As of now, a moderate muslim is one who silently supports the radical muslims.

*My paki muslim boss is a moderate....and I am waiting for a second one still.

A segment of moderate Muslims does recognise the challenge posed by radical interpretations of religion and dispute the conservative and literalist reading of scriptures advocated by religious fundamentalists. Quranic verses, the moderate Muslims argue, are often misinterpreted and quoted out of context, including some verses pertaining to non-Muslims, jihad and various forms of punishments. The problem with this debate is that it only happens in drawing rooms and private gatherings of a tiny liberal, secular and left-leaning class. Publicly, most Muslims are reluctant to openly engage in critical debate regarding religion. Those who do so often pay a huge price for it. Indeed, most Muslim countries lack the conducive environment required for fostering such debates. The places where there is space for critical debates are the relatively advanced democracies of the developed world. However, in almost all such countries, Muslims are in a minority and often the victims of hatred and prejudice inspired by Islamophobia. Consequently, conscious of their minority status, moderate Muslims in these countries hold back their views on religion for fear of being seen as abettors of Islamophobia.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/995966/will-moderate-muslims-please-stand-up/

Here, another one, go talk to Obama, now.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

I will talk to Obama once I identify your Moderate muslims. As of now, a moderate muslim is one who silently supports the radical muslims.

*My paki muslim boss is a moderate....and I am waiting for a second one still.

A segment of moderate Muslims does recognise the challenge posed by radical interpretations of religion and dispute the conservative and literalist reading of scriptures advocated by religious fundamentalists. Quranic verses, the moderate Muslims argue, are often misinterpreted and quoted out of context, including some verses pertaining to non-Muslims, jihad and various forms of punishments. The problem with this debate is that it only happens in drawing rooms and private gatherings of a tiny liberal, secular and left-leaning class. Publicly, most Muslims are reluctant to openly engage in critical debate regarding religion. Those who do so often pay a huge price for it. Indeed, most Muslim countries lack the conducive environment required for fostering such debates. The places where there is space for critical debates are the relatively advanced democracies of the developed world. However, in almost all such countries, Muslims are in a minority and often the victims of hatred and prejudice inspired by Islamophobia. Consequently, conscious of their minority status, moderate Muslims in these countries hold back their views on religion for fear of being seen as abettors of Islamophobia.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/995966/will-moderate-muslims-please-stand-up/

Here, another one, go talk to Obama, now.

He is a Brit. next, he himself identifies where the problem lies (Bolded ones). So they should work on refining, refomring their own book, which they themselves acknowledge is prone to misinterpretation (ALL THE TIME).

Of course, like all muslim apologists he follows it up with a "HOWEVER"

MUSLIMS have no right to talk about discrimination when all their countries, peoples, culture and religion so openly discriminate and they dont do anything to reform themselves. Any perceived discrimination by muslims are their own making and it is only a defense by the other side.

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

>>>>If your house has been broken into and various houses in your neighborhood have also been broken into and trashed, do you concentrate on protecting your community or decide to focus on the relationship of the robber with his wife?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

I will talk to Obama once I identify your Moderate muslims. As of now, a moderate muslim is one who silently supports the radical muslims.

*My paki muslim boss is a moderate....and I am waiting for a second one still.

........ Publicly, most Muslims are reluctant to openly engage in critical debate regarding religion. Those who do so often pay a huge price for it. Indeed, most Muslim countries lack the conducive environment required for fostering such debates. The places where there is space for critical debates are the relatively advanced democracies of the developed world. However, in almost all such countries, Muslims are in a minority and often the victims of hatred and prejudice inspired by Islamophobia. Consequently, conscious of their minority status, moderate Muslims in these countries hold back their views on religion for fear of being seen as abettors of Islamophobia.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/995966/will-moderate-muslims-please-stand-up/

>>>Sorry to say, as rationalizations go, this is utter BS and is a convoluted way to shift the blame to someone else. The fear may be one of reaction from  co-religionists or a sense of omerta. If they can't speak up in muslim countries and also won't in free democracies, what is the way out? There are other minorities like blacks who have been on the receiving end of discrimination and speak up freely on issues like absentee fathers or kids dropping out of school. You don't see them holding back out of fear of exacerbating discrimination.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

>>>>If your house has been broken into and various houses in your neighborhood have also been broken into and trashed, do you concentrate on protecting your community or decide to focus on the relationship of the robber with his wife?

Who is the robber here, terrorist or moderate muslim or the superpower?

Kris wrote:

>>>Sorry to say, as rationalizations go, this is utter BS and is a convoluted way to shift the blame to someone else. The fear may be one of reaction from  co-religionists or a sense of omerta. If they can't speak up in muslim countries and also won't in free democracies, what is the way out? ......

Have you looked? Google is your friend.

But I guess for people who have already made up their minds that all Muslims are guilty, no amount of denunciation will suffice. So on second thoughts, don't bother.

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

>>>>If your house has been broken into and various houses in your neighborhood have also been broken into and trashed, do you concentrate on protecting your community or decide to focus on the relationship of the robber with his wife?

Very wise. And since the robber is known to wear pants, you can best protect your community by confining all pant-wearers to a concentration camp till their robbing tendencies are fully curbed.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

>>>>If your house has been broken into and various houses in your neighborhood have also been broken into and trashed, do you concentrate on protecting your community or decide to focus on the relationship of the robber with his wife?

Very wise. And since the robber is known to wear pants, you can best protect your community by confining all pant-wearers to a concentration camp till their robbing tendencies are fully curbed.

>> So,  if the robber has already been in your house , you should refrain from putting an alarm in your house for future protection, since other pant wearers may be offended? And furthermore, your priority  should be to determine the pants-wearing robber's relationship with his wife and not protecting yourself. Got it.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:

>>>Sorry to say, as rationalizations go, this is utter BS and is a convoluted way to shift the blame to someone else. The fear may be one of reaction from  co-religionists or a sense of omerta. If they can't speak up in muslim countries and also won't in free democracies, what is the way out? ......

Have you looked? Google is your friend.

But I guess for people who have already made up their minds that all Muslims are guilty, no amount of denunciation will suffice. So on second thoughts, don't bother.

>>>Have i looked for what? This is not about all muslims. It is about the moderates who won't criticize. The article's thesis is that they won't criticize because it will exacerbate the discrimination by the host country if they criticize. If you read my whole post I am saying this makes no sense considering blacks do it all the time (i.e. speak up on the  break down of family unit, teen pregnancies, taking back the neighborhoods from gangs etc.). Are we seeing increased discrimination because they are speaking up? If anything, these voices are appreciated.  Secondly, the point being made in the article is  about the supposed rationale for those who don't/won't criticize.  Are we to assume then that Salman Rushdie's backing down (which he later said he wished he hadn't done as a matter of principle) was due to his fear of Britain, not the fatwa taken out on him and life threats (which was in Britain)?

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

>>>>If your house has been broken into and various houses in your neighborhood have also been broken into and trashed, do you concentrate on protecting your community or decide to focus on the relationship of the robber with his wife?

Who is the robber here, terrorist or moderate muslim or the superpower?

>>>Let's use process of elimination. Are superpowers or moderate muslims the ones setting off bombs in Pairs and Brussels?

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

>>>>If your house has been broken into and various houses in your neighborhood have also been broken into and trashed, do you concentrate on protecting your community or decide to focus on the relationship of the robber with his wife?

Who is the robber here, terrorist or moderate muslim or the superpower?

>>>Let's use process of elimination. Are superpowers or moderate muslims the ones setting off bombs in Pairs and Brussels?

I think you are transitioning into Grandpa-status. I dont have patience to explain to the diehard anti-hindus. I would rather lecture some pakistanis who might even understand their own fallacies.

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

CD,

What do you mean by "same leeway"? Rest of your conjecture is utterly confusing. But confusion is your chosen moniker anyway.

Are you asking why I blame moderate muslims? While I do not know who or what is a moderate muslim , I hold the jihadists and jihadi sympathizers (that includes merlot sipping pseudo secularists) as responsible.

Are you asking if islam as a religion is responsible? By holding islam as responsible am I saying all muslims are responsible for terrorist acts?

Islam is responsible just like the people of soviet union were responsible for soviet aggression on countries like eastern europe, angola, and Afghanistan. It is like German people's responsibility for Nazi atrocities. But islam is a much bigger and difficult problem.

In my opinion all religions are political philosophies (to make it simple, political parties). The world has castigated political parties and adherents without any hesitation. I am aware that religions are not creatures of one or two generations or a century. I am also aware that one does not select his or her religion and all of us are born into a religion and raised with a religious culture. Political thoughts fail if they do not change with times. Wrong political philosophies can and do hurt people. ex: Soviet aggression, Nazi purification, colonization by western countries. Similarly man made religions can be fallible.

It may be politically incorrect to say islam is at fault. But there are many examples of people pointing to faults of their own or other religions. Caste discrimination is a central tenet of hindu practice. Many hindus reject caste discrimination. Many non hindus criticize hinduism because of its caste discrimination. A major philosophical war is going on between gay christians and opponents. So saying islam is at fault or wrong is not all that unusual. Islam is wrong in its preaching of hate of infidels, poor treatment of women, and glorification of martyrdom. While similar ideas exist in other religions they have cleansed their religions (reformed or modernized) to be able to create and succeed in democratic society. Islam failed to change with times and is creating a large number of jihadists in country after country. These jihadists are a danger to modern democratic living.

Now going back to muslim masses, what happens?

People in soviet union are now living in societies that are beyond soviet politics. They have problems of their own making but they are better off than in 1980s.
Germans and Japanese lost lot of lives in transition from a despotic regime to a democratic govt but after the major upheaval, they were accepted into the rest of the world community without any hesitation. So if islam reforms itself and becomes a contributing culture, the world would be happy to live with islam's adherents. The world is already embracing all normal thinking muslims in countries outside islamic countries.










Are

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

>>>>If your house has been broken into and various houses in your neighborhood have also been broken into and trashed, do you concentrate on protecting your community or decide to focus on the relationship of the robber with his wife?

Who is the robber here, terrorist or moderate muslim or the superpower?

>>>Let's use process of elimination. Are superpowers or moderate muslims the ones setting off bombs in Pairs and Brussels?

You tell me, wasn't that the point of this thread? You usually find a million reasons to justify west's actions or inaction in middle east but think that moderate muslims have some sort of moral obligation to apologize on behalf of terrorists.

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

CD,

What do you mean by "same leeway"?  Rest of your conjecture is utterly confusing. But confusion is your chosen moniker anyway.

Are you asking why I blame moderate muslims?  While I do not know who or what is a moderate muslim , I hold the jihadists and jihadi sympathizers (that includes merlot sipping pseudo secularists)  as responsible.

Really? Aren't you the one that routinely asks moderate muslims to take responsibility for terrorist actions?

Kris wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

>>>>If your house has been broken into and various houses in your neighborhood have also been broken into and trashed, do you concentrate on protecting your community or decide to focus on the relationship of the robber with his wife?

Very wise. And since the robber is known to wear pants, you can best protect your community by confining all pant-wearers to a concentration camp till their robbing tendencies are fully curbed.

>> So,  if the robber has already been in your house , you should refrain from putting an alarm in your house for future protection, since other pant wearers may be offended? And furthermore, your priority  should be to determine the pants-wearing robber's relationship with his wife and not protecting yourself. Got it.

Stop obsessing about other people's wives. An alarm in your house is too selfish.

The need of the hour is a mass scale pest repellent that protects the community. Pant detectors at all public places - movie halls, restaurants, stadiums etc- which detect pant-wearers at sight and loudly blare out "Beware, pant-wearer in your midst. Check your wallets and other belongings!"

Pant wearers will surely appreciate the labeling and public scrutiny and will be shamed into turning in the miscreants in their midst who they currently shield. Problem solved!

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

>>>>If your house has been broken into and various houses in your neighborhood have also been broken into and trashed, do you concentrate on protecting your community or decide to focus on the relationship of the robber with his wife?

Very wise. And since the robber is known to wear pants, you can best protect your community by confining all pant-wearers to a concentration camp till their robbing tendencies are fully curbed.

>> So,  if the robber has already been in your house , you should refrain from putting an alarm in your house for future protection, since other pant wearers may be offended? And furthermore, your priority  should be to determine the pants-wearing robber's relationship with his wife and not protecting yourself. Got it.

Stop obsessing about other people's wives. An alarm in your house is too selfish.

>>Okay, that's off too then. I guess the game plan should be to disarm the alarm, tell the kids not to lock the doors and tell the beat cop not to come around anymore. We need to enable that kindly gent with the gun to come again. After all he is just expressing an alternate point of view. Any attempts at finding ways to prevent that.. well, we all know that just is just the first step in firing up the ovens at auschwitz.

Kris wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>>If your house has been broken into and various houses in your neighborhood have also been broken into and trashed, do you concentrate on protecting your community or decide to focus on the relationship of the robber with his wife?

Very wise. And since the robber is known to wear pants, you can best protect your community by confining all pant-wearers to a concentration camp till their robbing tendencies are fully curbed.

>> So,  if the robber has already been in your house , you should refrain from putting an alarm in your house for future protection, since other pant wearers may be offended? And furthermore, your priority  should be to determine the pants-wearing robber's relationship with his wife and not protecting yourself. Got it.

Stop obsessing about other people's wives. An alarm in your house is too selfish.

>>Okay, that's off too then. I guess the game plan should be to disarm the alarm, tell the kids not to lock the doors and tell the beat cop not to come around anymore. We need to enable that kindly gent with the gun to come again. After all he is just expressing an alternate point of view. Any attempts at finding ways to prevent that.. well, we all know that just is just the first step in firing up the ovens at auschwitz.

Now that is how Merlot saves himself...recite Koran and perform a Arabic hip dance as described by Propa

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

>>>>If your house has been broken into and various houses in your neighborhood have also been broken into and trashed, do you concentrate on protecting your community or decide to focus on the relationship of the robber with his wife?

Who is the robber here, terrorist or moderate muslim or the superpower?

>>>Let's use process of elimination. Are superpowers or moderate muslims the ones setting off bombs in Pairs and Brussels?

You tell me, wasn't that the point of this thread? You usually find a million reasons to justify west's actions or inaction in middle east but think that moderate muslims have some sort of moral obligation to apologize on behalf of terrorists.

>>>I don't know. You are the one who started the thread and honestly I don't understand the question. Unless you think the guys shooting up people in cafes and concert halls are moderates, what relevance do they have to these discussion any more than moderate Episopalians or Jains do?

The impulse to separate Islam from the sins and crimes of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, is understandable, and it often includes statements such as ISIS has “nothing to do with Islam” or that ISIS is merely “using Islam” as a pretext. The sentiment is usually well-intentioned. We live in an age of growing anti-Muslim bigotry, where mainstream politicians now feel license to say things that might have once been unimaginable.

To protect Islam – and, by extension, Muslims – from any association with extremists and extremism is a worthy cause.

But saying something for the right reasons doesn’t necessarily make it right. An overwhelming majority of Muslims oppose ISIS and its ideology. But that’s not quite the same as saying that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, when it very clearly has something to do with it.

If you actually look at ISIS’s approach to governance, it would be difficult – impossible, really – to conclude that it is just making things up as it goes along and then giving it an Islamic luster only after the fact.

But if the goal is to understand ISIS, then I, and other analysts who happen to be Muslim, would be better served by cordoning off our personal assumptions and preferences. What Islam should be and what Islam is actually understood to be by Muslims (including extremist Muslims) are very different things.

For scholars of Islamist movements and Islam’s role in politics, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, there should be one overarching objective: to understand and to explain, rather than to make judgments about which interpretations of Islam are correct, or who is or isn’t a “true” Muslim.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/18/does-isis-really-have-nothing-to-do-with-islam-islamic-apologetics-carry-serious-risks/?tid=pm_local_pop_b

Saamiyaar: moderate or not?

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Kris wrote:
>>>>If your house has been broken into and various houses in your neighborhood have also been broken into and trashed, do you concentrate on protecting your community or decide to focus on the relationship of the robber with his wife?

Who is the robber here, terrorist or moderate muslim or the superpower?

>>>Let's use process of elimination. Are superpowers or moderate muslims the ones setting off bombs in Pairs and Brussels?

You tell me, wasn't that the point of this thread? You usually find a million reasons to justify west's actions or inaction in middle east but think that moderate muslims have some sort of moral obligation to apologize on behalf of terrorists.

>>>I don't know. You are the one who started the thread and honestly I don't understand the question. Unless you think the guys shooting up people in cafes and concert halls are moderates, what relevance do they have to these discussion any more than moderate Episopalians or Jains do?

Really, is that the definition of moderate muslim? Is that why you tend to link every conflict around the world that involves muslims to religion, specifically to global jihad but delink all others as from any religion and call them "conflicts for a cause"

confuzzled dude wrote:

truthbetold wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:Why do you not give the same leeway to moderate muslims, who literally have no power or influence over these violent strands of Islam that you routinely entrust to the superpower (for all its shortcomings) which pretty much had control over the entire world (almost) since WW II.

CD,

What do you mean by "same leeway"?  Rest of your conjecture is utterly confusing. But confusion is your chosen moniker anyway.

Are you asking why I blame moderate muslims?  While I do not know who or what is a moderate muslim , I hold the jihadists and jihadi sympathizers (that includes merlot sipping pseudo secularists)  as responsible.

Really? Aren't you the one that routinely asks moderate muslims to take responsibility for terrorist actions?

CD,

Since you do not have a good answer to my central argument you pick a silly semantic issue to respond. But then what is new. Let me respond anyway.

My argument is that the masses of islamic countries have to organize themselves and fight both the despots and extremists. Your argument masses are weak and despots and terrorists are strong and ruthless makes me ask the question, Have you read the history any people's revolt? Mubarak was not weak an year before he was toppled. Mubarak's police force was one of the most brutal force in the world. The Egyptian's failed to continue the revolution to clean up islamic extremists. Now Egypt is back in army dictatorship due to the failure of muslim brotherhood.

Making excuses for terrorists is not doing a favor to masses of islamic nations. Those who really want to support the masses should understand that people of islamic nations have to win a democratic revolution by overthrowing despots and reform islam to get rid of terrorists. Only the action of masses will lead to a real change. Rest of the world can support from outside but cannot change middle east from outside. However, west can go in with military might and slap any nation like a police action.