The 10 Beliefs Every Moderate Muslim In America Should Hold

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

The 10 Beliefs Every Moderate Muslim In America Should Hold

Written By : John Hawkins

The words “moderate Muslim” get tossed around quite a bit these days, but you seldom hear people define exactly what they mean by the term. So, I decided to take a crack at it with some clearly definable standards.

In my book, a moderate Muslim is a Muslim who…

1) Opposes terrorist attacks on Americans and innocent civilians across the world.
2) Doesn’t support Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas or other terrorist groups.
3) Rejects Shariah.
4) Opposes honor killings.
5) Believes women should be able to get educated, have the right to go out without wearing a hijab or burka if they so choose, and opposes cliterectomies.
6) Believes people should have the right to leave Islam.
7) Rejects Dhimmitude.
8)Rejects Anti-Semitism.
9) Rejects pedophilia.
10) Rejects spreading Islam via violence.

Two questions….

1) Is there anything that should be on this list that’s left off?

2) Is there anything on here that shouldn’t be? If there are any Muslims who happen to be around and answer this question in the affirmative, I’d be fascinated to hear their reasoning.

gfchicago

***Awk ***Islamaphobe, Racist, Bigot and First Amendment Rights ***Awk***.

/progressive lib off
Jarhead

Hello. I'm a marine combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm proud of my service, and try to be as honorable as I can in all things. I am a white Protestant southern male of 25. Since I have practical experience dealing with Muslims and living in Their country, I'll offer my own opinions. Please don't take them at face value. If it is important to you, research this issue, and make your own opinions.

First, you write “In my book … a Muslim is”. This isn't wrong, everyone interprets the world differently, but Muslims are so different from us that you can't understand them through the lense of American values. To try will only make them all seem insane or mentally deficient, which they most certainly are not.

Here are two critical differences;
1)Muslims place much more importance on words and thought, and we place more importance on actions and time.
2)Muslims have no conception of separation of self and religion, much less state and religion because Islam is a fundamental core of their personalities.
So, to exemplify how these two differences would come into play, I will quote the evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell,”Allah is a terrorist, and all who follow him should die”, most Americans hear some fringe preacher ranting about something that we know he'll never actually pursue, he's just trying to stir the audience with strong and untrue words. But Muslims hear a recognized religious authority issuing edicts about foriegn policy, and are understandably rude. Remember, most Muslims say what they mean and mean what they say. Most Americans are skeptical of what someone says until it is proved.

So while your list would be right for a moderate American, it contains many false statements and is offensive to Muslims, and quite frankly makes you look ignorant and foolish.

Don't get me wrong, we are at war with a Muslim worldwide insurgency. The only way we will ever win is if we start a destructive march (see shermans march in the civil war) and make the regular life for Muslims so unbearable they lose the will to fight (see my confedaracy of southern states) or we admit our foriegn policy in the middle east has been wrong since the criminal Nixon implemented It, and change our policies. Since our elitist government hasn't the humility to do that, and is too walled in by political correctness and the “acceptable level of civillians causaulties”…
Well, I got off on a tangent. The point is, put some thought and research into your questions before you post jackass lists

http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

I have a friend currently serving in Afghanistan, and what he tells me seems to conform to what you say.

On most parts.

Where he defers is when he meets Shias. He finds Shias tend to be more like us, and from what I can tell, your argument here tends to fall more in line with Sunni Islam than Shia Islam.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
mightysamurai

First, you write “In my book … a Muslim is”. This isn't wrong, everyone interprets the world differently, but Muslims are so different from us that you can't understand them through the lense of American values. To try will only make them all seem insane or mentally deficient, which they most certainly are not.

Then Muslims need to change. Their ideology is clearly not working for them and has done nothing but keep them mired in a 12th century societal quagmire. The rest of the world cannot and will not tolerate their actions for much longer. Either the Islamic world changes and reforms itself to better fit in with the rest of the world, or the Islamic world will have to go. Whether that means being wiped out in a destructive war or bred out by demographic shifts, Islam as it exists today cannot continue to exist.

http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

The problem is, they are out breeding us. It is how they gain control of new countries, and they've been doing it since the days of Mohammad. If he is right, and this is indeed how Islam works, then the West will have to abandon freedom of religion in order for the rest of its qualities to survive.

gfchicago

No kidding. The other day when I was poking around and looking for articles from Britain about their Muslim enclaves, I ran across an article about the Muslims birth rate being at 8.1 versus 1.1 for all others.

Mahatma

Which is why we need to make peace with them, not continue to piss them off. They already outnumber us, what 4 or 5 to 1?
Mediumheadboy

Say, that's a swell idea, Asshatma. Let's just bend over and grab our ankles and then they'll be nice to us. You really are a fucking idiot.
StanW

Vega, if you are too scared to post under your own name, maybe you should find another hobby!
D-Vega

Your man-crush and obsession is noted, Stan.
StanW

Just how many names are you currently posting under, COWARD?
D-Vega

Hush, son. Adults are talking.
StanW

Oh, so the pissy little bitch now wants us to think he has a pair? Sorry Vega, you have already proven you have no spine.
D-Vega

What are you talking about now, Stan?
StanW

McCarthy, Vega. I put you in the batters box, but the bat in your hand, put the ball up on a tee and let you swing away. And what did you do? You wet your panties and ran away crying like the punk-ass BITCH that you are.

It's is good knowing that your word is meaningless and you are nothing but a fucking coward, Vega!
D-Vega

Are you still on that McCarthy shit, Stan? Get over it.

McCarthy is and always will be one of the worst Americans in the last 100 years, if not all of U.S. history. DEAL WITH IT.
StanW

You kept bringing him up, and thenpromising that you would answer questions about, but only in a forum of the Best Americans. I added him to my list, just like you specified. AND YOU RAN AWAY. You are unable to debate with adults, even when you are the one setting the conditions for the debate.

So your words that McCarthy is a bad person is just like all of your other words, LIES!
D-Vega

Not my fault McCarthy was a repugnant individual who ruined lives and was representative of the worst America had to offer, Stan.

He did that himself. I don't know what proof you are looking for. I think you are just bitching for a reason to bitch. Because you are a bitch.
StanW

I asked you for proof of your accusations, Vega. You sent the conditions that you woudl provide me an answer. And when I met those conditions, you ran away.

McCarthy was a patriot and he was right. You have provided nothing but lies and Liberal propoganda about him. It is now clear that you have no intention of proving what you say. So continue to screech.

I just hope that the next person that attempts to engage you in any sort of debate remembers this incident and realizes what a fucking joke of a person you are.
D-Vega

McCarthy was a patriot and he was right.

Prove it, Stan. Or STFU.
StanW

I have Vega, REPEATEDLY. To you and others on this board. I asked you for the name of one person, JUST ONE, that McCarthy supposedly destroyed. You gave me HUAC and the Holloywood Blacklist, two things that Joe McCarthy had nothing whatsoever to do with.

Prove your statement Vega. Or just stay as you are.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Yes, maybe the crocodile will eat you last.

tblrk2006

So while your list would be right for a moderate American, it contains many false statements and is offensive to Muslims, and quite frankly makes you look ignorant and foolish.

So are you saying its our problem for not understading that muslims can never be considered moderate and will never mesh with the USA? Newsflash….we know that. Thats why this list is things they can do.

The point is, put some thought and research into your questions before you post jackass lists

Well dick, what would your moderate muslim belief list consist of (things that can coexist in the USA?)
HammerNH

Jarhead,

First and foremost, thank you for your service to our country. Your first hand experience is certainly valuable to our discussion and understanding. You were a little harsh on John there – he's one of the good guys.
As you point out, the real problem is Americans think there IS such a thing as a moderate Muslim. Not so.
There are naturally 'self accommodating' Muslims (as with any other group) but the basic tenets of Islam REQUIRE what we in the west see as radicalism. That is, Islam MUST dominate or continue the jihad against cultures it does not dominate. It is written.
Anyone pretending that Islam is peaceful just does NOT understand what the Qu'ran teaches and demands.
Try watching this video for more detailed (and documented) information and perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w&feat…

Hotspur1

That is the truth. I am tired of hearing about “moderate Muslims”. The truth is that a “moderate Muslim” is not a good Muslim at all. Asking Muslims to change their ways is like asking a man to cut out his own heart.

You judge a religion and gauge its adherents by its founder. Christians are matched against Jesus, trying to emulate his character. When you match a Muslim to Muhammad, you get a guy with violent man who had little to no self-control.

In addition, there is no way to square a lot of what Muhammad said about Jews, Christians, and others with our ideas of tolerance. To them, we are supposed to be second class citizens, dead, or Muslim.

Now, I know that most Muslims are not terrorists, but I can tell you why most Muslims do not condemn terrorism. There are four main reasons:

1.) They believe in it and support it.
2.) They don't mind it for the cause of Islam.
3.) They do not care because their fellow Muslims are committing it.
4.) They are too scared to speak against it (and rightfully so).

And none of this will change until you change the Koran. But because the Koran is considered Allah's perfect word and unchangeable, this will not change.

So, to sum up, there are no moderate Muslims. Just Muslims who aren't that committed or aren't very good at it.

http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

Not entirely true. The Druze in Israel are very devout, and yet they serve in the IDF. The Druze are a sect of Islam. Shia Islam also tends to follow western ideas of interpretation of the holy books and scholarly pursuits.

RWNReader

Your post is misinformed. You start with the (incorrect) notion that John's list is “in my book, a muslim is” That is not what he said. He said “in my book, a MODERATE muslim is.” Since, as your post acknowleges, there is no such thing as “moderate” islam, yet we are constantly barraged with the command that we should shut up and learn to live peacefully with “moderate muslims” it is entirely appropriate for us to define what that means, until a real legitimate moderate islam emerges. Until then, we are only encouraging hardliners who keep one boot on the neck of their moderately-inclined co-religionists while commanding us to live with their false presentation of “not yet” moderate islam.

baoxian

Seems reasonable enough. I would imagine your average Turk or Indonesian would hit most or all of the points on the list. (Although some liberals would qualify as radicals if we're using anti-Semitism)

But Muslims, like or perhaps more so that other cultures, tend to back the strong horse. (Americans love a determined underdog) Islam is perceived to be on the rise again after a down period, and radicals like Ahmadenjiad and Bin Laden are leading the way this time. There is no Ataturk in the Muslim world today. Benazir Bhutto got shot in the head. The only thing most “moderate” Islamic states have going for them is a secular dictator instead of a religious one.

It's a cultural war, and one we can win if we remain strong and determined. Iran looked like a giant cocktail lounge in the 1970s before the Revolution. There's no reason they can't become a modern, moderate country again if the mullahs lose their grip on power. Same for any other Muslim country.

http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

“Although some liberals would qualify as radicals if we're using anti-Semitism”

What do you mean, “some”?

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

I don't like it.

It's more than legitimate for us as Americans to examine and debate how to resolve conflicts within our own society between our fundamental right to practice religion and our fundamental right to a safe and secure nation. But that debate doesn't extend to establishing expectations for Muslims in Egypt or Brunei about how they should act or what they should believe.

As an outside observer, I fervently hope that the forces of moderation within Islam find the means to defeat their more extreme brothers in a war for the hearts and minds of Muslims the world over. I hope Islam finally undergoes that 'reformation' they so desperately need. In my estimation, too much of Islam is rooted in the values of an old warrior culture which is incompatible with a diversely civilised world.

But it's not my place to impose that moderation upon them from outside. Even if we fight a war with Islam and win, it's still not our place to tell them what to believe or what not to believe.

tblrk2006

it's still not our place to tell them what to believe or what not to believe.

Then its never ending war until they are all dead. Their beliefs are the problem here. Kinda like we told the nazis and the japanese that their beleifs arent going to work b/c they involve us.

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

Actually, with respect to the Germans and Japanese, we held those who were leaders of their governments and military establishments accountable for their acts and we largely left the civilian populations out of it. We really put the bulk of the 'cultural reformation' efforts back on the Japanese and German societies. We re-established their governments and charged those governments with rebuilding their societies through laws and other legislative/administrative actions. Our role was primarily to defeat and pacify the elements within their societies which had led them into war in the first place. Although we did engage in some post-war propaganda, we spent most of our time and resources on just plain old peace-keeping and economic recovery.

Understand that my position on Islam is not that a change in beliefs within Islam isn't needed, it's that from the outside, we can't cause such a change to happen. As you say, that would require killing many, if not most Muslims, and I find that 'solution' as repugnant as the Holocaust or Mao's Cultural Revolution.

tblrk2006

As you say, that would require killing many, if not most Muslims, and I find that 'solution' as repugnant as the Holocaust or Mao's Cultural Revolution.

Im afraid thats the only way wars are won. Make their decisions in life so bad for them (death) that they must abandon. The koran is the problem.

D-Vega

We are not at war with Islam. That's the whole point of supporting “moderate muslims”.

It's not the koran that's the problem, it's the interpretations of the koran.
Hotspur1

“And slay them (the infidels) wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter” Sura 2:191

“Seize them and slay them wherever you find them: and in any case take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” Sura 4:89

“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular Prayers and practise regular Charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” Sura 9:5

There are many more Koranic verses like these. Not only that, but Islam also consists of the hadiths (sayings and actions of Muhammad).

So tell me, Vega, how can anyone interpret those passages different ways?

Short answer: they can't.

Longer answer: you don't know what you're talking about.
D-Vega

Oh please hotspur, the rightwing has been reciting those verses for years.

“You should not let a sorceress live.” (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

“A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.” (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

“If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

“A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.” (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

“They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.” (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

“Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

“If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.” (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

“Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood.” (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

Christianity has come a long way, but is older than Islam.

What we are really talking about is Islamic Reformation. But the koran isn't going anywhere. Muslims aren't going anywhere. And they aren't going to become “non-muslims” under demand.
TheDickNixon

No comments from the New Testament Vega? You know, the stuff that was said once Christ becamse flesh and fulfilled the Old Testament Law with His New Covenant?
D-Vega

Is it the Bible, Nixon? Does it make these things hogwash now? Or are your saying Christianity has evolved from these harsh interpretations?
TheDickNixon

Nixon merely pointed out that Christ came, made the New Covenant, started Christianity, and none of your comments come from the New testament. The Old Testament law was given to the children of Israel for them to live by. Christ also became the only High Priest needed by man to go through for atonement of sin.

The Koran stays pretty much on subject throughout.

Sexual immorality is condemned in the New Testament.
D-Vega

Fair enough, Nixon. I am not saying Christianity is extreme.

I am saying that Islam is 600 years behind Christianity. And it shows.
Trench_Raider

The other big problem is that ythe primary cultural imfluence of Islam has been middle eastern Arab culture which is still to a large degree violent, zenophobic and clannish, backward, and obsessed with “face” and revenge. The nature of the region were it is most practiced (and were it sprang from in the first place) is the biggest stumbling block to Islam evolving as you claim it will.

Once again allow me to point out that by all rights given what you guys on the left purport to believe, Islam is the religion that you should have the most distain for. However it's the one religion that you clowns got to bat for and will defend every time.
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, right?

TR
D-Vega

Who are they the enemy of who is also an enemy of liberals?

They kill plenty liberals the same way.

The point from liberals is that the solution is not to kill them all and let Allah sort them out. It's appealing to the moderates and empowering them.

Yes, there are moderates. The key example no one is mentioning is Iraq.

Iraqis are quite muslim, and they show no signs of forsaking sharia. However, we invaded and rebuilt the country in the hopes of having an ally in the middle east. If what you all are saying is true, then it is all for naught because they not only will not change, but will be worse off from it.
Trench_Raider

Who are they the enemy of who is also an enemy of liberals?

From the very begining Islam has been an enemy of Western culture and remains such. You guys have distain for the West and it's traditions and seek to dilute it's culture and change it to fit your warped worldview. For many of you, Islam is an enemy of your enemy.
For the rest of you the otherwise inexplicable soft spot for Islam can be put down to knee-jerk contrarianism: “those wignuts don't like Islam, so i'll have to supoport them”.

They kill plenty liberals the same way.

Yes they do, and that is something you need to keep in mind. One of the reasons that Islam hates us is the decadent nature of our pop culture in their eyes. You on the left are those who embrace and feed that culture, so you are targets too.

TR
D-Vega

From the very begining Islam has been an enemy of Western culture and remains such.

I think it was to being with, but not now. Islamic fundamentalism and extremism is.

You guys have distain for the West and it's traditions and seek to dilute it's culture and change it to fit your warped worldview. For many of you, Islam is an enemy of your enemy.

Again, you are telling me what I feel and dislike. And you are incorrect.

We are the West. Liberalism is part and parcel of what made the West as good as it is.

For the rest of you the otherwise inexplicable soft spot for Islam can be put down to knee-jerk contrarianism: “those wignuts don't like Islam, so i'll have to supoport them”.

No, you wignuts dislike a lot of things. Some of them I would agree with.

But it's good to see that you are actually admitting that the right dislikes Islam as a whole. That is progress. It's better to the honest about it.

Yes they do, and that is something you need to keep in mind. One of the reasons that Islam hates us is the decadent nature of our pop culture in their eyes. You on the left are those who embrace and feed that culture, so you are targets too.

I know that very well, since that was my point. It also deflates your point.

The rightwing despises Islam, for good reason as well as exaggerated ones.

Just because liberals may not dislike on the level you would want, it does'nt mean we are teaming up against you or we have a soft spot.

Liberals believe first in the good of people and shared interests and values. Not an automatic absolute loyalty in everything we are and a rejection of everything else that's foreign.
mightysamurai

You should not let a sorceress live.” (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

I always have to laugh when liberals cite passages like this as though it “proves” that the Bible is intolerant and violent.

I want you to think about this for a moment, D-Vega. If “sorcerers/sorceresses” really existed, do you really think we'd let tolerate their existence? Imagine if there really were people out there who had the ability to snap their fingers and set you on fire, or invade your mind and control you, or place you under a curse that made you mysteriously fall ill and die. Society would be utterly unable to tolerate these people. If a sorceress knocked on your front door and demanded you give her your car or she would place a deadly curse on you, how could you stop her? Even if you called the police and had her arrested she can still hurt you from afar. She would have to be killed.

So you go ahead citing this passage of the Bible as if it means something. Just remember that we're all laughing at you as you do it.

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

“A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.” (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

“If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

“A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.” (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

…

“Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

“If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him.” (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

“Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood.” (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

Okay, setting aside the fact that ALL of these are Old Testament laws and none of them apply to Christianity, do you really not see a difference between enacting laws against behavior society deems immoral and being commanded by your god to rape, murder, and pillage everyone on Earth who believes differently than you do? The laws of Israel were just that. Laws that only applied in the land of Israel. Neighboring nations were not required to follow them and were only attacked if they became a threat to the people of Israel. A far cry from Islam, which commands muslims to slay and make war upon ALL infidels whether they live in muslim lands or not.

“They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.” (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Ah, this again. I am forever amused by the left's inability to comprehend the difference between a single call for holy war and a blanket call for holy war. The Bible contains examples of God commanding the Israelites to attack other nations that were a threat to them, but these commands are limited solely to the nations or peoples specifically named. By contrast, Islam commands muslims to slay ALL non-muslims regardless of where they are or whether they constitute a threat to any Islamic nation.
D-Vega

You are misunderstanding my point, samurai.
mightysamurai

On the contrary, I think I understand your point perfectly. You are trying to make an equivalence between Judeo-Christian rules (archaic or otherwise) and Islamic ones. They are not equivalent. Not today and not thousands of years ago.
D-Vega

Not equivalent in terms of your interpretation of them?

Well, that was my point.
mightysamurai

No D-Vega, there is no equivalence. At all. Regardless of interpretation.

Especially not between Islam and Christianity, since NONE of the examples you cite have any relevance whatsoever within Christianity other than as a historical curiosity.
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

I'd just like people to know, this is a translation error. It would more accurately be translated to say that a man cannot lay with a man in his wife's bed, and should that occur they should both be stoned to death. Translation from ancient Hebrew has a lot to be desired.

However, despite this, Judaism acknowledges that these ancient laws (this was not one of the commandments) were for a time when Jews maintained a very distinct and separate cultural identity from people around them. These laws have no place in modern society. This is how Judaism works. Find the reason for the law, so that you know better why it was stated, and whether or not it pertains to today.
Hotspur1

Great job, Vega, except that they pertain to the Old Testament, the old covenant and not in effect for Christians today.

That was pathetic.
Hotspur1

Furthermore, the difference is that no one sees those passages as a charge for today. In the Koran, those passages are, reliably, passages that pertain for today's Muslims. Muhammad never indicated that they would be phased out.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

See the difference here is that Judaism and Christianity have always had a long, honored, and encouraged heritage of reading, studying, and questioning scripture to understand it best (except during a few hundred years of the Roman Catholic Church when they went nuts). Islam has never, EVER had that heritage. When people read the Bible, they learn and study and examine it in context and try to learn the principles involved and how they work in their lives. The Koran is not to be used that way, it is to be heard and obeyed.
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

Again, your describe mainly Sunni Islam.
Hotspur1

Frutehrmore, this was Secretary of State John Jay's words after the ambassador from the then-fledgling United States met with the Tripoli envoy to London, about the Barbary Pirates (also Muslim):

Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

This belief has been bred in Islam since its inception. So, like I said before…

You don't know what you're talking about.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

The problem with that line is that for Muslims there is no interpretation of the Koran, not unless they're reaaaal moderate (aka basically apostate). The Koran is the word of God absolute and you do not study, question, or learn about it, you memorize it and obey. The Imams and Sharia law interpret for you; you simply do what you're told by them.
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

This isn't true in all sects of Islam. The Druze and Shia have a much different take on the Koran. The main issue is the Sunnis, which make up about 80% of Islam.

So if it did come to war, we'd only need to kill 80% of them.

Only…

mightysamurai

Actually, with respect to the Germans and Japanese, we held those who were leaders of their governments and military establishments accountable for their acts and we largely left the civilian populations out of it.

If you're referring to the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials, that was our attempt to show the Germans and Japanese that their beliefs were wrong and ours were right.

In fact, the Nuremberg Trials and the Tokyo Trials had nothing to do with holding the Axis leaders accountable for anything. That part was victors' justice, pure and simple. According to our own laws we had no legal authority to prosecute the Germans or the Japanese for anything. We put them on trial for a series of ex post facto crimes that we created ourselves and prosecuted them under a court system that didn't exist until we spontaneously invented it after the fact.

The point is, “justice” was the last thing on our minds in the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials. The real purpose of the trials was to convince the civilian populations of Germany and Japan to give up their old beliefs. It was a massive show designed to show the Germans and the Japanese that their old ways were evil and wrong and the ways of the Allies (but especially the Americans) were good and righteous. And it worked. The Japanese people realized that the fanatical beliefs of the Showa era were wrong and they embraced a more Western/democratic form of government. The Germans realized two things: that the Nazi regime was evil and wrong, and that this time they would not be subjected to an overly harsh post-war punishment like the Treaty of Versailles. The result was that Germany (the western half at least) also embraced a free-democratic system of government and gave up their old beliefs.

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

Sam, that's all true enough but it's a bit far afield from the point I was making to tblrk2005. I was really just trying to succinctly point out that following WWII, we didn't engage enemy civilian populations in some effort to have them renounce their beliefs on an individual level. Full stop.

UFKA_Smithwick

You're right in that we can't and shouldn't impose it on the entire religion.

But I do think it's fair to insist they follow the same laws as everyone else while living here. Which would effectively cover that list at least within the US.

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

Smithwick, I fully agree that American Muslims are expected to follow the same laws as all Americans. And I'll go you one further – in order for them to be fully accepted into American society, Muslims need to get to grips with the fact that they need to be perceived as standing up for the majority of American values like everyone else is expected to do, in order to be considered true equals.

But, John didn't restrict his definition of moderate Muslims to just American Muslims. His list would have been slightly more acceptable to me if he had limited his comments to just Muslims living in America.

As I tried to point out in my first comment, I see a conflict between First Amendment rights to practice religion and the right of everyone to live in a safe and secure nation. In my mind, that conflict has to be resolved in favour of the right to live in safety and security because the freedom to practice your religion means nothing if you no longer hold rule over the nation which promises religious freedom. Based on that reasoning, imams who tell their congregations that they should bomb, kill, and otherwise harm Americans, and who do so from within our own borders, can and should be prosecuted and/or deported.

I don't think it's the same for an imam in Cairo who does the same things, however. We have no discernible right to impose our legal reasoning on him, and absent any actions taken by him to harm Americans, we have no grounds to impose any changes on him or his congregation. And further, it's not our place to impose some standard of moderation upon him. Not that we can't ask for moderation, we just can't impose it or expect that he'll follow it.

mightysamurai

But it's not my place to impose that moderation upon them from outside. Even if we fight a war with Islam and win, it's still not our place to tell them what to believe or what not to believe.

Nonsense. We have every right to tell them what we think they should believe and how we think they should behave. Just as they have a corresponding right to do the same to us. Of course, neither we nor they have any obligation to listen, but we still have the right to say it.

That, after all, is the entire purpose of morality. To encourage “correct” thoughts and behaviors. If it's not our place to tell people “Hey, that's wrong! Stop doing that and do it this way instead!” then what the Hell is our moral code for anyway?

http://conservativebootcamp.com Martin Hale

Sam, please note that I said it's not our place to impose a moderation solution on Muslims. I would distinguish that from your comment about us having the right to suggest to Muslims changes in religious doctrine. Yes, under our laws and our religious tenets, we have the right to tell Muslims how we think they should change their religion. They have as much right to tell us to mind our own business. And yes, it's consistent with our Christian heritage to proselytise as many Muslims as possible along the way.

But it stops being a right when we hit the point of imposing our beliefs upon others. It's the act of imposing which crosses the line for me. Imposing goes beyond what our First Amendment and our Christian Credo tell us is proper.

Beyond the whole issue of rights, however, there's an issue of attribution in this for me. From my early professional experiences in the therapy business, and I expect that you as an educator have encountered similar circumstances, I know that except in rare circumstances, internal change only happens with the cooperation of the person being changed. They have to decide, however conscious or sub-conscious the decision, that they want to change before change can happen. And for me, that's another part of why I say that we can't impose a change in religious doctrine on Muslims. It's not just a matter of rights at play, it's also a matter that I don't think we can force people to truly change their faith without their cooperation. In order for psychic change to happen, the person has to accept it first. Unless we're planning a massive repeat of Charlemagne's Massacre at Verden, I just don't think it possible to impose a change in religious doctrine on people from outside.

Robbins Mitchell

Now if we could just convince a bunch of them how really exquisite a bacon cheeseburger is…..

UFKA_Smithwick

With a beer and served by a topless woman.

I suspect this might be why they are so angry all the time.

D-Vega

All we are saying… …is give a piece of ass a chance…

UFKA_Smithwick

No no achmed, she blows you, not the other way around. And there's no “up” in it.

D-Vega

If you throw that stone at her, the bouncers will not be pleased.

D-Vega

I think it would be difficult for a muslim for reject sharia, considering what sharia is versus what's it portrayed to be by the rightwing.

The other items are the list are fine with me, since muslims right now here in the U.S. and abroad support/reject those items.

The other ones I would add is the right to due process and the right of a people's self-determination.

gfchicago

considering what sharia is versus what's it portrayed to be by the rightwing.

Oh please Vega, they show us each and everyday how destructive and evil sharia is to women in the Muslim world and others not of the Muslim religion/political world. So it's not the rightwing's portrayal it's their own.

D-Vega

The rightwing is focused on those incidents and most extreme countries and doesn't look at other places where both Islamic doctrine (sharia) functions well within western society.

regularguy

How many countries are extreme, how “extreme” are they, and how many people make up the most extreme countries? You're talking countries here, not just a few knuckleheads. Where are these so-called places where sharia functions well within western society? Dearborn? Puhlease. The right wing isn't making this stuff up, mohammedans are showing to us themselves the future, and in almost all corners of the globe.

D-Vega

What is a mohammedan?
mightysamurai

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan
D-Vega

ah, okay. It's a slur.
mightysamurai

No, child, it's an archaic term that has been superceded by another term. Just because you want to arbitrarily declare any word you don't like “offensive” does not magically make it so.
D-Vega

Look up the dictionary definition for modern usage.

It's a slur.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I've never in my life encountered anyone who considers that a slur or uses it in such a way, except you. Its just really old and outdated.
Trench_Raider

*best thought of being said in a whiney, lisping voice*
That's a slur! You mean ol' poopy head! That's a slur, you, you, you…bigot!

*rolls eyes*
Mediumheadboy

Like macaca, right? Say, speaking of which, did Wikipedia ever put that DELETED page you linked back up? Just curious.

mightysamurai

Nonsense. The only way Sharia law “functions well” in western society is if muslims don't take it seriously and make it subordinate to western law. In which case, they're not really following Sharia law at all, are they?

D-Vega

Sure they are, just in the context of the laws of whatever country they are in.

Orthodox Jews certainly have been able to coexist peacefully.
mightysamurai

Orthodox Jews don't demand that the laws of their community be allowed to supercede the laws of the land. Nor do their religious laws directly conflict with the laws of the land. Islam cannot say the same.

Again, the only way Sharia law can “function well” within western society is if muslims don't take it seriously and even ignore it in most cases. In which case, they're not really following Sharia law, they're just pretending they are.
D-Vega

Orthodox Jews don't demand that the laws of their community be allowed to supercede the laws of the land.

Muslims in the U.S. don't do that either, first of all.

Secondly, the key conditional in your statement is “demand”. OJs don't demand their law supercede the law of the land, but they do obey they laws first.

Nor do their religious laws directly conflict with the laws of the land. Islam cannot say the same.

Can you provide some examples of both?

Again, the only way Sharia law can “function well” within western society is if muslims don't take it seriously and even ignore it in most cases. In which case, they're not really following Sharia law, they're just pretending they are.

OR, they are simply moderate. You do know they are doing this today right now in this country?
mightysamurai

Muslims in the U.S. don't do that either, first of all.

Yet. Muslims in Europe already are, and US muslims won't be far behind unless we put our collective foot down now.

Can you provide some examples of both?

Marriage and divorce under Islamic law directly conflicts with American divorce law. Wives must receive special permission to get a divorce. Husbands can simply end a marriage unilaterally.

OR, they are simply moderate.

…Which means they don't take their religion seriously.

That's the problem with Islam. The only way to be “moderate” about it is by fudging the rules and not taking it seriously. Like a Catholic that only attends Mass on Easter and Christmas. Or a Jew who doesn't bother to keep kosher.
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

The “Jew who doesn't bother to keep kosher” part is a bit of an inaccuracy. Kashrut (kosher law) is more complex than you seem to think. In modern times, it is ridiculously expensive to keep Kosher. Kosher meat costs a fortune. I'm poor, and would starve to death if I followed all of Kashrut. Jewish law is to live by, not to die by. The one commandment that supersedes all others is the preservation of life. It is permissible to break almost every single other commandment if doing so saves a life. In all streams of Judaism, health supersedes the Kosher laws, so if you have to eat non-Kosher food to live a proper life, you are automatically exempt from Kosher law. In my case, I can't keep Kosher, it is simply not possible.

On top of this, it is actually a sin in Judaism to force your beliefs on others, including things like door to door preaching. This is part of the reason why Judaism stays so small and is misunderstood, simply because it is so inward facing. However, the law of not forcing your beliefs on others can be interpreted in different ways. In my home, I'm working to the best of my ability to keep as Kosher as possible, to within my personal limits. However, because I'm forbidden from forcing my beliefs on others, I interpret this to mean that when I'm outside of my own home, I can't expect others to provide Kosher meals for me, so I do not eat Kosher when out with others, or when I need to buy food from a restaurant because I didn't bring lunch with me. Kashrut does state to keep a Kosher HOME. From what I can find, it says nothing about eating Kosher outside of your home.

To add to this, Judaism is a religion that changes with the times. As new information comes about, interpretations change. There are numerous reasons for the various Kosher rules, and new interpretations allow for the bending of the rules. In Conservative Judaism, it is completely acceptable to not eat Kosher if doing so is simply too difficult for a good reason. It is still encouraged to try to follow at least some of the laws, and to be Kosher on holidays out of respect for tradition.

There is even more about this, and plenty I don't personally know. However, what you do need to understand is that Jewish law is very, very complex, not nearly as simple as you make it out to be here.

UFKA_Smithwick

But just think of all the places where shariah has been implemented where women are free and equal, non-muslims enjoy the same rights as muslims, and tolerance/freedom reign supreme.

Like . . . um . . . well there's that place. . . you know the one, can't think of the name right now. . . and that other one.

Er . . uh . . RACIST!
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

gf, Vega either isn't serious, or he's literally a psychopathic maniac. Either way, arguing with him is just feeding the trolls.

RWNReader

No Muslim anywhere rejects these things. The fact that Muslims permit themselves to peacefully co-exist with non-muslims in “non-muslim” land is perfectly proscribed in the Koran and within sharia. It is a muslims duty in such lands to incrementally increase the influence of sharia and islam upon the non-muslim people so that these non-muslim lands can one day become fully muslim. From a western perspective, this would be no different than the evangelical efforts of Christians (and perfectly acceptable), except that it's ultimate goal is oppresive sharia laws that extend to muslims and non-muslims alike, i.e. dhimmitude. THAT is why a muslim must EXPLICITLY reject the outward expression (literal interpretation) of sharia, even if he is outwardly peaceful with his non-muslim neighbor.

D-Vega

You are incorrect.

There are many muslims who are right now rejecting most of the things on this list.

Sharia is Islamic doctrine. They are not going to reject sharia. Making that mandatory is a non-starter.

RWNReader

My post wasn't clear enough. There are muslims here who have come to this country for the express purpose of escaping these things, and privately reject them as socio-political constructs, but NO muslim publicly reject them.

And you are even more wrong about sharia. Rejecting sharia EXPLICITLY and FORCEFULLY as an outward system of laws is the a-number-one thing any muslim MUST reject to be compatible with western society. You will hear muslims dabble with this concept when they speak of jihad as a “personal call to inward peace” (until sharia is rejected in the way I say, it will never be that and will always be what it literally says – a call to violent action) but they are afraid to come out and express it absolutely because they know that those who disagree will call for their death. But they must do so for islam to come into the fold of western society, and we must do our part to say to them that they will be accepted by us if they step forward, instead of appeasing their more violent bretheren (as you are doing) by agreeing that no one can be a “good” muslim without embracing sharia LAW.

D-Vega

Nonsense. There are plenty of good muslims who embrace sharia.
StanW

Because Sharia law that mandate death for gays and the mistreatment of women, then I'd not call them good Muslims.

Vega, you would hate everything about Islam, if only it did not put you on the same side of the issue as Conservatives. And that is the one thing you will NEVER tolerate!
D-Vega

I wouldn't hate Islam anymore than I do now, Stan. Because I don't hate Islam. I can make the distinction. You guys can't, and yet this is a post about what beliefs every moderate muslims in america should hold.

Maybe there needs to be a post first on “10 Beliefs Every True American Should Have About Muslims”.
StanW

Islam is everything you hate, Vega. They are a theocracy, they are intolerant of gays, they abuse women. All the things you lyingly rail against Christians for, Islam actually does. But if you oppose Islam as vehemently oppose Christians, then you would be agreeing with Conservatives. And that is one thing you cannot stand.
D-Vega

You are talking nonsense, Stan. I don't oppose Islam or Christianity.

Stop projecting your prejudices and ignorance of Islam onto me for Christians.
StanW

I would admonish you to stop lying, but we all know you are genetically incapable of telling the truth, Vega. Islam is everything you rail against towards Christianity, and you support them. You are a coward and a fraud.
D-Vega

You are wrong and a liar, Stan. Are we done here? Bye.
StanW

Yep, run away again, Vega. That's your style!

Bye, loser!
http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

That is like saying there are good mass murderers.

mightysamurai

They are not going to reject sharia.

They'd better if they expect to coexist peacefully with non-muslims in non-muslim countries.

Example: Sharia law states that men have the right to unilateral divorce. Some sects require witnesses present when he declares intent to divorce, but the man always has the right to separate from his wife whether she agrees or not. Women, on the other hand, must seek approval from their husband or from an Islamic judge in order to obtain a divorce. And if their husband refuses to agree to the divorce, the woman must prove to an Islamic judge that there is a danger of desertion, abuse, or sin before a divorce can be granted.

This flatly contradicts western divorce law, where either party can obtain a unilateral divorce without need for mutual consent. So what happens if a muslim woman asks for a divorce but is refused both by her husband and by an Islamic judge? Does this overrule secular divorce law? If so, then Sharia “law” isn't really “law” at all. By definition, a law is a rule you are required to follow regardless of your personal views. If muslims aren't required to follow Sharia law then Sharia law doesn't really exist.

D-Vega

The same, again, would apply for Orthodox Jews.

And yet, they function quite well in following their religious laws and the laws of the land.
mightysamurai

The same, again, would apply for Orthodox Jews.

Again, no. There is no part of Orthodox Judaism that directly conflicts with US law. The laws of Orthodox Judaism function in conjunction with US law, not in conflict with it.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

There's a lot of really horrible stuff codified in Sharia law as well as some reasonable and proper stuff. Its all official religious Islamic law which must be obeyed.

http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

The Koran actually never speaks of Sharia Law.

Aposematic

This goes for everyone but especially politicians and Muslims…stop lying.
TheDickNixon

Day 13 of ramadan 2010. Scorecard: 80 terrorist attacks, 327 corpses. Since 9-11, there have been 15,897 islamic terror attacks worldwide.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
UFKA_Smithwick

I would add: puts the laws of their country (if living in a modern western democracy) ahead of religious edicts that contradict those laws, and consider themselves citizens first, muslims second.
TheDickNixon

Oh, and it is day 3 of Nixon under siege. Huron, where is the FBI/Cops/Captain Crunch and when are they coming to arrest Nixon for making you look like you do in the mirror, a idiot.

Trench_Raider

Nixon, I missed the initial exchange. What's the story on this? Did that troll (who may or may not be yet another sockpuppet of Groundhog) actually threaten so sick the police on you?

TR

TheDickNixon

Sorry it took so long to respond. Huron first said he called the “Ontario Police” whoever the fuck they are, then the FBI, then the local police. Nixon supposes the dumb fucker thinks there is only one police force around DC.

Nixon did determine that Huron has a sexual partner that is a “canadian soldier” who can beat Nixon's ass. Nixon supposes Huron has never heard of Nixon's best friend, Mr 9mm.

http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

The Ontario Police is a self described “law enforcement” agency funded by the government of the province of Ontario, and which doesn't enforce the law. A large native group have taken control of private land by force and domestic terrorism. Our newspapers barely say anything about, the Ontario Police refuse to go in an deal with it, and have actually arrested private individual in accordance not with Canadian laws, but in accordance with the demands of this native group that has stolen huge swaths of private land by force. No government in Canada, not at the municipal, provincial or even federal level, is dealing with this rebellion in any way.

The rule of law doesn't actually exist in huge portions of Canada. Instead, we have the rule of, “what is going to easiest to deal with?”

In this case, that would be siding with the immoral and illegal rebellion.

When the G8 and G20 summits went to Toronto, the police there didn't stop any of the rioting. Instead, they let the rioting occur, then mass arrested 1000 people the next day, almost 900 of which were released without charge because they had nothing to do with the riots.

Lovekraft

Rejects the notion that heaven is full of virgins ready to do your bidding.

UFKA_Smithwick

They can believe whatever the hell they want. They just need to stop acting on those beliefs.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I guess it depends on their actions. The bulk of the koran is made up of exhortations to do good deeds, to be charitable, work hard, live a good life, be a good citizen, and so on. If you think you'll get to heaven full of hotties who feed you the best food on earth by doing this, well that will make you a pretty great citizen. Almost nobody has any complaints about how Mormons behave these days.

UFKA_Smithwick

Yeah. I guess to clarify I meant only those actions based on Islamic beliefs that run contrary to our laws.

Dress and pray as you like, do good deeds, proselytize, whatever. That's all fine.

Blowing up heathens, killing disobedient women (even if they are considered just property), refusing to remove the veil in places where it should be removed, etc. These are not ok.

D-Vega

Nonsense. There are plenty of good muslims who embrace sharia.
Jane

We all live in a nation that is governed by secular-made laws. Whether a christian, jew or muslim believes the laws should be otherwise to adhere to their religious belief should not and does not have any impact on their ability to be a good American, whether they should be treated the same under the law or whether the benefits the accrue to Americans should be granted.

No one is ever going to deny muslims the rights they have as Americans because they believe Sharia law ought to be imposed in the United States. Nor should they. Furthermore, no muslim should be denied any rights nor could they be denied any rights if they actively attempted to change the laws of the U.S. to adhere to Sharia law assuming they went about this process in a lawful manner.
A Voice in the Dark

I'm a Muslim, and I'll post on it. I'll start by first saying I'm first and foremost an American, and proud of it. My family's roots in this country go back to a time before it was a country.

1. Of course. I sometimes get ribbed by fellow Muslims for my unwavering support of Israel. I point out to them that in my 50 years on planet Earth, many people have gotten killed just for being Americans, and none of those that did the killing were named Wienstein, but often Hassan.
2. As with #1 above. These groups should not be recognized by respectable members of the world community.
3. I don't claim to be an expert on Sharia law, but I can only expect that some of it is quite reasonable. Most of it I find to be very outdated, though not much more so than laws I can find in the Pentateuch. I don't, however, want it to become part of U.S. law. While much of U.S. law has its roots in Protestantism, it has distanced itself from religion and should remain that way.
4. Well…if someone kills my wife, honor might require me to kill them…if the law doesn't do its duty. I do know what you're talking about, of course, and that type of honor killing is repugnant.
5. Part of the reason the West is miles ahead of other communities is because its workforce of women has been mobilized for a century, thus doubling its economic potential. Countries that don't want their women to be part of their public face are going to remain stagnant.
6. If I don't like what the Imam is saying, I leave and go to the mosque down the street. Isn't that what any Baptist does?
7. Everything needs to be taken in context of its time. Dhimmitude is a concept that comes from the tax that Christians and Jews had to pay in the old days to continue their worship in an Islamic state. Compared to contemporary Christian laws, it was quite tolerant, certainly in contrast to the Inquisition. Of course, discrimination in today's world community has no place.
8. I believe I already answered this.
9. I assume this is a query to the Prophet's wife, Aisha, who was 9 yrs. old when married to him. There is, of course, much scholarly debate as to whether the marriage was consummated at such an early age, and fundamentalist Muslims point to this as a reason for early marriage, whilst liberal Muslims deny that the marriage was consummated till a much later date. The reasons for the marriage occurring at all, I'll leave to your personal research. It remains a sore point within the religion. I know many such arguments occur between fundamentalist and progressive Christians. I'll note at this time that the Methodist Church doesn't condemn abortion, while the Catholic Church does. Simply stated, marriage at a young age should not be permitted. I recall when I was younger, however, that I knew a girl from Arkansas who had been married at age 14 and divorced at age 15. She required her parents' written permission to get married to a 40 yr. old man. I don't know if that's still the case in Arkansas or any other U.S. state, but I wonder if you'll be following up this article with one titled, “The 10 Beliefs Every Moderate American in America Should Hold.”
10. The spread of any religion by force is ridiculous. The sincerety of such a conversion is questionable, regardless.

I hope this answers your questions. I also hope that your ideas of moderate Muslims are also changed. Muslims are people, too. Mom always said, “good manners are good manners everywhere.” I've travelled a bit more than Mom, though, and I know this isn't true, but decent behavior is universal, outside the scope of culture.

D-Vega

Thank you, AVD. That's a great post and very enlightening.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Muslims really ought to be friends of Israel for three good reasons

1) Israel is the best place for Muslims to live in the middle east. They can be a full part of society and have the highest standard of living of any in the region.
2) Israel is considered part of the “people of the Book” and highly praised by Muhammad, even if he considered them mistaken religiously.
3) Israel is a holy land according to the Koran, and Jerusalem in particular.

http://www.facebook.com/jayhoffer Justin Hoffer

Um… Actually, the Koran never mention Jerusalem.
Rickstanich

“Kill the Jews wherever you find them” How are the Jews as you say highly appraised ?These “people of the book” as you proclaim were then Denegrated to “Apes and Pigs”,according to the Whims of mohamed . Have you heard of abrogation ???
Apparently mohamed was able to change the very “Mind Of God”
How was that possible ?
mohameds mind changed, and he attributed it to god

If circumstances , proseletising were not in mohameds favour throughout the various tribes , then apparently God changes HIS mind and becomes much more VIOLENT, as in the “Medina verses ” that is after mohamed was forced to leave mecca because he was considered a FRAUD , a “Charletan” by his own people .

mac

“Compared to contemporary Christian laws, it was quite tolerant, certainly in contrast to the Inquisition. “

Tell me — what Christian “law” is intolerant compared to Sharia? What are Christians forcing their believers to do that is in your view intolerant?

I'm heartened by most of your positions but this one needs clarification. I sincerely hope you're not saying any contemporary

mac

. . .Christian religion has among its rules anything remotely resembling what Sharia demands.
A Voice in the Dark

I was actually discussing Dhimmitude at that point, not Sharia law. I compared it to its contemporary (relative), the Inquisition. Contemporary means “existing at the same time.” Certainly the forced conversion of Jews and Moors, or their deportation and the confiscation of their property, if not execution, was more intolerant than Dhimmitude.

Rickstanich

What is a muslim ?
I am a Christian because i believe in the tenants and exemplary example of human potential , as demonstrated by the man Jesus.A man who proved beyond any doubt , that indeed,” man was created in the image of God “
The Holy Bible says” Without a vision , my people perish” In other words ,and as demonstrated by the deeds of Jesus Himself , Mankind has the potential to REACH for a life greater than himself . The scriptures also say that ” the word of the Cross is foolishness to the world , but it is the Wisdom of GOD. The man JESUS actually lived the “vision ” of human potential.
The human family has been given a “vision ” of our potential and we must certainly individually “strive ” to live the life of Christ,in order for this family to grow and evolve
The only point i am trying to make is ;Humanity was ripe 2000 yrs ago for a NEW TESTAMENT , a new WITNESS of human potential.
Then came mohamed 600 years later ,apparantly according to the koran as GODS final witness . If this is the Truth , then i would expect to see according to the deeds of mohamed some teaching even greater than the teaching of Jesus Christ . In other words a greater vision for the human family to REACH for.
Can any one help me out here ?

A Voice in the Dark

If you are looking for a lesson from the teachings of Mohammed, you are probably not going to find one short of reading the Quran. Most people practice the religion of their parents. Few step outside those cultural bounds. It is the religion of your upbringing, your culture, and it's what you're most learned in. Mohammed left his people a vision, just as Jesus left other people his vision. You do, I hope, understand that Jesus is a prophet of Islam, no less than Mohammed. We accept all his teachings. We differ from Christians only in the interpretation of his relation with God. You bring up the world of 2000 years ago, and I wonder if you truly understand the religious predicament that world was in. The people had ceased to believe in their traditional gods. Their religion no longer served them. Many had migrated to the cult of Tyche, or Luck, given that the world and man's role in it seemed to them a completely random affair. Along came Jesus and introduced the Roman world to the Jewish perception of God. But this message did not penetrate the Arabian desert. That had to wait another 600 years.

TheDickNixon

Day 14 of ramadan, 86 terrorist attacks worldwide, 379 dead.
http://genuinegopmom.blogspot.com Lisa Graas

A moderate Muslim is a Muslim who is considering giving up Islam for Lent…….and maybe indefinitely.
Abdulabdul Muhd

Yes, the most important has been left out:

(11) Total rejects (lesser) Jihad.
(12) Rejects Abrogation.
coolczech

11) A moderate Muslim does not vote Obama.
tgkeyes

Rejects the doctrine of taqiyya; does not classify all non-Muslims as “enemies” (Dar al Harb).
Shawmut

Of course support of the Constitution doesn't even seem to be considered. It should – MUST – be first. That is why there are no moderate Muslims.
R Desilva

How about:
3. (Rejects Sharia'h) and acknowledges the supremacy of American law.
7. (Rejects Dhimmitude) and acknowledges the rights of other religious people to exist in predominantly Muslim countries, including their right to build places of worship and to pray openly to their Gods
11. Rejects the right to have multiple wives
12. Rejects the right of men to physically abuse their wives or daughters
13. Rejects “eye for an eye” punishment with respect to criminals
14. Acknowledges the rights of gays
fredmitchell

Three other descriptors of a moderate Muslim, in addition to your ten.
11) Has completely stopped yelling, “Allahu Akbar!” (which accurately translates into: “Allah is greater!”). Wasn't it Lucifer who said he intended to be greater than Jehovah? The secular Muslim culture is admirable in many ways. But I have no use for anyone who would spend even a second worshipping Satan (Lucifer).
12) Rejects the Koran, Sunna, and Hadith as historical artifacts of an illiterate apostate 'Christian' sect, who so hated the “People of the Book” they forced some jews to write one for them. (Robert A. Morey. Winning the War Against Radical Islam. Christian Scholars Press. Las Vegas. 2002;and Ibid. The Islamic Invasion. 1992)
13) Accepts Jesus Christ as his/her personal Savior. And would not try to behead me if I prayed for that.
Bob Murphy

Shouldn't a “reasonable” muslim also believe in freedom of speech? You can get killed or jailed for saying quite reasonable things in places where sharia law prevails.
Personally I don't think the US should be sending foreign aid to countries that don't live up to the basic tenets of the UN Human Rights charter.
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu Anonymous

I’d modify #3 — Rejects the notion that civil law, including the Constitution, ought to be subordinate to sharia.

Why the difference? Because there are elements of sharia that relate to things that are strictly religious (similar to Catholic canon law) and are therefore unobjectionable.
http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu Anonymous

I’d modify #3 — Rejects the notion that civil law, including the Constitution, ought to be subordinate to sharia.

Why the difference? Because there are elements of sharia that relate to things that are strictly religious (similar to Catholic canon law) and are therefore unobjectionable.
Anonymous

Here’s what Turkey PM Erdegan has to say about the term �moderate Islam�, often used in the West. He said, �These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that�s it.�

So what you have described is a follower of another religion and not a Muslim.
Anonymous

Here’s what Turkey PM Erdegan has to say about the term �moderate Islam�, often used in the West. He said, �These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that�s it.�

So what you have described is a follower of another religion and not a Muslim.
Anonymous

One of the tenets of there faith, is information on the acceptability of lying to an infidel. Since all persons who are not Muslim are considered infidels by another tenet of there faith, I see a real problem existing.

How does one discern if a truth is being told?
Anonymous

One of the tenets of there faith, is information on the acceptability of lying to an infidel. Since all persons who are not Muslim are considered infidels by another tenet of there faith, I see a real problem existing.

How does one discern if a truth is being told?
Anonymous

One of the tenets of there faith, is information on the acceptability of lying to an infidel. Since all persons who are not Muslim are considered infidels by another tenet of there faith, I see a real problem existing.

How does one discern if a truth is being told?
Anonymous

One of the tenets of there faith, is information on the acceptability of lying to an infidel. Since all persons who are not Muslim are considered infidels by another tenet of there faith, I see a real problem existing.

How does one discern if a truth is being told?
Anonymous

One of the tenets of there faith, is information on the acceptability of lying to an infidel. Since all persons who are not Muslim are considered infidels by another tenet of there faith, I see a real problem existing.

How does one discern if a truth is being told?
Anonymous

One of the tenets of there faith, is information on the acceptability of lying to an infidel. Since all persons who are not Muslim are considered infidels by another tenet of there faith, I see a real problem existing.

How does one discern if a truth is being told?
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W4PZJVJ5GKXL26SIMCNMFAOPNE Bruce

I’d add at least two more:

11. Rejects any punishment for blasphemy against Islam.

12. Speaks out in protest against terrorism, terrorist groups, Shariah, honor killings, the abuse of women, punishments for apostasy or blasphemy, dhimmitude, anti-Semitism, pedophilia, and coercion to spread Islam.

My question is, are there any known examples of such Muslims, particularly those who practice #12?
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W4PZJVJ5GKXL26SIMCNMFAOPNE Bruce

I’d add at least two more:

11. Rejects any punishment for blasphemy against Islam.

12. Speaks out in protest against terrorism, terrorist groups, Shariah, honor killings, the abuse of women, punishments for apostasy or blasphemy, dhimmitude, anti-Semitism, pedophilia, and coercion to spread Islam.

My question is, are there any known examples of such Muslims, particularly those who practice #12?
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W4PZJVJ5GKXL26SIMCNMFAOPNE Bruce

I’d add at least two more:

11. Rejects any punishment for blasphemy against Islam.

12. Speaks out in protest against terrorism, terrorist groups, Shariah, honor killings, the abuse of women, punishments for apostasy or blasphemy, dhimmitude, anti-Semitism, pedophilia, and coercion to spread Islam.

My question is, are there any known examples of such Muslims, particularly those who practice #12?
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_W4PZJVJ5GKXL26SIMCNMFAOPNE Bruce

I’d add at least two more:

11. Rejects any punishment for blasphemy against Islam.

12. Speaks out in protest against terrorism, terrorist groups, Shariah, honor killings, the abuse of women, punishments for apostasy or blasphemy, dhimmitude, anti-Semitism, pedophilia, and coercion to spread Islam.

My question is, are there any known examples of such Muslims, particularly those who practice #12?
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WUDS5NZJMO2PZL6UMYHTX6UBOU Robert

Mr. Hawkins, you’re guilty of parroting erroneous terminology and of conflation.

Your Townhall article today ’7 Topics We Can’t Have Adult Conversations About in America’ makes that clear from the gitgo: #7: Radical Islam.

There is no such thing as ‘Radical’ Islam.

Islam, as written in the one and only version of the Qur’an, and the Sunnah of Muhammad, is an ideology which comes in just one flavor.

For every Muslim (Sunni, Shi’a, Ahmadiyya, Sufi, Salafist, and every other sect) Islam is just that. Islam. Period.

You are confusing Islam’s written ideology with the degree to which individual Muslims comply with that ideology.

How should we define a ‘moderate’ Muslim? Think for a moment. The Shari’a does not consist merely of barbaric punishments and other practices that are clearly antithetical to democracy or which are obviously incompatible with our constitution. Praying, hygiene, and dieting are all part of the Shari’a, too. So, why would ‘moderate’ Muslims want to renounce it in its entirety?

The definition of ‘moderate’ Muslims is simple. So-called moderate Muslims are like Catholics who use artificial birth control methods. Each, knowing what their respective belief systems teach, has personally chosen to not fully comply with them.

And ‘radical’ Muslims? Nope. No such thing, either.

Knowing what Islam actually teaches, and what it commands, demands, and expects of its every slave, why do we persist in labeling those Muslims attempting full compliance with that complete way of life–to the letter–as radicals and extremists?

As moderate Muslims do not generally amputate thieves’ hands (Qur’an 5:38), how does that make ‘extremists’ and ‘radicals’ of those who do?

And for Heaven’s sake! Radical Islamists? Would you be less concerned if they were just Islamists?

The problem for us is not radical Islam or Muslim radicals/extremists.

It’s Islam. As it’s written.

Put it to the test.

Ask an American Muslim where on the planet the amputation of a thief’s hands is morally acceptable to them.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WUDS5NZJMO2PZL6UMYHTX6UBOU Robert

Mr. Hawkins, you’re guilty of parroting erroneous terminology and of conflation.

Your Townhall article today ’7 Topics We Can’t Have Adult Conversations About in America’ makes that clear from the gitgo: #7: Radical Islam.

There is no such thing as ‘Radical’ Islam.

Islam, as written in the one and only version of the Qur’an, and the Sunnah of Muhammad, is an ideology which comes in just one flavor.

For every Muslim (Sunni, Shi’a, Ahmadiyya, Sufi, Salafist, and every other sect) Islam is just that. Islam. Period.

You are confusing Islam’s written ideology with the degree to which individual Muslims comply with that ideology.

How should we define a ‘moderate’ Muslim? Think for a moment. The Shari’a does not consist merely of barbaric punishments and other practices that are clearly antithetical to democracy or which are obviously incompatible with our constitution. Praying, hygiene, and dieting are all part of the Shari’a, too. So, why would ‘moderate’ Muslims want to renounce it in its entirety?

The definition of ‘moderate’ Muslims is simple. So-called moderate Muslims are like Catholics who use artificial birth control methods. Each, knowing what their respective belief systems teach, has personally chosen to not fully comply with them.

And ‘radical’ Muslims? Nope. No such thing, either.

Knowing what Islam actually teaches, and what it commands, demands, and expects of its every slave, why do we persist in labeling those Muslims attempting full compliance with that complete way of life–to the letter–as radicals and extremists?

As moderate Muslims do not generally amputate thieves’ hands (Qur’an 5:38), how does that make ‘extremists’ and ‘radicals’ of those who do?

And for Heaven’s sake! Radical Islamists? Would you be less concerned if they were just Islamists?

The problem for us is not radical Islam or Muslim radicals/extremists.

It’s Islam. As it’s written.

Put it to the test.

Ask an American Muslim where on the planet the amputation of a thief’s hands is morally acceptable to them.
http://merchant.auctivacommerce.com/s16220/Atlanta-Falcons-Jersey-2-Matt-Ryan-Jersey-Black-NFL-Jersey-P909848.aspx Matt Ryan Jersey

fabulous sharing, very . I like it a lot. I come acoss your site by MSN search engine. I would visit your site frequently and forward it to my schoolmates. Please keep it fresh. Keep on the good work. – A football fun

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN