There are 4 people on the panel, at least one is a Muslim hater, she attacked the questioner, who ask a perfectly reasonable question, in a rude bullying and insulting manner, the panelist was then applauded by a sizable section of the audience.
I don't know what the forum was but I would class it as being full of radical Americans.
There's also the definition of "radical" the panelist claimed that these "radicals" wanting to see the destruction of the West made up 15 - 25% of Muslims, I've seen no evidence of that, in fact all the evidence I've seen would suggest the proportion of Muslims wanting that would be less than 5%, which is probably about the same as the Proportion of Americans wanting to see the destruction of Islam.
So if her definition of radicals is those bent of destruction the important thing for the future for all Humanity is to keep all of these radicals who are advocating intolerance and oppression under control, it's that failure to do so in the past that has lead to the atrocities that the panelist describes.
The best people to keep the radicals under control are their peers within their own societies, unfortunately it's the haters like the panelist who attack people for simply being Muslim or being Christian, that sap the will of those most able to keen those radicals in check by talking them out of radicalism in the first place.
If the questioner's little brother goes to her and says he's thinking these Americans are Evil, is she going to be more or less inclined to argue against him now that she's been the victim of an Evil American?
The Western media pays a fair amount of attention to Muslim attitudes to violence, but rarely does it compare them with Western attitudes to violence. I think this survey supports my position that American Christians and non-Muslims are at least as "radical" (if that's how you define the approval of violence against civilians) as American Muslims.
A new Gallup poll shows that they are more likely than Christians or Jews to object to the targeting and killing of civilians
The claim is that most Muslim's being peaceful is irrelevant, I have explained why "radical" Muslims being in the minority is very relevant, because "The best people to keep the radicals under control are their peers within their own societies", I also point out that stupid Islamophobes going out of their way to insult and bully the Muslims we want to be motivated to control radicals is going to reduce their motivation to argue for peace.
I know following this simple logic is a challenge for you, what with you being wedded to your hatred, but I try.
As for Muslim Americans being "representative", asking that just means you miss the point, which is that while a minority of Muslims around the world oppose targeting civilians (that you can discover by following Leland's link) a lot of non-Muslim Americans don't have a problem with targeting civilians. So is the fact that all those Americans are happy to kill innocent people make Americans any better than Muslims in terms of their inclination to target civilians?
I spent a few minutes on that womans video, there were several inaccuracies, the Banu Qurayza initially allied themselves with the Muslim's it the war against the Meccans only to later betray the treaty, she claims they were especially peace loving etc, in fact they were just another one of the waring tribes of that time. killing of the men of military age was pretty standard under those circumstances at the time.
The age of Aisha at the time of the consummation of her marriage to Muhammad is open to debate, some argue she was in her late teens, records from the time are vague as to her actual age wit some claiming the younger age attributed to her was an attempt to argue for her being a virgin. Either way the marriage of girls at 12 years throughout both the Christian and Muslim world for the purpose of cementing political ties was common.
I haven't gone through all of the claims of Muhammad ordered such and such a killing, but those that I have looked at are not as described by her, often the killing wasn't ordered by Muhammad, and some were actually stopped by him. One example, Abu Dawud book 38 # 4348 she describes as Muhammad ordering the killing of the wife of a blind man because she insulted him (Muhammad).
What I found: A blind man had a female slave who had borne him a child (umm walad) who reviled the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and disparaged him, and he told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she paid no heed.
One night she started to disparage and revile the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), so he took a dagger and put it in her stomach and pressed on it and killed her. There fell between her legs a child who was smeared with the blood that was there.
The next morning mention of that was made to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he assembled the people and said: “I adjure by Allaah the man who did this to stand up.”
The blind man stood up and came through the people, trembling, and he came and sat before the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said: O Messenger of Allaah, I am the one who did it. She used to revile you and disparage you, and I told her not to do it but she did not stop, and I rebuked her but she paid no heed. I have two sons from her who are like two pearls, and she was good to me. Last night she started to revile you and disparage you, and I took a dagger and placed it on her stomach and I pressed on it until I killed her.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Bear witness that no retaliation is due for her blood.”
All very gruesome by the standards we enjoy, but not a case of Muhammad ordering her death in a blood thirsty whim as claimed.
I've pretty much completely lost respect for you as you've repeatedly demonstrated that if you find something to support your preconceived views you do nothing to check its validity, you don't look for material to verify anything you find, if it supports your bigotry you just gobble it. Your claims of being open minded are just nonsense.
I stand by what I say. Everything else is just out there. How do you know that your version of things are not lies? What are not lies are that when people are killed today, it's often done by Muslims and no bullshit excuse justifies it.
You continue to insult.
When a non-Muslim does a terrorist act, I and others condemn it. Why is it you try to justify Muslim acts?
6 comments:
There are 4 people on the panel, at least one is a Muslim hater, she attacked the questioner, who ask a perfectly reasonable question, in a rude bullying and insulting manner, the panelist was then applauded by a sizable section of the audience.
I don't know what the forum was but I would class it as being full of radical Americans.
There's also the definition of "radical" the panelist claimed that these "radicals" wanting to see the destruction of the West made up 15 - 25% of Muslims, I've seen no evidence of that, in fact all the evidence I've seen would suggest the proportion of Muslims wanting that would be less than 5%, which is probably about the same as the Proportion of Americans wanting to see the destruction of Islam.
So if her definition of radicals is those bent of destruction the important thing for the future for all Humanity is to keep all of these radicals who are advocating intolerance and oppression under control, it's that failure to do so in the past that has lead to the atrocities that the panelist describes.
The best people to keep the radicals under control are their peers within their own societies, unfortunately it's the haters like the panelist who attack people for simply being Muslim or being Christian, that sap the will of those most able to keen those radicals in check by talking them out of radicalism in the first place.
If the questioner's little brother goes to her and says he's thinking these Americans are Evil, is she going to be more or less inclined to argue against him now that she's been the victim of an Evil American?
Andrew W
The Western media pays a fair amount of attention to Muslim attitudes to violence, but rarely does it compare them with Western attitudes to violence. I think this survey supports my position that American Christians and non-Muslims are at least as "radical" (if that's how you define the approval of violence against civilians) as American Muslims.
A new Gallup poll shows that they are more likely than Christians or Jews to object to the targeting and killing of civilians
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/a-fascinating-look-at-the-political-views-of-muslim-americans/242975/
Andrew W
What is it about the word irrelevant that you don't understand Andrew?
That poll is of Muslim Americans. Do you think that's representative?
The claim is that most Muslim's being peaceful is irrelevant, I have explained why "radical" Muslims being in the minority is very relevant, because "The best people to keep the radicals under control are their peers within their own societies", I also point out that stupid Islamophobes going out of their way to insult and bully the Muslims we want to be motivated to control radicals is going to reduce their motivation to argue for peace.
I know following this simple logic is a challenge for you, what with you being wedded to your hatred, but I try.
As for Muslim Americans being "representative", asking that just means you miss the point, which is that while a minority of Muslims around the world oppose targeting civilians (that you can discover by following Leland's link) a lot of non-Muslim Americans don't have a problem with targeting civilians. So is the fact that all those Americans are happy to kill innocent people make Americans any better than Muslims in terms of their inclination to target civilians?
Clearly in those terms Americans are no better.
Andrew W
I spent a few minutes on that womans video, there were several inaccuracies, the Banu Qurayza initially allied themselves with the Muslim's it the war against the Meccans only to later betray the treaty, she claims they were especially peace loving etc, in fact they were just another one of the waring tribes of that time. killing of the men of military age was pretty standard under those circumstances at the time.
The age of Aisha at the time of the consummation of her marriage to Muhammad is open to debate, some argue she was in her late teens, records from the time are vague as to her actual age wit some claiming the younger age attributed to her was an attempt to argue for her being a virgin. Either way the marriage of girls at 12 years throughout both the Christian and Muslim world for the purpose of cementing political ties was common.
I haven't gone through all of the claims of Muhammad ordered such and such a killing, but those that I have looked at are not as described by her, often the killing wasn't ordered by Muhammad, and some were actually stopped by him. One example, Abu Dawud book 38 # 4348 she describes as Muhammad ordering the killing of the wife of a blind man because she insulted him (Muhammad).
What I found:
A blind man had a female slave who had borne him a child (umm walad) who reviled the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and disparaged him, and he told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she paid no heed.
One night she started to disparage and revile the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), so he took a dagger and put it in her stomach and pressed on it and killed her. There fell between her legs a child who was smeared with the blood that was there.
The next morning mention of that was made to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he assembled the people and said: “I adjure by Allaah the man who did this to stand up.”
The blind man stood up and came through the people, trembling, and he came and sat before the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said: O Messenger of Allaah, I am the one who did it. She used to revile you and disparage you, and I told her not to do it but she did not stop, and I rebuked her but she paid no heed. I have two sons from her who are like two pearls, and she was good to me. Last night she started to revile you and disparage you, and I took a dagger and placed it on her stomach and I pressed on it until I killed her.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Bear witness that no retaliation is due for her blood.”
All very gruesome by the standards we enjoy, but not a case of Muhammad ordering her death in a blood thirsty whim as claimed.
I've pretty much completely lost respect for you as you've repeatedly demonstrated that if you find something to support your preconceived views you do nothing to check its validity, you don't look for material to verify anything you find, if it supports your bigotry you just gobble it. Your claims of being open minded are just nonsense.
Not back here.
Andrew W
I stand by what I say. Everything else is just out there. How do you know that your version of things are not lies? What are not lies are that when people are killed today, it's often done by Muslims and no bullshit excuse justifies it.
You continue to insult.
When a non-Muslim does a terrorist act, I and others condemn it. Why is it you try to justify Muslim acts?
Post a Comment