Dispelling the ‘Few Extremists’ Myth – the Muslim World Is Overcome with Hate

[jamil]

Religion should be a forbidden topic because guess what, NO ONE LISTENS OR CHANGES THEIR MINDS/VIEW!

Who would have thunk it!

<3

I have to disagree. I've just finished reading this entire thread and what I saw unfold proves that at least partially wrong. This thread is a testament to how minds are opened to hearing opposing views. No, the thread isn't going to convert anyone's religion. A member who has earned INGO's respect sincerely laid it out there. And that sincerity helped people talk to each other rather than past each other. How many minds are more opened to at least trying to understand the world view of someone who believes differently, because of this discussion? If religion is a forbidden topic, minds stay closed. But because it got a little personal with someone we all respect, people got past some preconceptions and listened. That's a win. INGO is far better for having this conversation.

 

[churchmouse]

I have to disagree. I've just finished reading this entire thread and what I saw unfold proves that at least partially wrong. This thread is a testament to how minds are opened to hearing opposing views. No, the thread isn't going to convert anyone's religion. A member who has earned INGO's respect sincerely laid it out there. And that sincerity helped people talk to each other rather than past each other. How many minds are more opened to at least trying to understand the world view of someone who believes differently, because of this discussion? If religion is a forbidden topic, minds stay closed. But because it got a little personal with someone we all respect, people got past some preconceptions and listened. That's a win. INGO is far better for having this conversation.

Religion was Verboten for a long time due to folks not using their heads and loosing the filters. It was put back for open discussion in hope that cooler heads would prevail.
For the most part the threads have been good reads.......except for the few who just can not help themselves.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I have to disagree. I've just finished reading this entire thread and what I saw unfold proves that at least partially wrong. This thread is a testament to how minds are opened to hearing opposing views. No, the thread isn't going to convert anyone's religion. A member who has earned INGO's respect sincerely laid it out there. And that sincerity helped people talk to each other rather than past each other. How many minds are more opened to at least trying to understand the world view of someone who believes differently, because of this discussion? If religion is a forbidden topic, minds stay closed. But because it got a little personal with someone we all respect, people got past some preconceptions and listened. That's a win. INGO is far better for having this conversation.

Out of Rep, but good post.

 

[printcraft]

Its on then......where did I put that thing......

Check in the unicorn paddock.

 

[Beardown]

By contrast, we frequently hear it thrown up that assorted Christian persons and/or groups throughout history have acted similarly, but I am still left with the fact that Christ never killed anyone nor did he direct anyone to be killed.

IndyDave, I have enjoyed reading your posts, and I think both you and BBI make very good points. I do have one issue with this statement, however. God killed a TON of people. Heck, he even killed a man for spilling his seed on the ground. I know in the New Testament, the message of peace and love prevails, but the idea of the Holy Trinity would lead me to believe that Jesus was a piece of that vengeful Old Testament. Your argument against Mohammed and the Muslim faith holds no water in my mind.

I'm typically not one to enter into arguments of religion, because they are virtually all based on the idea of "faith", which literally means believing in something you have no proof of. This makes it really difficult to win an argument when they're already basing their belief system in no factual evidence (I am also a white, Christian, American, gun totin, male who has accepted that my belief system is based on no factual evidence, and I'm ok with that) I feel this thread has turned into what is right (and not necessarily by you), Christian faith or Muslim faith. This should not be the argument. My argument is we should not let fear trump our compassion and acceptance of people outside our little bubble of White, Christian, Gun Totin, American Culture.

 

[easy]

... You're basically expecting me to be a religious scholar, a history scholar, and then to chop up that knowledge into bite sized forum posts without being overly vague and broad as to be dismissed...

OK, I've read all this stuff and this, while I agree would be a chore, would surely be a good start to bring some clarity to the ignorance flopping around in this thread. Not that I'm really any more informed than the average INGO'r.

As for leaving, why? I've read some of your posts throughout the forum and really haven't seen anything objectionable or unreasonable. In fact most of the time you speak from a well informed position as far as I can tell. Stick to your guns, so to speak and make your stand. Ignoring the dolts may just be the easiest way out.

And this is the first time I've heard of your choice of faith. So for whatever you care about my two cent, there it is.

 

[Jludo]

BBI, you and your family would be welcome in my my home. I don't care what your religion is, what color you are. My only stipulation would be, you respect me and my culture. To me, I think that's where the disconnect is. If I chose to go to Jordan, because I thought that's the place I want to be, that's the culture I want my kids to be from, I'm going to assimilate to that culture. That does not seem to be the path most Muslims are taking, and my issue with it.

What would you consider assimilating? Would you keep the same religion? Same core beliefs? Dress the same? Vote your guy for president? (joke). Play soccer? I'm trying to get a general idea what assimilating in Jordan would look like.

 

[jamil]

What would you consider assimilating? Would you keep the same religion? Same core beliefs? Dress the same? Vote your guy for president? (joke). Play soccer? I'm trying to get a general idea what assimilating in Jordan would look like.

Not directed at me, but heck. I'm opinionated. If I were hell bent on leaving the US and moved to Jordan, I'd learn the language, outwardly adopt the many of the local customs, and find my own place within that society. But in my own home I'd probably live much like I do here. I would not adopt the religion.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Cherry picking makes for good straw men.

I think it's pretty clear I was referring to generalizations. If you wish to defend those, feel free, but don't go on as if I'm blind to the dangers of ISIS just so you can paint my comments as irrational.

My intent was to share the challenges I feel in my own search for intellectual honesty, not to disparage yours.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I feel this thread has turned into what is right (and not necessarily by you), Christian faith or Muslim faith. This should not be the argument. My argument is we should not let fear trump our compassion and acceptance of people outside our little bubble of White, Christian, Gun Totin, American Culture.

Islam works for me. If Christianity works for you, that's the right choice for you. Mohammed did not require conversion, and early on did not encourage it. Your "native" faith (assuming an Abrahamic God) was the right one for you if it led you to be a good person.

A REAL quick history: Muhammad's Life

 

[IndyDave1776]

IndyDave, I have enjoyed reading your posts, and I think both you and BBI make very good points. I do have one issue with this statement, however. God killed a TON of people. Heck, he even killed a man for spilling his seed on the ground. I know in the New Testament, the message of peace and love prevails, but the idea of the Holy Trinity would lead me to believe that Jesus was a piece of that vengeful Old Testament. Your argument against Mohammed and the Muslim faith holds no water in my mind.

I'm typically not one to enter into arguments of religion, because they are virtually all based on the idea of "faith", which literally means believing in something you have no proof of. This makes it really difficult to win an argument when they're already basing their belief system in no factual evidence (I am also a white, Christian, American, gun totin, male who has accepted that my belief system is based on no factual evidence, and I'm ok with that) I feel this thread has turned into what is right (and not necessarily by you), Christian faith or Muslim faith. This should not be the argument. My argument is we should not let fear trump our compassion and acceptance of people outside our little bubble of White, Christian, Gun Totin, American Culture.

God destroyed two cities for a prolonged time of carrying out abominations. He even played along with Lot in allowing him the opportunity to save the place if he could find a minimal number of righteous folks. He then allowed Lot to take anyone righteous with him, and in the end, not even Lot's own wife got away on account of not being willing to abandon the hedonistic city. Onan was killed not for jerking off but rather because it was his duty to raise up an heir for his dead brother and he did so for the purpose of seeing that he did NOT raise up the heir whose inheritance would be double the amount he stood to inherit in the event that the birth took place. There was much more to it than being killed for, well, a sore right elbow. The purpose of Christ's teaching was to fulfill the law which ushered in the concept of grace, given that the purpose of the law was to prove to man that he could not reach righteousness on his own merit. Take this back to Abraham. It says that Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, not that Abraham achieved righteousness of his own effort. It is also, once again, critical to remember that in each instance, death was visited on specific people for a specific reason as opposed to an open-ended call to kill anyone not 'with the program'. Also significant is that in the cases you mentioned, God did it himself rather than delegating it. I am not aware of such a phenomenon in Islam, though Mohammed's propensity toward bloodshed is legendary. I would further point out that the often maligned Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression, not the other way around. Somehow in the modern narrative it has become de rigueur to condemn Christian Europe for its response to assorted agents of Islam first conquering the Holy Land, and then continuing so far as Vienna, Austria, and crossing Gibraltar, conquering Spain and Portugal, and continuing on into France before being turned back. I am not going to argue that the Crusaders did not engage in barbaric deeds or did not have men among them who were anything but righteous, but it is certainly not what the present narrative presents.

What would you consider assimilating? Would you keep the same religion? Same core beliefs? Dress the same? Vote your guy for president? (joke). Play soccer? I'm trying to get a general idea what assimilating in Jordan would look like.

Why would you move to another country and immerse yourself in another culture where you did not want to be part of that culture?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Not directed at me, but heck. I'm opinionated. If I were hell bent on leaving the US and moved to Jordan, I'd learn the language, outwardly adopt the many of the local customs, and find my own place within that society. But in my own home I'd probably live much like I do here. I would not adopt the religion.

1) Pick a soccer team. REALLY care about that soccer team. Talk a lot about that Soccer team.

2) When someone visits you, if every guest don't gain 2 lbs, you failed as a host. Welcome is said with food.

3) Learn that proper coffee can be used to patch tires as well as a "beverage".

4) NEVER be on time.

 

[Jludo]

Not directed at me, but heck. I'm opinionated. If I were hell bent on leaving the US and moved to Jordan, I'd learn the language, outwardly adopt the many of the local customs, and find my own place within that society. But in my own home I'd probably live much like I do here. I would not adopt the religion.

Do we not see most the muslims who move here doing that? Shoot most of the muslim terrorist attacks have occured by people who made it a point to fit in.
I don't see muslims not assimilating anymore that we would moving somewhere else, i.e. keeping religion and traditions while learning the language and outwardly doing their best to fit in.

 

[CombatRex]

NEVER be on time.

I heard that often in Iraq "Inshalla". Just thought that was kind of funny.

I really can't offer much on the conversation, except in my book it boils down to: are you a good guy or a bad guy? I know simplistic. I have sat across the table from a Muslim that wanted to stick a knife in my throat, another that loved America and begged for me to find him a home in the US. I have had others shoot RPG's and AK's at me, and I watched others pull my brothers out of the line of fire or warn us of IED's. So if your a good guy ,(in all that it means -spiritually, love, comrade, family etc) then my home is your home. The bad guys.....well let god sort them out.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

God destroyed two cities for a prolonged time of carrying out abominations. He even played along with Lot in allowing him the opportunity to save the place if he could find a minimal number of righteous folks. He then allowed Lot to take anyone righteous with him, and in the end, not even Lot's own wife got away on account of not being willing to abandon the hedonistic city. Onan was killed not for jerking off but rather because it was his duty to raise up an heir for his dead brother and he did so for the purpose of seeing that he did NOT raise up the heir whose inheritance would be double the amount he stood to inherit in the event that the birth took place. There was much more to it than being killed for, well, a sore right elbow. The purpose of Christ's teaching was to fulfill the law which ushered in the concept of grace, given that the purpose of the law was to prove to man that he could not reach righteousness on his own merit. Take this back to Abraham. It says that Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, not that Abraham achieved righteousness of his own effort. It is also, once again, critical to remember that in each instance, death was visited on specific people for a specific reason as opposed to an open-ended call to kill anyone not 'with the program'. Also significant is that in the cases you mentioned, God did it himself rather than delegating it. I am not aware of such a phenomenon in Islam, though Mohammed's propensity toward bloodshed is legendary. I would further point out that the often maligned Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression, not the other way around. Somehow in the modern narrative it has become de rigueur to condemn Christian Europe for its response to assorted agents of Islam first conquering the Holy Land, and then continuing so far as Vienna, Austria, and crossing Gibraltar, conquering Spain and Portugal, and continuing on into France before being turned back. I am not going to argue that the Crusaders did not engage in barbaric deeds or did not have men among them who were anything but righteous, but it is certainly not what the present narrative presents.



Why would you move to another country and immerse yourself in another culture where you did not want to be part of that culture?

Well, again I'd refer you to Armstrong's book. Mohammed didn't kill everyone "not with the program" nor force conversions. He certainly did kill people, though perhaps not as willy-nilly and for the reasons you seem to believe. The early writings are pretty clear that he was just a man, and that he had good qualities and bad. You can't overcome an entrenched system of violence that has no appeal to a higher authority without violence. Our own Revolutionary War is predicated on that. Our nation was born in blood and warfare, but I think the betterment of mankind came out of that. Same-same. If you're divine, you have options regular men don't.

As for the Crusades, it certainly isn't as simple as Christians responding to Muslim incursions. Looking at the time line of the last significant incursion into Europe and the calling of the first Crusade If I could recommend another book to you: Amazon.com: The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land eBook: Thomas Asbridge: Kindle Store it's a pretty well balanced presentation. One thing that really struck me is that, predominately because of Hollywood, our modern understanding of the Crusades is as a titanic clash of civilizations. It was a border war for all sides, and as influenced by in-fighting and politics on both sides as anything else, with little truly on the line for either side. No matter who won or lost, neither culture was at risk. They weren't driving at each other's hearts.

Western Europe was a backwater, not at all what we think of with later day France, Spain, etc. Yes, the Muslims invaded. So did the Vikings, and so did the Magyars (from Eastern Europe). Prior to Crusades, the Normans had taken much of Western Europe, taking (modern day) England and retaking southern Italy and Sicily back from the North African Muslims. The Muslims were fractured and political infighting was a significantly greater threat to them than the Europeans. The Muslims were essentially beating themselves without any outside help. The Moors were breaking from the empire, the rulers of Egypt were fighting the rulers of Iraq (again, as we understand the countries in modern times), Abbasids and Fatimids (not sure on spelling) were bitter rivals. The seljuq turks were grade A bad-ass warriors on horseback who were moving in and were kicking Arab and Persian leaders out as they chose. Iraq and Egypt were the heart of the Muslim world, the Levant had spiritual significance but was also something of a backwater and was a frontier of the Muslim world. It contained as many Christians and Jews as Muslims before the 1st Crusade. Syria was (not surprisingly given today's news) unsubjugated and was the domain of multiple warlords and tribal fighting. The Muslim world wasn't trying to push through Syria or the Levant, they were much more concerned with infighting at the time of the Crusades.

So, even then, there wasn't so much of a "Muslim world" as a patchwork of various types of Muslims. Europe was a patchwork of feudal lords and a Pope trying to reign in some of the excess and to consolidate power. Not that different than Mohammed, really, trying to get rid of a system of vendetta and squabbling warlords that left everyone suffering for a more centralized and organized system. Anyway, it's a long book but it's worth the read if you want to get a more indepth view of a multi-sided war with multiple motives than just a "Christian V Muslim territory dispute" overview. This is the book that made me start looking for a good history of the Mongols, but I've been sidetracked for the last year with other reading and haven't gotten there yet.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I heard that often in Iraq "Inshalla". Just thought that was kind of funny.

I really can't offer much on the conversation, except in my book it boils down to: are you a good guy or a bad guy? I know simplistic. I have sat across the table from a Muslim that wanted to stick a knife in my throat, another that loved America and begged for me to find him a home in the US. I have had others shoot RPG's and AK's at me, and I watched others pull my brothers out of the line of fire or warn us of IED's. So if your a good guy ,(in all that it means -spiritually, love, comrade, family etc) then my home is your home. The bad guys.....well let god sort them out.

Thanks for the input and thanks for your service. I think a lot of people don't realize how much assistance the indigenous populations were, and why the whole "hearts and minds" thing did matter. I'm not sure who they think translated, or who went through the document caches and translated those, etc. They ask what Muslims have done, and forget that Muslims are US allies as well as enemies, and that countries like Jordan are fighting ISIS, the Kurds are fighting ISIS, etc. I was just a contractor in Doha and saw the buses of translators coming and going to the site that had documents from caches in Iraq to be translated.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm curious how many people here actually, personally, know any Muslims?

 

[churchmouse]

I'm curious how many people here actually, personally, know any Muslims?

Me.......I know many in my area.
For the most part good people.
A bit excitable when doing business......well, very excitable.

 

[jamil]

1) Pick a soccer team. REALLY care about that soccer team. Talk a lot about that Soccer team.

2) When someone visits you, if every guest don't gain 2 lbs, you failed as a host. Welcome is said with food.

3) Learn that proper coffee can be used to patch tires as well as a "beverage".

4) NEVER be on time.

Okay, you've talked me out of it. I think I am personally incompatible with Jordanian culture.

1) watching soccer is like watching fire ants build a mound. Lots of action but it takes a long time to see them accomplish anything meaningful

2) this one I could live with. I speak fluent food.

3) I like my coffee a little stiff but not quite viscous.

4) now that's the deal breaker. To be early is to be on time. To be on time is to be late. A meeting at 10AM means you're in place, with all preparations complete and ready to start at 10AM. Timelines is a curtesy. Tardiness wastes the time of those who are prepared. If one cares to say what he'll do, he should care enough to do what he says.

 

[churchmouse]

Okay, you've talked me out of it. I think I am personally incompatible with Jordanian culture.

1) watching soccer is like watching fire ants build a mound. Lots of action but it takes a long time to see them accomplish anything meaningful

2) this one I could live with. I speak fluent food.

3) I like my coffee a little stiff but not quite viscous.

4) now that's the deal breaker. To be early is to be on time. To be on time is to be late. A meeting at 10AM means you're in place, with all preparations complete and ready to start at 10AM. Timelines is a curtesy. Tardiness wastes the time of those who are prepared. If one cares to say what he'll do, he should care enough to do what he says.

#4......totally.