Islam's "Grey Zone"

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

We are simply recognizing it is an issue found in other religions, namely the predominant religion in the United States. The religion that many people claim our nation was founded on.

I certainly agree with the that, I'm just not sure it's more beneficial to focus on that than the actual issue.

 

Can you imagine if the reaction to something awful a Christian did was "hey, Muslims can be shitheads too!".

 

While that's certainly true, it wouldn't be helpful in understanding the actual processes that led to the heinous act.

I agree 100%. Focusing on the religion of a "psycho" may help determine some of the "superficial" aspects like "who he targets" and "who he claims allegiance to" but it doesn't solve the real issue of how can a person be so disconnected. Brings us all the way back, why does it matter if a terrorist is called Muslim or not?

 

Regarding the bolded: if Muslims made up the majority of the population and wanted to keep Christians out of the country and put FBI agents in churches, I think it would get the same reaction, and rightfully so.

If a large portion of Christians were radical, i think it would be justified. This is coming from a Christian.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

We are simply recognizing it is an issue found in other religions, namely the predominant religion in the United States. The religion that many people claim our nation was founded on.

I certainly agree with the that, I'm just not sure it's more beneficial to focus on that than the actual issue.Can you imagine if the reaction to something awful a Christian did was "hey, Muslims can be shitheads too!".

While that's certainly true, it wouldn't be helpful in understanding the actual processes that led to the heinous act.

I agree 100%. Focusing on the religion of a "psycho" may help determine some of the "superficial" aspects like "who he targets" and "who he claims allegiance to" but it doesn't solve the real issue of how can a person be so disconnected. Brings us all the way back, why does it matter if a terrorist is called Muslim or not?

 

Regarding the bolded: if Muslims made up the majority of the population and wanted to keep Christians out of the country and put FBI agents in churches, I think it would get the same reaction, and rightfully so.

If a large portion of Christians were radical, i think it would be justified. This is coming from a Christian.

Are you insinuating a large portion of muslims are radical?

[zoogs]

Exactly. WBC is never covered as a Christian problem; nobody ever suggests that Christianity has a WBC or extremism problem. Islam is a religion of peace, and Muslisms are by far the lion's share of ISIS (and similar) victims.

 

It is not a comfortable time to be a Muslim in America right now (I mean, my goodness). Nobody doesn't know that Dylan Roof called himself Christian, or that Omar Mateen called himself Muslism. We can all call ourselves what we want. And we, as a society, define ourselves also by how we respond.

[The Dude]

 

 

 

 

We are simply recognizing it is an issue found in other religions, namely the predominant religion in the United States. The religion that many people claim our nation was founded on.

I certainly agree with the that, I'm just not sure it's more beneficial to focus on that than the actual issue.Can you imagine if the reaction to something awful a Christian did was "hey, Muslims can be shitheads too!".

While that's certainly true, it wouldn't be helpful in understanding the actual processes that led to the heinous act.

I agree 100%. Focusing on the religion of a "psycho" may help determine some of the "superficial" aspects like "who he targets" and "who he claims allegiance to" but it doesn't solve the real issue of how can a person be so disconnected. Brings us all the way back, why does it matter if a terrorist is called Muslim or not?

 

Regarding the bolded: if Muslims made up the majority of the population and wanted to keep Christians out of the country and put FBI agents in churches, I think it would get the same reaction, and rightfully so.

If a large portion of Christians were radical, i think it would be justified. This is coming from a Christian.

Are you insinuating a large portion of muslims are radical?

I'll preface this with the opinion that I think most Muslims make Andy Griffith look like Adolph Hitler.

 

But it's fair to say large portions of Muslims are radical, if we're including Islamists and not just Jihadists. If we're considering, say, WBC radical, I think it's more than fair to include Islamists.

 

Over the years, in survey after survey, attitudes have reflected a worrying trend. A quarter of British Muslims sympathised with the Charlie Hebdo shootings. 0% have expressed tolerance for homosexuality. A third have claimed that killing for religion can be justified, while 36% have thought apostates should be killed. 40% have wanted the introduction of sharia as law in the UK and 33% have expressed a desire to see the return of a worldwide theocratic Caliphate.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/08/the-british-left-s-hypocritical-embrace-of-islamism.html

[Landlord]

The double standard comes, I think, when you look at the societal context of those two faith groups.

 

 

You can't exactly treat them the exact same way because they don't have the same cultural standing. Islamic faith/culture is still considered "outsider influence" to most in this country; it's foreign, it's weird, it's unfamiliar, and it's not American. Christian culture on the other hand, is weaved into the fabric of pretty much every f'ing thing in America. Our society is SO heavily built upon Judeo-Christian pillars that a lot of the times we probably don't even realize.

 

If your average person attributes WBC or other extremists to Christianity, all us white midwestern heterosexual folk immediately and subconsciously dismiss that as not really being in the same camp as true Christianity, because we know what that is. We live in it or around it. But if someone attributes radical behavior to Islam, there's a much higher propensity for someone to actually believe that that is representative of Islam as a whole, because of their ignorance and because of their amygdala firing up with an immediate fight or flight, us or them paradigm.

 

While it's factually true to call ISIS radical Islamists, it's not helpful in a country that has been an incubator for such a fear-based perspective towards this culture that we perceive as "them".

[HuskerShark]

The double standard comes, I think, when you look at the societal context of those two faith groups.

 

 

You can't exactly treat them the exact same way because they don't have the same cultural standing. Islamic faith/culture is still considered "outsider influence" to most in this country; it's foreign, it's weird, it's unfamiliar, and it's not American. Christian culture on the other hand, is weaved into the fabric of pretty much every f'ing thing in America. Our society is SO heavily built upon Judeo-Christian pillars that a lot of the times we probably don't even realize.

 

If your average person attributes WBC or other extremists to Christianity, all us white midwestern heterosexual folk immediately and subconsciously dismiss that as not really being in the same camp as true Christianity, because we know what that is. We live in it or around it. But if someone attributes radical behavior to Islam, there's a much higher propensity for someone to actually believe that that is representative of Islam as a whole, because of their ignorance and because of their amygdala firing up with an immediate fight or flight, us or them paradigm.

 

While it's factually true to call ISIS radical Islamists, it's not helpful in a country that has been an incubator for such a fear-based perspective towards this culture that we perceive as "them".

I agree that people have to be cognizant of those things, but to be fair, it's hard to defeat an enemy that your "leaders" refuse to acknowledge. The enemy is radical Islamic terrorism.

 

Hopefully people in 2016 will understand that not all Muslims are bad people. Ameer Abdullah, Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, etc. Kind of set the stage for that idea.

[The Dude]

While it's factually true to call ISIS radical Islamists,

 

No. That's what Hilary Clinton said she would call them, and about 100% of the time there's a difference between what Hilary Clinton says and what's factually true.

 

ISIS are jihadists, or radical Islamic terrorists. "Radical Islamists" implies there are Islamists who aren't radical. Islamism is inherently radical. That type of rhetoric only serves to normalize Islamism.

 

The failure of liberal leadership in this country to properly articulate the problem demonstrates they don't really understand the problem.

 

That in itself is a problem.

 

It undermines the efforts of conservative, moderate and (mostly) liberal Muslims who are trying to push back against Islamism. And it leaves the door open for people like Donald Trump to talk about it for the wrong reasons.

[ZRod]

 

The double standard comes, I think, when you look at the societal context of those two faith groups.

 

 

You can't exactly treat them the exact same way because they don't have the same cultural standing. Islamic faith/culture is still considered "outsider influence" to most in this country; it's foreign, it's weird, it's unfamiliar, and it's not American. Christian culture on the other hand, is weaved into the fabric of pretty much every f'ing thing in America. Our society is SO heavily built upon Judeo-Christian pillars that a lot of the times we probably don't even realize.

 

If your average person attributes WBC or other extremists to Christianity, all us white midwestern heterosexual folk immediately and subconsciously dismiss that as not really being in the same camp as true Christianity, because we know what that is. We live in it or around it. But if someone attributes radical behavior to Islam, there's a much higher propensity for someone to actually believe that that is representative of Islam as a whole, because of their ignorance and because of their amygdala firing up with an immediate fight or flight, us or them paradigm.

 

While it's factually true to call ISIS radical Islamists, it's not helpful in a country that has been an incubator for such a fear-based perspective towards this culture that we perceive as "them".

 

I agree that people have to be cognizant of those things, but to be fair, it's hard to defeat an enemy that your "leaders" refuse to acknowledge. The enemy is radical Islamic terrorism.

Hopefully people in 2016 will understand that not all Muslims are bad people. Ameer Abdullah, Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, etc. Kind of set the stage for that idea.

Maybe you should watch The President's press conference from last week... might get you a little better informed.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

The double standard comes, I think, when you look at the societal context of those two faith groups.

 

 

You can't exactly treat them the exact same way because they don't have the same cultural standing. Islamic faith/culture is still considered "outsider influence" to most in this country; it's foreign, it's weird, it's unfamiliar, and it's not American. Christian culture on the other hand, is weaved into the fabric of pretty much every f'ing thing in America. Our society is SO heavily built upon Judeo-Christian pillars that a lot of the times we probably don't even realize.

 

If your average person attributes WBC or other extremists to Christianity, all us white midwestern heterosexual folk immediately and subconsciously dismiss that as not really being in the same camp as true Christianity, because we know what that is. We live in it or around it. But if someone attributes radical behavior to Islam, there's a much higher propensity for someone to actually believe that that is representative of Islam as a whole, because of their ignorance and because of their amygdala firing up with an immediate fight or flight, us or them paradigm.

 

While it's factually true to call ISIS radical Islamists, it's not helpful in a country that has been an incubator for such a fear-based perspective towards this culture that we perceive as "them".

I agree that people have to be cognizant of those things, but to be fair, it's hard to defeat an enemy that your "leaders" refuse to acknowledge. The enemy is radical Islamic terrorism.

Hopefully people in 2016 will understand that not all Muslims are bad people. Ameer Abdullah, Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, etc. Kind of set the stage for that idea.

Maybe you should watch The President's press conference from last week... might get you a little better informed.

 

You mean the one that he got scrutinized heavily for? By both Democrats and Republicans? I've seen it, and while his ability to be a really smooth and affluent speaker makes him sound good, he's way off base.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

The double standard comes, I think, when you look at the societal context of those two faith groups.

 

 

You can't exactly treat them the exact same way because they don't have the same cultural standing. Islamic faith/culture is still considered "outsider influence" to most in this country; it's foreign, it's weird, it's unfamiliar, and it's not American. Christian culture on the other hand, is weaved into the fabric of pretty much every f'ing thing in America. Our society is SO heavily built upon Judeo-Christian pillars that a lot of the times we probably don't even realize.

 

If your average person attributes WBC or other extremists to Christianity, all us white midwestern heterosexual folk immediately and subconsciously dismiss that as not really being in the same camp as true Christianity, because we know what that is. We live in it or around it. But if someone attributes radical behavior to Islam, there's a much higher propensity for someone to actually believe that that is representative of Islam as a whole, because of their ignorance and because of their amygdala firing up with an immediate fight or flight, us or them paradigm.

 

While it's factually true to call ISIS radical Islamists, it's not helpful in a country that has been an incubator for such a fear-based perspective towards this culture that we perceive as "them".

 

I agree that people have to be cognizant of those things, but to be fair, it's hard to defeat an enemy that your "leaders" refuse to acknowledge. The enemy is radical Islamic terrorism.

Hopefully people in 2016 will understand that not all Muslims are bad people. Ameer Abdullah, Muhammad Ali, Malcolm X, etc. Kind of set the stage for that idea.

Maybe you should watch The President's press conference from last week... might get you a little better informed.

You mean the one that he got scrutinized heavily for? By both Democrats and Republicans? I've seen it, and while his ability to be a really smooth and affluent speaker makes him sound good, he's way off base.

Link to the criticism? I admittedly haven't followed the news a lot lately.

[Landlord]

 

While it's factually true to call ISIS radical Islamists,

No. That's what Hilary Clinton said she would call them, and about 100% of the time there's a difference between what Hilary Clinton says and what's factually true.

 

ISIS are jihadists, or radical Islamic terrorists. "Radical Islamists" implies there are Islamists who aren't radical. Islamism is inherently radical. That type of rhetoric only serves to normalize Islamism.

 

The failure of liberal leadership in this country to properly articulate the problem demonstrates they don't really understand the problem.

 

That in itself is a problem.

 

It undermines the efforts of conservative, moderate and (mostly) liberal Muslims who are trying to push back against Islamism. And it leaves the door open for people like Donald Trump to talk about it for the wrong reasons.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I must have used an incorrect term. I just meant Islam in the sense of the monotheistic Abrahamic religion that Muslims practice.

[The Dude]

What a wonderful, important human being. This is an interview absolutely everyone should see. While I do understand many on the left have their hearts in the right place. It's absolutely imperative that people understand these are the types that are being undermined when pushing this erroneous belief that Islamism and jihadism have nothing to do with Islam.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkerd1Cgl1M

[BigRedBuster]

There's something about this interview that I find rather interesting.

 

Soooo....here we have the Democrats being the main group that is chirping the thought that we should not be using the "islamic extremist" label.

 

However, here is their main TV media (bought and paid for) outlet doing a wonderful interview with a guy who self proclaims to be an ex-Islamic extremist and during the entire 20 minute interview, they have a caption at the bottom saying this guy is a "reformed Islamic Extremist". During the interview, he constantly talks about being an Islamist and radicalized Muslim.

 

Why do I find this somewhat hypocritical? I thought we weren't supposed to use all those terms and phrases.

[knapplc]

Is not using the term "Islamic Extremist/Extremism" a Democrat thing or an Obama thing? I thought it was just an Obama thing.

 

Obama has explained why he uses the verbiage he uses:

Obama has explained his verbal strategy as an effort to isolate the group. Earlier this year, Obama said its members are "desperate for legitimacy."

 

"They try to portray themselves as religious leaders — holy warriors in defense of Islam," Obama said at the close of a summit on violent extremism Feb. 22. "That’s why ISIL presumes to declare itself the ‘Islamic State.’ And they propagate the notion that America — and the West, generally — is at war with Islam."

 

Obama went on to say "we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam."

 

This wording isn’t all that different from former President George W. Bush’s language following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and at the onset of the war in Afghanistan.

 

"This great nation of many religions understands, our war is not against Islam, or against faith practiced by the Muslim people. Our war is a war against evil," Bush said in January 2002.

 

 

LINK

 

 

I've gotta think guys like Ameer Abdullah probably appreciate the distinction Obama is making there.

 

 

And basically as I was typing the above, the aforementioned Mr. Abdullah tweets:

 

[NM11046]

What a wonderful, important human being. This is an interview absolutely everyone should see. While I do understand many on the left have their hearts in the right place. It's absolutely imperative that people understand these are the types that are being undermined when pushing this erroneous belief that Islamism and jihadism have nothing to do with Islam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkerd1Cgl1M

I obviously can only speak for myself, but I'm guessing I cover a few folks when I say, nobody is arguing that Jihadism has nothing to do with Islam, but that NOT EVERY Muslim (Islamic??) is radical and dangerous. In fact the majority of Islamists are peaceful people.