Muslim clerics denounce terrorism

[th87]

Which is actually pretty common. Just don't expect to hear anything about it from the MSM:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/08/Muslim_clerics_endorse_anti-terror_fatwa/UPI-38241226199440/

[Tarlam!]

Sorry, TH, but Indians are a pretty moderate people. There are enough Muslim clerics running around screaming that the Infidel should be burned.

You've known me since JSO days. You may still remember my best friend - ever! - is a practicing Muslim. I have looked into becoming a Muslim myself. In its pure form, it is, without doubt, the most beautiful religion I have come to investigate.

But unfortunately, it has too many crackpot preachers that would have me go into martyrdom. That, and they want my foreskin and to refrain from eating my bacon.

NOBODY takes away Tarlam!'s bacon!!

[th87]

Sorry, TH, but Indians are a pretty moderate people. There are enough Muslim clerics running around screaming that the Infidel should be burned.

You've known me since JSO days. You may still remember my best friend - ever! - is a practicing Muslim. I have looked into becoming a Muslim myself. In its pure form, it is, without doubt, the most beautiful religion I have come to investigate.

But unfortunately, it has too many crackpot preachers that would have me go into martyrdom. That, and they want my foreskin and to refrain from eating my bacon.

NOBODY takes away Tarlam!'s bacon!!

I agree with you - there are far too many crackpot teachers. But every religion has crackpot teachers.

Hopefully education does away with them over time.

The point of this topic is to show that there are indeed Islamic authorities that denounce terrorism. This is a relatively unknown thing, because the MSM does not illustrate it.

[Tarlam!]

Cool, but what about my bacon? :D

I believe, as I once posted on JSO many years ago, that the "dark" Muslims are having their period of an Inquisition. If we examine the age of Catholicism and Muslims, then we MUST perceive certain parallels to their respective developments, as world religions.

Christians shouldn't forget the witch hunting that went on when their religion was as old as the Muslim religion is today.

[th87]

Cool, but what about my bacon? :D

I believe, as I once posted on JSO many years ago, that the "dark" Muslims are having their period of an Inquisition. If we examine the age of Catholicism and Muslims, then we MUST perceive certain parallels to their respective developments, as world religions.

Christians shouldn't forget the witch hunting that went on when their religion was as old as the Muslim religion is today.

:lol:

I highly doubt God cares what you do with your bacon. I know you're joking, but it's this level of minutiae that I think Muslims need to avoid. Getting caught up in every detail of every allegedly decreed thing (of which I question the sources' accuracy) causes one to miss the forest for the trees.

You're dead on about its parallels to Christianity's dark ages. Those occurred around 1300-1600 years after its founding. How old is Islam? About 1400 years old.

[Tarlam!]

You're dead on about its parallels to Christianity's dark ages. Those occurred around 1300-1600 years after its founding. How old is Islam? About 1400 years old.

Oh, I wish I could take credit for it, but my Muslim best friend pointed it out to me. I just recognised it as the truest thing I ever heard and have been repeating it ever since.

[MJZiggy]

Tarlam, hush about the bacon! If these guys start eating bacon, there will be less bacon for us and then we'd have to settle for bacon bits...

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Deep fried bacon with bourbon maple syrup dipping sauce and a side of grits at Metro Brasserie. The best. :twisted:

http://www.metrosouthbridge.com/pdf/METRO_Menu_102408.pdf

[mraynrand]

Which is actually pretty common. Just don't expect to hear anything about it from the MSM:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/08/Muslim_clerics_endorse_anti-terror_fatwa/UPI-38241226199440/

I don't think the MSM knows what terrorism is. But they sure are up on 'militants.'


"We have no love for offenders whichever religion they might belong to," he said. "Our concern is that innocents should not be targeted and the career of educated youth not ruined. The government should ensure transparency in investigation."

"Islam rejects all kinds of unjust violence, breach of peace, bloodshed, murder and plunder and does not allow it in any form. Cooperation should be done for the cause of good but not for committing sin or oppression," the fatwa written at the Darul Uloom Deoband, India's foremost Islamic seminary.
-----------

Do the Muslim clerics in India have the same definition for 'innocents' and 'unjust' as Palestinian Muslim clerics? Hopefully, the fatwa is sincere and there are no more bombings of the 'Peace Train.'

[texaspackerbacker]

I've read--and basically believed--what you've written, TH87, since the JSOnline days about Islam being co-opted and corrupted by the radical clerics. The thing I don't accept, however, is the idea that the "radical clerics" are NOT the solid majority of Muslim clerics.

The sad thing about the substance of this article is that the clerics denouncing terrorism are almost certain to be in turn denounced by the huge majority of Muslim clerics in the middle east, as well, probably as a large share of Muslim clerics in America, Europe, etc.

The fact also is, this courageous 600, if they lived pretty much anywhere in the middle east, would probably literally pay with there lives for what they said.

I'd like to hear whether you agree or disagree with that.

[th87]

Which is actually pretty common. Just don't expect to hear anything about it from the MSM:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/08/Muslim_clerics_endorse_anti-terror_fatwa/UPI-38241226199440/

I don't think the MSM knows what terrorism is. But they sure are up on 'militants.'


"We have no love for offenders whichever religion they might belong to," he said. "Our concern is that innocents should not be targeted and the career of educated youth not ruined. The government should ensure transparency in investigation."

"Islam rejects all kinds of unjust violence, breach of peace, bloodshed, murder and plunder and does not allow it in any form. Cooperation should be done for the cause of good but not for committing sin or oppression," the fatwa written at the Darul Uloom Deoband, India's foremost Islamic seminary.
-----------

Do the Muslim clerics in India have the same definition for 'innocents' and 'unjust' as Palestinian Muslim clerics? Hopefully, the fatwa is sincere and there are no more bombings of the 'Peace Train.'

You should've bolded "breach of peace", and "not for committing...oppression."

A breach of peace would constitute any act of upsetting peace by any party under any circumstance. Ergo, if there's peace for any reason, it must not be breached for any reason.

Oppression is also universal. Oppression must be avoided by all, again placing value on peace.

[th87]

I've read--and basically believed--what you've written, TH87, since the JSOnline days about Islam being co-opted and corrupted by the radical clerics. The thing I don't accept, however, is the idea that the "radical clerics" are NOT the solid majority of Muslim clerics.

The sad thing about the substance of this article is that the clerics denouncing terrorism are almost certain to be in turn denounced by the huge majority of Muslim clerics in the middle east, as well, probably as a large share of Muslim clerics in America, Europe, etc.

The fact also is, this courageous 600, if they lived pretty much anywhere in the middle east, would probably literally pay with there lives for what they said.

I'd like to hear whether you agree or disagree with that.

I'd highly doubt that radical clerics are the majority. If most of them were radical, and many Muslims follow them, then there would be lots and lots of radical Muslims, right? But that's not the case.

Let's do a thought experiment:

1. Let's assume there are a billion Muslims worldwide.
2. Let's say for the sake of argument even 30% of all Muslims are radical. An absurdly overinflated number.

This leaves us with 300,000,000 radical Muslims.

3. Let's say of these 300M radical Muslims, 10% of them would commit violence.

This leaves 30,000,000 radical Muslims as enemy combatants. Based on world events of the past few years, there is no way there are 30,000,000 enemy combatants. Guantanamo would be filled to the brim, and there would be no semblance of stability in Iraq or Afghanistan (or anywhere else).

The point is, the terrorists represent a staggeringly low percentage of total Muslims worldwide, so if there are many radical clerics, they're not making an impact.

[texaspackerbacker]

First of all, let's NOT assume there are a billion Muslims in the world. The figure most often quoted of 600 million is MORE than enough.

Secondly, even though you are Muslim and in a better position to know, I just do NOT accept your premise that the majority of Muslim clerics are NOT radical--in the sense of advocating or at least excusing terrorism and other violent behavior against non-Muslims. I accept even less the reason you give--the idea that the vast majority of Muslims are NOT radical by the definition I just gave. If that is the case at all in absolute numbers, it could only be true if you include the relatively innocuous Muslims in Indonesia and India--and probably in Bangladesh too--a possible explanation for your rosy picture of the situation. If you take Muslims in north Africa and Asia west of India, though, I would assert that the HUGE majority fit the definition of radical.

[th87]

The clerics in America are generally very moderate. I'm sure there are some extreme ones, but they're the lunatic fringe characters that eventually get arrested anyway.

I think Islam in America is the best representation of it. America has freedom. Muslims here have the ability to learn concepts on their own without peer pressure, coercion, and corrupt teachers. This results in a pure, undistorted learning, leading to the ability to think critically and empathize with people of different cultures and religions as well. This results in a peaceful, relaxed Muslim (which is what Muslims are supposed to be to begin with).

Muslims protest against terrorism all the time. You just never hear about it.

1. Jordanians protest Al Qaeda:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/jordan-continues-to-protest-al-qaida.html

2. More Indian Muslims denounce terrorism:

http://www.anindianmuslim.com/2008/09/muslims-against-terrorism.html

3. A Muslim organization against terrorism:

http://www.freemuslims.org/

4. A Muslim website full of denunciations of terrorism from many sources:

http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

Just like you, Tex, I have an issue with the MSM for not reporting these things ever. I think there's a profit motive involved - bad news is far more lucrative than good news, so you only hear about how bad things are.

[th87]

First of all, let's NOT assume there are a billion Muslims in the world. The figure most often quoted of 600 million is MORE than enough.

Secondly, even though you are Muslim and in a better position to know, I just do NOT accept your premise that the majority of Muslim clerics are NOT radical--in the sense of advocating or at least excusing terrorism and other violent behavior against non-Muslims. I accept even less the reason you give--the idea that the vast majority of Muslims are NOT radical by the definition I just gave. If that is the case at all in absolute numbers, it could only be true if you include the relatively innocuous Muslims in Indonesia and India--and probably in Bangladesh too--a possible explanation for your rosy picture of the situation. If you take Muslims in north Africa and Asia west of India, though, I would assert that the HUGE majority fit the definition of radical.

Even if your premise is true, that would still leave lots of enemy combatants. In the several millions. If that were the case, they'd all be in Iraq, and the Army would be actively fighting all day, as in a "classic" war. Instead, there's a trap set up here, and a terrorist there, and another terrorist hiding out in the city. This seems to imply that the numbers are relatively low - much, much lower than the several millions.

[bobblehead]

The clerics in America are generally very moderate. I'm sure there are some extreme ones, but they're the lunatic fringe characters that eventually get arrested anyway.

I think Islam in America is the best representation of it. America has freedom. Muslims here have the ability to learn concepts on their own without peer pressure, coercion, and corrupt teachers. This results in a pure, undistorted learning, leading to the ability to think critically and empathize with people of different cultures and religions as well. This results in a peaceful, relaxed Muslim (which is what Muslims are supposed to be to begin with).

Muslims protest against terrorism all the time. You just never hear about it.

1. Jordanians protest Al Qaeda:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/jordan-continues-to-protest-al-qaida.html

2. More Indian Muslims denounce terrorism:

http://www.anindianmuslim.com/2008/09/muslims-against-terrorism.html

3. A Muslim organization against terrorism:

http://www.freemuslims.org/

4. A Muslim website full of denunciations of terrorism from many sources:

http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

Just like you, Tex, I have an issue with the MSM for not reporting these things ever. I think there's a profit motive involved - bad news is far more lucrative than good news, so you only hear about how bad things are.

wonderful stats...when are those organizations or the denouncing clerics going to actually DO something to prevent terrorism?? You know, things like provide intel, or infiltrate radical islam and report their activities back to the US intel units?

Speaking out against smoking is cool, but if you hand a child a pack of cigarettes after your speech its kinda pointless.

[th87]

The clerics in America are generally very moderate. I'm sure there are some extreme ones, but they're the lunatic fringe characters that eventually get arrested anyway.

I think Islam in America is the best representation of it. America has freedom. Muslims here have the ability to learn concepts on their own without peer pressure, coercion, and corrupt teachers. This results in a pure, undistorted learning, leading to the ability to think critically and empathize with people of different cultures and religions as well. This results in a peaceful, relaxed Muslim (which is what Muslims are supposed to be to begin with).

Muslims protest against terrorism all the time. You just never hear about it.

1. Jordanians protest Al Qaeda:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/jordan-continues-to-protest-al-qaida.html

2. More Indian Muslims denounce terrorism:

http://www.anindianmuslim.com/2008/09/muslims-against-terrorism.html

3. A Muslim organization against terrorism:

http://www.freemuslims.org/

4. A Muslim website full of denunciations of terrorism from many sources:

http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

Just like you, Tex, I have an issue with the MSM for not reporting these things ever. I think there's a profit motive involved - bad news is far more lucrative than good news, so you only hear about how bad things are.

wonderful stats...when are those organizations or the denouncing clerics going to actually DO something to prevent terrorism?? You know, things like provide intel, or infiltrate radical islam and report their activities back to the US intel units?

Speaking out against smoking is cool, but if you hand a child a pack of cigarettes after your speech its kinda pointless.

1. How do you know they don't provide intel, etc.?

2. Muslims aren't somehow psychic to know the motivations of every other Muslim.

3. Why do some people think it's a normal Muslim's duty to "do something" about something some fringe lunatic does? Would you ask a normal, unrelated Christian to do something about White supremacist groups, for example? What about that conservative who shot up the church? Were conservatives asked to do anything to prevent future examples of that?

4. Is anyone handing out the figurative pack of cigarettes? You're just making baseless assumptions.

[bobblehead]

1. How do you know they don't provide intel, etc.?

2. Muslims aren't somehow psychic to know the motivations of every other Muslim.

3. Why do some people think it's a normal Muslim's duty to "do something" about something some fringe lunatic does? Would you ask a normal, unrelated Christian to do something about White supremacist groups, for example? What about that conservative who shot up the church? Were conservatives asked to do anything to prevent future examples of that?

4. Is anyone handing out the figurative pack of cigarettes? You're just making baseless assumptions.

1) Because our administration is constantly asking them to, but we end up bombing al qaida in pakistan only to have our "friendly clerics" complain about it.

2) Not sure what the hell you are saying here, I am talking about real intel help.

3) I didn't say its their "duty" but if they want us to view them as allies actions speak louder than words. They don't have to help us, but don't cry when we treat them accordingly.

4) Again, no clue what you are getting at, but I think I have given you the reason/evidence behind my "baseless assumptions" that are based on fact.

[th87]

1. How do you know they don't provide intel, etc.?

2. Muslims aren't somehow psychic to know the motivations of every other Muslim.

3. Why do some people think it's a normal Muslim's duty to "do something" about something some fringe lunatic does? Would you ask a normal, unrelated Christian to do something about White supremacist groups, for example? What about that conservative who shot up the church? Were conservatives asked to do anything to prevent future examples of that?

4. Is anyone handing out the figurative pack of cigarettes? You're just making baseless assumptions.

1) Because our administration is constantly asking them to, but we end up bombing al qaida in pakistan only to have our "friendly clerics" complain about it.

2) Not sure what the hell you are saying here, I am talking about real intel help.

3) I didn't say its their "duty" but if they want us to view them as allies actions speak louder than words. They don't have to help us, but don't cry when we treat them accordingly.

4) Again, no clue what you are getting at, but I think I have given you the reason/evidence behind my "baseless assumptions" that are based on fact.

1. This doesn't mean that they're not getting intel. The clerics complain because of the loss of innocent life.

3. I'm talking about the regular "Joe Muslim". Why would he be judged for the actions of some weirdo far away unless he does a dance for you? I don't see a Christian and immediately think he molested an altar boy. That's something some people need to condition out of their system when they think Muslim.

4. Your reason and evidence constitute hasty generalizations and stereotyping.

[texaspackerbacker]

First of all, let's NOT assume there are a billion Muslims in the world. The figure most often quoted of 600 million is MORE than enough.

Secondly, even though you are Muslim and in a better position to know, I just do NOT accept your premise that the majority of Muslim clerics are NOT radical--in the sense of advocating or at least excusing terrorism and other violent behavior against non-Muslims. I accept even less the reason you give--the idea that the vast majority of Muslims are NOT radical by the definition I just gave. If that is the case at all in absolute numbers, it could only be true if you include the relatively innocuous Muslims in Indonesia and India--and probably in Bangladesh too--a possible explanation for your rosy picture of the situation. If you take Muslims in north Africa and Asia west of India, though, I would assert that the HUGE majority fit the definition of radical.

Even if your premise is true, that would still leave lots of enemy combatants. In the several millions. If that were the case, they'd all be in Iraq, and the Army would be actively fighting all day, as in a "classic" war. Instead, there's a trap set up here, and a terrorist there, and another terrorist hiding out in the city. This seems to imply that the numbers are relatively low - much, much lower than the several millions.

Joe Muslim, that's cute.

I've read your point of view for a long time, TH87, and as I said, I tend to respect and believe it to a limited extent--at least in part, because I've known a lot of "good Muslims" who apparently aren't taken in by the crap the radical clerics put out.

Just the same, your premise would be a lot more credible if the large majority of "good Muslims" you describe would "take out their own trash"--take steps to assert themselves and rein in the perpetrators of terrorism, tyranny, gender discrimination, etc.

As for the "classic" war you spoke of, you know (or should) why they wouldn't do that. They'd get killed off in massive numbers. Nobody fights the U.S. military straight up these days without getting their ass kicked big time.

I never claimed that there is a majority of Muslims actively perpetrating terrorism or even sitting in reserve, getting ready for all out war. I just said, and still say, that the significant majority of Joe Muslims SYMPATHIZE with the radical few--kinda like those huge crowds you see listening to Hitler before WWII--who, IMO, really DID sympathize with what Hitler said and did.

If that's wrong, and it is just a matter of fear, not sympathy/empathy, as you seem to indicate, then WHY would such a large majority fail to stand up and stop the bad guys?

[bobblehead]

1. How do you know they don't provide intel, etc.?

2. Muslims aren't somehow psychic to know the motivations of every other Muslim.

3. Why do some people think it's a normal Muslim's duty to "do something" about something some fringe lunatic does? Would you ask a normal, unrelated Christian to do something about White supremacist groups, for example? What about that conservative who shot up the church? Were conservatives asked to do anything to prevent future examples of that?

4. Is anyone handing out the figurative pack of cigarettes? You're just making baseless assumptions.

1) Because our administration is constantly asking them to, but we end up bombing al qaida in pakistan only to have our "friendly clerics" complain about it.

2) Not sure what the hell you are saying here, I am talking about real intel help.

3) I didn't say its their "duty" but if they want us to view them as allies actions speak louder than words. They don't have to help us, but don't cry when we treat them accordingly.

4) Again, no clue what you are getting at, but I think I have given you the reason/evidence behind my "baseless assumptions" that are based on fact.

1. This doesn't mean that they're not getting intel. The clerics complain because of the loss of innocent life.

3. I'm talking about the regular "Joe Muslim". Why would he be judged for the actions of some weirdo far away unless he does a dance for you? I don't see a Christian and immediately think he molested an altar boy. That's something some people need to condition out of their system when they think Muslim.

4. Your reason and evidence constitute hasty generalizations and stereotyping.

1) yet when they had the chance to provide intel they did nothing...making them as guilty in the loss of innocent life as the US gov't. We need the "good" muslims to help us in this war....for their own sake.

3) who is "judging" joe muslim...not me. but i refuse to accept your original premise that he is REALLY REALLY on our side...he is not, he is staying neutral and giving blanche statements about loss of innocent life.

4) I am not generalizing or stereotyping, I have given very clear concrete opinions. I could just say something like:

"I am very saddened by the mistreatment of muslims in america" which in effect, does nothing but cover my own ass....get the point?