Ding ding ding, we have a winner. From what some of my friends in Iraq tell me I think many Afgan and Iraqi civilians realize this.

 

Yeah I read that. It's pretty obvious too. There's very little chance any Iraqi would go out of his/her own way to blow-up dozens of fellow Iraqis (Sunnis, Shiites, women, children, etc). Even given the fact Sunnis dislike Shiites and Kurds.

It would be like winning a major football game (what the US has accomplished in Iraq despite the bombings) and having a crazed fan (a Sunni) blow-up his own home stadium because it was filled with Shiites. What people often forget is that Sunnis and Shiites coexisted before our occupation without blowing each other up by the dozens everyday. Therefore, it has to be these Islamic extremists and fundamentalists and not the Iraqi citizens. If you took this simple factor out the equation then Iraq would be on its way as a thriving Democracy.

Not only does this smear Muslims good name but it makes the entire religion look extremely selfish.

 

capitalized AND a k...Andre 3000 and BigBoi fan?

 

I don't believe that article was incinuating that we should absolve the extremists of blame - rather, I think it was trying to say that their actions aren't an accurate reflection of their 'religion' and the majority of those sharing that religion should not be punished just because of that commonality. Where does western society come in? It is to blame for not easily seeing this discrepancy and consequently grouping extremists with all muslims.

 

...sounds sooo familiar...

 

I was gonna point that out, but then I'd be seen as condescending and un-civil.

Stank you very much.

 

hahaha

 

I see exactly what you're saying and think it's unfair for the most part. The problem lies in the fact there's numerous forms of Islam without an means for Ignorant Americans to tell them apart. Shame on us? Hardly. We shouldn't have to posses the ability to tell a dangerous Muslim apart from a peaceful one. Sucks. It's an unfair and unforgiving world...

Hear me out... there's too many different forms of Islam to categorize one as "true Islam." It's only considered "true Islam" because it's hard to accept despicable acts as part of religion. This especially holds true for people like yourself along with various Progressive Islamists that practice it peacefully and liberally. Thing is, there's hundreds of thousands of Islamic fundamentalist practitioners and clerics that will gladly follow down the same path as the terrorists. A lot of them do so based on their religious beliefs. Who’s to say they aren’t Muslims, too? Because they aren't peaceful? Well how convenient.

And the only person to denounce their heinous acts are Islamic scholars and clerics of different sects. If a fatwa is issued by a Sunni cleric it's contradictory to Shiites and most other groups. Basically, it means nothing.... You get all kinds of widely divergent groups with numerous sects and movements among each: Sunni, Qutbee, Shi'a, Kharijites, Wahhabism, Zikri, etc. Each one has their own ideas of what the religion is, and none is required by any "Mosque council" or anything similar to listen to anyone else.

This is exactly why the Pope is such an important figure and why it's necessary for him to have a strong political influence. Most Christian sects respect his views as a powerful and peaceful man. The main thing is that they're united in their peaceful intents more so than all Muslims have ever been.

Simply put, this thread should be titled www.AskpeacefulMuslims.com to be more accurate.

The greatest part about Western Society is that we do not deny rights to any peaceful Muslims regardless of commonality. Ain’t that something? Instead we give all Muslims the benefit of the doubt as being peaceful. If some Americans tread lightly with them then so be it! It's not their fault. Besides, how are we supposed to know what sect they are without blatantly asking and somehow trampling over their sentitive feelings or rights? Futhermore, what are the odds of them being open about their hostility towards Americans if asked? ZERO chance. So it's easier to group them into one category just to be safe. Can't say I blame them.

 

Am I wrong or are you kind of perpetuating the problem that you're complaining about with that first line? I can't pinpoint anything really, but the reasoning for your argument seems somewhat convoluted.

I still think it's this kind of attitude (the first line I quoted of yours) that perpetuates and widens the rift between the west and the mid-east. If we can agree that peaceful muslims want to stop extremism just as westerners do, then we need to focus solely on the extremists, not entire countries. By targeting countries and being somewhat indiscriminant, we give many would-be peaceful muslims a reason not to like us.

I know we mean well, but we have to be sure our goals aren't at all mis-interpreted or over-shadowed by mass civilian deaths. And I agree with what you said about us being welcoming to peaceful muslims - I'm sure you'd agree we're probably too welcoming But once again, we must not let our compassion be over-shadowed by negative publicity. We as a country have little control over the world-wide media, so we have to do what we can to not give them the slightest thing to work with.

You are probably thinking I cut-and-pasted this from some uber-Lib 'how to talk to a conservative' article, but these are truly my own thoughts on the matter.

 

We can agree that peaceful Muslims want to stop extremism just as Westerners do. But how do you get over the initial hump of differentiating the good from the bad. You see, this is why Americans are reserved in their stance toward Islam. All we can do is give them the benefit of the doubt as another free willed American.

But how are we being indiscriminate? We're not lumping them all together in the same sects. And if we were truly indiscriminate by your definition then every single Muslim on Western soil would be in a concentration camp. Not to mention every single Sunni would be under lock and key in Iraq, too. Not just the ones that shoot at us. There's no denying that those suicide bombers are the worst kind of Muslims and that most, if not all, of the Insurgents are Sunni or Qutbee. Same thing holds true regarding those specific sects with al Qadea in Afghanistan.

If anything, the Muslim extremists (and would be extremists) are the ones being the most indiscriminate.

It pretty much boils down to Westerner = Crusader = bad = kill. And they'll gladly overlook you, your individuality, and your opinions while cutting off your head with a dull blade.

 

Easy - those who blow themselves up and take several other lives while screaming their god or prophet or whoever's name are NOT a reflection of the religion widely held in many middle eastern countries. Further, to say they were would be doing them a favor. If peaceful muslims are trying to distance themselves from extremists (we're giving them the benefit of the doubt, right?), it would be the opposite of constructive for a westerner to group them all together.

Notice I said 'somewhat indiscriminate.' And I was referring to our occupations overseas with that. Anyway, the american public would have not put up with the lack of discrimination (to some degree, at least) in the Iraq mission had they known that they had been misled regarding any terror connection to Saddam's regime. This all goes back to lumping them all together and breifly ignoring that there are many people there who aren't combatants.

Now, wait a second.... what kind of standards are we striving for, nonetheless attempting to establish?

So, what would be best to solve or merely aid this problem? Should we adopt the "Middle easterner = Suicide bomber = Fear" mentality and fortify our entire country?

 

No no no. I'm not saying that and you know it. You said so yourself and agreed with the fact we're welcoming to peaceful Muslims. This won't change because of the more educated society we live in. There are other books available to us in the United States besides the Qu'ran.

Indiscriminating seems more like an argument I’d try to defend so I agree with you wholeheartedly and understand exactly what you're saying. I can see how it combines all of Islam into that questionable category. A category I certainly wouldn't want any part of as a peaceful Muslim.

The problem is that once we become more discriminating we become bigots and more hated than we are now. Face it, it wouldn’t take but half a second for the profiling sirens to go off. As a result of this, we end up working against the very grain of the Democratic, impartial and free society we’re trying to instill.

 

Hold the boat... we're talking about discriminating WITHIN a specific ethnic group, not between multiple groups. I don't think they (middle easterners) would have a problem with that, besides those whipping up some fervous plot to destroy america. Peaceful muslims would encourage this type of discrimination, once again assuming they don't want to have anything to do with extremist/terrorist activity.

 

OH SNAPS!!1! ...do I smell civil discussion and thought-out arguments? WE WILL NOT HAVE THIS!!!! ..... **** JooOO!




j/k

 

This is worthy of a new thread, but this is far from the truth. While many Catholics / Catholic sects might respect the Pope's views, the Pope does not speak for the majority of people who believe in Christ.

nuff said... please continue this most enlightening discussion

fo rizzle