Various religions denounce Koran burning. No one showed.

[elder999]

Not exactly. In Virginia vs. Black, the Supreme Court ruled, for the purposes of our discussion, that there must be an intent to imtimidate in order for cross-burning to be a crime. So the mere burning of the cross in not enough. In fact, in the same case, the Supreme Court struck down some specific wording in the Virginia statute which says" "Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons."

So the state must prove an intent to intimidate.

And yet Metzger, et. al, were convicted for burning a cross on private party, at a private gathering, away from the eyes of those who could be "intimidated."

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

And yet Metzger, et. al, were convicted for burning a cross on private party, at a private gathering, away from the eyes of those who could be "intimidated."

That case happened 12 years before the Supreme Court Decision, and to the best of my knowledge, he never appealed his conviction. His conviction not withstanding, the Supreme Court case still holds as valid, and a state must prove intentional intimidation.

 

[Monadnock]

Not at all, although I am not sure what impossible solution that I am supposed to be positing.

I am simply suggesting that there is no good reason, if they feel that their religion is being corrupted and destroyed, for them not to do something about it, whether politically or militarily.

Remember, as you say, most Muslims believe that such acts as terrorism and extremism are evil and against the law of Allah. As there are so few actual extremists, according to your argument, there should be nothing which keeps them from deposing those that are telling them to believe such and act on such beliefs. Or, for that matter, not doing what they say, as they would find broad based support among the population at large. And this is especially considering that in most Muslim countries, most of the adult male population is armed, and presumably willing to fight with said weapons.

So, for me, the question becomes, why aren't they doing so?

If you think I mean the error of their ways in being Muslim, you would be incorrect. I am referring to their supposed erroneous beliefs that acts of terror and violence are condoned by the law of Allah.

Once again, I never said that these were not the two greatest things that a Muslim could do. But, you have made the claim that the majority of Muslims don't believe in violence and terrorism, and those that do are in a minority and have a distorted view of Islam.

This is a claim that you have made that I asked you to substantiate. And you have yet to do so. The point that I made can live concurrently with your statement. Those can be the two greatest things that a Muslim can do and they can still believe in violence and terrorism.

See, now you're talking. All I have ever asked for is some evidence, based on Islamic law and faith, against the claims made by Muslim's regarding terrorism and violence. But all I kept getting was the nebulous "most Muslims don't believe that" when I showed examples to the contrary. Perhaps now we can get into specifics.

Once again, I have made no such claim. I have continually asked for evidence to the contrary, primarily because I am having a hard time refuting the claim that most Muslims are terrorists with hard and definitive facts. I post evidence here that violence is condoned by them in order to get people to refute such claims with facts, and not nebulous statments such as "extremists are a minority", or "most Muslims aren't terrorists", as you and others assert.


You have just made a claim. Prove to me, at least in some measure, that these actions are being committed by few people of that religion. Then we can go point - counterpoint, so that I if no one else, can gain further perspective on the issue.




Never disputed that, but it does nothing to further the discussion on whether terroism and acts of violence are or are not acceptable in the Islamic faith.

A claim you have yet to justify in any manner what so ever, despite my repeatedly asking.

You haven't been paying attention. I don't have a position, and have merely been asking question, and in doing so used evidence to further discussion.

Never said they all agreed on the intent, nor homogeneous belief in the same tactics. Never said that they all want to do anything. Never said that Islam is centered on violence.

I believe that most texts of any sort can potentially be taken out of context. I get that. And if were to make an assertion about said verse, you could, using the Quran, the Hadith, and other legitimate Islamic authority to refute it. I got no problem with that. It's what learning is all about.

But all you have done so far is to make statements which you have not backed up with facts, whether true or not. That will never convince me. And I am going to assume that since we are having this discussion that there is a purpose other then just typing on a keyboard.


And, once again, you have shown in no way that it is a distorted view. As a lawyer would say during a trial: you are stating facts not in evidence.

You're making the assumption that my sources are not reliable. Why? Merely because they don't reflect what you know to be true. In fact, you haven't given me any framework from which to judge those who may or may not be reliable, unless I simply agree with your unsupported statements of "fact".

Come on, for goodness sakes, give me something to work with.

You're changing what I say, as well as moving the goal posts. Now you include violence in a very general sense. Many cultures and religion condone violence in defense of life and property. Sounds.... almost American, doesn't it?

Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."

With only an English translation as my reference, I state again that this is nowhere found in the QURAN. If I do not satisfy your qualification as an expert witness, you will need to bring someone else to the stand. So, if I say there is nothing, I guess you gotta bring 'something.'

I think people will only see what they want to see. You've only brought a [fabricated] claim that "most Muslims are terrorists." Did you ask your claimant to site THIER sources? If they have none, then I guess there is really nothing here to refute, but an empty arguement as you say. Maybe you could return to him/her and ask, "What makes you think most Muslims are terrorists?" Then you could bring some specific points to the discussion as I asked earlier.

Take care,

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

You're changing what I say, as well as moving the goal posts. Now you include violence in a very general sense. Many cultures and religion condone violence in defense of life and property. Sounds.... almost American, doesn't it?

Terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."

Not moving the goal posts. I have remained rather consistent. My first post in this thread, in fact, had to do with the fact that I find it hard to believe that a we had to worry about a religion that claims to be a religion of peace would commit an act of violence regarding the burning of a book. There is no "terrorism" in that act. I also posted a video of a women stating that she believes that all Jews should move to Israel so that they don't have to be hunted down globally. That is not terrorism, as there is no explicit attempt to influence political agendas, just genocide. I spoke about Muslims killing a woman by kicking and dropping a cinder block on her head because she refused to marry a person for whom her family had arranged. None of these are acts of terrrorism, though they do, indeed, involve a great deal of violence or threatened violence.

But no, it doesn't sound like America. You don't tend to see, though it does happen on occasion, people killing each other over religious beliefs. Mostly it's just senseless killing.

There is something ironic in your statement about defense of life and property, though. Osama Bin Laden, in issuing his fatwah, utilized the idea of defensive military jihad. This means that it is the duty of all Muslims to participate, not just the male population, as would be the case in offensive military jihad. To wit, he states:

If there are more than one duty to be carried out, then the most important one should receive priority. Clearly after Belief (Imaan) there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land. No other priority, except Belief, could be considered before it; the people of knowledge, Ibn Taymiyyah, stated: "to fight in defence of religion and Belief is a collective duty; there is no other duty after Belief than fighting the enemy who is corrupting the life and the religion.

He wisely (for his purposes) framed the argument in terms of the defense and not the offence in order to gain as much support as possible.

With only an English translation as my reference, I state again that this is nowhere found in the QURAN. If I do not satisfy your qualification as an expert witness, you will need to bring someone else to the stand. So, if I say there is nothing, I guess you gotta bring 'something.'

You satisfy my qualification that you know more about it then others posting. As I said, I will give you positions the consideration that they are due.

However, as I posted from a site regarding Muslims against terrorism, even they say that most Islamic leaders condone violence. So I weigh what you say with what they say (plus others) and I come to a tentative belief. What else do you suggest that I do?

I think people will only see what they want to see. You've only brought a [fabricated] claim that "most Muslims are terrorists."

You don't listen. I never made that claim or any other. I gave you examples that adherents of Islam utilize and think perfectly appropriate the use of violence to further whatever agenda that they may hold. And that Islam condones such violence, their words, not mine.

So when you say that Islam does not, and I ask for proof of your position, you resort to distortions of what I am saying, deflection, and provide no evidence to support your position that most Muslims don't condone such violence.

Did you ask your claimant to site THIER sources?

If it was a training class that I attended, they always, to gain credibility with a skeptical law enforcement audience, state their own training and experiences. With some books, they often have "About the Author" sections, as well as the fact that they are non-fiction books citing their own research. Some of the books are written by those of / formerly of the Islamic faith themselves, or grew up in Islamic countries.

If they have none, then I guess there is really nothing here to refute, but an empty arguement as you say. Maybe you could return to him/her and ask, "What makes you think most Muslims are terrorists?" Then you could bring some specific points to the discussion as I asked earlier.

There really is nothing more to say, I guess. I ask you to refute the claims of other Muslims, with evidence, and yet you refuse to do so. I post video of Muslims advocating the destruction of an entire race of people, and you tell me, without evidence, that it is a distortion of Islam. I show where Muslims kick and kill a woman who is "in violation" of Sharia law, and you say nothing. You say that there are millions of Muslims who speak out against terrorism "even if I haven't heard them", and yet don't point me to any sources where I can find such information, even when I ask it of you.

Hell, I'm the one who posted even a remotely Muslim groups belief against terrorism in this entire discussion.

Once again, I have made no claim, only asked questions, citing the evidence that I can find. And so far, you have not cited any evidence, given any source, posited any verse in the Quran, that would show otherwise.

It's really to bad. I really was looking for ammunition to use against those who say that Muslims are all extremists (as Westerners use the term) and terrorists. But I guess none is to be found here.

 

[Monadnock]

You don't listen. I never made that claim or any other. I gave you examples that adherents of Islam utilize and think perfectly appropriate the use of violence to further whatever agenda that they may hold. And that Islam condones such violence, their words, not mine.

But you did state that claim. It was highlighted in red above, in your own quote. If you change your claims between posts, it makes the discussion difficult.

So when you say that Islam does not, and I ask for proof of your position, you resort to distortions of what I am saying, deflection, and provide no evidence to support your position that most Muslims don't condone such violence.

If it appears I distored something, I am sorry. I really just use the quote feature and highlight in red your own words, so it minimizes this possibility.

There really is nothing more to say, I guess. I ask you to refute the claims of other Muslims, with evidence, and yet you refuse to do so. I post video of Muslims advocating the destruction of an entire race of people, and you tell me, without evidence, that it is a distortion of Islam. I show where Muslims kick and kill a woman who is "in violation" of Sharia law, and you say nothing. You say that there are millions of Muslims who speak out against terrorism "even if I haven't heard them", and yet don't point me to any sources where I can find such information, even when I ask it of you.

I guess you've really missed what I've posted then. Also, this is the first mention of a woman being beaten in your posts, so I have not had a chance to say anything. Now I am beginning to wonder about your honesty.

Once again, I have made no claim, only asked questions, citing the evidence that I can find. And so far, you have not cited any evidence, given any source, posited any verse in the Quran, that would show otherwise.

So websites, 3rd party hearsay and online videos are your evidence, but my direct experiences are not.

It's really to bad. I really was looking for ammunition to use against those who say that Muslims are all extremists (as Westerners use the term) and terrorists. But I guess none is to be found here.

Yes, I guess it's too bad. I almost beleived that was what you were here to do, but now I am leaning towards....not.

I do hope other readers could glean some insight form our talk.

Thanks,

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

But you did state that claim. It was highlighted in red above, in your own quote. If you change your claims between posts, it makes the discussion difficult.

No I didn't. The only thing I did was ask for proof of the claim that most Muslims didn't believe in violence as an acceptable means of resolving religious / secular differences.

If it appears I distored something, I am sorry. I really just use the quote feature and highlight in red your own words, so it minimizes this possibility.

You highlight would lead me to suppose that somehow that was the first time I brought up extremism, as opposed to just terrorism. In that, you would be wrong. I point you to my post on 09/22, 09/23, 09/24 as proof. Not only that, but my very first question, why do we have to worry about violence regarding the burning of a book from a purported religion of peace, has nothing to do with terrorism, but everything to do with extremism.

I guess you've really missed what I've posted then. Also, this is the first mention of a woman being beaten in your posts, so I have not had a chance to say anything. Now I am beginning to wonder about your honesty.

No, I haven't. You've made claims that you never backed-up. When I ask for proof of those claims, somehow it becomes my responsibility to prove that they aren't true. Even when I point out that your statements are irrelevent to my questions, you still refuse to directly answer them.

As to my honesty, I will only point you to my post on 09/24, where I speak about women being being stoned for being unpure. The specific one which I allude to above I hadn't said before in this post, you are correct. I said it in the "Lessons from 9/11"thread. However, the beating of women was still stated on an occassion prior to the one you mention.

So websites, 3rd party hearsay and online videos are your evidence, but my direct experiences are not.

I said that I would give your experiences and understanding the credit that it's due, didn't I. I did say that didn't I?

What you call 3rd party hearsay is 1st person eyewitness testimony to me. What's funny is, according to your argument, is that I should believe your "3rd party hearsay" experiences and not theirs. Now why is that?

At least in some ways, I can verify their experiences, while I have to take it on faith that you are being honest with me. Which I am more then willing to do, if context and evidence of claims are provided to me.

Yes, I guess it's too bad. I almost beleived that was what you were here to do, but now I am leaning towards....not.

Why? Because I don't just automatically believe that what you say is true, and ask for evidence for you to back up your claim? How ridiculous of me, huh.

I do hope other readers could glean some insight form our talk.

I really don't know what others could glean from our conversation. Unfortunately, we spent more time arguing about arguing then any meaning full context for the topic, with evidence provided of our positions.

It really is too bad.