"...And Your Lord is Never Forgetful..." II

[Arthra]

"Banning Islam" ... Trying to abolish a religion won't work.. It didn't work when the Soviets attempted to abolish Christianity over seventy years in Russia and it hasn't worked in Iran where they have attempted to abolish the Baha'is. It's also against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... Freedom of religion clause:

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread is closed for staff review.

 

[Pink Spider]

_______________________________
_______________________________

MOD HAT ON

After careful review, CF-Staff has cleaned up
this thread because many posts were OFF TOPIC.

PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC!

MOD HAT OFF
_______________________________
_______________________________
​

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

2 years since the military government in Egypt (which many people sadly supported presumably because they prefer to believe the "Islamists" are causing trouble while the secularists are the good guys) massacred about 1,000 people in Rabaa Square who were protesting the military coup against Morsi:

(If you want to read more about what transpired in Egypt, please search for my thread "...And Your Lord Is Never Forgetful..." since I can't link to it.)

 

[brewmama]

I would like to hear why Muslims kill so many other Muslims, as we are so often reminded when we complain about Muslims killing Christians.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Are you referring to ISIS? Ask them. From what I can tell, it's mainly rooted in ignorance/shallow understanding of the religion.

Are you referring to governments? Well, their oppression is their failure to rule according to Islaamic rules (e.g. justice).

 

[brewmama]

Are you referring to ISIS? Ask them. From what I can tell, it's mainly rooted in ignorance/shallow understanding of the religion.

Are you referring to governments? Well, their oppression is their failure to rule according to Islaamic rules (e.g. justice).

I'm not referring to any particular subset, just Muslims in general, as in this report

“Some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.”

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

lol @ "themuslimissue". Not even gonna bother.

 

[brewmama]

lol @ "themuslimissue". Not even gonna bother.

It's pretty easy to document. I can see why you wouldn't want to address it. Here's a source with actual numbers.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/08/s...lims-have-died-at-the-hands-of-fellow-muslims

 

[smaneck]

I'm not referring to any particular subset, just Muslims in general, as in this report

“Some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.”

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/staggering-statistics-on-muslims-killing-muslims-2/

And how many Christians have killed Christians during the same period. I'm betting it was a lot more. 6.5 million have been killed by fellow Christians in Africa alone.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

"In Egypt, Al Jazeera journalists Mohamed Fahmy, Baher Mohamed and Peter Greste were sentenced over the weekend to three years in jail for "spreading false news" that purportedly harmed Egypt following the 2013 military coup"

Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch said: "The U.S. should stop cozying up to General—now President—Sisi. He is presiding over the worst crackdown in modern Egypt history."

As Al Jazeera Journalists are Jailed for 3 Years in Egypt, Will US Stop "Cozying Up" to Regime? - Democracy Now!

Now maybe people will understand why Morsi wasn't keen on letting the Mubarak loyalists have any control of the justice system. To date, they've sentenced Morsi and other Muslim Brotherhood leaders to death and have imprisoned journalists and hundreds of members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB, the one that was elected democratically, has been declared a terrorist organization (when it is the military government that has killed more than 1,000 people because they were protesting the coup) making it not an option in any future (sham) elections.

 

[ContraMundum]

What is it that makes some followers of other world religions (or sometimes Muslims themselves, whether or not they consider themselves religious) often persecute or treat unjustly the followers of Islaam, especially those who are deemed to be more observant than the persecutors may like? Please note that this is NOT to promote a religion other than Christianity.

Honest, straight forward answer: It's hard to trust Islam based on it's current behaviour, because to an outsider you don't know who to believe.

I realize fully that my Muslim neighbour may be a decent, peace-loving person, and if they suffered persecution I'd be outraged. I'd defend them, no problem.

However, I know that in my very own city people have been plotting acts of terrorism in innocent people in the name of Islam and there would have been bloodshed if not for decent law enforcement and intelligence.

Who is the real "Muslim"? Both claim to be the true Muslims. Both can cite their Quran, interpreting them differently of course.

What probably frustrates many people most of all is that the bad Muslims don't seem to have a conscience and would harm others if they have the opportunity, and if the victims or their protectors strike back, suddenly they are "victims". Roll the cameras, and the bad guys are suddenly victims. I sometimes think that the idea of "Muslims being persecuted" according to some groups is a bit of a sham. However, there are genuine cases of Muslims being persecuted too.

But let's be frank- if someone suffers persecution it doesn't necessarily make it religious persecution. In some cases it seems to be labelled persecution according to a generalization. If some people in the Middle East get persecuted, it gets labelled as "Muslims", when in fact it could be for entirely different reasons. I think the Muslim political propagandists do this so much that its become rather an empty phrase.

I know a Shiite guy from Iraq who says that the Sunni are the worse persecutors of Muslims in the world. Which brings me to the following point:

It is often a generalization to say that religion a) is persecuting religion b). It's often something socio-political and religion is a convenient label or misguided rallying point for the trouble.

One thing I have said in recent times. Muslims outside of the West (and some inside too) don't understand the West, and the West doesn't understand them either. I'd love to expand on my thoughts on this but not here.

Serious questions based on observations only:

1) What do you think of the idea that when Islam in the minority it preaches tolerance, when in the ascending it demands special privilege and when it is in the majority it becomes the persecutor?

2) What do you think of the perceived pattern that when Islam comes to a nation it goes through three phases: a) after enforcing dhimmitude, get rid of the Jews then, b) the Christians [and Ba'hai etc] and finally c) turn on each other for not being "Muslim enough"?

Silly observations? Some truth in them? A perversion of Islam responsible?

 

[ContraMundum]

After reading the posts to this point, I really think that ILBaM fits my description- some Muslims in the West just don't get the Western mentality. If Yazidis, Kurds, Sunni, Shia, or whoever lobby a Western government long enough for help against their persecutors, they will get it- and it's not always a perfect response.

Then the problem becomes a different one- the ones who were the persecutors now are hurting and are claiming to be the "victims". The West is literally at fault if it steps in or if it doesn't. Case in point "why didn't they step in against Assad?" (answer: Russia wouldn't allow it and they were right) and "why target such-and-such Sunni group?" (answer: their victims had better lobbyists)

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Honest, straight forward answer: It's hard to trust Islam based on it's current behaviour, because to an outsider you don't know who to believe.

Then perhaps the actual sources should be read with an open mind & heart.

However, I know that in my very own city people have been plotting acts of terrorism in innocent people in the name of Islam and there would have been bloodshed if not for decent law enforcement and intelligence.

From 1980-2005, 7% of the terrorists attacks in the US have been committed by Jewish extremists (as opposed to 6% by Muslim extremists). Given this, did the Jews receive the same level of scrutiny as the Muslims do from you? Whites and/or Christians are more likely to commit terrorist acts or to shoot up schools. Do people from either of those categories have the same amount of suspicion leveled against them?

Who is the real "Muslim"? Both claim to be the true Muslims. Both can cite their Quran, interpreting them differently of course.

Most Muslims are Muslims unless they commit an act of major disbelief that takes them out of Islaam. As for who is following the Qur'aan properly, it's easy enough to see with the strength of the evidence and arguments against the other side.

But let's be frank- if someone suffers persecution it doesn't necessarily make it religious persecution.

Do you say the same for when it's Muslims who are persecuting others? That it is due to political grievances?

1) What do you think of the idea that when Islam in the minority it preaches tolerance, when in the ascending it demands special privilege and when it is in the majority it becomes the persecutor?

Look at history. It's false. When the Muslims gained the upperhand in Palestine, they invited the exiled Jews back in to live in Jerusalem. It is under Muslim rule in Spain that Jews had their Golden Age. And when the Jews were being exiled from Spain, the Ottoman Empire sent fleets to rescue them.

When Muslims thought they may not be able to hold off the Romans in their advances against Syria, the Muslims returned the jizyah to the Christian inhabitants of Syria. The Christians said, "May Allah help you to overcome your enemies and return you to us safely. If the enemy were in your place, they would never have returned anything to us, but rather they would have taken all our remaining property. (Imam Tabari, Tarikh At-Tabari, Volume 1, p. 2050)

2) What do you think of the perceived pattern that when Islam comes to a nation it goes through three phases: a) after enforcing dhimmitude, get rid of the Jews then, b) the Christians [and Ba'hai etc] and finally c) turn on each other for not being "Muslim enough"?

See above.

After reading the posts to this point, I really think that ILBaM fits my description- some Muslims in the West just don't get the Western mentality. If Yazidis, Kurds, Sunni, Shia, or whoever lobby a Western government long enough for help against their persecutors, they will get it- and it's not always a perfect response.

Then the problem becomes a different one- the ones who were the persecutors now are hurting and are claiming to be the "victims". The West is literally at fault if it steps in or if it doesn't.

That argument doesn't hold water. The US bankrolled the military coup against Morsi and are continuing to give military aid to Egypt despite this not being allowed. It was not Morsi's government that killed 1k+ protesters in the span of a few days yet we still supported the military coup. The west backed the Algerian military when the "Islamists" were well on their way to winning the 2nd round of elections in 1992 because the secularists couldn't handle religious Muslims winning by a landslide. 200,000 people were killed because of this military takeover. The supposed red line in this genocide was the usage of chemical weapons in Syria. Well, Assad continues to use chemical weapons with virtual impunity.

Case in point "why didn't they step in against Assad?" (answer: Russia wouldn't allow it and they were right)

I'm pretty sure Russia doesn't like the sanctions put on it because of the Ukraine but we put them on it anyway. Not stopping genocide because Russia said no is a lame cop-out if the US really uses that as an excuse.

and "why target such-and-such Sunni group?" (answer: their victims had better lobbyists)

Who were the lobbyists against Jaysh al-Fatah? Against the FSA? Against Ahrar ash-Sham? Against Jabhat an-Nusra? They target mainly the regime and ISIS so I don't really know why their lobbying would mean anything anyway whereas the main victims of the Assad regime and Iran in Syria are Sunni civilians.

 

[ContraMundum]

From 1980-2005, 7% of the terrorists attacks in the US have been committed by Jewish extremists (as opposed to 6% by Muslim extremists). Given this, did the Jews receive the same level of scrutiny as the Muslims do from you? Whites and/or Christians are more likely to commit terrorist acts or to shoot up schools. Do people from either of those categories have the same amount of suspicion leveled against them?

I'm not in the US and the only terrorist acts and attempted terrorist acts in my country in recent times have by Muslims faithful to either IS or Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Never heard of terrorism in the name of Judaism in the US. "Killing Americans for Moses" just isn't the sort of thing you hear about.

Anyway- as I mentioned- I don't agree with the generalizing of terms. A white person is not de facto "Christian". Just like an Arab is not necessarily a "Muslim". I think the point is terrorism in the name of religion. Not many people are committing terrorism these days in the name of Jesus, or Moses...but how many do it in the name of Islam? From their own mouths they are guilty. Therefore, I pretty much reject the figures as they don't stack up as religious crimes unless they are done in the name of that religion. London, Bali, 9/11, Boston, Sydney, the many slaughters in Nigeria by BH and in the east of Africa by Al-S and all these nuts- they do it in the name of Islam. My personal belief is that most of this is triggered by politics, and religion is the rallying call/excuse. Most Muslims say that this is an abuse of Islam, but the Islamists say that this is "true" Islam. Who do I believe? Don't know. Both make compelling cases that they are the "true" Muslims and it seems like the Islamists take things a lot more literal.

It is, in my estimation, sad that Islam is so tied up in politics. To my mind a pure religion transcends politics. Do you think Islam has that ability or goal? Or is Islam only complete with built-in political aspirations?

Do you say the same for when it's Muslims who are persecuting others? That it is due to political grievances?

Sometimes, of course.

Look at history. It's false. When the Muslims gained the upperhand in Palestine, they invited the exiled Jews back in to live in Jerusalem. It is under Muslim rule in Spain that Jews had their Golden Age. And when the Jews were being exiled from Spain, the Ottoman Empire sent fleets to rescue them.

I've always found that narrative a bit of a fantasy, actually. So much contradictory history as well. It's far more complex than that.

When Muslims thought they may not be able to hold off the Romans in their advances against Syria, the Muslims returned the jizyah to the Christian inhabitants of Syria. The Christians said, "May Allah help you to overcome your enemies and return you to us safely. If the enemy were in your place, they would never have returned anything to us, but rather they would have taken all our remaining property. (Imam Tabari, Tarikh At-Tabari, Volume 1, p. 2050)

You know of course that many, many cases to the opposite can be cited as well.

That argument doesn't hold water. The US bankrolled the military coup against Morsi and are continuing to give military aid to Egypt despite this not being allowed. It was not Morsi's government that killed 1k+ protesters in the span of a few days yet we still supported the military coup. The west backed the Algerian military when the "Islamists" were well on their way to winning the 2nd round of elections in 1992 because the secularists couldn't handle religious Muslims winning by a landslide. 200,000 people were killed because of this military takeover. The supposed red line in this genocide was the usage of chemical weapons in Syria. Well, Assad continues to use chemical weapons with virtual impunity.

From my perspective that actually proves my point. Morsi is only a good guy to your point of view anyway. I personally know a few Egyptians that despise him and they say that he blindsided the electorate and got exactly what he deserved. What makes you think that there were no Egyptian political forces that desperately wanted the West's help to oust him? They ask, they get.

And why does only the West get the blame when locals are eagerly pulling the triggers and crying out for the weapons?

I'm pretty sure Russia doesn't like the sanctions put on it because of the Ukraine but we put them on it anyway. Not stopping genocide because Russia said no is a lame cop-out if the US really uses that as an excuse.

Russia was against intervention against Assad well before the Ukraine matter came up. The two are not related at all.

In the end, Russia was right. Assad fills a political vacuum keeping an awful but necessary lid on a boiling pot of insanity. Now the country is overrun by foreigners all trying to build their little empires. The poor Syrians are far, far worse off.

Who were the lobbyists against Jaysh al-Fatah? Against the FSA? Against Ahrar ash-Sham? Against Jabhat an-Nusra? They target mainly the regime and ISIS so I don't really know why their lobbying would mean anything anyway whereas the main victims of the Assad regime and Iran in Syria are Sunni civilians.

I don't think you exactly understand what I was saying? Seems like an oddly scattered list of bad guys.

I've never heard of two of those groups anyway, and they probably are irrelevant in the big picture. Too many factions of fractions and frictions of fictions to keep up with in the Islamist world. You do realize that one doesn't need to form a lobby group to lobby a government. Often governments lobby others. The FSA lobbied the US and the West for months for help, for example.

 

[LoAmmi]

From 1980-2005, 7% of the terrorists attacks in the US have been committed by Jewish extremists (as opposed to 6% by Muslim extremists). Given this, did the Jews receive the same level of scrutiny as the Muslims do from you? Whites and/or Christians are more likely to commit terrorist acts or to shoot up schools. Do people from either of those categories have the same amount of suspicion leveled against them?

First, let me say that I don't like the idea of being terrified by any terrorism. I have more of a chance of being killed simply driving to work or changing a light bulb at my house than to be killed by a terrorist on US soil. So, don't think I would advocate anybody undergo increased scrutiny. That said....

I looked at the report. While it is true that according to the definition the FBI uses for terrorist incident only 6% of incidents involved Muslims, the vast, overwhelming majority of all attacks on that list are arson and/or vandalism with no deaths and no injuries. These tend to be carried out by extreme environmental advocates. I think it is very important to note the zero deaths and zero injuries for these purposes. Even though it only makes up 6% of the attacks, Muslim attackers have the majority of deaths and injuries. Admittedly, this is due to 9/11, but we cannot simply dismiss those events. If we dismiss the Oklahoma City bombings by McVeigh as well as 9/11, everything mostly evens out to some extent.

You mention Jews, but the statistics show that a Jewish extremist attack has not happened since 1986. A person born a day after those attacks would be in their late 20s today. A person born a day after 9/11 would be around 14 right now and there have been Muslim attacks since 9/11 to account for. So, the fact that it's been almost 30 years since a Jewish attack should be taken into account.

The real issue seems to be that, right now, typically when Muslims carry out a terrorist incident, their intent is to kill or injure people. That was the intent behind 9/11 and that was the intent of the Boston Marathon bombings. When other groups are carrying these out, with the exception of McVeigh and Rudolph, the intention is not to kill or injury people but to send a message. That is why people put Muslims terrorists in their own category. The fear that their goal is to kill people.

Again, I will stress that my opinion is that people shouldn't be terrified of these things and that it is a small percentage of Muslims involved in this, but using the statistics as you and the articles I found quoting it, is kind of distorting things by making it seem that all incidents are identical.

Once we get down to it, Muslims and Jews are kind of cousins and I wish we'd learn to act more like it. It's really amazing to think of what we could accomplish working together, isn't it?

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

I'm not in the US and the only terrorist acts and attempted terrorist acts in my country in recent times have by Muslims faithful to either IS or Hizb ut-Tahrir.

Ah, okay.

Never heard of terrorism in the name of Judaism in the US. "Killing Americans for Moses" just isn't the sort of thing you hear about.

That you haven't heard about it though these are the figures the FBI gives is precisely my point. The extremist Muslim threat is exaggerated so that most people think that the biggest threat in the US are Muslim extremists even though it clearly is not.

I've posted this study multiple times but I think the results are so important. This study looked at the years 2008-2012 (look at how it's the same percentage as the 15-year period):

Dixon found that among those described as domestic terrorists on those programs, 81 percent were identifiable as Muslims. Yet in FBI reports for the same period, only 6 percent of domestic terrorist suspects were Muslim, or about one in 17. (In fact, terrorism on American soil is far more likely to be committed by white supremacists, Dixon said.)

Muslims and Latinos much more prominent in TV crime news than in real-life crime

and we should keep in mind that many Muslims are goaded/entrapped by the FBI themselves and then the FBI foils that plot they encouraged the Muslim to commit. It is also easier to find Muslims guilty of terrorism than it is for others.

Anyway- as I mentioned- I don't agree with the generalizing of terms. A white person is not de facto "Christian".

Which is why I said and/or

I think the point is terrorism in the name of religion. Not many people are committing terrorism these days in the name of Jesus, or Moses...but how many do it in the name of Islam?

Well, according to the FBI database, Jewish extremists accounted for 7% of the terrorist acts. And as for Christians, many right-wing terrorist attacks are done by Christians. There was a Christian militia in the midwest that was shut down.

From their own mouths they are guilty. Therefore, I pretty much reject the figures as they don't stack up as religious crimes unless they are done in the name of that religion. London, Bali, 9/11, Boston, Sydney, the many slaughters in Nigeria by BH and in the east of Africa by Al-S and all these nuts- they do it in the name of Islam. My personal belief is that most of this is triggered by politics, and religion is the rallying call/excuse.

I don't deny that people commit crimes in the name of Islaam. But I agree with you regarding the last point - that most of this is triggered by politics/foreign policies. They may have legitimate grievances but go about it the unIslaamic way even though they appeal to Islaam.

Most Muslims say that this is an abuse of Islam, but the Islamists say that this is "true" Islam. Who do I believe? Don't know. Both make compelling cases that they are the "true" Muslims and it seems like the Islamists take things a lot more literal.

It is quite clear (through the Qur'aan/sunnah) that Islaam prohibits the intentional targeting of non-combatants. And Islaam also teaches us to abide by treaties/covenants.

It is, in my estimation, sad that Islam is so tied up in politics. To my mind a pure religion transcends politics. Do you think Islam has that ability or goal? Or is Islam only complete with built-in political aspirations?

You've probably heard that Islaam is a complete way of life - we don't say that without reason. A major part of life is living in a society and that includes laws.

I've always found that narrative a bit of a fantasy, actually. So much contradictory history as well. It's far more complex than that.

Professor Dean Phillip Bell (professor of Jewish history at Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies, Chicago):

‘Jews under medieval Islam never suffered from the same general negative perception as in the Christian West. Despite regional variations and high medieval political instability, in medieval Islam multicultural environments, combined with active engagement in sciences and literature, led to something of an Islamic golden age for the Jews, at least according to most historical accounts. It has been primarily in the context of recent political developments that the once assumed positive views of Jewish life under medieval Islam have been seriously questioned.’[1]

Are Muslims Anti-Semitic?

From my perspective that actually proves my point. Morsi is only a good guy to your point of view anyway. I personally know a few Egyptians that despise him and they say that he blindsided the electorate and got exactly what he deserved. What makes you think that there were no Egyptian political forces that desperately wanted the West's help to oust him? They ask, they get.

How does it prove your point? Whatever Morsi had done was no where near the level of what Sisi and the government now has done. Sisi is the one who had more than 1,000 protesters killed in just a few days. How many did Morsi have killed?

I also mentioned Algerians. The "Islamists" were pretty much definitely going to win in a landslide but the West supported the military to prevent them coming into power after a democratic election

And why does only the West get the blame when locals are eagerly pulling the triggers and crying out for the weapons?

Oh no, I blame the Egyptians more than anyone else. The ones who supported the coup anyway. I don't really have much sympathy for those who advocated for the removal of Morsi via a military coup but are now crying over what Sisi is doing. Those Egyptians are really quite dumb and annoying.

Russia was against intervention against Assad well before the Ukraine matter came up. The two are not related at all.

My point was that we didn't care about what Russia thought when we put sanctions on it so why did we care about what it said when it came to Syria?

In the end, Russia was right. Assad fills a political vacuum keeping an awful but necessary lid on a boiling pot of insanity. Now the country is overrun by foreigners all trying to build their little empires. The poor Syrians are far, far worse off.

The vast majority of the rebels are Syrians. But even if they weren't, what's wrong with standing up against oppression? Assad won't last long, btw, neither will his regime. The Syrians will be better for it once they're gone.

I don't think you exactly understand what I was saying? Seems like an oddly scattered list of bad guys.

You said that such-and-such Sunni group was targeted because their victims had better lobbyists. I replied that most of the ones killed by them have been the regime and its allies, not non-combatants whereas the victims of the regime have been mainly civilians.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

I looked at the report. While it is true that according to the definition the FBI uses for terrorist incident only 6% of incidents involved Muslims, the vast, overwhelming majority of all attacks on that list are arson and/or vandalism with no deaths and no injuries.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/image/Terrorism7.jpg/view

Even though it only makes up 6% of the attacks, Muslim attackers have the majority of deaths and injuries. Admittedly, this is due to 9/11, but we cannot simply dismiss those events. If we dismiss the Oklahoma City bombings by McVeigh as well as 9/11, everything mostly evens out to some extent.

Yes, 9/11 is going to skew the death toll. I also wonder, though, how often things are considered terrorism when Muslims do it but not when non-Muslims do it (Nidal Malik Hassan vs. Ivan Lopez)

You mention Jews, but the statistics show that a Jewish extremist attack has not happened since 1986.

So the figure is essentially looking at 1985-1986?

When other groups are carrying these out, with the exception of McVeigh and Rudolph, the intention is not to kill or injury people but to send a message. That is why people put Muslims terrorists in their own category. The fear that their goal is to kill people.

Proof of this?

Once we get down to it, Muslims and Jews are kind of cousins and I wish we'd learn to act more like it. It's really amazing to think of what we could accomplish working together, isn't it?

Yep. Our ancestors got along pretty well.

 

[LoAmmi]

I meant to say since 2000. Many of the bombing took place since the 80s and 90s. They seem to have gone out of style.

 

[ContraMundum]

Well, according to the FBI database, Jewish extremists accounted for 7% of the terrorist acts. And as for Christians, many right-wing terrorist attacks are done by Christians. There was a Christian militia in the midwest that was shut down.

As LoAmmi pointed out, these guys didn't prove lethal.

I don't deny that people commit crimes in the name of Islaam. But I agree with you regarding the last point - that most of this is triggered by politics/foreign policies. They may have legitimate grievances but go about it the unIslaamic way even though they appeal to Islaam.

It is quite clear (through the Qur'aan/sunnah) that Islaam prohibits the intentional targeting of non-combatants. And Islaam also teaches us to abide by treaties/covenants.

I understand totally where you are coming from, but the bad guys teach that it is ok according to Islam to kill, and they cite their sources. It seems to me that they are pursuing a kind of Islamic utopia. Once they kill or subdue all opposition, then sharia will make everything run smoothly. Very typical of political revolutionaries.

This is why many people find all this confusing. Questions arise- If Islam is so benevolent, why does it have to suppress? Why would people in a democracy want to live under religious oppression? If Muslims preach tolerance now, what's to stop them preaching ethnic and religious cleansing once they get power? We can't build a church under Islam, nor a synagogue at present. In fact, only Muslims (not your type I assume) are calling for Christians and Jews to be cleared out. Every other religion as far as I know doesn't bother. We Jews have been kicked out of every Muslim country since 1948 and now there's Muslims wanting to kick us out of the country we fled to! Can you see at least from my perspective how hard it is to trust Islam?

Now, it's fair to say that under Islam the Jews had it good. But that would equally apply under certain "Christian" rulers too. I think that's the point- it all depends on who's in power and how they interpret and apply their beliefs. All I know is this: only Islam has a verse telling people to kill Jews. I don't know how you personally interpret it, but I know there's plenty of wicked people out there who take it rather literally. One of the Rabbis in my city was threatened with death while shopping with his family by a Muslim recently. He said it was his "life's ambition" to kill a Jew and said something about the stones crying out for it. This is in a Western, democratic, peaceful and safe country. Imagine if people like him get in power.

You've probably heard that Islaam is a complete way of life - we don't say that without reason. A major part of life is living in a society and that includes laws.

Yeah, I struggle with any religion that teaches worldly utopias forged by the hand of its adherents in the name of their god. I believe only God can make the world what it shall be and it will be ushered in by good works and not by war and politics.

Oh no, I blame the Egyptians more than anyone else. The ones who supported the coup anyway. I don't really have much sympathy for those who advocated for the removal of Morsi via a military coup but are now crying over what Sisi is doing. Those Egyptians are really quite dumb and annoying.

It's the Middle East. No one ever is happy.

My point was that we didn't care about what Russia thought when we put sanctions on it so why did we care about what it said when it came to Syria?

I think we should have listened to Russia.

The vast majority of the rebels are Syrians. But even if they weren't, what's wrong with standing up against oppression? Assad won't last long, btw, neither will his regime. The Syrians will be better for it once they're gone.

I don't think it looks better for them at all. Who gets to run the place? Sunni or Shia? IS? Al-Q or its affiliates? Hezbollah? Currently it doesn't look like any civilized group has a serious chance of either seizing or being peacefully and democratically elected to power once Assad falls. It's going to be a long, long time of pain for the poor Syrians. And yes, I think we should be taking refugees from there.

You said that such-and-such Sunni group was targeted because their victims had better lobbyists. I replied that most of the ones killed by them have been the regime and its allies, not non-combatants whereas the victims of the regime have been mainly civilians.

That's what we're being told right now. I think in time the Syrian people will remember more than the regime as being the great criminals. There's some wicked people over there- and they're attracting criminal elements from all over the world to their cause in the name of redemption and Paradise.