Do Not Bash Muslims

Joyousperson · Jul 24, 2019

JosephZ,

"Islamism" as used by your often quoted Dr. Bale and Dr. Braniff is a bastardized term of Islam-proper and is without any solid grounds. You can read this very loose term "Islamism" from wiki and which is not grounded to the Quran objectively.

Here is the wiki definition of Islamism [generally accepted];

Islamism is a concept whose meaning has been debated in both public and academic contexts.[1]
The term can refer to diverse forms of social and political activism advocating that public and political life should be guided by Islamic principles[1][2] or more specifically to movements which call for full implementation of sharia.
Islamism - Wikipedia

The weakness of the above is, it did not even link 'Islamism' with 'Islam' as the most critical ground. Here is 'what is Islam';

Islam (/ˈɪslɑːm/)[note 1] is an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion teaching that there is only one God (Arabic: Allah), and that Muhammad is the messenger of God.
The primary scriptures of Islam are the Quran, claimed to be the verbatim word of God, and the teachings and normative examples (called the sunnah, composed of accounts called hadith) of Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632 CE).
Islamic scripture claims Islam to be the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including Adam, Abraham, Moses and Jesus [8][9][10] and it teaches that the Quran in its original Arabic to be the unaltered and final revelation of God.

It is obvious from the above the term "Islamism" [as used by Dr. Bale and Dr. Braniff] is not solidly grounded to Islam-proper which is imperatively grounded to the verbatim words of Allah in the Quran [supported by Ahadith].

Note there is the term 'moderate Islamism' and Post-Islamism.
Islamism - Wikipedia

If Dr. Bale and Dr. Braniff's used of the term cover the above, then their meaning cannot be confined to merely Wahhabism.

In any case, the term 'Islamism' is a bastardized term which is not grounded objectively and thus toothless and frivolous.

JosephZ · Jul 24, 2019

Joyousperson said:
Setst777 is correct with his statement re Reliance of the Traveller.
What he and I had been relying is from summaries compiled by those who have read the book.

In other words, you have been reading the summaries found on anti-Islamic websites like answeringislam, religionofpeace, or from anti-Islamic propagandists like David Wood or Bill Warner.

Once again, Reliance of the Traveler is an abridged legal manual. It is not an easy book to read and it's not the definite or the final authority on Islamic law. Here again is a portion of the text from the introduction.

The style of translating the basic text is an explanative one with interlinear commentary. The reason for commentary, briefly, is that this book, like others in Islamic law, is less the achievement of a particular author than the shared effort of a whole school of research and interpretation in explaining rules of divine origin. The cooperative nature of this effort may be seen in the multilayered character of its texts, whose primary authors often merely state the ruling of an act, lawful or unlawful, leaving matters of definition, conditions, and scriptural evidence for the commentator to supply, who in turn leaves important details for both writers of marginal notes and for living sheikhs to definitively interpret when teaching the work to their students. The sheikhs form a second key resource of textual commentary, a spoken one parallel to the written, and in previous centuries of traditional Islamic learning it was well known that no student could dispense with it. Living teachers were and are needed to explain terminological difficulties, eliminate ambiguities, and correct copyists' mistakes…

Have you ever been in a lawyers office? They have tons of books on their bookshelves to instruct them how laws were intended to be used, case studies, court rulings, etc. The reliance of the Traveler is just one book that Islamic legal scholars, attorneys, and judges use to help them on the subjects of law based on the history of Islam, the Qur'an, and the Hadiths. A non-Muslim reading this book without a solid background in Islamic studies and understanding of Islam will surely misinterpret what is written. How can a non-Muslim like yourself with no formal background in Islam, Islamic history, or law be expected to properly interpret everything written in an ancient 1200+ page Islamic law book?

Joyousperson said:
Note for our purpose we do not have to read the whole book which contain chapters [can do a quick scan] which are not critical to our discussion points.

Apparently this is how you also read the Qur'an and other Islamic texts based on your cherry picked verses and rehashing of content found on anti-Islamic websites.

JosephZ · Jul 24, 2019

Joyousperson said:
If Dr. Bale and Dr. Braniff's used of the term cover the above, then their meaning cannot be confined to merely Wahhabism.

It's not confined to just Wahhabism. It is used to describe all forms of Islamic extremism found in today's world.

Islamism = Islamic extremism in general

Joyousperson · Jul 24, 2019

JosephZ said:
I said women who wore head coverings were being discriminated against in Turkey which is a true statement.

According to Country Reports 2007, women who wore headscarves and their supporters "were disciplined or lost their jobs in the public sector" (US 11 Mar. 2008, Sec. 2.c). Human Rights Watch (HRW) reports that in late 2005, the Administrative Supreme Court ruled that a teacher was not eligible for a promotion in her school because she wore a headscarf outside of work (Jan. 2007). An immigration counsellor at the Embassy of Canada in Ankara stated in 27 April 2005 correspondence with the Research Directorate that public servants are not permitted to wear a headscarf while on duty, but headscarved women may be employed in the private sector (Canada 27 Apr. 2005). In 12 April 2005 correspondence sent to the Research Directorate, a professor of political science specializing in women's issues in Turkey at Bogazici University in Istanbul indicated that women who wear a headscarf "could possibly be denied employment in private or government sectors." Conversely, some municipalities with a more traditional constituency might attempt to hire specifically those women who wear a headscarf (Professor 12 Apr. 2005). The professor did add, however, that headscarved women generally experience difficulty in obtaining positions as teachers, judges, lawyers, or doctors in the public service (ibid.). More recent or corroborating information on the headscarf ban in the public service could not be found among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate.

The London-based Sunday Times reports that while the ban is officially in place only in the public sphere, many private firms similarly avoid hiring women who wear headscarves (6 May 2007). MERO notes that women who wear headscarves may have more difficulty finding a job or obtaining a desirable wage (Apr. 2008), although this could not be corroborated among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate.

Refworld | Turkey: Situation of women who wear headscarves

Women wearing the headscarf were branded as traditional, “family girls” and were often rejected from participating in the public sphere where the most lucrative jobs are. Thus, overtime the hijab brought more economic disparity and inequality than economic access and success for some. Because women who wore the headscarf were not allowed to have jobs in the public sector they did not have full political and economic voices. Additionally, they faced the threat of being fired, of criminal prosecution, or revocation of their Turkish citizenship if they did not adhere to headscarf bans.

The first major example of limited access in higher education due to the headscarf bans occurred in 1968. A young woman, named Hatice Babacan was the first woman to be expelled from a Turkish university for veiling.

For women working in the private sectors, circumstances were also difficult. Women who wore headscarves were regularly paid lower wages and even fired because they were not viewed as desirable employees. Not only were they excluded from the public sphere, but women with headscarves were also “excluded from employment in chain stores selling globally or nationally reputable brands” which meant that they were forced to work in family-run establishments or small-scale retail stores. Women wearing headscarves were and continue to be limited to working in settings with little upward mobility or professional advancement.

https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcont...httpsredir=1&article=1251&context=honors_proj

How can you be so blurr??
Note there is no discrimination at all.
It was an enactment and Law and a ban that no public servant can wear the headscarf. This is done for good reason to reduce religious fervor [very primal impulse] in public service. Since it was the Law the ban on headscarf must be implemented legally.
Now that the ban is lifted some Muslims women can will wear burga to their work in the public sectors.

Remember earlier when you brought up Toshihiko Izutsu an outsider to both the Islamic world and the west whose approach to Islam and his research probably gave the most unbiased and unprejudiced picture of this religion than any other researcher in history? Why is it that Izutsu, who was fluent in Arabic, translated the Qur'an from Arabic to Japanese, did much of his research in the Middle East, especially Iran, and did a rigorous linguistic study of traditional metaphysical texts of Islam came to a different conclusion about this religion than you have from your "research?" You would think that he of all people would have brought attention the evil and violent side of this religion if this was to be found in the context of the Qur'an, yet he was fond of Islam and saw it as not only a positive contribution to the Arab world, but for all of mankind especially in its teachings of coexistence, morals and ethics.[/QUOTE]
Have read his book thoroughly??

Izutsu presented a very objective view of the ethos of Islam.
In page 119 he stated, the highest leverage of Islam is best explained by its negative KUFR. Chapter VII Pg 119.

In my opinion, the concept of faith or belief, as the highest religious ethico-religious value of Islam, may best be analyzed not directly but rather in terms of KUFR [kafir, infidels, non-Muslims], that is from its negative side.

While Izutzu may present the good ethics of Islam and its improvements over the pre-Islamic civilization of the Arabs, but that is only confined to one who is a Muslim not to the Kafir, infidels, non-Muslims disbelievers.

Izutzu also theorized the very barbaric and aggressive ethos of the barbaric Arabic prior to Muhammad are also embedded in the Quran.

This is represented by my researched 3400++ verses of evil and violent elements in the 6236 verses of the Quran that are contemptuous to the non-Muslim disbelievers.
These verses naturally inspire the 20% or 320 million of naturally born evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evil and violent acts as a religious duty to please God. The sorry point is no human on earth can judge the acts of those evil prone Muslims, thus culminating in a STALEMATE Dilemma that allow the evil and violence to be committed till Judgment Day or eternity.

Joyousperson · Jul 25, 2019

JosephZ said:
In other words, you have been reading the summaries found on anti-Islamic websites like answeringislam, religionofpeace, or from anti-Islamic propagandists like David Wood or Bill Warner.

Once again, Reliance of the Traveler is an abridged legal manual. It is not an easy book to read and it's not the definite or the final authority on Islamic law. Here again is a portion of the text from the introduction.

The style of translating the basic text is an explanative one with interlinear commentary. The reason for commentary, briefly, is that this book, like others in Islamic law, is less the achievement of a particular author than the shared effort of a whole school of research and interpretation in explaining rules of divine origin. The cooperative nature of this effort may be seen in the multilayered character of its texts, whose primary authors often merely state the ruling of an act, lawful or unlawful, leaving matters of definition, conditions, and scriptural evidence for the commentator to supply, who in turn leaves important details for both writers of marginal notes and for living sheikhs to definitively interpret when teaching the work to their students. The sheikhs form a second key resource of textual commentary, a spoken one parallel to the written, and in previous centuries of traditional Islamic learning it was well known that no student could dispense with it. Living teachers were and are needed to explain terminological difficulties, eliminate ambiguities, and correct copyists' mistakes…

Have you ever been in a lawyers office? They have tons of books on their bookshelves to instruct them how laws were intended to be used, case studies, court rulings, etc. The reliance of the Traveler is just one book that Islamic legal scholars, attorneys, and judges use to help them on the subjects of law based on the history of Islam, the Qur'an, and the Hadiths. A non-Muslim reading this book without a solid background in Islamic studies and understanding of Islam will surely misinterpret what is written. How can a non-Muslim like yourself with no formal background in Islam, Islamic history, or law be expected to properly interpret everything written in an ancient 1200+ page Islamic law book?

Apparently this is how you also read the Qur'an and other Islamic texts based on your cherry picked verses and rehashing of content found on anti-Islamic websites.

Nope! David Wood and Bill Warner has not produced any summary from the Reliance of the Traveller.

I have read the summaries from various sources and they reflected what is in the Quran [final authority] which I am very familiar with.
I have now verified them to be true from the actual book of the Reliance of the Traveller.

JosephZ wrote:
Apparently this is how you also read the Qur'an and other Islamic texts based on your cherry picked verses and rehashing of content found on anti-Islamic websites.

Nope.
I have already told you MANY TIMES,
I have read the whole Quran at least >100 times based on the way I organized the verses in Microsof Excel [database] where I can sort it by Chronological order and by the 1400++ categories [themes] I have.

When I read what is summarized from the Reliance of the Traveller or from other sources [e.g. David Wood, Bill Warner, and others] I cross checked their points against the Quran which I am very familiar.

Btw, David Wood in most of his videos, he opened up the Quran and Ahadith for all to see and cross-check if need be. If not shown, I can cross-check his point to the Quranic verses I know.

As I had always asserted what is critical as what is Islamic is the 6236 verses of the Quran delivered by Allah to Muhammad via angel Gabriel [with support from the Ahadith].
Whatever is claimed and said of Islam must conform to the above and nothing else, definitely not based on the actions of the majority of Muslims.

Joyousperson · Jul 25, 2019

JosephZ said:
It's not confined to just Wahhabism. It is used to describe all forms of Islamic extremism found in today's world.

Islamism = Islamic extremism in general

You had been pushing 'Wahhabism' [in most of your postings] as the sole cause of terrorism committed by the Islamists.

It is a waste of time to use the term 'Islamism' as a serious term to discuss 'what is Islam.'
The term 'Islamism' is groundless & toothless and muddy the water to deflect from understanding the critical root causes.

I say again, what is Islam is represented by the 6236 verses as the words of Allah revealed directly to Muhammad via angel Gabriel [as supported by the Ahadith].

The 6236 verses of the Quran, i.e. Islam-proper contain loads of terrible evil and violent elements.

There are loads of verse in the Quran where it is commanded Muslims must comply with the covenanted terms in the Quran or else they are threatened with Hell and Doom.

As such these [loads of evil and violent] verses will inspire and compel evil prone Muslims from a pool of 320 million to commit evil and violent acts as a religious duty to please Allah to avoid the Islamic Hell to ensure of a place in paradise with eternal life.

JosephZ · Jul 25, 2019

Joyousperson said:
Nope! David Wood and Bill Warner has not produced any summary from the Reliance of the Traveller.

They both quote the same exact sections from reliance of the Traveler that you and Setst777 do. Case in point from Bill Warner's "Sharia Law for Non-Muslims" shown in blue:

08.0 APOSTASY FROM ISLAM 08.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane, voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

Joyousperson said:
Note this from Reliance of the Traveller [Shafi'i School] Book O: 08.0 APOSTASY FROM ISLAM (RIDDA)
o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

09.1 THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.

Joyousperson said:
Book O: 9:1
In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina.

setst777 said:
Reliance of the Traveller O9.1 “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning obligatory upon the Muslims each year.

After glancing over Bill Warner's writings found at this link https://www.politicalislam.com/wp-c...Look-Inside/Sharia_Non-Muslim_look_inside.pdf, it seems that much of the material you and setst777 are using to support your position in this thread is coming directly from him. I mean some of the things you guys are saying here are almost taken word for word from Bill Warner.

Bill Warner is obviously where you got the chart you used in this post:

Joyousperson said:
Based on an objective analysis, the contents of the Quran is worst than that of the Mein Kampf;

The chart you used and shown below is from Bill Warner's "Sharia for Non-Muslims":

Like I have said many times before, all you and Setst777 are doing is parroting what you are finding on anti-Islamic websites and the evidence above proves this.

Joyousperson · Jul 25, 2019

JosephZ said:
They both quote the same exact sections from reliance of the Traveler that you and Setst777 do. Case in point from Bill Warner's "Sharia Law for Non-Muslims" shown in blue:

08.0 APOSTASY FROM ISLAM 08.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane, voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

09.1 THE OBLIGATORY CHARACTER OF JIHAD Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.

After glancing over Bill Warner's writings found at this link https://www.politicalislam.com/wp-c...Look-Inside/Sharia_Non-Muslim_look_inside.pdf, it seems that much of the material you and setst777 are using to support your position in this thread is coming directly from him. I mean some of the things you guys are saying here are almost taken word for word from Bill Warner.

Bill Warner is obviously where you got the chart you used in this post:

The chart you used and shown below is from Bill Warner's "Sharia for Non-Muslims":

View attachment 259990
Like I have said many times before, all you and Setst777 are doing is parroting what you are finding on anti-Islamic websites and the evidence above proves this.

I have not come across a summary of the Reliance of Travellers from Bill Warner or David Wood when I googled for it.

Note the following;
Islam Exposed: Reliance of the Traveller: Handbook of Shari'ah
The Reliance of the Traveller

I only came to be aware of Bill Warner's reference from you. Thanks for that.
Btw, it is not a compilation but merely a reference for Sharia together with reference from Quran and Ahadith.
Show me where did Bill Warner made any significant errors in his article?

Yes I have quoted the above chart many times from Bill Warner's site.
That is to show the Quran is worst than the Mein Kampf in terms of its anti-semitism elements. What is wrong with that.
This is the evidence why SOME Muslims hate the Jews so much and have been targeting and killing innocent Jews for no good reasons.

I can easily agree with Bill Warner on the large numbers of verses in the Quran where hate and contempt is directed at the Jews in the Quran.

You are lying without evidence I am parroting other sites.
Note the Quran and Ahadith are open for the whole of mankind to read and it is so easy to refer to the 3400++ verses that are evil and violent therein.
What I have presented is merely public knowledge. The onus on you is to show me where I am wrong in making reference to the original sources of the Quran, Ahadith either from myself or from other sources.

Note I don't accuse you of parroting from various sites, e.g. SMART, Dr. Bale, etc. Instead I critique all the articles you presented objectively.

What about you parroting from your own head re your subjective opinions based on observations of the majority of Muslims' behavior which is the most childish intellectual basis to argue a point, i.e. ad populum fallacy.

setst777 · Jul 25, 2019

JosephZ said:
What you just quoted didn't change anything he said or how I interpreted it. Maybe you should send him an email and ask for further clarification.

Hi Joseph

You write:
<<
setst777 said: ↑
The “experts” you previously quoted and the experts you now quote are stating the exact opposite.

Joseph responds:
No, they are not. Here are some more quotes from Dr. Bale for example.

“Until Western intelligence, military, and law enforcement personnel are provided with accurate information about the history and core religious doctrines of Islam and the intrinsically extremist nature of Islamism, and until they are taught how to distinguish between Muslim moderates and Islamist extremists.”...

The above is talking about people like you who can't differentiate between the religion of Islam that the majority of the world's Muslims follow and what it teaches and the extremist ideology and what it teaches.
>>

Setst RE: I differentiated just fine in all my responses. Ad homonym attacks will not help you.

Unlike Dr. Bale and Yahya, your own definition of “Islam” and “Muslims” does not include:

Islamic “extremists,”
orthodox,
traditional
fundamental
ultra orthodox -

All of these branches of Islam hold to the “history and core religious doctrines of Islam” [Dr. Bale]- are also part of Islam, and are Muslims.

Here is how you exclude all but the liberal Muslim from your definition of “Islam.”

July 7 2019, Thusday 4:41 am
<<
Joseph writes:
Most of those studies deal with western homegrown terrorists. Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a. Once again, your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.
>>

Question: Since terrorists can be found in the orthodox, traditional, fundamental, ultra-orthodox sects of Islam then, and most of them have animosity to non-Muslims, then, according to you, they can’t be Muslims.

According to you: Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people. Isn’t that correct? What does Yahya have to say about that? Let’s see:

Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam. [Yahya]

Within the Islamic tradition, the state is a single, universal entity that unites all Muslims under the rule of one man who leads them in opposition to, and conflict with, the non-Muslim world. [Yahya]

I’m not saying that Islam is the only factor causing Muslim minorities in the West to lead a segregated existence, often isolated from society as a whole. There may be other factors on the part of the host nations, such as racism, which exists everywhere in the world. But traditional Islam — which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims — is an important factor. [Yahya]

Question: So, since traditional Islam fosters segregation and enmity with non-Muslims, and are in opposition to, and in conflict with, non-Muslims, that means they are not Muslims, because Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people – according to Joseph?

In case you are in doubt about what you believe, let’s look at another quote:

July 7 2019, Sunday 12:16 pm
<<
Joseph writes: It's because Muslims are tolerant of people of other religions.
>>

Question: Is orthodox, traditional Islam (which represents most Sunni Muslims) tolerant of people of other religions? If not, then they are not Muslims, according to you.

But are most Muslims really tolerant of other people of other religions?

“Immigrants cast themselves into the waters of the Mediterranean knowing full well that the chance of reaching their destination, the northern shore, is slim. They nevertheless risk [the journey], taking advantage of the instability in Libya, which has become the [immigrants’] point of departure on their way to the European paradise.

But what is strange, and perhaps even embarrassing, is that, if you ask them about the infidel West, they will spew curses and invective, call it ignorant, and [express] contempt for it.” [Saudi Journalist Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh]

“The embarrassment becomes even more acute when one hears certain mosque imams in Europe, some of whom are foreigners and immigrants themselves, abusing the democracy and free speech that are granted to everyone [in those countries] by becoming expert at directing curses and invective at the infidels using [various] skillfully-phrased expressions.” [Saudi Journalist Muhammad Aal Al-Sheikh]

Question: According to Joseph's definition of a Muslim, would you say all these immigrants are non-Muslims?

Iran, Saudi Arabia, many of the Gulf states, Iraq, Jemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, and many Islamic groups and organizations, and others, are also part of the Religion of Islam, including all the Muslims who follow these traditional or fundamental Islamic doctrines. This is something you have no knowledge of, since you exclude them as being Muslims according to how you define a Muslim.

You define “Religion of Islam” as just the moderate Muslims to the exclusion of the others.

Unlike you, I differentiate Muslims fairly and realistically: I believe Islamic moderates and liberals are also considered part of the Religion of Islam, even though traditional Islam identifies moderate and liberal Muslims as hypocrites of their own faith as defined by their the Sunni schools of Sharia figh.

Here are quotes from you showing how you define Islam…

July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
<<
I've witnessed first hand what extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam is capable of doing and the affects it has on people's lives. I can say with confidence that those promoting these actions and those carrying them out do not represent true Islam or the followers of Islam.
>>

Yahya disagrees:
Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Branif disagrees:
Caller: The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Are they in fact Islamic?
Braniff: Yes.
CALLER: So are they Islamic terrorists?
braniff: Yes.

July 7 2019, Thusday 4:41 am
<<
Joseph writes: Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a.
>>

Yahya disagrees:
"Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence …

Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states."

July 7 2019, Sunday 12:16 pm
<<
Joseph responds: Of course these Islamic materials are found in the camps of terrorists groups. They are used by those in leadership positions to indoctrinate the rank and file members of these groups who are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam into following their extremist sect of Islam.
>>

Yahya disagrees - they are in the true Islam:
"And there’s an extreme left wing whose adherents reflexively denounce any and all talk about the connections between traditional Islam, fundamentalism and violence as de factoproof of Islamophobia. This must end. A problem that is not acknowledged cannot be solved."

“Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity.”

Dr. Bale also disagrees with you - He does not believe they are ignorant:
"Islamism is an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines."

"Islamism is only one of many possible interpretations of such doctrines, of course, but it is by far the most intolerant, aggressive, belligerent, and imperialistic of all of those interpretations"

By your own statements, you show that you exclude all those Muslims who actually practice the core beliefs of their faith in Sharia although they interpret more strictly.

You said you agreed with Yahya, and my other six witnesses; yet, you deny that fundamental, orthodox, ultra-orthodox, traditional Muslims are also part of the Religion of Islam, just as the experts state.

I never indicated in any of my responses to you that I cannot differentiate what you suggest.

Here is what I actually stated:
***
2:05 pm July 01, 2019, Monday
setst RE: Islam is what it is. … But that is what it is in spite of the fact that many Westernized Muslims of the 3rd generation and beyond are likely liberal and could care less.
***
***
3:07 am July 20, 2019, Saturday
setst RE: All we know for sure is that is what their religion teaches them to do. And we are seeing in the news on a regular basis, in this country alone,

• how Muslims are using our own laws against us to promote Islam.
• how they are convincing naive US leaders to give into their demands to sensor and destroy those who show the truth about Islam.
• how they are quoting peaceful verses to "prove" they are peaceful while they spew hate against America and its values and promote Sharia.
• We are seeing how they are censoring and threatening those who speak the truth about Islam.
• We are seeing how, as Muslim populations increase in any foreign country, that the Muslims become bolder, intimidating, threatening, with more use of terror to get their way.

These are the cold hard facts that are taught in Sharia to promote Islam, and are actually happening in the real world for centuries.

Do all Muslims do this? I have repeatedly said "NO." However their voices are not heard. The spread of Islam in the West is being caused by Muslims who know their religion and are not afraid to stand up for it - Jihad against unbelievers until the world is one religion - Islam.

Jihad through:

• Social Media Channels
• our legal system
• our politicians
• terrorist supporting Islamic Organizations in our countries
• Mosques
• Universities and schools
• demonstrations
• violence and terrorism
***
***
2:07 am July 9, 2019, Tuesday
Setst RE: What you have been led to believe by those Muslims using taqyah on you is that anyone who believes in, and follows, the Quran, Hadith, Sira and all of Sharia must be an extremist (Wahhabists) - whom you have said are not really Muslims at all.

And all the friendly liberal Muslims who have little understanding of Islam are the real Muslims. This is delusional thinking that is definitely the result of Islamic taqyah in the West simply because some Muslims were friendly to you.
***
***
5:55 am July 18, 2019, Thursday
You cannot separate Islam from its politico/religious doctrine - Sharia.

That is the danger.

Many Muslims may presently appear to ignore Allah’s commands through His Messenger. However, as the Polls show, many Muslims do support or agree with those Muslims that do follow Allah’s commands, and only about one in two Muslims will report an act of terrorism in Britain. Jihad is a universal teaching among Sunni and Shia Muslims.

I will say seriously to you, just as I have been saying on this thread….

As long as the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira remain
As long as Muhammad remains the last prophet

then:

Islam (the religion and political system of Muslims) will continue to be founded in Sharia
Islam will continue to be motivated to deal with religious politics by Sharia Jihad.
Islam will continue to be a violent religious-political system

Many Muslims will continue to have evil thoughts about non-believers and their countries (infidels) founded upon Islam’s most sacred and reliable Scriptures, even though not actively carrying out acts of terrorism.

Muslims are not sheep without a shepherd. They have

their Imams,
their Mosques (infiltrated by fundamental Islam),
their Schools,
their sacred books,
their Islamic leaders.
their family
their culture

The danger exists that other Muslims will carry out Jihad against unbelievers – politically, socially and physically.

We cannot say when acts of Jihad will be carried out, or for what perceived reason, but we know that they will happen. WHY? We have 1400 years of Islamic History to learn from.

Any Muslim we see could potentially be a terrorist motivated by the ideology of Sharia, or could turn into one at any time. That is the danger.

We will continue to see Mosques and Islamic Organizations in the West being infiltrated by classical and traditional Islam (through Sunni and Shia Islam) resulting in the support and re-indoctrination of millions of Muslims to understand what Allah and His Messenger expect of them in the performance and/or support of Jihad against unbelievers.

No Muslim wants to go to Allah’s hell. Most Muslims want to be saved. Once they learn what Allah expects of them to be saved, they will support or become involved in Jihad against unbelievers, hypocrites, apostates and blasphemers. This is a fact, because that is part of Sharia. The Polls I posted for you show that around half the Muslims in the world, actually more, want hypocrites, apostates, and blasphemers held accountable by Sharia Law - a death penalty. More than half the Muslims in the world want Sharia.

We will continue to see revival in Islam to return to the foundation of their Faith – Sharia
Islamic revival - Wikipedia

As soon as we (infidels) recognize the threat, the better position we will be in to prevent that Islamic threat from destroying our culture and way of life as we now know it, just as Islam has done in every land they have invaded since its inception.
***
End of Quotes

As you can see, I accurately differentiate between Muslims – liberal and traditional elements.

Continued...

setst777 · Jul 25, 2019

JosephZ said:
What you just quoted didn't change anything he said or how I interpreted it. Maybe you should send him an email and ask for further clarification.

Hi Joseph

The religion of Islam includes traditional, fundamental, orthodox, ultra-orthodox, and yes, even what the West calls extremists, and also liberals and moderates.

Moderate or liberal Muslims fall under the umbrella of the religion of Islam, but they are not living in submission to Allah and His Messenger as found in Sharia – Allah’s Law – as interpreted by their own schools of jurisprudence (figh).

Notice, I am not referring to Wahhabism, but Sunni and Shia Sharia as interpreted by their own schools (Figh).

The quotes you provided by Dr. Bale and Yahya agrees with me. And you said you agreed with those experts.

“There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. [Yahya]”

“Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity. [Yahya]”

“But traditional Islam — which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims — is an important factor. [Yahya]”

“Within the Islamic tradition, the state is a single, universal entity that unites all Muslims under the rule of one man who leads them in opposition to, and conflict with, the non-Muslim world. [Yahya]”

“Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states. [Yahya]”

Is·lam·ism (ĭs-lä′mĭz′əm, ĭz-, ĭs′lə-, ĭz′-) n.
2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.
Islamism

Islamism… “the belief that Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life"
Islamism, Revolution, and Civil Society | Perspectives on Politics | Cambridge Core

Islamism… “Islamist -- Supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam. Those who view the Quran as a political model encompass a wide range of Muslims, from mainstream politicians to militants known as jihadi.” [Associated Press, Stylebook 2012]

Joseph continues:
<<
Dr. Bale and Dr Brannif would agree to this statement if it were worded that most extremism and terrorism are caused by social factors, and have little, or nothing, to do with the religion of Islam its self. The consensus among experts is overwhelming.
>>

Setst RE: NO they wouldn’t.

Your recent expert [Dr. Bale] states that the terror attacks have EVERYTHING to do with religion…

"Ever since the jihadist terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, Western policy-makers, mainstream media organs, and even academicians have been reluctant to highlight the key role played by Islamist ideology in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks. This is all the more peculiar given that, as is typical of ideological extremists, the perpetrators of these attacks themselves openly and indeed proudly emphasize the central role played by their religious beliefs, specifically their strict, puritanical interpretations of Islamic scriptures (i.e., the Qur’an) and their supposed emulation of the exemplary words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (as recorded in the six canonical hadith collections), in motivating their violent actions.”

You quote your previous expert as follows:
<<
This explains why (1) the close monitoring of mosques brings little information; (2) imams have little or no influence on the process of radicalisation; (3) “reforming Islam” does not make sense: they just don’t care about ‘what Islam really means.’”
Source: The Truth About Modern Jihad: It's Not Really About Religion - New Matilda
>>

Setst RE: Notice your “expert” above disagrees with Yahya and your own experts as follows:

“Over the past 50 years, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have spent massively to promote their ultra-conservative version of Islam worldwide. After allowing this to go unchallenged for so many decades, the West must finally exert decisive pressure upon the Saudis to cease this behavior” [Yahya]

These are your other expert sources that show the same thing:

https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques.pdf
https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Tier1_SAUDI ARABIA.pdf

Notice that you are just saying what is convenient to “win” an argument. You are not being truthful or honest with the sources or with me.

Joseph wrote: ↑
Islamic extremism and terrorism do not represent Islam

Joseph responds:
<<
This is true. Islamic extremism and extremists do not represent the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.
>>

Setst RE: That does not matter. Even if most Muslims live in hypocrisy that does not exclude Islamic extremists (the fundamentals) as representing what they feel is the only true Religion of Islam – according to their sacred books of Islam.

I am a fundamental Christian. I realize most Christians are basically in name only – they don’t actually deny self and follow Jesus. I don’t believe liberal Christians are saved, because either you give Jesus all of you as Jesus commanded, or you are not in a saving relationship with Him. I realize that I am a minority of perhaps 10% to 25% of the Christian population, but that does not mean I am now non-Christian because I truly believe in Jesus and all the Scriptures. The 90% to 75% liberal Christians who do not really follow Jesus are likely the ones who are not actually Christians – as in saved.

In like manner, I do not think it is fair of you to label the Muslims who truly submit to Islam and follow Muhammad as expressed in Sharia – the traditional or orthodox or fundamental Muslims – as non-Muslim or not really Islam because they do not represent the majority who are liberal. And that is the danger.

Why dangerous? Although fewer in number, the traditional, orthodox and fundamental Muslims are the one’s who are motivated and committed to Jihad against unbelievers and creative ways to bring the world under Sharia – including the liberal Muslims to do their bidding. That is why we see so many extremist groups in the world, and so much Islamic terrorism. But that is only part of it. There is also social and political Jihad.

If you have been reading the news, then you know the ways the Islam is invading the West…

politically (through laws and influencing officials),
socially (through schools, universities, social media)
Islamic organizations (used as a tool to bring the West into compliance with Islamic demands)
Sensorship
Threats
Demonstrations
Physical violence
Terrorism

The Sharia Law justifies the following actions to squash resistance (in stages) to its agenda against unbelievers: as follows:

Reliance of The Traveler (Sharia Law)
q5.0 The Act Of Censuring (others)
q5.1 The censure has various degrees of severity:
q5.3 Explaining That Something Is Wrong
q5.4 Forbidding The Act Verbally
q5.5 Censuring With Harsh Words
q5.6 Righting The Wrong By Hand “such as by breaking musical instruments”
q5.7 Intimidation by making realistic threats
q5.8 Assault “to directly hit or kick the person”
q5.9 Force of arms “when one is unable to censure the act by oneself and requires the armed assistance of others”.

As Sharia Law indicates, Muslims will add to this, when necessary, threats of harm, demonstrations, terrorism, suicide attacks, killings, rapings, bombings, et cetra, until they accomplish their goal of crushing the threat against their purpose of conquering that country for Islam. The actions grow ever more severe as Muslims gain greater numbers, dominance and power in infidel lands. And it works.

That is why although fewer in number, fundamental Islamic Muslims are a far greater threat.

As long as Islamic sources teach it, there will always be Islamic extremists. That is the Danger!!!

Many “extreme” Islamic countries, organizations, groups and persons exist that pose a threat to the infidel world.

The West calls them extreme, but to those Muslims practicing their faith, they do not consider their faith to Allah extreme – this represents the orthodox, traditional, historic and fundamental Islam.

setst777 said: ↑
The "expert" sources you previously quoted were used by you to "prove" that:

extremism and terrorism are caused by social factors, and have little, or nothing, to do with religion.
Islamic extremism and terrorism do not represent Islam
extremist groups have nothing to do with Muslims
terrorism is described by the “experts” you used in vague, cryptic, abstract ways without mentioning Islam as the cause of most terrorism.

You agreed with your previous sources (as I outlined above) as follows:

3:07 am July 20, 2019, Saturday
<<
Joseph writes: Experts in the field of terrorism and counter terrorism have found that the countries that experience high levels of terrorism also share one or more of the following characteristics: occupation, authoritarianism, repression, tyranny, and/or corruption and when it comes to terrorism and violent extremism, it's historical and political factors, not religious or even militant religious ideologies that are the primary driving forces.
>>

July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
<<
Joseph writes: I've witnessed first hand what extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam is capable of doing and the affects it has on people's lives. I can say with confidence that those promoting these actions and those carrying them out do not represent true Islam or the followers of Islam.
>>

July 7 2019, Thusday 4:41 am
<<
Joseph writes: Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a. Once again, your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.
>>

Now, you disagree with your previous experts and are now agreeing with me.

Setst RE: You presently disagree with your original “experts.” You are now agreeing with almost everything I have been warning about all along.

Joseph responds:
<<
While Islamic terrorism has been the predominant type in recent years, the religion of Islam is not the cause of most terrorism.
>>

Setst RE: Your response is obviously false. Your recent experts and Yahya show that Islamic terrorism is part of the religion of Islam.

You would have to neglect the fact that Jihad is occurring in almost every infidel nation at this time by numerous Muslims and Islamic organizations, and Mosques - politically, socially, and physically.

Yahya disagrees with you: Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.

Just in terrorist attacks alone,

Islam produces 10,000 times more terrorist attacks than all terrorist attacks in the world combined. Terrorism

The reason you hold this view is because you describe the “religion of Islam” as referring only to moderate and liberal Muslims – a view which disagrees with Dr. Bale and all of my Six Witnesses, all of which you said you agreed with.

Continued...

setst777 · Jul 25, 2019

JosephZ said:
What you just quoted didn't change anything he said or how I interpreted it. Maybe you should send him an email and ask for further clarification.

Hi Joseph

Here is what you wrote showing your narrow definition of the Religion of Islam that excludes all but the most liberal Muslims…

July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
<<
Joseph wrote: I've witnessed first hand what extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam is capable of doing and the affects it has on people's lives. I can say with confidence that those promoting these actions and those carrying them out do not represent true Islam or the followers of Islam.
>>

July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
<<
Joseph wrote: What you fear is Islamic extremism, it's not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.
>>

July 7 2019, Thusday 4:41 am
<<
Joseph wrote: Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a. Once again, your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.
>>

July 7 2019, Sunday 12:16 pm
<<
Joseph wrote: Of course these Islamic materials are found in the camps of terrorists groups. They are used by those in leadership positions to indoctrinate the rank and file members of these groups who are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam into following their extremist sect of Islam.
>>

Your views of Islam contradict Dr. Bale and the Six Witnesses I provided – all of which you said you agreed with.

“There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. [Yahya]”

“Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity. [Yahya]”

“But traditional Islam — which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims — is an important factor. [Yahya]”

setst777 said: ↑
Now you disagree with your original “experts.”

Joseph responds:
<<
I don't disagree with them at all.
>>

Setst RE: So you say. The evidence speaks for itself.

setst777 said: ↑
Many Muslims" believe the same thing - that Sharia represents the immutable laws of Allah.

“Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states.” [Yahya]

Joseph responds:
<<
Yes, many Wahhabists and fundamentalist Muslims.
>>

Setst RE: No Joseph, "Many Muslims." Read it again.

Sharia is for all Islam – that is the definition of Sharia in Islam for all Muslims - not just Wahhabist and fundamentalists - LOOK....

Sharia (/ʃəˈriːə/, Arabic: شريعة‎ [ʃaˈriːʕa]), Islamic law or Sharia law is a religious law forming part of the Islamic tradition.[1] It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith. In Arabic, the term sharīʿah refers to God's immutable divine law and is contrasted with fiqh, which refers to its human scholarly interpretations.[2][3][4] The manner of its application in modern times has been a subject of dispute between Muslim fundamentalists and modernists.[5][1]
Sharia - Wikipedia

setst777 said: ↑
Sharia has already been interpreted by Suni and Shia sects of Islam. These interpretations of Sharia are called “figh.” "Reliance of the Traveller” is the figh of Sharia for the Shafii School of Suni. If most Muslims do not appear to understand Sharia as defined by their sect of Islam, that does not mean Sharia is up to democratic election as to what it means. Sharia has already been defined by the Jurists.
Click to expand...

setst777 said: ↑
The one interpretation of Sharia that I am most familiar with is called, “Reliance of the Traveller” of the Shafii School – a Figh Manual of Sharia.

Joseph replies:
<<
How can this be when you earlier stated that you had never read Reliance of the Traveler?
>>

Setst RE: I refer to a free online version in PDF for my studies and I also have a copy of it on my computer in text form. The text form that I have includes an English translation of the slavery laws, which I quoted to you in one of my posts because you said slavery was not part of Sharia. I have not read the book I have at home. My quotes to you were from “Reliance of the Traveller.”

I wrote about Sharia so you would know enough about Sharia to stop calling Sharia “Wahhabism.”

Joseph continues:
<<
The reason I know this is because the only parts of the books that have been given as evidence by either of you in this thread are the same cherry picked sentences and paragraphs that the anti-Islamic websites share.
>>

Setst RE: What you think you know, and what actually is, are two different things.

setst777 said: ↑
You disagreed, regarding said “Jihad” by Islam saying that this Jihad was limited to the 632 AD only, and Islam is only about peace now.

Joseph responds:
<<
I never said jihad was limited to 632AD. Can you show me where I have said this? I only said that your understanding of jihad is different than that of Muslims.
>>

Setst RE:
4:35 am July 11, 2019, Thursday
Joseph writes:
<<
Qur'an 5:3 was the final revelation to Muhammad.
Today, those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion, so do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My favor upon you, and have approved Islam as a religion for you.

This came when the enemies of Islam had given up hope in fighting against Islam and Allah gave assurance that Muslims no longer need to fear them. From that point forward Islam was to be spread through Daʿwah. Which means rather than use violence, Muslims are to invite others by sharing the message of Islam
>>

4:35 am July 11, 2019, Thursday
Joseph responds:
<<
The battles being referred to in Chapter 9 fulfilled their purpose over 1,400 years ago and are now a part of Islamic history.
>>

setst777 said: ↑
So, knowing Turkey’s history after just 11 months of just living there while in the military is astonishing.

Joseph responds:
<<
Learning the history of the country was part of the culture awareness training I received.
>>

Setst RE: Cultural awareness training, which I also went through, in no way gives you a complete history of Turkey or Erdogan and his views. Not even close. However, I really doubt you went through any cultural awareness training of any kind. You lack any meaningful knowledge about Islam or Sharia. You didn’t even know why Muslims dressed the way they do. Cultural awareness training should have explained at least that to you if you had really gone through such training, let alone 30 yrs.

Joseph writes:
<<
Yes, actions speak louder than words. What I observe in the Muslim world is much different than what you are portraying here and what I have read on many of the websites you have linked to. I suggest you take a break from the internet, do some traveling, and start interacting more with Muslims if you want to learn what Islam teaches and what Muslims believe.
>>

Setst RE: You don’t know my experience with Muslims. Most Muslims, when I put them on the spot from their own sources, confess that Jihad against unbelievers is part of their faith. And I have spoken to hundreds of Muslims.

What you observed is very limited. This is obvious, since you didn’t even know why Muslims dress the way they do. You have next to zero knowledge of Islam, the Religion of Islam, or Sharia. This is a fact that I have shown by your own responses. You think all true Muslims are all nice and accepting – only these represent Islam. And that Sharia promotes peace. That is not reality, as Dr. Bale and Yahya state.

July 7 2019, Thusday 4:41 am
<<
Joseph writes: Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a. Once again, your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.
>>

Yahya’s disagrees with you saying

1) the many Muslims understand that Sharia is the immutable Islamic laws,

2) that Sharia causes serious conflict with the legal system:

Many [not some, by many] Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states. [Yahya]

That pretty well crushes your claim of cultural awareness training or that vast experience with Muslims and 30 years of Islamic study.

July 5 2019, Thursday 8:58 pm
<<
Joseph writes: I've witnessed first hand what extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam is capable of doing and the affects it has on people's lives. I can say with confidence that those promoting these actions and those carrying them out do not represent true Islam or the followers of Islam.
>>

Yahya’s disagrees saying that terrorism is part of Islam, and those who don’t think so are basically ignorant:

“Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam. [Yahya]”

July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
<<
Joseph wrote: What you fear is Islamic extremism, it's not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

Yahya states just the opposite – who is right, you or Yahya?

Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam. [Yahya]

Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence … [Yahya]

July 7 2019, Sunday 12:16 pm
Joseph responds:
<<
Of course these Islamic materials are found in the camps of terrorists groups. They are used by those in leadership positions to indoctrinate the rank and file members of these groups who are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam into following their extremist sect of Islam.
>>

Yahya disagrees with you as follows:

Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam. [yahya]

Clearly terrorist are not ignorant of the true teachings of Islam. You are incorrect.

Dr. Bale disagrees with you as well – that perpetrators of such acts are very knowledgeable about the teachings of Islam from their own sources, and is one of many different interpretation of Islam’s sources.

"Ever since the jihadist terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, Western policy-makers, mainstream media organs, and even academicians have been reluctant to highlight the key role played by Islamist ideology in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks. This is all the more peculiar given that, as is typical of ideological extremists, the perpetrators of these attacks themselves openly and indeed proudly emphasize the central role played by their religious beliefs, specifically their strict, puritanical interpretations of Islamic scriptures (i.e., the Qur’an) and their supposed emulation of the exemplary words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (as recorded in the six canonical hadith collections), in motivating their violent actions. . .

. . .Yet in fact the exact opposite has occurred: the more acts of jihadist terrorism that are carried out, in which the perpetrators clearly reveal their ideological motivations, the more insistently key Western elites refuse to give credence to those motivations. . .

. . .Since then, however, various Western government officials and media outlets have instead repeatedly sought to banish the use of terms like “jihadist” and “Islamic terrorism” from public discourse, thereby effectively acting to conceal the core ideological motivations of our Islamist adversaries in an era characterized by explicitly ideological contestation and ideologically-motivated asymmetric warfare."

Ideology: An ideology is a collection of normative beliefs and values that an individual or group holds for other than purely epistemic reasons.[1]
Ideology - Wikipedia

July 7 2019, Sunday 12:16 pm
Joseph responds:
<<
Your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.
>>

Yahya states just the opposite:

Any attempt to create a unified Islamic state in the 21st century can only lead to chaos and violence … Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states. [Yahya]

So many errors in your reasoning that do not line up with what Islam actually teaches, what the experts actually state, and what qualified Islamic leaders and scholars state. You appear to disagree and agree with all the sources at the same time.

I hope to continue this discussion with you for the sake of all who may view this thread.

JosephZ · Jul 25, 2019

setst777 said:
Even if most Muslims live in hypocrisy that does not exclude Islamic extremists (the fundamentals) as representing what they feel is the only true Religion of Islam – according to their sacred books of Islam.

I am a fundamental Christian. I realize most Christians are basically in name only – they don’t actually deny self and follow Jesus. I don’t believe liberal Christians are saved, because either you give Jesus all of you as Jesus commanded, or you are not in a saving relationship with Him. I realize that I am a minority of perhaps 10% to 25% of the Christian population, but that does not mean I am now non-Christian because I truly believe in Jesus and all the Scriptures. The 90% to 75% liberal Christians who do not really follow Jesus are likely the ones who are not actually Christians – as in saved.

The above explains a lot, and also why you dodged my earlier questions.

JosephZ said:
Since you have been led to believe that Fundamentalist Islamic extremists are the only ones who are correct in their interpretation of Islam from what you have read from those sites, do you also believe that Independent Fundamental Baptists are the only denomination in Christianity that have it right?

JosephZ said:
I asked a simple question that can be answered with a Yes or No. Do you believe that Independent Fundamental Baptists are the only denomination in Christianity that have it right?

setst777 said:
You asked a simple question in order to attempt to use the answer to incorrectly correlate it to Islam. So the question is unethical. Note that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and teachers of the Law also tried to trick Lord Jesus similarly by their questions, and Jesus played such questions right back onto them.

Since you are a fundamentalist, you have the same mindset as those who follow Fundamentalist Islam and this explains your agreement with their interpretation of Islam rather than that of the vast majority. Just like them and their attitude towards the majority Muslim world, you feel that the vast majority of those proclaiming to be Christians are hypocrites/not true Christians.

setst777 said:
Question: Is orthodox, traditional Islam (which represents most Sunni Muslims) tolerant of people of other religions? If not, then they are not Muslims, according to you.

Most Sunni Muslims are not followers of Orthodox/Traditional Islam.

setst777 said:
Iran, Saudi Arabia, many of the Gulf states, Iraq, Jemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, and many Islamic groups and organizations, and others, are also part of the Religion of Islam, including all the Muslims who follow these traditional or fundamental Islamic doctrines. This is something you have no knowledge of, since you exclude them as being Muslims according to how you define a Muslim.

The percentage of Muslims that follow Islam the way you have been describing in this thread is somewhere around 5%. Most Muslims living in Iran, Saudi Arabia, many of the Gulf states, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, and Sudan would reject what you are saying here.

setst777 said:
Your recent expert [Dr. Bale] states that the terror attacks have EVERYTHING to do with religion…

"Ever since the jihadist terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, Western policy-makers, mainstream media organs, and even academicians have been reluctant to highlight the key role played by Islamist ideology in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks. This is all the more peculiar given that, as is typical of ideological extremists, the perpetrators of these attacks themselves openly and indeed proudly emphasize the central role played by their religious beliefs, specifically their strict, puritanical interpretations of Islamic scriptures (i.e., the Qur’an) and their supposed emulation of the exemplary words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (as recorded in the six canonical hadith collections), in motivating their violent actions.”

Like I said, you need to read more of Dr. Bale's work. Taking a single paragraph from a single piece of work to come to the conclusion that Dr. Bale says that that the terror attacks have EVERYTHING to do with religion is in error. Even that paragraph doesn't say that. What he is saying is that Islam plays a role in motivating Islamic terrorist attacks, which is true. There are also many other factors that play a role in what drives Islamic extremism many of which I have already pointed out to you.

setst777 said:
Just in terrorist attacks alone, Islam produces 10,000 times more terrorist attacks than all terrorist attacks in the world combined. Terrorism

You're a little bit off, it's closer to 2 to 3 times more and prior to 2010, Islamic extremists only accounted for around 10% of terrorist attacks being carried out globally. You believe that religion is the driving force behind the sudden and dramatic increase in Islamic terrorism, but looking at the chart below and knowing that almost all Islamic terrorism occurs in a handful of countries that are currently in a state of war or conflict, the actual reason is pretty obvious.

JosephZ · Jul 25, 2019

setst777 said:
You agreed with your previous sources (as I outlined above) as follows:
3:07 am July 20, 2019, Saturday
Joseph writes: Experts in the field of terrorism and counter terrorism have found that the countries that experience high levels of terrorism also share one or more of the following characteristics: occupation, authoritarianism, repression, tyranny, and/or corruption and when it comes to terrorism and violent extremism, it's historical and political factors, not religious or even militant religious ideologies that are the primary driving forces.

The above information comes from National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism whose director is William Braniff one of the experts I mentioned earlier.

setst777 said:
Yahya disagrees:
Western politicians should stop pretending that extremism and terrorism have nothing to do with Islam. There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. So long as we lack consensus regarding this matter, we cannot gain victory over fundamentalist violence within Islam.
Branif disagrees:
Caller: The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Are they in fact Islamic?
Braniff: Yes.
CALLER: So are they Islamic terrorists?
braniff: Yes.

setst777 said:
Your views of Islam contradict Dr. Bale and the Six Witnesses I provided – all of which you said you agreed with.
“There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. [Yahya]”
“Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity. [Yahya]”
“But traditional Islam — which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims — is an important factor. [Yahya]”
Now you disagree with your original “experts.”

You will see below from past posts I have made that I'm in agreement.

Joyousperson said:
If you read the above properly, Bale claimed "Islamism" is derived from
-core Islamic religious and legal doctrines.
-hence arguably legitimate
The author [Jeffrey Bale] then qualify his opinion and views, whilst the above are legitimate from the core core Islamic religious and legal doctrines, they are not the only possible interpretation.
Thus Jeffrey Bale admitted "Islamism" has something to do with Islam itself, the core Islamic religious and legal doctrines

JosephZ said:
I agree with Dr. Bale.

JosephZ said:
I don't separate Islamism from Islam and I agree with Dr. Bale when he says "Islamism is inconceivable without reference to Islam;" and in the same way, I will say that Christian extremism is inconceivable without reference to Christianity. One can not exist without the other.

Dr. Bale clearly disagrees with you as the following shows:

Islamism, [is] an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines... ‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism... ‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general... what the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations.

setst777 said:
So many errors in your reasoning that do not line up with what Islam actually teaches, what the experts actually state, and what qualified Islamic leaders and scholars state. You appear to disagree and agree with all the sources at the same time.

You have a problem with keeping things in context. Not only with Islamic texts and the experts I have sourced, but also with what I post. Just look at how you quoted several things I have said to make it appear that I'm contradicting myself in your past few posts. If this thread is read from start to finish in full context, anyone can see that my position is very consistent.

setst777 said:
I wrote about Sharia so you would know enough about Sharia to stop calling Sharia “Wahhabism.”

You are the one equating Shari'a to Wahhabism, not me. I have never equated Shari'a with Wahhabism.

setst777 said:
Cultural awareness training, which I also went through,

I was under the impression that you spent your whole life in the US.

setst777 said:
Interesting. I lived in the USA all my life

Anyway, what branch of the military were you in and what countries were you assigned to?

Joyousperson · Jul 25, 2019

setst777 said:
The religion of Islam includes traditional, fundamental, orthodox, ultra-orthodox, and yes, even what the West calls extremists, and also liberals and moderates.

Moderate or liberal Muslims fall under the umbrella of the religion of Islam, but they are not living in submission to Allah and His Messenger as found in Sharia – Allah’s Law – as interpreted by their own schools of jurisprudence (figh).

Setst RE: That does not matter. Even if most Muslims live in hypocrisy that does not exclude Islamic extremists (the fundamentals) as representing what they feel is the only true Religion of Islam – according to their sacred books of Islam.

I am a fundamental Christian. I realize most Christians are basically in name only – they don’t actually deny self and follow Jesus. I don’t believe liberal Christians are saved, because either you give Jesus all of you as Jesus commanded, or you are not in a saving relationship with Him. I realize that I am a minority of perhaps 10% to 25% of the Christian population, but that does not mean I am now non-Christian because I truly believe in Jesus and all the Scriptures. The 90% to 75% liberal Christians who do not really follow Jesus are likely the ones who are not actually Christians – as in saved.

In like manner, I do not think it is fair of you to label the Muslims who truly submit to Islam and follow Muhammad as expressed in Sharia – the traditional or orthodox or fundamental Muslims – as non-Muslim or not really Islam because they do not represent the majority who are liberal. And that is the danger.

Why dangerous? Although fewer in number, the traditional, orthodox and fundamental Muslims are the one’s who are motivated and committed to Jihad against unbelievers and creative ways to bring the world under Sharia – including the liberal Muslims to do their bidding. That is why we see so many extremist groups in the world, and so much Islamic terrorism. But that is only part of it. There is also social and political Jihad.

I like your point on this [mine];

Setst777 Wrote;
Moderate or liberal Muslims fall under the umbrella of the religion of Islam, but they are not living in [total or fuller] submission to Allah and His Messenger as found in Sharia – Allah’s Law – as interpreted by their own schools of jurisprudence (figh).
....

I am a fundamental Christian. I realize most Christians are basically in name only – they don’t actually deny self and follow Jesus. I don’t believe liberal Christians are saved, because either you give Jesus all of you as Jesus commanded, or you are not in a saving relationship with Him. I realize that I am a minority of perhaps 10% to 25% of the Christian population, but that does not mean I am now non-Christian because I truly believe in Jesus and all the Scriptures. The 90% to 75% liberal Christians who do not really follow Jesus are likely the ones who are not actually Christians – as in saved.

You are a truer Christian.
Note this thread of mine
Who is a Christian?

A Christian is a person who;

Believes in Jesus as son of God and his teachings [John 3:16, etc.],
is Baptized accordingly,
Surrender to God via Jesus as Son of God,
Entered into a personal covenant with God to comply with ALL of God's words in the Gospels [Jesus'] to the best of his/her ability.

In term of weightages, I understand 4 - entering into a personal covenant [divine contract] and establishing a personal relationship with God, is most critical which I would place at 75%. The covenant if not explicit is implied. Without a covenant [divine contract], then no true relationship is effected between God [& Jesus] and the believers.
Note: there are various forms of the concept of covenant, in this case, it is a personal covenant with God.

I believe, for you, 'liberal Christians' are those Christians who in name only based on birth, traditions, culture and other reasons.
The fortunate thing is the Christian God is a very strong pacifist, merciful and compassionate, thus will forgive those who are innocent.

Why I raised the above OP is to make it an analogy for 'Who is a Muslim'.
It is a very useful defense for Christians when Christianity is accused of being violent based on violent acts by so called Christians.

The Gospels may contain some negative elements but they are mild and are overridden by an overall pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies' which prohibit the fundamental Christians from being hating, evil and violent to non-Christians. Thus Christianity cannot be blamed for the acts of Christians which are not within the covenanted terms.

The expectation by Allah of Islam that a Muslim must enter into a personal covenant to establish a relationship is very explicit in the Quran, there are many such verses, one example, {in [mine]}

33:23. Of the believers [Muslims] are men who are true [SDQ; ṣadaqū] to that [Islam -essence of being Muslim] which they covenanted [3HD ʿāhadū] with Allah.
Some of them [truer Muslims] have paid their vow by death (in battle), and some of them [truer Muslims] still are waiting; and they [truer Muslims] have not altered in the least;

There are many verses in the Quran where Muslims are reminded of their personal covenant [via Shahada, etc.] with Allah, and they are exhorted to comply with the covenanted terms in the Quran [Ahadith] or else it is DOOM, FIRE, in HELL which is a very frightening thing thus compelling Muslims [critical %] to comply with the terrible evil and violent [to them is good] commands as a religious duty.

Point is, the Quran contains tons of evil and violent commands [to a Muslim = do good] which a truer Muslim is obligated to carry out as a religious duty per the terms of the personal covenant with Allah, else it would be Islamic Hell.

Joyousperson · Jul 25, 2019

JosephZ said:
Dr. Bale clearly disagrees with you as the following shows:

Islamism, [is] an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines... ‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism... ‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general... what the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations.

JosephZ wrote:
.....
what the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations.

That is my main beef with Dr. Bale.

It would appear you are blindly believing Dr. Bale's "widely shared interpretations" i.e. based on the sayings and actions of the majority of Muslims.

Note we have already argued "widely shared interpretations" in this case of Islam is not the most authentic. Authentic Islam cannot be decided by a democratic process that overrides Allah's original ideology.

Whilst Dr. Bale referred to authentic Islam, he never justify the grounds to support what he meant by authentic Islam. My presumption is Dr. Bale is very ignorant of what is in the Quran. it takes a lot of time to understand the Quran fully and thoroughly.
Thus whatever Dr. Bale asserted in relation to Islam, it is groundless and toothless, thus very shameful.

What is most authentic Islam is represented by the words of Allah, i.e. the 6236 verses in the Quran supported by the Ahadith which me, Sets777 and the other serious critiques of Islam [so-labelled anti-Islam-bashers ] have been relying to support our arguments all along.

You are contradicting yourself here where you agree with Dr. Bale that Islamism is part of Islam but elsewhere you show claims that terrorism has nothing to do with religions.

Joyousperson · Jul 25, 2019

Here is a talk by Dr. Jeffrey Bale, where he stated, it is stupid to insist the terrorism from Islamism has nothing to do with the ideology of Islam itself.

In this talk, Dr. Bale did mention the terrorist's reference to the ideology of Islam as represented by certain verses from the Quran, Ahadith, Sira but provided no examples nor details.
He stated Al Bagdadi of IS in his opening declaration contain 30-40 quotes from the Quran.

However where I differ with Dr. Bale is his insistence Islamism is only one extreme [a far right] interpretation of Islam. [24:00]
I have argued, Islamism is the default and closer interpretation of Allah's ideology of Islam which can be easily verified to the Quran [Ahadith and Sira] as demonstrated, e.g. the 3400++ of contemptuous verses against the non-believers.

What is critical here is Dr. Bale recognized the truth that at least Islamism is an integral part of Islam which he claimed is adopted by those on the "far-right of Islam".
I have also argued the far-right [the evil prone] of Islam comprised [conservatively] 20% or a pool of 320 million evil prone Muslims.

@25:00 Dr. Bale insisted the ideology of Islamic terrorists cannot be condemned as unislamic else the principles of takfir applies, i.e. it is sin for Muslims to call another Muslim [who had declared the Shahada], an apostate without valid divine basis.

In any case, as I had argued, no human can judge whether a Muslim's act is right or wrong, except Allah can judge on Judgment Day. Thus there in no divine recourse for the majority to counter the evil and violent acts of Islamist terrorists.
This culminates in a malignant STALEMATE Dilemma where the Islamist terrorist and evil doers can commit their good ethical Islamic based acts [evil and violent to the nons] as a religious duty forever.

That the ideology of Islam enable an unresolvable STALEMATE Dilemma that contribute to perennial evil and violent acts means the ideology of Islam itself is a threat to humanity, especially when WMDs are easily available.

The solution is thus to wean off the ideology of Islam since no humans on earth can resolve the STALEMATE Dilemma.

setst777 · Jul 26, 2019

JosephZ said:
The above information comes from National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism whose director is William Braniff one of the experts I mentioned earlier.

Hi Joseph

setst777 said: ↑
Even if most Muslims live in hypocrisy that does not exclude Islamic extremists (the fundamentals) as representing what they feel is the only true Religion of Islam – according to their sacred books of Islam.

I am a fundamental Christian. I realize most Christians are basically in name only – they don’t actually deny self and follow Jesus. I don’t believe liberal Christians are saved, because either you give Jesus all of you as Jesus commanded, or you are not in a saving relationship with Him. I realize that I am a minority of perhaps 10% to 25% of the Christian population, but that does not mean I am now non-Christian because I truly believe in Jesus and all the Scriptures. The 90% to 75% liberal Christians who do not really follow Jesus are likely the ones who are not actually Christians – as in saved.

Click to expand...

Joseph responds: <<The above explains a lot…>>

Setst RE: I hope my example helps you understand that Muslims who truly follow their faith according to Sharia, although being in the minority, does not mean they are not Muslims, or not part of Islam, as you stated.

July 7 2019, Thusday 4:41 am
<<
Joseph writes: Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a.
>>

July 5 2019, Thursday 8:58 pm
<<
Joseph wrote: I've witnessed first hand what extremism and terrorism carried out in the name of Islam is capable of doing and the affects it has on people's lives. I can say with confidence that those promoting these actions and those carrying them out do not represent true Islam or the followers of Islam.
>>

July 5 2019, Thusday 8:58 pm
<<
Joseph wrote: What you fear is Islamic extremism, it's not the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.
>>

July 7 2019, Thusday 4:41 am
<<
Joseph responds: Some state governments and extremist groups may do this, but not Muslims. Muslims are kind, compassionate, and generous people like most others in the world and this is in large part because of Shari'a. Once again, your understanding of Shari'a is different than that of Muslims.
>>

July 7 2019, Sunday 12:16 pm
<<
Joseph responds: Of course these Islamic materials are found in the camps of terrorists groups. They are used by those in leadership positions to indoctrinate the rank and file members of these groups who are ignorant of the true teachings of Islam into following their extremist sect of Islam.
>>

Note: The statistics show, which I quoted several times, that terrorist are generally well educated, well paid, and come from good homes.

setst777 said: ↑
Iran, Saudi Arabia, many of the Gulf states, Iraq, Jemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, and many Islamic groups and organizations, and others, are also part of the Religion of Islam, including all the Muslims who follow these traditional or fundamental Islamic doctrines. This is something you have no knowledge of, since you exclude them as being Muslims according to how you define a Muslim.

Click to expand...

Joseph responds: The percentage of Muslims that follow Islam the way you have been describing in this thread is somewhere around 5%. Most Muslims living in Iran, Saudi Arabia, many of the Gulf states, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, and Sudan would reject what you are saying here.

Setst RE: The statistics I quoted show the percentage is far higher - over 50% of Muslims - want Sharia, and a very large number are in agreement with Sharia on Apostasy and Blasphemy.

setst777 said: ↑
Your recent expert [Dr. Bale] states that the terror attacks have EVERYTHING to do with religion…

"Ever since the jihadist terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, Western policy-makers, mainstream media organs, and even academicians have been reluctant to highlight the key role played by Islamist ideology in motivating jihadist terrorist attacks. This is all the more peculiar given that, as is typical of ideological extremists, the perpetrators of these attacks themselves openly and indeed proudly emphasize the central role played by their religious beliefs, specifically their strict, puritanical interpretations of Islamic scriptures (i.e., the Qur’an) and their supposed emulation of the exemplary words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (as recorded in the six canonical hadith collections), in motivating their violent actions.” [Bale]

Click to expand...

Joseph responds:
<<
Like I said, you need to read more of Dr. Bale's work.
>>

Setst RE: Cop out. That was YOUR source I quoted from. The burden is on you to show that Bale refuted his own clear analysis in the above paragraph quoted.

setst777 wrote:
The “experts” you previously quoted and the experts you now quote are stating the exact opposite.

Joseph responds:
<<
No, they are not.
>>

Setst RE: Yes they are, and I gave ample evidence from your own posts quoted alongside the actual experts that you stated just the opposite.

setst777 quoted Joseph as follows:
extremism and terrorism are caused by social factors, and have little, or nothing, to do with religion.

Joseph responds:
<<
Dr. Bale and Dr Brannif would agree to this statement if it were worded that most extremism and terrorism are caused by social factors, and have little, or nothing, to do with the religion of Islam its self. The consensus among experts is overwhelming.
>>

Setst RE: No they wouldn’t. I quoted Dr. Bale. Dr. Bale leaves no room for any other view – but plainly states that Islamic terrorism is directly motivated by their religion.

setst777 quotes Joseph as follows:
Islamic extremism and terrorism do not represent Islam

Joseph responds:
<<
This is true. Islamic extremism and extremists do not represent the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.
>>

Setst RE: Yes they do. According to Yahya and Bale, both extremists and other Muslims represent the same religion – Islam. That is what they stated. You strongly disagreed in your previous quotes. I quoted your earlier statements alongside the most recent experts.

setst777 wrote:
extremist groups have nothing to do with Muslims

Joseph responds:
<<
Not sure where you got this from, but of course some Muslims do join extremist groups.
>>

Setst RE: Yes they do. And Islamic extremists are Muslims. You strongly refused to recognize this earlier. I quoted your earlier statements alongside the most recent experts.

setst777 wrote:
terrorism is described by the “experts” you used in vague, cryptic, abstract ways without mentioning Islam as the cause of most terrorism.

Joseph responds:
<<
While Islamic terrorism has been the predominant type in recent years, the religion of Islam is not the cause of most terrorism.
>>

Setst RE: False again. Islamic terrorism is by far the leading cause of terrorism throughout the world. I gave you the statistics – about 10,000 times higher. You are defining past wars as terrorism. Even if you include these wars, your statistics don't include the many wars by Islam in the first 150 years in which they conquered ¾ of Europe, and subdued much of Africa. And the many wars and terrorist acts since then in Islam’s 1400 years of Jihad.

setst777 wrote:
Now you disagree with your original “experts.”

Joseph responds:
<<
I don't disagree with them at all.
>>

Setst RE: Not “at all?” My six witnesses, which you said you agree with, disagree with almost all of your previous “experts” and your opinions in the ways I detailed in my last few posts – quoting you as evidence alongside the quotes of the most recent experts that you say you agree with.

setst777 wrote:
Yes, the two experts you presently quote disagree with all your earlier arguments and they agree with me.

Joseph responds:
<<
You need to read more of their research.
>>

Setst RE: That is a cop out. You provided me your research data, and we discussed it with the most recent experts which you agreed with. I detailed everything in the previous posts, comparing your own quotes with the expert quotes, side by side.

setst777 wrote:
You misrepresent their positions, and the positions of the experts I used and the ones you used. Where do they ever make the distinction between Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow?

Joseph responds:
<<
"Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism, an intrinsically radical modern Islamic political ideology... Dr. Jeffry Bale
>>

Setst RE: Yes, I quoted his research, and I quoted the six witnesses which you agreed with. Yet, when I compared your own quotes alongside Bale and Yahya and others in my previous messages, we see that your opinions contradict these witnesses.

setst777 wrote:
Sharia has already been interpreted by Suni and Shia sects of Islam. These interpretations of Sharia are called “figh.” "Reliance of the Traveller” is the figh of Sharia for the Shafii School of Suni. If most Muslims do not appear understand Sharia as defined by their sect of Islam, that does not mean Sharia is up to democratic election as to what it means. Sharia has already been defined by the Jurists.

setst777 wrote:
The one interpretation of Sharia that I am most familiar with is called, “Reliance of the Traveller” of the Shafii School – a Figh Manual of Sharia.

Joseph replies:
<<
How can this be when you earlier stated that you had never read Reliance of the Traveler?
>>

Setst RE: I already responded. Being familiar with a source, does not have to mean you read the whole text of the source. Didn't you know that?

Have you fully read all the material your quotes come from? What about Bale? Did you read the whole work on the subject? Did you completely read the whole of every source you quoted from?

For example:

If you say you did, then how come you didn't know what Sharia was?

Why did you not know why Muslims dress the way they do?

Why all the inconsistencies and contradictions of you statements and earlier sources from your most recent statements and sources?

Joseph then quotes the forward of Shari Shafii.

Setst RE: I read it. What is your point?

setst777 wrote
You disagreed, regarding said “Jihad” by Islam saying that this Jihad was limited to the 632 AD only, and Islam is only about peace now.

Joseph responds:
<<
I never said jihad was limited to 632AD. Can you show me where I have said this? I only said that your understanding of jihad is different than that of Muslims.
>>

Setst RE: Yes you did. I already responded with quotes from YOU. If you don’t like what you write then why do you write it?

setst777 wrote:
You agreed with your previous sources (as I outlined above) as follows:

<<
3:07 am July 20, 2019, Saturday
Joseph writes: Experts in the field of terrorism and counter terrorism have found that the countries that experience high levels of terrorism also share one or more of the following characteristics: occupation, authoritarianism, repression, tyranny, and/or corruption and when it comes to terrorism and violent extremism, it's historical and political factors, not religious or even militant religious ideologies that are the primary driving forces.
>>

setst777 wrote:
Your views of Islam contradict Dr. Bale and the Six Witnesses I provided – all of which you said you agreed with.

“There is a clear relationship between fundamentalism, terrorism, and the basic assumptions of Islamic orthodoxy. [Yahya]”

“Within the classical tradition, the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is assumed to be one of segregation and enmity. [Yahya]”

“But traditional Islam — which fosters an attitude of segregation and enmity toward non-Muslims — is an important factor. [Yahya]”

setst777 said: ↑
Now you disagree with your original “experts.”

Joseph responds:
<<
You will see below from past posts I have made that I'm in agreement.

JosephZ wrote:
I don't separate Islamism from Islam and I agree with Dr. Bale when he says "Islamism is inconceivable without reference to Islam;" and in the same way, I will say that Christian extremism is inconceivable without reference to Christianity. One can not exist without the other.
>>

setst RE: Your recent posts show you disagree with your earlier quotes. I quoted many of those statement earlier in this same post. See near the beginning of the post.

Setst RE
clearly disagrees with you as the following shows:

Islamism, [is] an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines... ‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism... ‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general... what the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations.

Joseph wrote:
<<
You have a problem with keeping things in context. Look at how you quoted several things I have said to make it appear that I'm contradicting myself in your past few posts. If this thread is read from start to finish in full context, anyone can see that my position is very consistent.
>>

Setst RE: I quoted your own comments alongside what Bale, Yahya and others state. Nothing was out of context. Bale does not have the authority to say who’s interpretation is more authentic, only which is more popular by statistics. You clearly disagree with Bale and Yahya. Look again at the last few posts I sent you.

setst777 wrote:
"Many Muslims" believe the same thing I have been trying to teach you - that Sharia represents the immutable laws of Allah.

Josesph responds:
<<
Yes, many Wahhabists and fundamentalist Muslims.
>>

Setst RE: ALL Islam. That is the definition of Sharia for ALL Islam.

setst777 wrote:
I wrote about Sharia so you would know enough about Sharia to stop calling Sharia “Wahhabism.”

Joseph responds:
<<
You are the one equating Shari'a to Wahhabism, not me.
>>

Setst RE: Ad Homonym attack. Never stated that in any of my posts. In contrast, you continually referred to all quotes about Sharia, or Sharia itself, as “Wahhabism.”

In fact, you just called the definition of Sharia as “Wahhabism.” in the above, and I quote again…

***
setst777 wrote:
"Many Muslims" believe the same thing I have been trying to teach you - that Sharia represents the immutable laws of Allah.

Josesph responds:
Yes, many Wahhabists and fundamentalist Muslims.
***

Note: You are disagreeing with the definition of Sharia and also Yahya…

“Many Muslims assume there is an established and immutable set of Islamic laws, which are often described as shariah. This assumption is in line with Islamic tradition, but it of course leads to serious conflict with the legal system that exists in secular nation-states. [Yahya]”

Notice the “Many Muslims” are expressing what is in line with “Islamic tradition” – NOT Wahhabism.

JosephZ · Jul 26, 2019

setst777 said:
False again. Islamic terrorism is by far the leading cause of terrorism throughout the world. I gave you the statistics – about 10,000 times higher.

Like I said earlier, you are way off with that 10,000 figure. The actual numbers have been around 2 to 3 times higher in recent years and prior to 2010, other ideologies were higher than that of extremist Islam.

setst777 said:
You are defining past wars as terrorism.

Wars are not acts of terrorism. Below is the definition of terrorism I go by:

"The threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation."

And this is my preferred source to get data on acts of terrorism: Global Terrorism Database

I'm not sure what definition you are using to come to the conclusion that Islamic terrorism is about 10,000 times higher than other ideologies, but that is not even being realistic using any recognized definition of terrorism or by any stretch of the imagination.

setst777 said:
You misrepresent their positions, and the positions of the experts I used and the ones you used. Where do they ever make the distinction between Islamic extremism and the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow?

I showed you. You can either accept what I presented or not.

setst777 said:
I already responded. Being familiar with a source, does not have to mean you read the whole text of the source. Didn't you know that?

When you say the one interpretation of Sharia that you are most familiar with is called, Reliance of the Traveller, and at the same time say you haven't read it, that only goes to show how limited your knowledge is on this subject.

What's important to note is that Reliance of the Traveller is one single source on Islamic law out of literally hundreds, yet you are taking it as gospel.

Reliance of the Traveler is an abridged legal manual. It is not an easy book to read and it's not the definite or the final authority on Islamic law, nor is it recognized as such by Islamic scholars.

Have you ever been in a lawyers office? They have tons of books on their bookshelves to instruct them how laws were intended to be used, case studies, court rulings, etc. The reliance of the Traveler is just one book that Islamic legal scholars, attorneys, and judges use to help them on the subjects of law based on the history of Islam, the Qur'an, and the Hadiths. A non-Muslim reading this book without a solid background in Islamic studies and understanding of Islam will surely misinterpret what is written. How can a non-Muslim like yourself with no formal background in Islam, Islamic history, or law be expected to properly interpret everything written in an ancient 1200+ page Islamic law book?

I can't stress enough that it is only one book of many on Islamic law. What's more, it's only an abridged legal manual.

setst777 said:
Have you fully read all the material your quotes come from? What about Bale? Did you read the whole work on the subject? Did you completely read the whole of every source you quoted from?

I'm very familiar with most of the sources I have provided in this thread especially those that originated from experts in the field of Terrorism and Violent extremism. I have listened to their lectures, read their research papers, and in the case of William Braniff, I have taken several courses offered by his organization, some of which contained resources from Dr. Bale.

setst777 said:
If you say you did, then how come you didn't know what Sharia was?

I know what Shari'a is. Disagreeing with your personal understanding of it doesn't mean that I don't know what it is. I can tell you this though. Reliance of the Traveler is not Shari'a law.

setst777 said:
Why did you not know why Muslims dress the way they do?

Once again, we simply disagree on this matter.

setst777 said:
I quoted your own comments alongside what Bale, Yahya and others state. Nothing was out of context.

What you have done in your last post is a perfect example of taking things out of context. Quoting single sentences from people out of works or comments that involve several paragraphs or pages doesn't give a complete picture of what is being said or the intent of the individual.

setst777 said:
...

Your entire post came across as a rant and was very difficult to follow. If anything it's proof that you take things out of context. I also feel that you are having difficulty comprehending what you read from me and others. There were so many misrepresentations of what I and others have said in that post that I really didn't know where to start. I would suggest you reread this thread from beginning to try and get a better understanding of what I have been saying.

Joyousperson · Jul 26, 2019

setst777 said:
setst777 quoted Joseph as follows:
extremism and terrorism are caused by social factors, and have little, or nothing, to do with religion.

Joseph responds:
Dr. Bale and Dr Brannif would agree to this statement if it were worded that most extremism and terrorism are caused by social factors, and have little, or nothing, to do with the religion of Islam its self. The consensus among experts is overwhelming.

setst777 quotes Joseph as follows:
Islamic extremism and terrorism do not represent Islam

Joseph responds:
This is true. Islamic extremism and extremists do not represent the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

Joseph responds:
While Islamic terrorism has been the predominant type in recent years, the religion of Islam is not the cause of most terrorism.

The following are from the above post;

JosephZ wrote;
setst777 quoted Joseph as follows:
extremism and terrorism are caused by social factors, and have little, or nothing, to do with religion.

Joseph responds:
Dr. Bale and Dr Brannif would agree to this statement if it were worded that most extremism and terrorism are caused by social factors, and have little, or nothing, to do with the religion of Islam its self. The consensus among experts is overwhelming.

setst777 quotes Joseph as follows:
Islamic extremism and terrorism do not represent Islam

Joseph responds:
This is true. Islamic extremism and extremists do not represent the religion of Islam that the vast majority of the world's Muslims follow.

Joseph responds:
While Islamic terrorism has been the predominant type in recent years, the religion of Islam is not the cause of most terrorism.

JosephZ,

From my discussion with you in other threads [some deleted], your initial and default view is Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, evil and violent acts committed by SOME Muslims.

That was until I introduced Dr. Jeffrey Bale's view into the picture where you relented to some degree but at times you wavered and fell back to your default view, i.e. religion of Islam has nothing to do with terrorism by SOME Muslims.

From the video above and articles of Dr. Jeffrey Bale, he insisted strongly it is foolish, stupid and nonsensical for any one to claim Islamic terrorism, i.e. Islamism [as defined] is unislamic or has nothing to do with Islam. He specifically mentioned people like Obama, Cameron, Bush and other world leaders and of course any one who has such a stupid belief.

Incidentally, the video of Dr. Bale was from of a conference on the Apocalyptic Element of Jihad and Islamic Terrorism, and the positive assertions would bring Islamic terrorism closer to religion and eschatology.

Here are the list of many videos from that conference.
The Apocalyptic Element of Jihad and Islamic Terrorism
Mike Grimm (note the earlier videos, not the later personal ones)

Islamic eschatology is the aspect of Islamic theology concerning ideas of life after death, matters of the soul, and the "Day of Judgement," known as Yawm al-Qiyāmah(Arabic: يوم القيامة‎, IPA: [jawmu‿l.qijaːma], "the Day of Resurrection") or Yawm ad-Dīn (يوم الدين, Arabic pronunciation: [jawmu‿d.diːn], "the Day of Judgment").[1]
The Day of Judgement is characterized by the annihilation of all life, which will then be followed by the resurrection and judgment by God. It is not specified when al-Qiyamah will happen, ...
Islamic eschatology - Wikipedia

The above views reinforce my thesis that the religion element carry a critical weight [80%] as a cause of Islamic Terrorism and other evil & violent acts by SOME [20% pool] Muslims.

Note my thesis is very logical and rational, i.e.
if there is no ideology of Islam, there will not be Islamic related terrorism [ZERO!] which compel Muslims from all over the world to share the same ideals to kill non-Muslims, even for drawing cartoons of Prophet Muhammad.

Joyousperson · Jul 26, 2019

JosephZ said:
Like I said earlier, you are way off with that 10,000 figure. The actual numbers have been around 2 to 3 times higher in recent years and prior to 2010, other ideologies were higher than that of extremist Islam.

Wars are not acts of terrorism. Below is the definition of terrorism I go by:

"The threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non-state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation."

And this is my preferred source to get data on acts of terrorism: Global Terrorism Database

I'm not sure what definition you are using to come to the conclusion that Islamic terrorism is about 10,000 times higher than other ideologies, but that is not even being realistic using any recognized definition of terrorism or by any stretch of the imagination.
...

Your above is a straw man, i.e. out of context in relation to Islam.

What is intended within this OP is in relation to all, the whole gamut and range of evil and violent acts committed by a certain % of Muslims who were compelled and inspired by their religious obligations and duty.

It is obvious, acts of terrorism would definitely get the most attention from people, but there is a whole load of evil and violent acts committed by SOME Muslims on non-Muslims.

Thus wars, conquests, etc. by Muslims are part of the whole gamut of evil acts by Muslims.

Note this from the Quran;

2:191. And slay [wa qtulouhum] them [infidels] wherever ye [you] find them [infidels], and drive them [infidels] out of the places whence they [infidels] drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter.
.... ....

It would be same for other humans, i.e. the long term persecutions, oppression, suppression of human rights of the non-Muslims are as important if not more important than the killings.

Do Not Bash Muslims

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency