Fantastic Discussion about Islam and other Religions

[Brant Gaede]

My personal attitude about Muslims reforming Islam is I don't care. That is, they'll do it or not. I'm not into reforming anything religious myself so it rings no bells for me. Culturally I'm a complete WASP. This puts me somewhat at odds with Catholics. Also, even further, from Jews. But I'm so far away from "submission" and praying five times a day and spreading my religion by the sword I feel that my tribe is almost everyone who is not a member of that tribe, even communists (but not Nazis or the extinct Italian fascists of ill dupie).

That said, when you get into details that breaks down. Sunni ISIS are right now murdering other Sunnis who don't submit. In that sense, emotionally, I want to fight the former respecting the latter. This means my tribe is actually everyone who isn't ISIS. But the multiplicity of these tribal defaults again breaks down or changes when I consider the rulers of Iran and put them in my "OUT" box. In that sense I'm like Barry Goldwater who once suggested lobbing one into the men's room in the Kremlin.

--Brant

unemployed soldier contemplating targets

Well said Brant.

Why the separation of the National Socialists from the Communists?

A...

target spotter...

Emotionally I just gun down every Nazi being a Nazi (Jew killer) just as emotionally I gun down every ISIS being an ISIS. When the Nazi surrenders (not the common German soldier) I hit him with the butt of my gun knocking him down unconscious and let the medics haul him away. When the ISIS fighter surrenders--if I don't know him as a massacre-maker--I'll accept that conventionally: food, water, medical care. As for the communists, it's which communists. Pol Pot gets roasted in a pot, others, not (necessarily). I'm sorry, but I'm so pissed off at what the Nazis did to the Jews I just run over the lot of them and as for Hitler, he'd get special consideration. Maybe what they used to do with regicides in France or how some captives of a certain American Indian tribe were skinned alive for sport.

--Brant

obviously I'm all fucked up inside

[Selene]

Emotionally I just gun down every Nazi being a Nazi (Jew killer) just as emotionally I gun down every ISIS being an ISIS. When the Nazi surrenders (not the common German soldier) I hit him with the butt of my gun knocking him down unconscious and let the medics haul him away. When the ISIS fighter surrenders--if I don't know him as a massacre-maker--I'll accept that conventionally: food, water, medical care. As for the communists, it's which communists. Pol Pot gets roasted in a pot, others, not (necessarily). I'm sorry, but I'm so pissed off at what the Nazis did to the Jews I just run over the lot of them and as for Hitler, he'd get special consideration. Maybe what they used to do with regicides in France or how some captives of a certain American Indian tribe were skinned alive for sport.

--Brant

obviously I'm all fucked up inside

Well then we both are.

I have absolutely no problem conducting myself that way in those situations.

A...

[Selene]

Reading Tony and William's exchange I became curious myself....

Muslims in Europe Rally Against Extremist Violence

Islam Against Extremism

German Muslim Community Announces Protest Against Extremism

Muslims March on Saudi Embassy to Protest Extremism

Thks D for the links.

Just had time to check the middle two.

The "Extremism" one seems way off the wall.

I would love to get Angela's perspective on the other one:

The Association of Islamic Cultural Centers (Verband der Islamischen Kulturzentren e.V., VIKZ) is a national Islamic umbrella organization promoting Islamic faith and cultural identity throughout Germany. Representing over 300 mosques, the VIKZ identifies with the Süleymaniclar, a Turkish sect of Islam. The organization is known for prioritizing the Islamic education of Muslim youth born in Germany, and in 2003 it opened an Islamic boarding school in Duisburg to this end. VIKZ has belonged to the Coordination Council of Muslims (Koordinierungsrat der Muslime, KRM), a larger umbrella group representing Islam vis-à-vis the German government, since the latter's launch in 2007. First established in Cologne, VIKZ expanded into a national organization in 1980.

A...

[dldelancey]

Adam, do you mean the second one, Islam Against Extremism, seems off the wall? I didn't take a lot of time with that one, but it is definitely not like the other 3 links. The other 3 are news stories, but that one appears to be some sort of activism site.

My point in the search was to find examples of groups of Muslims who are publicly and in large numbers demonstrating their disagreement with the likes of ISIS. Tony said that isn't happening, and William challenged that point. I wanted to check it out.

The first article I linked included a couple of points I found both interesting and enlightening. That's the CBSNews article dated 9/26/14. There was this:

An online poll posted by France's Le Figaro newspaper, asking whether people thought the country's Muslim community had sufficiently denounced Gourdel's death, drew an infuriated response. Rachida Dati, the mayor of Paris' 7th arrondissement and the daughter of Algerian immigrants, called for an end to the "confounding of Islam and fundamentalism, as the French political class has done for too long." The paper on Friday apologized for what it called a "clumsy" question.

Dati seems to be asking why Muslims should be any more active in denouncing extremism than any other group of people. I think that's a valid question to ask. If she doesn't see herself in them and finds that she has no more in common with them than, say, a Christian has in common with them, then why is she more responsible for speaking against them than the Christian?

And this:

Dawud Walid, director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said headlines about the Islamic State were often frustrating in his work. Walid said he's been speaking out against excessive force by police after the fatal shooting of a young black man in Ferguson, Missouri.

"I received calls and emails from fellow Americans who say, 'Why are you worried about what's going in Ferguson? Stop ISIS.' That is ridiculous," said Walid, a black Muslim.

"My primary responsibility as an American citizen is to try to make America more of a just place," Walid said. "People in Iraq and Syria can't even fix their own problems. What am I supposed to be doing from Detroit?"

Another valid question.

I'm not trying to argue a point here, just thinking out loud.

[Selene]

I'm not trying to argue a point here, just thinking out loud.

Neither am I.

A lot of us do that and it can be perceived as an argument.

I've been going over my memories of any interactions with Muslims.

My dad took me to Mosques in Brooklyn when I was five (5) and we broke bread with folks. I can completely see the

difference between a fanatic and a faithful Muslim.

I do not think it is difficult,

I think you point to some excellent questions.

A...

[Richard Wiig]

I understand where you're coming from because I grew up around bigots.

You want to say one thing and mean another and have CYA so you can say you are reasonable.

I had to look CYA up. No need to cover my arse. I have nothing to hide.

Like Maher.

Bigots package hatred as reason and play the victim when someone calls them out on it.

I think that would depend on the intelligence of the bigot, and on whether or not they were out to hide anything.

I (and readers) get bored quickly with simple you're wrong, no you're wrong, no you're wrong,

I didn't address you for the sake of any readers. I was just calling you out on your unjust treatment of Bill Maher.

I'm happy to let readers decide at this point--to let them think for themselves

Here's a thought experiment for any readers. Let's suppose that a just punishment for bigotry is capital punishment. In a court of law, who here could convict Bill Maher to death? I'll bet that no one here would be willing, other than you.

Your evidence seems to be that when he says, most Muslims support violence - which is what he concludes from the polls he cites - he really means, ALL muslims support violence. You even stress the ALL. You've taken what he said and changed it completely. That isn't objective, and it isn't fair.

Is there anyone here who would convict Mr Maher to death? I'm interested to know.

[Richard Wiig]

If she doesn't see herself in them and finds that she has no more in common with them than, say, a Christian has in common with them, then why is she more responsible for speaking against them than the Christian?

Because it is her faith that they are apparently abusing. What was very noticeable about those news links is how the responsibility is turned away from Muslims and onto Non-Muslims. The issue is ISIS and what it sees as the true Islam, not whether or not non-ISIS muslims feel pressured.

The first link, btw, is full of outright lies. Taqqiya for whoever is willing to sup it up.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a thought experiment for any readers. Let's suppose that a just punishment for bigotry is capital punishment. In a court of law, who here could convict Bill Maher to death? I'll bet that no one here would be willing, other than you.

Your evidence seems to be that when he says, most Muslims support violence - which is what he concludes from the polls he cites - he really means, ALL muslims support violence. You even stress the ALL. You've taken what he said and changed it completely. That isn't objective, and it isn't fair.

Is there anyone here who would convict Mr Maher to death? I'm interested to know.

I bet this guy is interested.

This is exactly how bigots think. They project their own spite on someone, then try to get others to join in as if this were reasonable.

Here's what I mean. I don't think anyone deserves to be executed for what they think.

Ever.

But bigots do.

That's why they project it on others.

Nobody I know on OL other than this bigot believes this, either. In fact, I find radical Islamism despicable because the fundamentalists actually do execute others for what they think. I suspect most OL readers agree with me.

If anyone is interested, the kind of rhetoric this guy did above is called a "double bind" in covert hypnosis. The manipulator gives you two alternatives to make it appear like you have a choice, but his real agenda is embedded in both. (In Objectivism, there is a similar concept called a false dichotomy. However, it is not treated as a manipulation tactic, but instead as an error in thinking.)

In the classic example when this is taught, if a manipulator wants to go out with a woman who does not necessarily want to go out with him, after he softens her up with distraction and getting her to admit she likes to eat out, etc., he asks, "So when do you want to meet, Friday night or is Tuesday good for you?" In both cases, the alternative is not: does she want to go out with him or refuse? It is: which day will she go out with him? The manipulator wins either way.

In the double bind in the Maher "let's suppose" thing above, the real idea driving it is that it is reasonable to kill people for what they think. The guy even uses the term "just punishment" for killing people for what they think, as if that could ever be just. (It can't.)

So the alternative he presents is: should Maher be killed or not as "just punishment" for what he thinks? If people say Maher should be killed in this instance, they accept a system where it is OK to kill humans for what they think. If they say Maher should not be killed in this instance, they still accept a system where it is OK to kill humans for what they think.

In both cases, they implicitly agree that it is OK to kill people for what they think.

If my pointing this out sounds a bit over-the-top right now because not even the bigot goes around shooting people for thinking something, let's project this into future arguments and start talking about nuking whole cities. The root of the justification for that starts by accepting it is OK to kill innocents because they think certain thoughts, so collateral damage from bombing (like women, children, sick and old) is not all that serious. In other words, using this standard, it's OK to kill them because they think the wrong things anyway.

(Sometimes innocents do have to get killed in war, but that is never a moral good or even morally neutral. It's always tragic.)

We have to reject the question itself to not fall into the trap of the double bind.

Notice that the bigot always has to rely on deception and manipulation (like using double binds) to spread his hatred. This is because reasonable people do not agree with hatred when facts are clear.

The CYA (cover you ass) thing simply means the bigot lies and flouts a qualification so he can sound reasonable. For instance, he means all Muslims, but qualifies it by crap like only Muslims who truly believe in Islam, not Muslims who are not really Muslims because they don't really practice Islam.

It's like a guy who came on OL once trying to make a distinction between lower-case and upper case to refer to blacks by the hated n-word. The lower case was supposed to be reasonable with no bigotry involved (so it should be OK to reinstate the word in normal conversation) and the upper case was supposed to refer to the stereotype. I think his exact phrase was, "to me, there are niggers and there are Niggers." It was a vile statement for a vile sentiment.

This CYA thing against Muslims is just as vile as an epistemological method for judging people, but it does not seem nearly as ugly as the black example right now because of the raw scary evil of the radical fundamentalists.

I reject this epistemology to qualify all targets of bigotry. This is not PC talk. This is a way of thinking, then trying to use trickery when expressing it to get the vile sentiment accepted by others as normal and reasonable.

In other words, it's all just bullshit to hide the bigotry of the manipulator.

CYA.

I'm glad the guy above is owning up to his own bigotry, though.

Honesty is a start.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A thought just occurred to me.

I bet if I go back and examine some of Sam Harris's arguments in the video at the start of this thread, I will find some double binds.

That's more time than I have right now, but it is an interesting thought for the next time I watch a similar long discussion.

Something to look out for.

Michael

[dldelancey]

If she doesn't see herself in them and finds that she has no more in common with them than, say, a Christian has in common with them, then why is she more responsible for speaking against them than the Christian?

Because it is her faith that they are apparently abusing. What was very noticeable about those news links is how the responsibility is turned away from Muslims and onto Non-Muslims. The issue is ISIS and what it sees as the true Islam, not whether or not non-ISIS muslims feel pressured.

The first link, btw, is full of outright lies. Taqqiya for whoever is willing to sup it up.

You missed her point. It is NOT her faith they are abusing. What they say is their faith does not resemble what she knows to be hers. From her perspective, what they profess is no more similar to her faith than it is to Christianity.

Please enumerate the lies in the article. If you're referring specifically to taqqiya, then one of us misunderstands what that means. Neither of the two quotes I pulled out were said by people who are denying their faith nor do either of them seem to be in fear for their lives.

In any case, it's really Tony I'm interested in hearing from on this topic, specifically if the actions described in those links are the kind of demonstration he wishes to be seeing from the Muslim community. And if so, what would be his response to the two Muslims quoted.

[Brant Gaede]

Nobody should be executed for what they think (or speak)? But it's metaphorically okay to do that to the bigot when he speaks what he thinks? (I agree with both these sentences, btw.) Note, though, we are really talking about speaking, not thinking. No way to get into the head that doesn't have those moving lips whatever might be implied by what the rest of the body does. (Release the police dogs!?) Failure to convert to ISIS means execution. The attempt to convert reveals bigotry, but before ISIS executes I drop a bomb on them for what they are thinking as expressed in their speech doing my own execution. Would this be exception making on my part? No, because I'm entitled to take ISIS at its word referencing its past conduct and likely future conduct as murderous bigots. I need not wait until they execute before I execute them not for their speech, actually, but what they have done and will do if I don't do it to them first.

--Brant

throws in some confusion

[anthony]

Adam, do you mean the second one, Islam Against Extremism, seems off the wall? I didn't take a lot of time with that one, but it is definitely not like the other 3 links. The other 3 are news stories, but that one appears to be some sort of activism site.

My point in the search was to find examples of groups of Muslims who are publicly and in large numbers demonstrating their disagreement with the likes of ISIS. Tony said that isn't happening, and William challenged that point. I wanted to check it out.

The first article I linked included a couple of points I found both interesting and enlightening. That's the CBSNews article dated 9/26/14. There was this:

An online poll posted by France's Le Figaro newspaper, asking whether people thought the country's Muslim community had sufficiently denounced Gourdel's death, drew an infuriated response. Rachida Dati, the mayor of Paris' 7th arrondissement and the daughter of Algerian immigrants, called for an end to the "confounding of Islam and fundamentalism, as the French political class has done for too long." The paper on Friday apologized for what it called a "clumsy" question.

Dati seems to be asking why Muslims should be any more active in denouncing extremism than any other group of people. I think that's a valid question to ask. If she doesn't see herself in them and finds that she has no more in common with them than, say, a Christian has in common with them, then why is she more responsible for speaking against them than the Christian?

And this:

Dawud Walid, director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said headlines about the Islamic State were often frustrating in his work. Walid said he's been speaking out against excessive force by police after the fatal shooting of a young black man in Ferguson, Missouri.

"I received calls and emails from fellow Americans who say, 'Why are you worried about what's going in Ferguson? Stop ISIS.' That is ridiculous," said Walid, a black Muslim.

"My primary responsibility as an American citizen is to try to make America more of a just place," Walid said. "People in Iraq and Syria can't even fix their own problems. What am I supposed to be doing from Detroit?"

Another valid question.

I'm not trying to argue a point here, just thinking out loud.

The essence is the scope, numbers and period of Radical Islamism. Are these responses proportionate?

The links you showed, demonstrate reactions by:

a. Muslims domiciled in western nations, already peaceful, with vested interests b. modest numbers of them c. and their response was to ISIS, the most clearly vicious of all terrorist groups.

What about all previous terrorism in the name of Islam for at least 30 years? What of the 1.3 billions of other Muslims? Am I unfair to expect at least 10%, 1.3 million, in rolling mass actions? Those are "large numbers". One or two demonstrations does not a movement make.

Here's the time for a complete reformation in Islam: the peaceful majority clearly distancing themselves from jihadism, terrorism and the more severe type of sharia law.

Snips:

"...the confounding of Islam and fundamentalism..."

"A crowd of about 500" [Paris]

"A cluster of American Muslim groups joined a protest at the Saudi embassy".

"We want to make it clear that terrorists do not speak in the name of Islam". [Good, but better late than never?]

"...prompted heartsick fury among Muslims in France and elsewhere in Europe, torn between anger at the atrocities committed in the name of Islam and frustration that they have to defend themseves at all". [i sympathize, but what do they expect?].

Deanna writes, reasonably: "Dati seems to be asking why Muslims should be any more active in denouncing extremism than any other group...I think that's a valid question..."

Perhaps because it is THEIR religion, D: one they supposedly care for deeply? And will not allow to be associated with other violent, so-called 'Muslims'? Anywhere in the world?

Much as, for example, a bunch somewhere of people loudly proclaiming themselves libertarian, but initiating force for gain and power- would doubtless draw unending excoriation from the real libertarians for reasons of truth, integrity and self-interest.

It IS a valid question, but she was also asked a valid question, too. That the paper withdrew it and apologized, is a mark of the political correctness France has sunk to.

Dati's answer for me was evasive and disingenuous.

"...any more active"? Certainly, Muslims should be, if they esteem Islam - but at least, no LESS "active".

(Keep in mind too, that many such French, British and German Muslims had no difficulty condemning not only Israel - but all Jews everywhere, protesting in great numbers and for a longer duration.

I.e. "Confounding" (of Judaism and 'Zionism') wasn't a problem then.

As I'm trying to say, the false dichotomy has loomed between a vile and irrational -collectivist- prejudice against all Muslims, indiscriminately; and that of unapologetically expecting from Muslims standards we [the West] expect of ourselves, and of any religions -- no free pass.

[Brant Gaede]

Timothy McVeigh had to raise money to blow up that Federal building in Oklahoma. Widespread terrorism, as opposed to this and that ad hoc attack--think the Boston Marathon--requires significant financing which is actually state sponsorship. Take the sponsoring states out of the equation and most of it dies on the (Muslim) vine.

--Brant

[Richard Wiig]

If she doesn't see herself in them and finds that she has no more in common with them than, say, a Christian has in common with them, then why is she more responsible for speaking against them than the Christian?

Because it is her faith that they are apparently abusing. What was very noticeable about those news links is how the responsibility is turned away from Muslims and onto Non-Muslims. The issue is ISIS and what it sees as the true Islam, not whether or not non-ISIS muslims feel pressured.

The first link, btw, is full of outright lies. Taqqiya for whoever is willing to sup it up.

You missed her point. It is NOT her faith they are abusing. What they say is their faith does not resemble what she knows to be hers. From her perspective, what they profess is no more similar to her faith than it is to Christianity.

I didn't miss her point. It is her faith they are abusing, because they are doing in the name of her faith. If they are not abusing it, then what they are doing is what Islam teaches them to do. If a bunch of people were terrorising and murdering in the name of Objectivism, Objectivists would certainly need to step up to the plate to put an end to it and make it crystal clear that those peoples actions have nothing to do with Objectivism. If you value something, but don't ever fight for it, then do you really deserve it. Maybe, but if you lose it then you perhaps get what you deserve.

[william.scherk]

The first link, btw, is full of outright lies. Taqqiya for whoever is willing to sup it up.

Please enumerate the lies in the article. If you're referring specifically to taqqiya, then one of us misunderstands what that means. Neither of the two quotes I pulled out were said by people who are denying their faith nor do either of them seem to be in fear for their lives.

One of the reasons I generally ignore Richard is that he is unreasonable. He says the first link -- from CBSNews -- is full of outright lies. Will he enumerate them? I doubt it. The purported lies would be either statements of fact, reporting of events, or actual quotes, and it would be too much work for him to pick them out individually. Far easier to simply poison the well.

I am guessing, but I think a non-lazy Richard would pick out all the quotes about Islam from Muslim lips, and style them mostly deceptive. Richard is a self-taught freshman expert on Islam, so he would tell us that any imam's words could be dissimulation. I further expect he would scoff at the notion that tweets and gatherings and actual anti-extremist, ant-ISIS opinions were anything but a kind of dissimulating taqqiya lie -- a front for 'real opinions.'

It's a bit similar to Tony's "it's not enough" attitude toward Muslim revulsion for ISIS. Both Richard and Tony likely believe they have adequately sampled Muslim opinion -- though Richard is much less likely to see 'strong disagreement with extremism' than is Tony, to my eyes.

Beyond my disagreements with the both of them, certain questions remain: what is a proper, rational response of a given Muslim or assumed collective (French Muslims, Canadian Muslims, South African Muslims) to extremist terror? I mean, what should a reasonable and rational person expect or demand from The Muslims?

Richard believes, I think, that The Muslims are dissimulating when they say or demonstrate opposition to ISIS and other extremist dangers. Richard in essence only trusts an ex-Muslim (or jihadi) to tell the truth about what is in his heart and in the Quran. Richard only trusts apostates or infidels or jihadis when they speak of their bedrock beliefs about Islam.

What separates Richard and Tony is that Tony has some criteria established to guide his demands of The Muslims. He wants big, brash collective expressions of significant numbers: in public, en masse, across the world weekly if not daily. I don't think Tony would weight additional ways of expressing discontent as significant -- he does not urge us to scour Arabic media for other indications. He doesn't urge us to gather information from surveys, studies, historic polls or other rigorous means of assaying opinion shifts and sways. He doesn't ask us to find trends, long and short term, for The Muslim's opinions over time. He doesn't share a recipe for accurately and objectively sampling belief, intent, guilt, immorality.

But he does have a bottom line: The Muslims must demonstrate to his satisfaction their opposition not only to ISIS but to every single manifestation of terror/extremism. They must march and denounce in big numbers or their opposition will be marked feeble -- not even a 'squeak.' And they must march in solidarity with Israel, not Palestine.

Will Tony examine other evidence that The Muslims do not countenance ISIS terror? I think he surely might, though he seems to think someone else not him should collect this evidence or counter-evidence; if news and evidence of 'squeaks' and 'roars' do not reach him, he has no particular programme for seeking it out for himself, and no detailed methodology to share with the rest of us for objective assessment.

Richard on the other hand has gone far past Tony's tentative conclusions about The Muslims and their failure to demonstrate to him their moral worthiness. Tony believes that a Muslim here and a small Muslim collectivity there are morally worthy. Richard discounts any moral worthiness -- even an apparently worthy Muslim like the French lady quoted is a liar and a cheat.

I think the most interesting discussion in this thread would be a no-holds barred showdown between Tony and Richard. I know where I differ with Tony and I know where I differ with Richard. Where do those two differ with each other?

Edited October 31, 2014 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One of the reasons I generally ignore Richard is that he is unreasonable.

William,

Well he did say this:

... if you lose it then you perhaps get what you deserve.

Where's Greg (moralist) when you need him?

Michael

[Selene]

What about all previous terrorism in the name of Islam for at least 30 years? What of the 1.3 billions of other Muslims? Am I unfair to expect at least 10%, 1.3 million, in rolling mass actions? Those are "large numbers". One or two demonstrations does not a movement make.

Here's the time for a complete reformation in Islam: the peaceful majority clearly distancing themselves from radicalism, terrorism and more severe sharia law.

I am no mathematician Tony, however, isn't ten percent (10%) of 1.3 billion...130,000,000 one hundred and thirty million?

A...

[Richard Wiig]

Richard believes, I think, that The Muslims are dissimulating when they say or demonstrate opposition to ISIS and other extremist dangers

They might or might not be. What I think is that it is foolish to simply assume that they are not. When I say they, I mean individual muslims. Not "The Muslims" as you put it.

Richard in essence only trusts an ex-Muslim (or jihadi) to tell the truth about what is in his heart and in the Quran. Richard only trusts apostates or infidels or jihadis when they speak of their bedrock beliefs about Islam.

I trust anyone, muslim or otherwise, who doesn't shy away from the truth. There is a Muslim in Melbourne who recently critiqued his religion. I trust him, because he acknowledged the facts about his religion. He didn't try to sweep things that he didn't like under the carpet. There is a lot of that going on in those news articles linked to above. A lot of shifting the focus onto the supposed bigotry and unfairness of non-muslims. There is only one thing that can serve, and that is the likes of ISIS.

[Richard Wiig]

The first news article:

PARIS -- In tweets, in street gatherings and in open letters, moderate Muslims around the world are insisting that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)extremists don't speak for their religion.

They can insist that all they want, but it will never change the fact. ISIS do speak for their religion. They implement what Muhammad taught them, without compromise.

Many are also frustrated that anyone might think they do, and a backlash has already begun.

A backlash against those who think they do, such as myself? How does this help put an end to the problem within Islam? It doesn't. In fact, it achieves the opposite, by ensuring that the focus is taken away from the root of the problem. You don't fix a problem by avoiding a problem.

" Dalil Boubakeur, rector of the Grand Mosque of Paris, told hundreds of Muslims Friday, according to Reuters. "Islam demands respect of life ... The Koran tells us that to kill one man is to kill all humanity," he said.

Daily Boubakeur is either ignorant, or deceptive. Here is the verse he superficially refers to:

“[005:032] On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

Given that an excess in the land can be something as simple as drawing a Muhammad cartoon, the verse above is somewhat problematic. Useful though for fooling people who don't care to take a closer look or apply some critical thought.

.The head of France's largest mosque called for Muslims to rally Friday in Paris to condemn Gourdel's slaying and show unity against terrorism, saying Islamic State's "deadly ideology" had nothing to do with Islam.

An outright lie. The head of France's largest mosque cannot help but know that the global jihadists back all of their actions by reference to Islam.

Within hours of the call, the rector of the Bordeaux mosque, Tareq Oubrou, said French Muslims need not demonstrate in the name of Islam - but should be joined by everyone.

Another shifting of the focus away from the actual problem, which again does nothing but perpetuate the problem.

Nowhere does the Quran say other religions or nations must be attacked. Cutting people's heads off is really the most despicable. If airstrikes can stop these fundamentalist, aggressive ideas from spreading, I am all for it," said 65-year-old Enes Mustafic.

The cutting of necks:

Sahih International: So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.

The fighting of other religions or nations:

Qur'an (8:39) - “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” Translation from the Noble Quran

Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Suras 9 and 5 are the last "revelations" that Muhammad handed down - hence abrogating what came before, which includes the oft-quoted verse 2:256 -"Let there be no compulsion in religion...".

"According to Islam, nobody is allowed to be evil to others. Nobody has the right to do such a thing. I am against everything they do down there like every sane person is," Jamak said.

There is of course nothing evil in Islam, because Muhammad and Allah are perfect. So when Muhammad command his followers to murder, or Allah commands his believers to fight until the world is all for Allah, by smiting necks and all, it is not evil. Allah cannot be evil. Unbelief is evil.

An online poll posted by France's Le Figaro newspaper, asking whether people thought the country's Muslim community had sufficiently denounced Gourdel's death, drew an infuriated response.

Why? I love Ayn Rands judge and prepare to be judged. It is a valid question as to whether or not the Muslim community is giving an adequate response. This is not play school. It is murder, rape, terror, pillage, enslavement, misery and the utmost human despair because of these evil cunts. Muslims should be asking themselves whether or not they're giving and adequate and efficacious response. Lives are on the line and the future of Islam.

Rachida Dati, the mayor of Paris' 7th arrondissement and the daughter of Algerian immigrants, called for an end to the "confounding of Islam and fundamentalism, as the French political class has done for too long." The paper on Friday apologized for what it called a "clumsy" question.

More deflection.

Dawud Walid, director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said headlines about the Islamic State were often frustrating in his work. Walid said he's been speaking out against excessive force by police after the fatal shooting of a young black man in Ferguson, Missouri.

More self-pity over what people think of Islam. This article, as are the others, are full of it.

Still, the banner at Friday's gathering in Paris honoring Gourdel was emblazoned with "Not in My Name" and many in the crowd of about 500 said they were dismayed and appalled.

And probably about as effective as Michele Obama's hashtag of "bring back our girls". Incidentally, Boko Haram have enslaved hundreds more women since then and continue to advance.

"We all gathered today ... to tell people, you want to convert, that's very good, but do it for your faith, because you want to convert and because you appreciate this religion. Don't do it to go fight, to go kill people because it is not what Islam says," said Nadir M'Sallaoui, a 27-year-old Parisian.

Another who is either ignorant or deceptive. Islam does say go and fight. It also tells followers not to think for themselves, but to submit.

'...and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.' (Surah Baqarah: 216)

. Muslim leaders and scholars issued an open letter Wednesday denouncing ISIS militants point by point, notably on "the killing of innocents" and jihad.

It would be interesting to read Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi's - a man with a PHD in Islamic studies - response, if he gives one. He might just sneer at it. I have not seen this open letter, but it would be foolish to simply accept it as true opposition to ISIS.

Muqtedar Khan, professor of political science at the University of Delaware and author of "American Muslims, Bridging Faith and Freedom," said Muslim condemnations after the 9/11 attacks failed to dent the reach of extremists.

Of course it will fail to dent them. They need to show that what those pious muslims are doing is not what Muhammad and Allah want. They are incapable of this though.

"They are beginning to react the way they should have on Sept. 12, 2001," Khan said. "Muslims have gotten really tired of these groups that bring nothing, that have no positive impact at all among their societies."

They're really tired? Boohoo! They can jump up and down all they like, but the Jihadists will simply sneer at them, and then blow them up if they can. What is needed is a real addressing of the problem.

Khan said whether the protests take root will depend upon what happens when the beheadings have subsided, and ISIS is no longer considered an immediate threat.

That is just crazy. ISIS will simply subside? How? Why? When? WTF????? Currently muslims are flocking to ISIS from around the world. ISIS is growing, even with the airstrikes.

Muslim leaders will have difficulty coming up with a message as attractive as the extremists' sermons to young people disillusioned with life in countries where they feel under constant suspicion. France's ban on face-covering veils and prohibitions on wearing headscarves in schools, for example, are often cited as proof the country is hostile to Muslims.

Another call for non-muslims to relax about Islam and not pressure anyone. Move along, nothing to see here.

Speaking of the extremist preachers, Khan said: "Their theology becomes more potent because their politics are right."

This is just downright sinister. In other words, adopt the correct politics or the situation will get worse. It is a threat.

[anthony]

What about all previous terrorism in the name of Islam for at least 30 years? What of the 1.3 billions of other Muslims? Am I unfair to expect at least 10%, 1.3 million, in rolling mass actions? Those are "large numbers". One or two demonstrations does not a movement make.

Here's the time for a complete reformation in Islam: the peaceful majority clearly distancing themselves from radicalism, terrorism and more severe sharia law.

I am no mathematician Tony, however, isn't ten percent (10%) of 1.3 billion...130,000,000 one hundred and thirty million?

A...

Heh, so much for A-Level maths. Thanks, Adam. Therefore, 1.3 million = one per cent.

[anthony]

It's not surprising that ISIS is finding many recruits from western cities. Secular collectivism and mystical collectivism morph from one to the other and back again, over time, "different sides of the same counterfeit coin" as Rand had it. Some of those dulled, purposeless, unemployed men (and girls) from Birmingham* etc., are easy game for a Crusading Cause. After all, the need to find self-esteem and purpose is universal in man, even to the desperate extent of trying to find personal identity in a gang which promises murder, destruction and martyrdom, all rationalized by superstitious dogma.

(*An English friend told me of one family in his home village, in which three generations of men have survived off State welfare, and not worked a day in their lives - and who brag about it).

[Richard Wiig]

The welfare system is of course there for the takers, so why not.

[Richard Wiig]

It's not surprising that ISIS is finding many recruits from western cities. Secular collectivism and mystical collectivism morph from one to the other and back again, over time, "different sides of the same counterfeit coin" as Rand had it. Some of those dulled, purposeless, unemployed men (and girls) from Birmingham* etc., are easy game for a Crusading Cause. After all, the need to find self-esteem and purpose is universal in man, even to the desperate extent of trying to find personal identity in a gang which promises murder, destruction and martyrdom, all rationalized by superstitious dogma.

(*An English friend told me of one family in his home village, in which three generations of men have survived off State welfare, and not worked a day in their lives - and who brag about it).

It's the nature abhors a vacuum principle. There is a vacuum everywhere you look.

"Rachida Dati, the mayor of Paris' 7th arrondissement and the daughter of Algerian immigrants, called for an end to the "confounding of Islam and fundamentalism, as the French political class has done for too long." The paper on Friday apologized for what it called a "clumsy" question."

[anthony]

There's a profound thought I've seen by Nathaniel Branden, which roughly goes along the lines of:- Holding another person to the lowest standards, or no standards, is an expression, not of acceptance, but of contempt.

In other words, you don't think he/she is worthy, so don't expect anything of them.

Oddly, it may seem to William, I think I appreciate people more than he seems to, by not expecting so little from them. Inclusive of Muslims in general and specific Muslim acquaintances. But then, I am strongly bigoted against collectivism and all groupism. It's right and proper that it is ultimately only individuals who connect; only an individual can easily cut across all ethnic, racial, religious or gender lines to discover or elicit - and maybe, encourage - the other's individuality. Looking for and acknowledging what the other independently thinks - and the content of their character.

Avoiding bigotry at all costs does not entail moving to its apparent (and false) opposite, that of non-critical acceptance: this is only a step away from apologism, which looks like an expression of contempt to me.

[Brant Gaede]

If you are bigoted against bigotry are you really a bigot? Is another word needed to replace "bigoted"? "Prejudiced" seems to represent the same problem in a slightly less severe form. How can someone in a shorthand way use a positive to declaim against a negative? Why must a negative seem to have most of the punching power? In a way this seems to be part of the problem of the "impotence of evil" thesis which powers so much of Rand's work. (Not sanctioning evil. "But I don't think of you." [The Branden attribution doesn't seem quite right, btw; it leaves too much up in the air.])

--Brant