Muslims

[Heat]

You can pick your religion, and you can act upon it, you can change it or not, you can force it upon others or leave peacefully. All of this affects society.

This.

And a lot of the time, inaction, and ignorance, are what affects society the most. Not simply those that are in the news blowing people up.

Yes but key word "Can".

Religion is not the same as action.
Action is choice.

We should not group those who choose a religion as bad, under the assumption they will make the choice to act on it.

[Napoléon]

1.
Yes, you can fight one and not the other.
If you had an ideology that was against African Americans, saying they were unequal, do I wage war on you as a person?
No, but I can certainly degrade your beliefs.

So we ignore ISIS completely and focus on the ideology they practise.

Right. Let's see how far we get with that.

2.
You interpreted me wrong/I used the wrong word.
I am not saying mass killings are ever justifiable, but a mentally unstable person will be more enticed to do something like that if you discriminate against them.

Please quote where I said/endorse 'discriminating against muslims'.

And I re-iterate. Your position is one that, whether you realise it or not, gives the extremists and the bullies exactly what they want. To find out who rules over you, find out who you can't criticise.

If you're afraid of drawing a picture of Muhammad because it might get you killed, and you are placing such responsibility for being killed on the people drawing the picture, then you're the one contributing to the problem.

3.
Maybe I mispoke, I read a post by someone yesterday that was similar to this but explaining that we should outlaw Muslims from entering certain countries out of fear their ideology would lead them to commit heinous acts. If that is not what you are implying, i'm sorry for making assumptions, that's essentially what I was arguing against.

Outlaw is a strong word and I feel it's one you're deliberately using to create a straw man and argue against something people haven't said. Nobody here to my knowledge has said we should "outlaw" muslims from entering certain countries. The only thing I'm advocating is better control of Europe's borders. Currently freedom of movement is something that Islamic terrorists are quite evidently abusing and it's pretty obvious to me how we can combat that.

4.
Just because someone is trying to look at both sides of the argument does not mean you have to instantly call them out and say "MORAL HIGH HORSE MORAL HIGH HORSE" like they are trying to act better than you. I'm not pandering to the "PC-Pussy footing agenda", I am expressing my beliefs, hell yesterday I argued my opinion against 4 other people in disagreement, and was completely in the minority. I'm not trying to appease anyone with my views, I am simply sharing them.

You're not though. That's my point.

And me saying you're on your moral high horse is just me stating what is evident.

I've explained why. I've also explained why you're pandering to the PC-pussy footing agenda.

And whether you argue with a minority opinion or not makes no diference to me, seems blatantly obvious from where I'm sitting that your 'beliefs' are ones that exist to appease yourself. I may be wrong, but hey, I'm calling it.

An ideology does not define a person, I am not stupid enough to believe that.

And again, nobody said it does.

Why do people insist on arguing against shit that isn't even said in the thread? What reason do you have to state this? Besides making yourself feel morally and intellectually superior?

Say i'm on my "moral high horse", go ahead, it really is overused and meaningless unless someone is actually trying to act better than you morally, or the general public, which doesn't apply to me. Just because I have a view, or rather a hope, that humanity can be treated and deserves to be treated equally, does not mean I am trying to appease or pander to anyone whatsoever, or am acting like I am an angel of some sort. So take it as you will.

Don't worry, I did.

[Napoléon]

We should not group those who choose a religion as bad, under the assumption they will make the choice to act on it.

You shouldn't assume no, but you should anticipate.

[Minimalist]

That's the issue. People try to define 'good muslims' by western standards of what a good person is.

The bottom line is, that for the vast majority of muslims, their idea of what constitutes a good person and our (I mean westerners in general when I say this), are completely different. And in my mind not compatible.

Islam is one of the main reasons why I think the multi-cultural experiment in Europe has been a complete and utter disaster. "Good Muslims" and "Good People" are mutually exclusive terms IMO.

Yeah, when I say "good Muslims", I just meant good people by our standards. But it seems pretty basic- don't kill people (or support it), and don't force others to practice your religion.

...And I just read some Sharia Law rules. Disgusting. Do all Muslims really believe Sharia Law is good??

Do try to remember that they kill each other in great numbers for historical/doctrinal differences far less significant that the differences between xtians and muslims.  I don't even know what the word "good" means in that context.

[Minimalist]

Took a few moments to find this from The Four Musketeers.  Pithy commentary on religious wars.

[ignoramus]

This.

And a lot of the time, inaction, and ignorance, are what affects society the most. Not simply those that are in the news blowing people up.

Yes but key word "Can".

Religion is not the same as action.
Action is choice.

We should not group those who choose a religion as bad, under the assumption they will make the choice to act on it.

But isn't that the point.

The Muslim on the radio felt that all these terrorists  that were indoctrinated into "a" version of the Qur'an are themselves victims. My point is, once they're exposed to it, they then are no longer responsible for atrocities they commit. They ALL believe they are on the right side fighting the good fight.

At least "our"  stupid bible doesn't talk about martyrdom
or jihad as part of the belief system.
Using this logic, we must find all religious terrorists as well meaning according to their sacred texts.
This is why we must stop it spreading. yes? no?

[Heat]

Yes but key word "Can".

Religion is not the same as action.
Action is choice.

We should not group those who choose a religion as bad, under the assumption they will make the choice to act on it.

But isn't that the point.

The Muslim on the radio felt that all these terrorists  that were indoctrinated into "a" version of the Qur'an are themselves victims. My point is, once they're exposed to it, they then are no longer responsible for atrocities they commit. They ALL believe they are on the right side fighting the good fight.

At least "our"  stupid bible doesn't talk about martyrdom
or jihad as part of the belief system.
Using this logic, we must find all religious terrorists as well meaning according to their sacred texts.
This is why we must stop it spreading. yes? no?

This may not really pertain to what you said^, but I wanted to mention earlier that;

On a small scale, yes, ideologies that preach violence, hate, should be looked down upon, and if this "ideology" is just a few values held that they are spreading to people like "Bomb all the muslims", we can take action and say that is hate speech regardless.



However, even though people in ISIS use the same teachings as most peaceful muslims, on a larger scale, the same logic does not apply, and even though they believe this book that does have "hate speech" INCLUDED we can't group them, because it is much more complicated than that.

It's not just as simple as saying "If something has __ included we should assume they believe __"


Just like Christianity, regardless of what the example is in question, there are many interpretations of whatever this ideology says, or holds. In a larger scale like the Quran, there are violent passages, but also quite the opposite, and many people pick and choose what they believe, we shouldn't assume that just because a Muslim follows the Quran that they believe and take every word written in it literally, and we should assume that since they believe it they think these violent acts are justifiable or should suspect them, or anticipate they will partake in them. 

This is, in my opinion, the difference between ISIS and regular peaceful muslims, and why I think we should treat certain ideologies with respect[not to be confused with preconceived bias picking and choosing]:
ISIS is preaching, and believes, only in hate, and violence. They are not taking the peace promoting text within the Quran and using that to push their agenda. We can take that and assume that is what they believe, and anticipate it.

However,
Peaceful, average Muslims are preaching, or not preaching, but believe in most probably love and peace, maybe they interpret the violent passages in a way that they think the violence is just, but still don't believe they should act on it[like commonly confused when reading polls]. Someone who believes in peace(mostly), but still gets that belief from the same book used to promote violence and hate, should not be associated with those who are promoting and believe in violence and hate. Their view is on a much broader spectrum, and the broader the spectrum[less one sided] the ideology gets, the less we can assume about the beliefs being acted on.

That's why we shouldn't treat terrorists, or people holding all around hateful ideologies with equality because action is choice. Yes action is choice, but that only becomes more of a factor in the assumptions you make about people when the ideology possessed isn't one sided.

Terrorism is one sided. So we can draw one conclusion.
However, most Muslims beliefs are not one sided. So we can not draw one conclusion.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Wage war on the ideology not the people who hold it.

The moment we start discriminating Muslims for their ideology, or anyone for that matter, simply because they have unfavorable ideas yet have not committed a crime, is the moment we take a step backward in religious tolerance.

Outlawing people who possess a certain belief from even being in the same country as us will only make them dislike us more, to which negative action like mass killings become more viable.

People are not to blame, the ideology is, only when that ideology is acted upon, are the people to blaim.

I don't care what you say. I am not going to see innocent peoples as my enemies simply because I disagree with their beliefs, that's called bigotry.

Do you have any solutions?

[Mystic]

You know what. I've been telling non-Muslims I know from the forums I go to with Muslims, I often seen quite a bit of these extreme views. I always told them it's more then 1% or 10% with extreme views, and there is huge basis that supports ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the middle-east.

This is no surprise to me, the only way to be guided is holding on to God's rope, which a book is not sufficient for. A book can be interpreted many ways no matter how clear it is or whether or not different verses elaborate and interpret one another.

What is needed is reflection, reasoning, and attachment to the holy chosen ones, specifically the family of Mohammad. 

And attachment is to their light, to their holy souls, for they are the mines of God's words and the scent of the revelation.

It's no surprise to me in the way the 2nd Surah warns by children of Israel, that there was a high chance this nation follows suit in making mischief in the land, killing their own people, etc, etc, when they broke God's covenant in the past and follow and stick to the unjust line of leaders.

The light of the Leader of our time, God manifests it to the hearts of who he wishes, and darkens it to who he wishes.

It's no surprise to me people who think they don't need guidance from God's Guide or don't need guide, end up so misguided and deluded.

Every time God takes a covenant, it seems a great portion of those it's taken from break it.

"I am leaving you two weighty things, Quran...and my family..." -the Prophet [s].

It's funny if you read the context of obedience to those who possess the authority from the believing nation.  Before it even emphasized on the family of Abraham, their wisdom, the book they were given, and the great authority they were given, it went in a discussion of certain people who attribute purity to themselves and were leading their people astray.

People think it's not ok for Jews or Christians to follow their scholars blindly or that they attribute purity to themselves, but it's perfectly ok if we all act as if our religious leaders are almost all totally pure and meant to be followed with utmost trust.

This sort of blind fanatic attachment to scholars has been what made every revelation distorted at the end.  

I believe there is a wisdom in the way Quran is written, in that, it guides people who believe in guidance of God when shown to them, and increases the unjust naught but in destruction. 

It's purposely designed that way. It's as Imam Ali [a] says "Quran is of diverse faces". Everyone makes it to what they want it seems rather then making the book their Guide, they made themselves the Guide of the Quran. 

There are clear signs and manifestations of guidance. There is so many verses forbidding oppression and making mischief in the land, it's not even funny how much it emphasized on it.

[Catholic_Lady]

Thank you for your honesty and insight, MK. For the record, I don't think good Muslim folks need to ditch their religion. I just think Islam needs some kind of reform... to where the laws are more clear so that we don't have psychos interpreting the Quran in the most literal and extreme way possible.