US Muslims struggle with condemnation

[Gormo]

Maybe the muting is due to 14 years of people saying Muslims aren't condemning terrorism without bothering to Google 'Muslims condemning terrorism'.

I think we're reaching the 'what's the point?' stage. And I definitely sympathize, given how many times I've had to walk people by the hand over to the documentation of Muslims condemning terrorism, I'm about at that stage myself.

I remember the first time I heard about this lack of condemnation in the aftermath of a terrorist attack I was very upset, but when I looked into it I found out that wasn't really the case.

Now we seem to go through this every time.

All I can say is lets not draw conclusions based on hearsay without at least trying to confirm/deny the claim.

[vorlon13]

I think instead of 'condemnation' some might be actually looking for some moderates to disembowel  a few thousnad jihadis, and car bomb a few of their mosques.

I think 'condemnation' is a code word.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I think instead of 'condemnation' some might be actually looking for some moderates to disembowel  a few thousnad jihadis, and car bomb a few of their mosques.

I think 'condemnation' is a code word.

Well, fuck yeah, and why shouldn't we expect that?   I don't see it being too much to expect of a culture which supports a system of justice which is worse than "an eye for an eye".
 

[vorlon13]

Indeed.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Q. What stops the rest of the Middle East from gladly joining ISIS?
A. Self Preservation. Hardly anyone really wants to live like that.

The problem with the second question and answer is that Muslims are not as homogenous as 'Evangelical Christians of America'. There are countries already where their equivalent of Evangelical Christians are already in charge. Other countries resist doing the same thing largely because most of their Muslims don't want it.

Muslim leaders DO this every freaking time. Use your Google finger.

On terror, you're right that Muslims around the world speak against that, I shouldn't have included that.

On other very serious problems which make those with Islamic ideas the sort of people who I would not wish to deal with in my town, not a word. They beat you to death in Saudi Arabia for declaring your atheism, and nobody other than atheists give a shit. A woman gets stoned to death in Pakistan for accidentally burning a Koran, and a huge mob of 400 fuckheads descend on her and stone her to death. This atrocity finds its way into a corner of one of the better news sites for a few hours, and then is completely forgotten.

[Catholic_Lady]

https://newrepublic.com/article/125069/s...ign=202704

In the coming days, a Sri Lankan woman is to be led to an outdoor pit in Saudi Arabia. Her arms and hands will be tightly bound, her body buried up to her breasts. Saudi men will then surround her and begin to hurl rocks at her head to kill her slowly. 

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If Muslims really wanted to condemn terrorism, they'd have to condemn their original terrorist and slaver, Muhammad. I think sometimes if Muslims spoke out against certain activities that ISIS or similar groups do, it would be quickly pointed out that Muhammad did the exact same activities during his life. The figure of Muhammad is unavoidable in Islam. Christians have a far easier time with a hippy like Jesus as their central figure.

The Jesus character is a raving homicidal maniac.  He likes to roast people.

John 15:6 (TLB) = "If anyone separates from me, he is thrown away like a useless branch, withers, and is gathered into a pile with all the others and burned."

[paulpablo]

If Muslims really wanted to condemn terrorism, they'd have to condemn their original terrorist and slaver, Muhammad. I think sometimes if Muslims spoke out against certain activities that ISIS or similar groups do, it would be quickly pointed out that Muhammad did the exact same activities during his life. The figure of Muhammad is unavoidable in Islam. Christians have a far easier time with a hippy like Jesus as their central figure.

The Jesus character is a raving homicidal maniac.  He likes to roast people.

John 15:6 (TLB) = "If anyone separates from me, he is thrown away like a useless branch, withers, and is gathered into a pile with all the others and burned."

But there's a difference between Jesus saying "They will be burned." In a metaphor talking about what happens in the afterlife, and the instructions from Muhammad on how to crucify people, when to beat your wife, when to go to war and so on.

Jesus isn't saying "If they aren't Christian, I like to burn em".

There might be other verses where Jesus commands death to disbelievers or whatever but I don't read this as being evidence that Jesus likes to literally roast people.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Maybe you meant to elaborate a little more. You seem to be the only one who's aware of any Muslim leaders specifically condemning fatwas, political misogyny, barbarism for justice, or any other stomach-turning practices carried out in the Middle East, Africa, and Indonesia which are supported by their holy book. Islam may be bitterly divided, but the last time I checked they still had one relatively unmodified book. If any of the world Imams so much as condemned acts of terror, that in itself would be something, but in no way would it be enough.

A couple of points:

1) You've gone asking for condemnations from Muslims ([...] where the f*** are the Muslims who actually stand up and explain to the world how wrong they feel this is") to asking for links to Muslim clerics criticizing the practices of sharia in Muslim countries ... quite the move of the goalposts there. To satisfy your original request, check out this post I made over a year ago:

MUslim moderates denounce terror attacks all the time.

Of course, that doesn't make for great headlines ... you actually have to look to find them. Not many people take the effort.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08...c-s/200498

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/07/...ns/1103410

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/08...da-and-U-S

http://baheyeldin.com/terrorism/do-musli...tacks.html

Against 9/11, 7/7, and a couple of other attacks, and with a list of links to other denunciations at the bottom: http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statement...terrorism/

These aren't very hard to find.

Also, I agree that the utility of the denunciations is not in holding back the extremists, who are going to pursue their violent agneda no matter what.

The utility of the denunciations is to demonstrate that contrary to the narrative propagated by a significant portion of the media, not all Muslims are bloodthirsty killers. Of course, it appears to have questionable utility in that regard, as well; this thread is in itself evidence of that.

In this link, you will find leaders denouncing violence against women, the killing of civilians, and extremism in general: http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/fea...t_i_fatwas

This page in particular is applicable to you, and many, many other Westerners, because it addresses the fact of your ignorance of these denunciations directly. You are responsible for collecting the information upon which, ideally, you should ground your opinions. Your opinion that Muslims do not condemn extremist violence is clearly incorrect. You should update your opinion to take into account these facts that have been presented to you.

2) In the links above, you will have seen many, many imams condemning terrorism in general, and specific attacks; and seen their fatwas against terrorism and killing civilians. In your own words, that is something.

3) Simply because they have the same book does not mean they have the same interpretation. Cherry-picking is not restricted to Christians.

I almost missed this one:

Either give us a credible reason to believe that your holy book, in its ugliness as we understand it, is not your religious, social, and political philosophy, or go cry up a river elsewhere!

I'm not Muslim. I'm atheist. The fact that you make such an assumption speaks volumes about your mindset and outlook. You seem incapable of imagining someone speaking up for a demonized group without that speaker being a group member themselves.

You clearly haven't heard Pastor Niemoller's famous quote. You can Google that one, too.

********************************************

... but racist groups aren't.

The fact that I'm not asked to answer for the behavior of white-supremacist groups, while random Muslims are expected to answer for the acts of other Muslims who have a different version of their religion -- that fact is the point.  It's a double standard.

If my son were a white-supremacist, I would denounce him (and any atrocity he might commit). But some random asshole up in Idaho? He has to answer for himself. And I have the luxury of holding that attitude, because it is not expected of me to answer for him.

You want an American Muslim to condemn acts of terror?  They do it all the time. They have to -- it is expected of them.

There a big difference between a white supremacist and you. You probably don't consider Hitler to be a good and moral person. Every Muslims presumably considers Muhammad to be a good and moral person. Yes, I know he's probably just average for a warlord of the time but the fact that Muslims worldwide, today, say that he's a perfect example for humanity to live by. That is a reality to deal with, Isis and Muslims around the world share a philosophical base in a way that a random white person and a white supremacist just don't. Isis is following the example of Muhammad by conquering territory and enslaving people for a world wide religious empire. That's what Muhammad called for and that is the real issue that Muslims who condemn Isis need to and will never address.

Indeed, modern Muslims cherry-pick their book, to the extent of exalting an asshole while knowing that his behavior shouldn't be emulated. (Sounds familiar!)

The difference between most modern Muslims and ISIS is that while they both derive their beliefs from the Koran, the former aren't terrorists, and the latter are, for whatever reason.

A random white person in America has a 70% chance of being Christian. In that sense, they absolutely do share a philosophical basis with the white supremacists who managed campaigns of terror against blacks in rural America in the 1930s. You do realize that those groups cited the Bible to justify their bigotry, right?

[abaris]

https://newrepublic.com/article/125069/s...ign=202704

In the coming days, a Sri Lankan woman is to be led to an outdoor pit in Saudi Arabia. Her arms and hands will be tightly bound, her body buried up to her breasts. Saudi men will then surround her and begin to hurl rocks at her head to kill her slowly. 

You don't want to quote the Newrepublic if your goal is to be taken seriously. Might be true, might be pure invention. If you got some serious source, bring it on.

Qutoing the newrepublic on something is like quoting Mein Kampf for an opinion on jews.