Are all Muslims troublemakers?

[Glomung]

It feels like we are on the brink of a WW3.

The sad thing is that groups like ISIS are being used as pawns to destabilize the entire region.
They are US trained, Saudi and Qatar funded and their only real purpose is to remove Assad.
I don't know why US leadership is so keen on ticking off the Russians, this will not end well.

 

[Major]

I'm sticking up for peaceful Muslims who have as little interest in killing other human beings as you and I do.
And when I say "radicals", and they occur in all faiths, I am referring to people who would kill in the name of their religion.
What you see going on in the news focuses entirely on the actions of a relatively small (in the scope of Muslims worldwide) group of troublemakers who fit the above description of radical and are insane killers.
I work with at least 3 Muslims in my building. They don't cut the heads off journalists and they abhor the people who do. Last I heard it wasn't illegal to be Muslim.

It is illegal not to be a Muslim if you live in a Muslim country.

They can convert,
Pay a really high tax,
or die.

Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.
Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Major]

I think you'll find in all religions people who can justify going against the texts of whatever holy book you want to mention to kill. Christians have "Thou shall not kill (murder in some translations)" - Muslims have “Whosoever killed a person it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he has saved the life of all mankind.” Both those texts seem pretty cut and dried to me. But I've encountered Christians who would stone "unrepentant" homosexuals right on this very forum.

I'm not excusing anyone who kills. It's flat-out wrong. But I think the mistake is to make such actions representative of an entire faith.

PLAR......please understand that I am not arguing with you. I am disagreeing with you and stating the reason why. If you do not want to continue just say the word and we can move on.

If we follow Islam's violent history and the unfavorable contrast of its oppressive practices against 21st century values, Muslims are hard-pressed to repackage their faith in the modern age, but that is exactly what they are busy doing. Their leading apologists have come to rely on tricks involving semantics and half-truths that are, in turn, repeated by novices and even those outside the faith.

Here is one of them and we saw it here already.............
"Most Muslims live peacefully, without harming others, so how can Islam be a violent religion? If Islam were the religion of terrorists, then why aren’t most Muslims terrorists?"

The same question can easily be turned around. If Islam is a religion of peace, then why is it the only one that consistently produces religiously-motivated terrorist attacks each and every day of the year? Why are thousands of people willing and able to cut off an innocent person’s head or fly a plane full of passengers into an office building while screaming praises to Allah? Where’s the outrage among other Muslims when this happens… and why do they get more worked up over cartoons and hijabs?

Rather than trying to answer a question with a question, however, let's just say that the reason why most Muslims don't kill is that regardless of what Islam may or may not teach it's wrong to kill over religious beliefs.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Games-Muslims-Play.htm#5-32

 

[Abdicate]

A generic statement like the OP is what's wrong. No 100% of any group is guilty or innocent of the group's actions/inactions. I know many kind and gentle muslims. Can't the inactions of Christians against the establishment for taking away freedoms not be just as guilty as inactive muslims against their group? Any "all" net will catch innocents as much as the guilty. The venom of one group is just as poisonous as that of another because sin is sin. We're all born into it and we all have to deal with it.

 

[Major]

I think you'll find in all religions people who can justify going against the texts of whatever holy book you want to mention to kill. Christians have "Thou shall not kill (murder in some translations)" - Muslims have “Whosoever killed a person it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he has saved the life of all mankind.” Both those texts seem pretty cut and dried to me. But I've encountered Christians who would stone "unrepentant" homosexuals right on this very forum.

I'm not excusing anyone who kills. It's flat-out wrong. But I think the mistake is to make such actions representative of an entire faith.

You are referring to Quran, verse 5:32.

It is another game played by Muslims and you are falling for it. In an effort to portray their religion as non-violent, Muslim apologists vigorously employ verse 5:32, which would appear to promote a universal principal that all life is sacred to Allah - especially the way it is typically quoted by apologists:

"…if any one slew a person… it would be as if he slew a whole people; and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of a whole people…"

BUT is that the whole truth or a shell game??????

5:32 is only a fragment. This fragment of verse 5:32 is what the apologists want non-Muslims to believe is in the Qur’an, as opposed to the dozens of other open-ended passages that command warfare, beheadings and torture. But even what they usually quote from 5:32 isn’t quite how it appears. Remember all those ellipses? There's something being left out.

Here’s the full text of the verse:

“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 messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

First, notice the gaping loophole. Killing is allowed in cases of murder or “for spreading mischief in the land.” Murder is pretty straightforward, but “spreading mischief?” If anything begged for a careful and precise explanation, this phrase certainly would. But generations of Muslims are left to apply their own interpretation of what “mischief” means - with varying standards. Violating Sharia law or sharing a different religious faith appears to qualify. Verse 7:103 of the Quran even indicates that merely rejecting Muhammad and the Quran counts as "mischief".

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

I for one have no special interest in defending Islam. I believe in Christ.

The issues I have on this thread are:

1. I'm wary of lumping any group of people together as "all <target group> are <bad because>".

2. I feel that (at least nominally) Christians have been guilty of many of the same type of things some are throwing at Muslims.

I'm far from convinced this type of "stone throwing" is a good idea. The latest target in this thread has been sex abuse. Need I mention the child abuse scandals that have been exposed within some of our religious organisations in recent years?

Something I have observed with some atheists is that this type of how bad the other group are compared to Christians can easily to the pointing out of our own failings as a whole. Going on to defend our own failings with lines like "they were a minority and they weren't real Christians anyway" while failing to make the same allowances for other groups is very likely to lead to is the feeling "wow, not only are Christians all this too, they are complete and utter hypocrites to go with it".

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't for example speak out against extremism but that I do feel that we should avoid targeting whole groups because of the actions and/or attitudes of a minority. I only see that as further fuelling the flames of hostility from various sources towards us.




What I think I see over here is an increase in younger Muslims becoming radicalised. I don't however see the demonization of all Muslims helping towards a possible solution. Whether the Islamic leaders over here could to more to help is not something I can answer but I will post something dated August 2014 from The Muslim Council of Great Britain:

The Muslim Council of Britain once again condemned the actions of the so called “Islamic State in Syria and the Levant”, ISIS. Today we express once again our rebuke of this reprehensible organisation. We are horrified at the abhorrent murder of James Foley, a reporter who initially went to the region to expose the human rights abuses of the Syrian regime. ISIS has murdered this man for no reason at all.

Each day ISIS seeks to carry out an act more barbarous than the day before, craving the oxygen of publicity to give credibility to their heinous acts. We condemn unreservedly their psychopathic violence, whether it is on minorities, on civilians, or on fellow Muslims.

The MCB expressed the British Muslim community’s common censure of the group as early as June, and called for joint action to ensure the poison of extremism and sectarianism is not injected into our communities.

ISIS does not speak for Islam, and has been repudiated by all Muslims. Their message only appeals to those who are easily duped by their twisted message purporting to be Islam. They seek to glamorise their violence, and unfortunately, the media has a part to play in adding to that glamour.

We urge the media in refraining from giving them any further undue exposure beyond conventional reporting. And we urge Muslim communities to re-double their efforts in coming together, condemning the barbarity of ISIS and persuading those gullible enough to take in their message that they are on a path to futility.​

So what about the present press secretary at the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) -- whose name is Inayat Bunglawala?

Here's a short list of some of Bunglawala's public positions and views:

1) He opposes the banning of Hizb ut-Tahrir (a well-known international terrorist) under the UK anti-terror laws. However, the MCB agreed with the banning of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer (who are NOT linked to violence) from the UK and thinks that English Defence League demonstrations (not linked to killings) should be banned. (Hizb ut-Tahrir, to which the Muslim Council of Britain is concretely connected), was directly responsible for mass communal violence in Bangladesh.)

2) In January 1993, Bunglawala wrote a letter to Private Eye (a British magazine) in which he called Omar Abdel-Rahman "courageous". After Rahman's arrest on charges of masterminding the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York in July that year, Bunglawala said that it was only because of he was "calling on Muslims to fulfill their duty to Allah and to fight against oppression and oppressors everywhere".

3) Five months before the 9/11, he circulated the writings of Osama bin Laden (whom he called a "freedom fighter") to hundreds of Muslims in Britain.

iv) He objects to the use of the phrase "Islamic terrorism". He also believed that Osama bin Laden shouldn’t be described as an "Islamic" or "Islamist" terrorist; but as an "international" terrorist.

It seems what this agency says in public is hiding what this agency is doing behind-the-scenes....

 

[boltardy]

So what about the present press secretary at the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) -- whose name is Inayat Bunglawala?

Here's a short list of some of Bunglawala's public positions and views:

1) He opposes the banning of Hizb ut-Tahrir (a well-known international terrorist) under the UK anti-terror laws. However, the MCB agreed with the banning of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer (who are NOT linked to violence) from the UK and thinks that English Defence League demonstrations (not linked to killings) should be banned. (Hizb ut-Tahrir, to which the Muslim Council of Britain is concretely connected), was directly responsible for mass communal violence in Bangladesh.)

2) In January 1993, Bunglawala wrote a letter to Private Eye (a British magazine) in which he called Omar Abdel-Rahman "courageous". After Rahman's arrest on charges of masterminding the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York in July that year, Bunglawala said that it was only because of he was "calling on Muslims to fulfill their duty to Allah and to fight against oppression and oppressors everywhere".

3) Five months before the 9/11, he circulated the writings of Osama bin Laden (whom he called a "freedom fighter") to hundreds of Muslims in Britain.

iv) He objects to the use of the phrase "Islamic terrorism". He also believed that Osama bin Laden shouldn’t be described as an "Islamic" or "Islamist" terrorist; but as an "international" terrorist.

It seems what this agency says in public is hiding what this agency is doing behind-the-scenes....

I know nothing about him but Wikipedia seems to refer to him as a past media secretary.

Your post does give me reason for some concern but I'd like to comment on a couple of points.

In my view the terms "freedom fighter" vs "terrorist" are very dependent on ones own perspective. The IRA which has been considered a terrorist organisation in the UK received substantial funds from supporters in the USA who viewed them as freedom fighters for example. (I think support from the USA dropped after 9/11 btw).

The full quote of your #3 that comes from Wikipedia states. "Five months before the September 11, 2001 attacks, Bunglawala also circulated writings of Osama bin Laden, whom he called a "freedom fighter", to hundreds of Muslims in Britain, but stated later on that he no longer views him this way."

I can't help but wonder why you opted to omit the underlined part.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

I know nothing about him but Wikipedia seems to refer to him as a past media secretary.

Your post does give me reason for some concern but I'd like to comment on a couple of points.

In my view the terms "freedom fighter" vs "terrorist" are very dependent on ones own perspective. The IRA which has been considered a terrorist organisation in the UK received substantial funds from supporters in the USA who viewed them as freedom fighters for example. (I think support from the USA dropped after 9/11 btw).

The full quote of your #3 that comes from Wikipedia states. "Five months before the September 11, 2001 attacks, Bunglawala also circulated writings of Osama bin Laden, whom he called a "freedom fighter", to hundreds of Muslims in Britain, but stated later on that he no longer views him this way."

I can't help but wonder why you opted to omit the underlined part.

I did not get my information from Wikipedia. I don't trust Wikipedia since it can be edited by anyone at anytime. The information on Bunglawala is dated May 2, 2014 and comes from a credible website: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014...f_britain_linked_to_school_takeover_plot.html

 

[PeaceLikeaRiver]

I did not get my information from Wikipedia. I don't trust Wikipedia since it can be edited by anyone at anytime.

There is never a cause for concern about that when all edits and previous edits of the information presented are visible at any time, and when the neutrality of an article is an issue, Wikipedia flags it as such. Wikipedia is by and large the best "balanced" account you will get on any issue for that reason.

 

[boltardy]

I did not get my information from Wikipedia. I don't trust Wikipedia since it can be edited by anyone at anytime. The information on Bunglawala is dated May 2, 2014 and comes from a credible website: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014...f_britain_linked_to_school_takeover_plot.html

Apologies for thinking it came from Wikipedia then.

I must as say a general rule (and I can't comment on the site you used), I don't find Wikipedia to be that bad and they at least have a history and discussion pages you can look at when you do suspect bias. Just for the sake of completeness, I will post the Wikipedia section I had read.

Controvoversies
He opposes the banning of Hizb ut-Tahrir under the new UK anti-terror laws.[11] Bunglawala considers Ahmed Yassin to be an important Islamic scholar and he opposes the Muslim Association of Britain's removal from the Muslim Council.[12]

In January 1993, Bunglawala wrote a letter to Private Eye, a satirical magazine, in which he called Omar Abdel-Rahman "courageous".[citation needed] After Rahman's arrest on charges of masterminding the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York in July that year, Mr Bunglawala guessed that it was only because of his "calling on Muslims to fulfil their duty to Allah and to fight against oppression and oppressors everywhere". Five months before the September 11, 2001 attacks, Bunglawala also circulated writings of Osama bin Laden, whom he called a "freedom fighter", to hundreds of Muslims in Britain, but stated later on that he no longer views him this way.[5][13] He strongly objects to the use of the phrase "Islamic terrorism," and prefers that Osama bin Laden is described not as an "Islamic" or "Islamist" terrorist, but as an "international" one.[14]

On 13 December 2008, Bunglawala was taken into custody following a violent confrontation at his home with an intruder, who was stabbed during the early-morning scuffle. On 17 March 2009, the Crown Prosecution Service said they would not take any action against Bunglawala.[15][16]​

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

I know nothing about him but Wikipedia seems to refer to him as a past media secretary.

Your post does give me reason for some concern but I'd like to comment on a couple of points.

In my view the terms "freedom fighter" vs "terrorist" are very dependent on ones own perspective. The IRA which has been considered a terrorist organisation in the UK received substantial funds from supporters in the USA who viewed them as freedom fighters for example. (I think support from the USA dropped after 9/11 btw).

The full quote of your #3 that comes from Wikipedia states. "Five months before the September 11, 2001 attacks, Bunglawala also circulated writings of Osama bin Laden, whom he called a "freedom fighter", to hundreds of Muslims in Britain, but stated later on that he no longer views him this way."

I can't help but wonder why you opted to omit the underlined part.

Whoa! I just read Wikipedia and searched the recent edits. It appears a person with an Arabic name CHANGED the wording from "is media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain" (which Wikipedia shows it read "is" for at least the last 36 months but I didn't check on older edits than that) ; it is NOW changed as of Aug 24, 2014 to read "was".

THAT is suspicious to me considering that the MCB made their public statement on Aug 20, 2014, which you posted on here.

 

[boltardy]

and thinks that English Defence League demonstrations (not linked to killings) should be banned.

I know you don't trust Wikipedia but here is an article on the EDL

 

[boltardy]

Whoa! I just read Wikipedia and searched the recent edits. It appears a person with an Arabic name CHANGED the wording from "is media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain" (which Wikipedia shows it read "is" for at least the last 36 months but I didn't check on older edits than that) ; it is NOW changed as of Aug 24, 2014 to read "was".

THAT is suspicious to me considering that the MCB made their public statement on Aug 20, 2014, which you posted on here.

Not at all. Articles on Wikipedia can get updated very quickly. To pick on something very trivial and reasonably obscure, if say an England cricket player broke some record in a test match, I would reasonably expect that information to have been added to the article on that player within 15 minutes of the event occurring.

 

[PeaceLikeaRiver]

Just saw this posted on another site, relevant to this discussion I think:

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

I know you don't trust Wikipedia but here is an article on the EDL

It was interesting but I don't believe Wikipedia to be accurate, although there is no doubt enough accuracy to lure unsuspecting people into its bias, even while claiming it is unbiased.

However, my issue is not about the EDL. It is about the CURRENT press secretary of the MCB.

When I attended college a number of years ago, we were banned from using Wikipedia as any type of reference, due to the nature of its posts. Indeed, the professors considered it a joke, and I have since found this to be true on my own as well.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

Not at all. Articles on Wikipedia can get updated very quickly. To pick on something very trivial and reasonably obscure, if say an England cricket player broke some record in a test match, I would reasonably expect that information to have been added to the article on that player within 15 minutes of the event occurring.

Yes, so why wasn't his employment status changed within at least the first few months if it were true? It seems this is NOT a trivial or obscure event. In fact, if I were the press secretary and my employment status changed, I would definitely see to it myself that the information was updated quickly to reflect that.

...or maybe this press secretary was not concerned about updating Wikipedia because he knew so few people considered it a credible source? I think he is STILL the press secretary, so no need to change it.

 

[boltardy]

It was interesting but I don't believe Wikipedia to be accurate, although there is no doubt enough accuracy to lure unsuspecting people into its bias, even while claiming it is unbiased.

However, my issue is not about the EDL. It is about the CURRENT press secretary of the MCB.

When I attended college a number of years ago, we were banned from using Wikipedia as any type of reference, due to the nature of its posts. Indeed, the professors considered it a joke, and I have since found this to be true on my own as well.

I'm struggling to find much else on this MCB person but do note this article in the Huffington Post refers to him as "their then Press Secretary". That article however is dated 2011 ?????

It's years since I was in school and never was an academic but I'm not aware of the degree of criticism of it you suggest within my own circle of people I know socially (who do include teachers and a couple of PhDs but maybe we are too busy with playing music to discuss such matters...) . The feeling I've had about the site in terms of academic usage is that it can be useful for pointers for further research.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

I'm struggling to find much else on this MCB person but do note this article in the Huffington Post refers to him as "their then Press Secretary". That article however is dated 2011 ?????

It's years since I was in school and never was an academic but I'm not aware of the degree of criticism of it you suggest within my own circle of people I know (who do include teachers and a couple of PhDs but maybe we are too busy with playing music to discuss such matters...) . The feeling I've had about the site in terms of academic usage is that it can be useful for pointers for further research.

Okay, it seems we are trying to pinpoint the validity of Wikipedia before we can go much farther in our discussion on the behind-the-scenes activities of the MCB. Here is another possible error in a search of Wikipedia for the Muslim Council of Britain: At the bottom of the page, Wikipedia lists Inayat Bunglawala as their Assistant Secretary-General.

Can we agree that Wikipedia is full of errors but may be useful for pointers for further research?

Back to Inayat Bunglawala, who definitely is documented both on Wikipedia and other sites to have made supporting public statements regarding several Islamic terrorists, even while he was/is(?) an accredited member of the MCB, which in MY view, brings into question the integrity of MCB.

This is why I cannot accept at face-value, the public "anti-terrorist" post made by the MCB. In addition, it is well-documented that of the almost 500 affiliated organizations which the MCB publicly helps fund, almost a third of them are concretely connected to the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

[boltardy]

Can we agree that Wikipedia is full of errors but may be useful for pointers for further research?

No. From my own perspective and needs, it can be very good. I would not go as far as to suggest that every article can simply be taken at face value though.

Back to Inayat Bunglawala, who definitely is documented both on Wikipedia and other sites to have made supporting public statements regarding several Islamic terrorists, even while he was/is(?) an accredited member of the MCB, which in MY view, brings into question the integrity of MCB.

I think I could find reasons for suspicion in many organisations in this world. These organisations would include yours and my governments (regardless of whether the ones in power were the ones I voted for) and feel corruption and hidden agendas can be found everywhere. Within that sort of limitation, personally I would take that statement at face value and certainly would prefer to see them publicly condemning extremism to staying quiet on the matter.

 

[C1oudwatch3r]

No. From my own perspective, it can be very good. I would not go as far as to suggest that every article can simply be taken at face value though.

I think I could find reasons for suspicion in many organisations in this world. These organisations would include yours and my governments (regardless of whether the ones in power were the ones I voted for) and feel corruption and hidden agendas can be found everywhere. Within that sort of limitation, personally I would take that statement at face value and certainly would prefer to see them publicly condemning extremism to staying quiet on the matter.

I would prefer their public condemnation of terrorism as well. I just don't think their public statements and charitable giving are what they are ALL about.