Muslim Outrage Over Paris Shooting

Thanks for posting this. It is a good start and I applaud those who are speaking out. True religion is offered without threats in the spirit of love.

jthomas666 said:

Someone commented in another thread that it would be nice to see more Muslim outrage over terror attacks.

clicky

A lot of examples, but one caught my eye:

Click to expand...

That would be me, and I'm happy to see their response to these cowardly attacks.

TIDE-HSV said:

Living in the North during the worst of the civil rights era - the stand in the door, etc., I remember having to explain that I was not like them; the Klan was not representative of the real South, etc., etc. I was presumed to be a racist. I even had northern racists make the assumption that I must be in agreement with their beliefs. It wore thin and got really old. I think I understand a bit just how most Muslims must feel now...

Click to expand...

That's interesting, Earle.

I run into the same thing (though obviously not to the level of fifty years ago). What's hilarious is to get "educated" by some Northerner who has no idea what the Duluth lynchings or Boston's history of racism are. Most of them are in utter shock when I come back with that - and my point is never that what happened in the South was okay - only that we were hardly singing a solo.

I was at Reggie Jackson's number retirement in Oakland on Saturday, May 22, 2004 (it was Royals pitcher Zack Greinke's first career start, the A's won in 11 innings, 5-4). He saluted some white players there such as Joe Rudi and Rollie Fingers and their wives, noting that they had enabled him to live with them in the 1960s in Birmingham and he also named some other non-Southern towns where he faced prejudice. It was an exquisite moment.

I also do recall some small Islamic groups denouncing 9/11 at the time - to be fair to them, it was difficult to get through with that announcement as horrific as that attack and the news surrounding it was (plus the anthrax letters a week later).

Hezbollah condemned it too. When that happens you know you've done something.

2003TIDE said:

Hezbollah condemned it too. When that happens you know you've done something.

Click to expand...

Hezbollah fears losing their funding from the west.

jthomas666 said:

Someone commented in another thread that it would be nice to see more Muslim outrage over terror attacks.

clicky

A lot of examples, but one caught my eye:

Click to expand...

Nice start and nice symbolism. but talk is cheap. Especially post-facto talk.
The real test is when a radical imam gets thrown out of the pulpit for preaching violence against non-muslims or those who draw freaking cartoons, and when the leadership of a mosque calls the cops and warns them that a member of their congregation is talking like he is about to go on a shooting or bombing rampage, before he actually does it.
That would be nice.
That would be the real proof of sincerity.

TIDE-HSV said:

Can you outline for me who from the west is doing that? First I heard of it...

Click to expand...

I hope this helps.

http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/major-banks-knowingly-funded-hezbollah-terror-operations-suit/

TIDE-HSV said:

You know that's a rhetorical request. From what you've said before about their deep-seated feelings of cultural inferiority, it's just not going to happen - just as very many American black folk will not denounce black leaders with whom they disagree profoundly. After all, he's one of theirs. Among southerners, during George Wallace's heyday, even in Alabama he might have had the agreement of maybe 60% of the (white) people, probably not that high. It's remarkable that only a mere handful could be be found to denounce him. I feel that this is a straw man - "If they don't behave precisely as I decide they should behave, then that means they agree with murder." It's been repeated enough that a lot of people buy it. Doesn't make it true...

Click to expand...

Southerners tend not to denounce other Southerners under pressure from outsiders -- we tend to protect our own, warts and all, when attacks come from "foreigners".

Displaced Bama Fan said:

I hope this helps.

http://nypost.com/2014/11/10/major-banks-knowingly-funded-hezbollah-terror-operations-suit/

Click to expand...

Good business I guess. Get Israel to tear it down/blow it up. Then, finance the rebuilding.

TIDE-HSV said:

Can you outline for me who from the west is doing that? First I heard of it...

Click to expand...

If memory serves me the USA hsd ruled them a terorist group making it much harder to get funded USD currency, but the EU has not yet meaning that Euros are still accessible and likely widely used. Since Hezbollah would like to keep the European money protected, they may want to keep them appeased but I do not think that is why they denounced these attacks. I think it is so they can be seen as the victim next time Israel gors on the offensive.

TIDE-HSV said:

Educate me and answer my question - who in the west, America or Europe is providing funds and support to Hezbollah...

Click to expand...

The only Europeans I see funding them are of muslim descent, but as I pointed out, they do mot need western goverments to fund them (which I believe they are not), they only need for Europes governments to not stop their muslim citizens from funding them. I stated in my post though, that I do not think that the petson you quotrd was right: Jezbollah is not worried about funding, they are worried about Europe condemning Israel since they know the USA will not. Obama may say stuff but he never teally does anything to stop Israels rampages when they get started. What would happen if the EU for once sanctioned Osrael next time they go on the offensive? I think Hezbollah wants to find out.

TIDE-HSV said:

You know that's a rhetorical request. From what you've said before about their deep-seated feelings of cultural inferiority, it's just not going to happen - just as very many American black folk will not denounce black leaders with whom they disagree profoundly. After all, he's one of theirs. Among southerners, during George Wallace's heyday, even in Alabama he might have had the agreement of maybe 60% of the (white) people, probably not that high. It's remarkable that only a mere handful could be be found to denounce him. I feel that this is a straw man - "If they don't behave precisely as I decide they should behave, then that means they agree with murder." It's been repeated enough that a lot of people buy it. Doesn't make it true...

Click to expand...

Unity can be a defense mechanism for minorities. When perceived as being threatened, minorities sometimes close ranks for protection. Blacks and Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton and white southerners in the post-Civil War era both did it. This search for internal unity at all costs, however, eventually leads to the George Wallace character (and, I would argue, the Al Sharpton character). There is a causal relationship between the two. White southerners after the end of Reconstruction closed ranks in the Democrat party and it was virtually impossible for a Republican to get elected in the south for almost a century. Unity-minded southerners vilified those white southerners who did try to break the phalanx (e.g. John S. Mosby and James Longstreet) arguing that, if southerners insisted on defining every political issue in terms of north vs. south, the south would always be on the losing side. The inability of a people to choose, however, encourages nefarious characters like Wallace and Sharpton.

That said, let's test the theory in a group-neutral basis. If a local Baptist or Catholic minister were to get into the pulpit and say that true Christians must kill anybody who draws a picture of Christ in an unflattering manner, what are the odds that no one in the congregation would call the cops or the church hierarchy? Now, if an imam could make a similar statement about someone who drew a picture of Muhamed, what are the odds that no one in the congregation would either call the cops or whatever islamic authorities gave this imam his authority to preach? In the same vein, if a member of a church were to say in church that he is going to shoot "Christ's enemies," or bomb an abortion clinic because abortion was anti-Christian, would the congregation members be more likely to call the cops or less likely than the members of a similarly-situation mosque? The question answers itself.
I would argue that the answer to this question is an example of the subtle bigotry of low expectations. "Well, of course, the muslims would be less likely to call the cops in such situations. They're only muslims and cannot be expected to behave rationally or ethically."

As for the inferiority of muslim culture, think of the three to five most important inventions or discoveries (a product, process, idea) of the last 500 years. I would say: chemistry, Newtonian physics, the radio and the computer (If you disagree with my list, select your own). How many of them came from muslim-majority countries? How long would humanity have had to wait for islamic culture to invent these things? I would argue that, had humanity waited for muslims to bring forth these ideas, we would never have them. On the other hand, what have been the defining characteristics of islamic culture to humanity over the past few centuries? Extreme religious fervor translated into the iron welding of religious policy and the power of the state (as the west was moving away from this, islam is moving towards it), suicide bombing, piracy, indiscriminate violence against "people who pray differently than I do." That does not mean islamic culture has nothing to contribute or has contributed nothing to the world, just that my culture, the West, has contributed a lot more to humanity. I believe the best thing for them is not to be patted on the head and told that "There's a nice little troglodyte. Your backwardness and inferiority are quaint."

I came across an interesting take this morning on the Muslim condemnation of the attacks.
Is it possible this is just Muslims practicing taqiyaya? The Quran excuses and encourages lying if it furthers the cause of Islam. It is believed to be the way of war and conquering by Islam. We used to call it propaganda. Our own politicians have come to believe it is necessary to lie to us for our own good. What a world we live in where truth is no longer valued and everything must be questioned.

Gr8hope said:

I came across an interesting take this morning on the Muslim condemnation of the attacks.
Is it possible this is just Muslims practicing taqiyaya? The Quran excuses and encourages lying if it furthers the cause of Islam. It is believed to be the way of war and conquering by Islam. We used to call it propaganda. Our own politicians have come to believe it is necessary to lie to us for our own good. What a world we live in where truth is no longer valued and everything must be questioned.

Click to expand...

What????? There's no way they would do that from what I've read on this board. Muslims are peace-loving, harmonious individuals who respect everyone's belief system.

As long as it's line with theirs.