[Capteddie]

In the case of the alleged "Muslims" trashing liquor stores in Oakland their motive was clearly founded on Islamic religious writings, correctly interpereted or not. Their actions were based on the Islamic belief (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002649107_bowties27.html) that Muslims shouldn't consume alcohol. Clearly Islamic religious writings can be used to justify the trashing of a liquor store owned by Muslims and servicing Muslims. It can probably be used to advocate worse acts indeed. Indisputably some leaders (http://www.islamonline.net/english/News/2003-03/20/article03.shtml) in the Islamic religious world advocate the use of violence to enforce their beliefs on others.

That being said...

In the case of the alleged "Christian" Eric Rudolph blowing up abortion clinics his motive was clearly founded on Christian religious writings, correctly interpereted or not. His actions were based on the Christian belief (http://crime.about.com/b/a/186762.htm) that Christians shouldn't have abortions. Clearly Christian religious writings can be used to justify the bombing of an abortion clinic owned by Christians and servicing Christians. It can probably be used to advocate worse acts indeed. Indisputably some leaders (http://www.armyofgod.com/Paulhillindex.html) in the Christian religious world advocate the use of violence to enforce their beliefs on others.

I think this is the point Shootinstudent was trying to make in that now locked other thread and it somehow got lost in the Jewish thing I guess.

"Religious writings" from ANY religion can be INTERPERETED to advocate all kinds of crazy things. When you start with ancient, often ambiguously worded text that has been recopied over hundreds of years and across many languages an individual religious leader can probably justify just about anything if he puts his or her mind to it.

The point is, Muslims aren't all evil, Christians aren't all evil, Jews aren't all evil, neither are Hindus, Pagans, Druids, or anything else. The problem only comes when members of any of these groups decide that they are justified by their beleifs to try and enforce their standards on others. This RADICALISM or EXTREMISM is the problem, not the religion itself.

When ANY religion becomes RADICALIZED it is a danger to anyone who is not a RADICAL of the religion. Extremist Christians are as bad as Extremist Moslims, who are as bad as Extremist Jews, etc...

[DelayedReaction]

In other words, it takes more than a religion (or a position on gun control) to define who a person is.

[pax]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=18458

Been there, discussed that. Agree with you. But I think there's something even more dangerous.

pax

[Ezekiel]

When ANY religion becomes RADICALIZED

Not specifically religion, but any THING -- including a manner of thought -- that becomes radicalized is usually problematic...

[Capteddie]

the benevolence of powerful government is the most dangerous belief on the planet.

Amen to that pax. :)

[Gary H]

It works on a national/global level much in the same way as in the local personal environment. The domestic abuser first must view the potential victim as somehow inferior. Usually, this is recognized as the name calling stage. Once the other person becomes less than a person, then the violence can start. Misuse of religion is just one of the methods used to justify the dehumanization of group "x". Next comes the violence. Check out Death by "Gun Control" by Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens. It becomes clear that genocide begins with dehumanizing some group. Gun control simply provides the means to an end.


Government Dates Targets Civiliams Killed "Gun Control" Laws Features of Over-all "Gun Control" scheme
Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917 Armenians
(mostly Christians) 1-1.5 million Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866
& 1911 Proclamation, 1915 • Permits required •Government list of owners
•Ban on possession

Soviet Union 1929-1945 Political opponents;
farming communities 20 million Resolutions, 1918
Decree, July 12, 1920
Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926 •Licensing of owners
•Ban on possession
•Severe penalties

Nazi Germany
& Occupied Europe 1933-1945 Political opponents;
Jews; Gypsies;
critics; "examples" 20 million Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928
Weapon Law, March 18, 1938
Regulations against Jews, 1938 •Registration & Licensing
•Stricter handgun laws
•Ban on possession

China, Nationalist 1927-1949 Political opponents;
army conscripts; others 10 million Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914
Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935 •Government permit system
•Ban on private ownership
China, Red 1949-1952
1957-1960
1966-1976 Political opponents;
Rural populations
Enemies of the state 20-35 million Act of Feb. 20, 1951
Act of Oct. 22, 1957 •Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone resisting any government program
•Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals"

Guatemala 1960-1981 Mayans & other Indians;
political enemies 100,000-
200,000 Decree 36, Nov 25 •Act of 1932
Decree 386, 1947
Decree 283, 1964 •Register guns & owners •Licensing with high fees
•Prohibit carrying guns
•Bans on guns, sharp tools •Confiscation powers

Uganda 1971-1979 Christians
Political enemies 300,000 Firearms Ordinance, 1955
Firearms Act, 1970 •Register all guns & owners •Licenses for transactions
•Warrantless searches •Confiscation powers

Cambodia
(Khmer Rouge) 1975-1979 Educated Persons;
Political enemies 2 million Art. 322-328, Penal Code
Royal Ordinance 55, 1938 •Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions
•Photo ID with fingerprints •License inspected quarterly

Rwanda 1994 Tutsi people 800,000 Decree-Law No. 12, 1979 •Register guns, owners, ammunition •Owners must justify
need •Concealable guns illegal •Confiscating powers

[Cosmoline]

Rudolf may have been pushing *A* Protestant Christian philosophy, but he was NOT enforcing some established CHRISTIAN LAW. There's a big difference. ISLAMIC LAW, in effect in many parts of the Muslim world, mandates that Muslims drink no alcohol and that no Muslim can sell alcohol. This is not the theoretical belief of a few extremists--it is THE LAW. The only question in the Islamic world is whether or not this law should be enforced over secular law. I've never heard any Muslim say that consumption and sale of alcohol is OK under Islamic Law, except to the extent provision is made for Christians to sell it to other Christians.

That said, I agree Rudolf was absolutely a religious terrorist. I just don't think you can cite any established Christian law that gives the approval to individuals to attack abortion clinics. The moral question about abortion is hotly debated, of course, but there really is no CHRISTIAN LAW in the same sense that there is ISLAMIC LAW. 500 years ago there was, in the form of Catholic Canon Law--the Sicut Judeis for example which outlined Christian "toleration" for Jews. But it's long gone. Sharia Law, in contrast, is alive and kicking--or more properly alive and *HACKING* It's a serious threat, and IMHO any effort to enforce Sharia law in American streets must be stamped out quickly and brutally or we'll find ourselves in the same bath as the French--NEVER a good thing.

[DRZinn]

The real distinction is that Rudolf is the exception that proves the rule.

[shootinstudent]

Sharia Law, in contrast, is alive and kicking--or more properly alive and *HACKING* It's a serious threat, and IMHO any effort to enforce Sharia law in American streets must be stamped out quickly and brutally or we'll find ourselves in the same bath as the French--NEVER a good thing.

Brutally and quickly? What does that mean? Is this a post about people criminally smashing up other people's property, or is it about drawing connections between suspected nation of islam crooks and the entire 1.2 billion Muslims in the world? Which is it?

Seems to me the formula is alive and well....we attack one minority group, find out that we're butchers for doing it, and then quickly move on to the next.

", unlike those last victims of ours who turned out to be innocent, are the [I]real culprits...so we should understand that any crimes or other evils which we can possibly associate with their religion/language/looks/clothes/whatever should be posted all over the internet with the heading ' is attacking us!!!!'. That way, we'll get the message out that, even though we were wrong last time, [I]this time the target of our collective punishment campaign is the right one!"

[Capteddie]

but there really is no CHRISTIAN LAW
But it's long gone

A quick search turned up these two.....

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/archived/EvansMorello.htm

http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

I find the first especially interesting since is does say "church law does say abortion is illegal".

I don't mean to pick on Catholics, and yes I do realize Rudolph is protestant. I'm sure I could find examples from other Christian denominations if I took the time, but since you used Canon Law in your example it seemed like an easy place to start.

any effort to enforce Sharia law in American streets must be stamped out quickly and brutally
I don't know about the quickly and brutally part, but I whole heartedly agree that we can not afford to tolerate religious vigilantism in any way, shape, or form. Muslims should no more be allowed to enforce their "Sharia Law" on others any more than Catholics should be allowed to enforce their "Church Law" on others. As I said ANY religion that tries to force it's beliefs on others is a danger to us all, but being a Muslim doesn't mean you are going to trash a liquor store any more than being a Catholic means you are going blow up an abortion clinic, again not to pick on Catholics, just an example.

[c_yeager]

Rudolf may have been pushing *A* Protestant Christian philosophy, but he was NOT enforcing some established CHRISTIAN LAW. There's a big difference. ISLAMIC LAW, in effect in many parts of the Muslim world, mandates that Muslims drink no alcohol and that no Muslim can sell alcohol.

Your right, Christians can just make up any rule that they feel like and find some obscure refference to pull out of context as justification.

Heres a lovely example, the man who mantains this site is a "Christian" preacher. If he were a Muslim we would call him a "Religious Leader", does he represent you? And what of *his* brand of "Christian Law"?

http://www.godhatesfags.com/

[antarti]

It's a serious threat, and IMHO any effort to enforce Sharia law in American streets must be stamped out quickly and brutally or we'll find ourselves in the same bath as the French--NEVER a good thing.

I guess I don't see any issues with this quote, unlike some above.

I don't read it to mean "anybody who knows what Sharia is", but rather "anybody who is trying to enforce it, despite the laws of the land".

Believe me when I tell you, I could make up (or look back in our history for) some "religious laws" and start "enforcing them" right now... it doesn't make it proper and shouldn't be tolerated, by anybody.

I don't seem to recall a "Sharia Party" or "Christian Fundie Party" taking control in the last elections anywhere.

Whether Sharia or some kind of intolerant Christian/Jewish/Hindu strain, anybody beating up or killing people just because of a religious doctrine DOES need putting down, and quick. That's not what this country is about, and the sooner any perpetrators of religious hatred learn that, the better.

Bringing Europeans and Middle-Easterners here is one thing, bringing the religious and ethnic problems of the EMEA region here is entirely another.

[Cosmoline]

Catholic Canon law in its current form only governs matters of faith for Catholics. There is no comparison between it and Sharia law--which in its current form is supposed to be enforced as THE LAW for everyone. Sharia law IS terrorism and poses a clear and present danger to each and every one of us.

I would hope that the feds clamp down on these efforts to impose Sharia law just as brutally as they clamped down on JDL's efforts to allegedly build a small pipe bomb. 20 years hard federal time for everyone involved.

[one45auto]

Okay, so we have - what, one so-called Christian terrorist versus how many Muslim terrorists? I know which group I'd prefer live around.

[shootinstudent]

There is no comparison between it and Sharia law--which in its current form is supposed to be enforced as THE LAW for everyone. Sharia law IS terrorism and poses a clear and present danger to each and every one of us.

This is plainly false. There are a number of Islamic countries, with Muslim populations, who are just fine with Shariah as a moral law, like it is in the Koran. There is absolutely zero support for the position that all Islamic belief requires making the religious law the law of the state. In addition, to say that all the incarnations of Shariah are "terrorism" belies a plain fact which I hope people will note: the speaker of such lines has not read any, not even one, work of Islamic jurisprudence, nor has he consulted any Islamic sources on the debates regarding Islamic law.

Cosmoline, I'd like to see an answer to the question: Are these posts about condemning criminal activity, or are they about tying that activity to the religion of Islam?

You brought up the example of the JDL...how would you feel about people making a point of trying to show that in some way, Jewish beliefs required (to those JDL members arrested) them to commit acts of terrorism? I'd sure think that was an odd focus, and I'd be suspicious of anyone's motives who used the JDL to make comments about the "worldwide danger of Jewish religious beliefs regarding the treatment of non Jews." (There are such people out there. The difference is that we are generally smart enough to recognize how inherently evil their ideas are, whereas when people do the same thing with Muslims, it looks like more and more people are missing the comparison...)

Condemning extremism, as many on this thread have done, is fine. My issue is that there's always someone who wants to chime in and do his best to connect some particular instance of extremism and crime to the religion as a whole. For whatever group the particular criminal adheres to, trying to connect one crime to that religion is wrong and it's exactly what racists and hate-mongers have done for the past 1000 years. It is the product of a defective and inherently evil (I call it evil based on its track record of genocide and discrimination) theory of collective guilt, whereby the actions of criminals are cast onto the beliefs (and therefore, the believers) of a whole people.

I didn't think this would be so tough to get people to recognize...all you have to do with the things that are being written about Muslims these days is take out the word "Muslim" and insert another word like "african" or "Jew." If the resulting writing looks just like a reincarnation of the blood libel, but for the word "Muslim" in the text, then you have got to seriously think about the motivation of the author....it's a safe bet that any writing fitting the blood libel formula isn't about justice and making the world a better place, IMO.

[longeyes]

If Eric Rudolph didn't exist, we'd have to invent him. He appears to be a one-man anecdotal "moral equivalency" enforcer. Amazing.

All we need to do is take off the blinders and look at the numbers of terrorist incidents and who is committing them and under what colors to comprehend the dangers that exist.

Of course, fanatics exist in all groups. We know that. Now let's open our eyes.

[longeyes]

[from the Los Angeles Times]

THE WORLD
Fundamentalism in French Workplace
Private employers wrestle with expressions of Islam, while study alleges criminal links.
By Sebastian Rotella
Times Staff Writer

November 26, 2005

PARIS — Employees set up clandestine prayer areas on the grounds of the Euro Disney resort.

Workers for a cargo firm at Charles de Gaulle airport praise the Sept. 11 attacks.

A Brinks technician is charged with pulling off a million-dollar heist for a Moroccan terrorist group allegedly led by his brother. Female converts to Islam operate a day-care center that authorities eventually shut down because of its religious radicalism.

As France grapples with the rise of Islamic extremism abroad and at home, the line between legitimate religious _expression and extremist subversion can be blurry. But a recent study by a think tank here paints a picture of rising fundamentalism in the workplace, ranging from proselytizing to pressure tactics to criminal activities.

In companies such as supermarket chains in immigrant-heavy areas, for instance, militant recruiters cause workplace tensions by imposing fundamentalist ideas on co-workers and pressuring managers to boycott certain products, the study says.

On a more sinister level, the study asserts that Islamic networks are trying to establish a presence in firms involved in sectors such as security, cargo, armored cars, courier services and transportation. Once they gain a foothold, operatives raise funds for militants via theft, embezzlement and robbery, the study alleges.

"Parallel to these sect-like risks, the spread of criminal practices has been detected in the heart of companies [with] two goals: crime using Islam as a pretext; and in addition, local financing of terrorism," concludes the study by the Center for Intelligence Research in Paris.

The report was issued before the recent riots that spread arson and violence nationwide and focused attention on France's immigrant neighborhoods, which are predominantly Muslim. Although intelligence officials detected only a few cases of extremists inciting unrest, authorities worry that the tense urban climate strengthens the hand of hard-core Islamic networks.

French anti-terrorism officials agree with some of the findings of the study of the private sector, though they say parts of the report exaggerate or simplify a complex issue. In any case, the concern is justified in a wider context, officials say: Extremism is rising in France, home to Europe's largest Muslim community, and intertwining with a foreign threat.

Recent arrests reveal that France has been targeted by an alliance teaming Abu Musab Zarqawi, leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, with an Algerian-dominated network, said a senior French law enforcement official, who asked to remain anonymous for security reasons.

Zarqawi operatives in Lebanon taught bomb-making to accused militants from the network who were arrested here, including French converts, the official said.

That underscores a development on the home front: a "significant increase" in converts, including women, said a French intelligence official, who also asked not to be identified.

In the northwestern Paris suburb of Argenteuil, female converts helped set up an unlicensed day-care center for a dozen children at an apartment in a housing project. After intelligence officials determined that the center was run with an aggressively fundamentalist philosophy, authorities shut it down last year.

Conversions also result from militant recruiting in workplaces, according to the think tank report, which is based on a survey of corporate executives, private security officials and law enforcement experts. The author, Eric Denece, acknowledged that the issue was complex.

"The focus on the private sector is new because law enforcement does not work on it much — they have other concerns," Denece said. "But also, company executives have not wanted to talk about this sensitive subject. Some were concerned about being called racists."

Denece's study cites a case examined in 2004 by Renseignements Generaux, the domestic intelligence agency, involving the discovery of "about 10 clandestine prayer rooms" on the grounds of Euro Disney.

Denece also alleges that fundamentalists were detected in the resort's security force, but a spokesman for Euro Disney said that claim was inaccurate. As for the prayer areas, spokesman Pieter Boterman said the company resolved that issue.

"I thought it was exaggerated to talk about prayer rooms," Boterman said. "During Ramadan, they took a few minutes to pray somewhere. We made it clear that we thought the work floor was not the place to express your personal religion."

There are a few clear-cut examples of alleged infiltration of companies. Last year, police investigated a heist at the Brinks Co. that was allegedly engineered by an operative of a Moroccan terrorist network that has been implicated in the 2004 Madrid train bombings.

Hassan Baouchi, who was 23 at the time, worked as a technician stocking ATMs; his brother, Mustafa, was a veteran of two stints in Al Qaeda's Afghan camps and an alleged leader of the network.

In March 2004, Hassan Baouchi claimed that stick-up men had waylaid him during his rounds north of the capital and stolen about $1.2 million. But he now awaits trial on charges of faking the robbery in cahoots with a gang of known jihadis. About $40,000 later turned up on a fugitive captured in Algeria.

"That's a real concrete example of terrorist financing," said the senior law enforcement official. He also said extremists have been detected trying to establish a presence in sensitive sectors related to defense and transportation.

The report describes a case in which police investigated a cargo company at Charles de Gaulle International Airport with about 3,000 employees. Managers complained that a small group of radicals had tried to gain influence by preaching to co-workers and threatening repeated strikes. Some of the activists "expressed satisfaction" with the Sept. 11 attacks, the report says.

The French intelligence official confirmed that authorities closely monitor the notable presence of Muslim fundamentalists among the many immigrant employees at the airport.

In 2002, a 27-year-old systems engineer working in the airport's control tower was abruptly barred from secure areas. Police had discovered that he was a devout disciple of a radical imam and frequented militant mosques here, in his native Morocco and in the Middle East. The Iraqi-born imam is now under house arrest, accused of hate speech.

"There are worries about the presence of extremists at the airport," the intelligence official said. "There was no link found to violent jihad groups, but [the engineer] was certainly very active in a fundamentalist movement with anti-Western, anti-American ideas. Because of the particularly sensitive job he had, a decision was made, in the name of caution, to reassign him."

Nonetheless, the intelligence official took issue with parts of the think tank report. Hard-core networks often finance themselves through small businesses and the underworld, he said.

"The most radical extremists tend to exclude themselves from corporate employment because of their dress, their behavior," the intelligence official said. "They have to resort to small business, the ethnic economy. A lot of financing comes from traffic in fake papers and armed robbery."

In fact, Denece also discusses the emergence of "gangsterrorism," in which extremists team with mafias for mutual gain. But the private sector faces a more subtle and slippery challenge from nonviolent militants, the report says.

Executives say pressure groups in supermarkets and other companies advance oppressive ideological agendas: They pressure co-workers to wear religious garb, defy the authority of female managers and demand boycotts of products such as alcohol, pork, Israeli oranges and American brownies, Denece said.

"For French companies, the rise in power of radical Islam represents a new threat," the report states. "This trend expresses above all a move to take control of behavior and ideas of other workers in order to impose a value system conforming to extremist ideology."

Nonetheless, demographics and perception make the debate difficult. As the report points out, Muslim employees in France are starting to organize themselves along religious and ethnic lines rather than following the lead of traditional leftist unions. Management may sometimes allege extremism when workers are finding new ways to organize and defend their interests.

"It's more and more frequent for us to hear about attempts at infiltration, but it's not rampant," the intelligence official said. "It's full of dilemmas. Sometimes you will have fundamentalist employees, but they do not cause trouble. And sometimes you will have a mix of labor politics and religion that is more about establishing power than anything else."

[DRZinn]

If Eric Rudolph didn't exist, we'd have to invent him. He appears to be a one-man anecdotal "moral equivalency" enforcer. Amazing.Well said.

[Cosmoline]

There is absolutely zero support for the position that all Islamic belief requires making the religious law the law of the state.

So the Taliban and current rulers of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other fundamentalist regimes reject imposing Islamic law on their nations? I guess all the women in SA can start driving now! And of course Brown Jug can open a bunch of stores down there and sell to Muslims. Great news!

Are these posts about condemning criminal activity, or are they about tying that activity to the religion of Islam?

My point is very simple. Attempts to enforce Islamic Law by force in the US is itself a criminal and terrorist activity. This liquor store attack is a perfect example. Islamic Law in its current form cannot exist within a western democracy. It is fundamentally different from purely religious edicts of Catholics, Jews, and others. Islamic Law in its current form as enforced in SA, Iran and in the old Afghanistan TRUMPS AND SUBSUMES the civil law. We cannot tolerate something like that here. Now if some Muslims want to set up an arbitration panel to decide civil matters according to their religious law--fine. But that's not how Islamic Law is being imposed.

[c_yeager]

My point is very simple. Attempts to enforce Islamic Law by force in the US is itself a criminal and terrorist activity. This liquor store attack is a perfect example. Islamic Law in its current form cannot exist within a western democracy.

SO where in "islamic law" does it say that one should put on a bow tie and attack people who are selling alcohol to muslims?

[shootinstudent]

So the Taliban and current rulers of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other fundamentalist regimes reject imposing Islamic law on their nations? I guess all the women in SA can start driving now! And of course Brown Jug can open a bunch of stores down there and sell to Muslims. Great news!

The Taliban did not and never have followed Islamic law. They are Pashtun, and have their own legal system (Pashtunwali.)

Iran's version of Islamic law is so completely unrelated to Saudi Arabia's that they are barely even the same religion. A nominal reliance on Muhammad and the Koran are about the only similarities.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are perfect examples of corrupt, undemocratic regimes that do not and never have spoken with any legitimacy whatsoever. Why do they get to speak for the actual religion when they've proven that they do not represent even their own people (themselves a minority of the Islamic world)?

Islamic Law in its current form cannot exist within a western democracy.

Absolutely false. There are whole networks of Islamic scholars who argue for democracy, and who believe that Islam and democracy are perfectly compatible. Some of them are working on the Iraqi constitution, and others are supporting the government in Iraq, like Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani. There are some radical Islamic schools that demand despotism; they are by far the minority. This is why it's important to not speak of Islamic law as if it's one thing, because it's not.

Just as the extremists in Judaism and Christianity who want to make their religions the law of the land are minorities, so in Islam extremism is the minority.

We cannot tolerate something like that here. Now if some Muslims want to set up an arbitration panel to decide civil matters according to their religious law--fine. But that's not how Islamic Law is being imposed.

You are missing the point. You're speaking as if most Muslims support radical interpretations of the religion that require despotism and strict religious law. That is NOT the case, and what you are trying to do is take what the extremists are doing and impute to the rest of the group. That is a picture perfect example of assigning collective guilt to a group about whose beliefs you know very little, based on the high profile actions of a few.

It is a tired old method, and it is guaranteed to lead to disastrous results if too many people sign on to it.

[BTR]

It seems unlikely the Eric Rudolf is a christian at all. Here's a quote from him:



"Most of them have, of course, an agenda; mostly born-again Christians looking to save my soul. I suppose the assumption is made that because I'm in here I must be a 'sinner' in need of salvation, and they would be glad to sell me a ticket to heaven, hawking this salvation like peanuts at a ballgame," he wrote.

"I do appreciate their charity, but I could really do without the condescension. They have been so nice I would hate to break it to them that I really prefer Nietzsche to the Bible."

[Cosmoline]

The Taliban did not and never have followed Islamic law. They are Pashtun, and have their own legal system (Pashtunwali.)

Iran's version of Islamic law is so completely unrelated to Saudi Arabia's that they are barely even the same religion. A nominal reliance on Muhammad and the Koran are about the only similarities.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are perfect examples of corrupt, undemocratic regimes that do not and never have spoken with any legitimacy whatsoever. Why do they get to speak for the actual religion when they've proven that they do not represent even their own people (themselves a minority of the Islamic world)?


Is it your position that none of these nations' legal systems are drawn from the Koran or other Islamic sources? Is it your position that the widespread ban on alcohol sales in Islamic nations is purely for health reasons?

Your "minority" looks to me like a pretty large plurality, if not a majority.

[Cosmoline]

SO where in "islamic law" does it say that one should put on a bow tie and attack people who are selling alcohol to muslims?

Don't know about the bowtie, but it's very well established in Islamic Law that Muslims should neither drink alcohol nor sell it. The violence used to enforce this law is also a very common aspect of Islamic Law, from Saudi Arabia to Iran to the Talibs. These are different ethnic groups with different brands of Islam--but the violence and intensity of their enforcement of Islamic Law is uniform. It's no accident that a bunch of Muslims in bowties in California have EXACTLY THE SAME REACTION to liquor stores as totally unrelated Muslims in Iraq.

[shootinstudent]

Is it your position that none of these nations' legal systems are drawn from the Koran or other Islamic sources? Is it your position that the widespread ban on alcohol sales in Islamic nations is purely for health reasons?

No. My position is that these are minority extremist views of the Koran, that do not draw at all on other Islamic sources. That's a pretty easy to verify fact. If you spend 2 hours researching Islamic jurisprudence, I guarantee that you will find that out for yourself. The doctrines expounded by the Wahabists and the Iranian clerics do not come from any traditional or widely accepted Islamic authorities.

The Taliban legal system is even futher out. It does not come from Islamic sources at all, radical or not.

Your "minority" looks to me like a pretty large plurality, if not a majority.

Since when do brutal dictatorships get to speak for what the people believe? Take a look at the at least somewhat democratic Muslim nations, and there you will find no such radicalism in the law. That should be telling enough. (Turkey, Indonesia, the former Yugoslavia, etc...).

It's no accident that a bunch of Muslims in bowties in California have EXACTLY THE SAME REACTION to liquor stores as totally unrelated Muslims in Iraq.

The only coincidence is that in both cases, there are thugs. The religious beliefs of the NOI are totally unrelated to the religious beliefs of extremists in the middle east. Drawing a line between the two is like saying that because buddhists and christians both discourage the drinking of alcohol, buddhism and christian teaching are more than "accidentally" related.

[c_yeager]

Don't know about the bowtie, but it's very well established in Islamic Law that Muslims should neither drink alcohol nor sell it.

Indeed. So if a Jew were to attack a butcher for selling bacon to other Jews he would be behaving in accordance with Jewish law? The law is one thing, the violence is what is up to interpretation, and nothing in "Islamic law" calls for it.

[Cosmoline]

The real question is why the Orthodox Jews don't ransack non-kosher butchers, while so many Muslims think it's their right to ransack liquor stores. It's because there's a fundamental difference between the two religious laws. Jewish law is for Jews. Islamic Law is intended to be the law of the entire world. Islamic Law certainly approves the use of physical violence and even lethal force to ensure that it is imposed and respected. It's the old notion that you can make fun of Christ as much as you want, but if you disresepect Mohammed his peace loving followers will cut you to pieces.

[longeyes]

There are whole networks of Islamic scholars who argue for democracy, and who believe that Islam and democracy are perfectly compatible.

I would love to hear their reasoning. I assume they would have no problem then with someone in their democracy who rejected Islam outright? Or do you have to be a Muslim to enjoy the democratic privileges they support?

[shootinstudent]

Longeyes,

Here's a good article to start with. The author is a Sheikh of one of the more conservative Sunni schools (Shafi'i).

http://www.meforum.org/article/14

I assume they would have no problem then with someone in their democracy who rejected Islam outright? Or do you have to be a Muslim to enjoy the democratic privileges they support?

It depends. The author above would say "no problem at all", but then again, he's also a professed Zionist who argues that the Koran provides some basis for religious Muslims to support the state of Israel. The point is that there are many different ideas about Islam within the religion, and so it's wrong to speak of "Islamic law" as if it's only one thing, defined by whoever has the most guns in Saudi Arabia.

[Cousin Mike]

Okay, so we have - what, one so-called Christian terrorist versus how many Muslim terrorists? I know which group I'd prefer live around.


Wow..

Ever heard of the KKK? I'm sure they pretty much fit the definition of the word "terrorist" - And I'm almost positive they consider themselves Christians, and do everything they do using the Bible as justification. What about the IRA in the UK? What about the Christian extremists in Beirut in the '80s? Some of the most horrible things in history have happened in the name of Christianity, and were directly sanctioned by the Pope in MANY cases, including slavery in America. This is not news to anyone who passed the 8th grade.

I had a million comments I could have commented on, but I chose this quote because I believe it reflects the common attitude a lot of Americans have about Muslims. Before I go any further, I will also say many of you surprise me in the knowledge and understanding that these fanatics we're discussing and the views they advocate have nothing to with the religion of Islam. I find that encouraging given the perceptions lots of people have of Muslims nowadays.

I hear phrases like "Islamic" (which is almost NEVER a proper way to refer to anything having to do with Islam or Muslims - it's a genuine media term and reflects the ignorance of the user) this and that, and "Sharia Law", and while I find it amusing people so readily remember the little terms they hear on FOX News, it becomes very obvious that most of these people know nothing about the religion, or even how to speak of it intelligently.

None of these laws people attribute to Islam come from from the Qu'Ran, which is supposed to be the ONLY source of the religion. Unfortunately, books from religious "scholars", Arab culture and regional tradition have left their mark on Islam, just like Western culture has made it's mark on Christianity. The way you practice your religion, the things you believe as an American, will be very different from Christians in the middle east, or Russian Christians, etc.

Anyways - to the point - alcohol and Muslim Law - nothing in the Qu'Ran forbids Muslims to drink. Quite the contrary, the Qu'Ran states that nothing unlawful to Christians or Jews is unlawful to Muslims... And the Bible nor Torah forbid drinking. Religious scholars, books written AFTER the Qu'Ran (called the Hadith and Sunna), and other regional/cultural/social influences invented those "laws" and traditions in attempts to control the masses, and to appear "more pure" than the people of other religions. The Qu'Ran warns of the dangers of intoxicants, but simply does not forbid drinking.

Please, let's try to remember, that if we're not COMPLETELY SURE of what we are saying, we probably should not say it. Especially in forums, where thousands may possibly read it. "Better to look silly and be quiet, than open your mouth and remove all doubt" - or however that little saying goes.

If you want to read about TRUE Islam, and not the news media's version of it, you could find everything you need at

http://www.submission.org

I am not affiliated with this site in any way, but it is a good site for those who know nothing about the faith to learn anything they want to know.

[Cousin Mike]

It's because there's a fundamental difference between the two religious laws. Jewish law is for Jews. Islamic Law is intended to be the law of the entire world. Islamic Law certainly approves the use of physical violence and even lethal force to ensure that it is imposed and respected. It's the old notion that you can make fun of Christ as much as you want, but if you disresepect Mohammed his peace loving followers will cut you to pieces.

That is absolutely assinine... Muslims have the exact same respect for all of God's prophets, and place no single prophet above another. I was going to leave this thread, but as I posted my reply, there was another wonderful post I felt obligated to comment on. Muslims have the absolute highest respect for Jesus Christ, his miracles and his message. The Qu'Ran has more in it about Jesus than the Holy Bible. And you dont go through 12 years of catholic school without reading both books MANY times. It is obvious that you have never in your life taken a single look at the religion for yourself. The things people say with no knowledge of what they speak will never cease to amaze me.

[Cosmoline]

So much respect for Christ, in fact, that they issue death fatwahs against anyone who insults him

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/493436.stm

That's lovely. So actually if you make fun of Jesus the MUSLIMS will kill you.

Your comparisons between Muslim terrorists and the IRA and KKK are silly. The IRA was a largely communist, atheistic movement more concerned with Irish political identity than religious. The second KKK purported to be a Protestant organization, but its attacks on blacks had nothing to do with religion or any Protestant Law. You cannot compare the ISLAMIC LAW in effect in half a dozen Muslim nations with the modern western religions.

[gc70]

by Cousin Mike:
Anyways - to the point - alcohol and Muslim Law - nothing in the Qu'Ran forbids Muslims to drink. ... The Qu'Ran warns of the dangers of intoxicants, but simply does not forbid drinking.I am certainly not a scholar of the Quran, but I did find an article entitled Intoxicants Strictly Prohibited (http://www.submission.org/drugs/alchohol.html) on the website Cousin Mike recommended. The article is well-written, persuasive, and copiously referenced to the Quran.

[Cousin Mike]

So much respect for Christ, in fact, that they issue death fatwahs against anyone who insults him

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/493436.stm

That's lovely. So actually if you make fun of Jesus the MUSLIMS will kill you.


I think I will actually go as far as to simply accuse you of being a bigot. That was such a LAME response to everything I said, along with others like shootinstudent, that it simply does not dignify a response. If I cared enough, I could do a Yahoo! search, and pull up hateful Christian literature from some minority extremist group in seconds, and you know it. I refuse to go back and forth with you, posting links to hateful websites of ANY religion. So many others already disagree with you. There is no need. The fact is clear and to me has been proven beyond any doubt: You know absolutely NOTHING about what you say, you know NOTHING about religion that you don't see on the news, and I am seriously inclined to believe that you simply hate Muslims. I cant imagine being from Alaska that you've ever even MET a real Muslim... So what is your agenda?

[Cosmoline]

So we're not allowed to blame Muslim extremism if Muslim extremists do something bad? I see. That would be unfair to Muslim extremists. Are you saying no Islamic death decree was issued as indicated in the BBC?

My agenda, BTW, is to see that any vestige of Muslim extremism in the US is quashed with extreme prejudice. To ignore the danger it poses out of some concern for political correctness is suicidal. Efforts to impose Islamic Law in the US are an extremely dangerous sign. If you want to see where tolerance for these extremists leads, look at the problems Western Europe faces with controversial artists facing Muslim death decrees and the streets of France burning.

I don't believe the Constitution needs to be violated to make this happen, but it will take a combined effort of strong criminal prosecution under existing laws and universal social rejection of the offending individuals. We need to start be agreeing that people who ransack liquor stores in an effort to impose Islamic Law in the streets of Oakland are terrorist scum.

Serious death decrees by Christian Courts went out 600 years ago, but they still get issued all the time by extremist Muslims. Is it inappropriate to point this out? Is it somehow "unfair" to Islam to blame Islamic terrorists for Islamic terrorism?

[coylh]

We need to start be agreeing that people who ransack liquor stores in an effort to impose Islamic Law in the streets of Oakland are terrorist scum.

They look like petty criminals to me. What definition of "terrorist" are you using?

How much of your concern is for their motivations vs. what they actually did?

[Cousin Mike]

Any type of religious fanaticism needs to be irradicated, and I would also agree with you about the extreme prejudice part. Fundamentalist Islam is a very severe problem in more than a few places in the world... The only thing I want to remind people is that this is not unique to Islam, and ALL fundamentalist interpretations of religion have no place here in America; regardless of what types of extremism we have overcome in our own past as Americans. We should not start demonizing Arab or American Muslims, or the Muslims in Europe, or anyone based on religion, culture or ethnicity. The French situation, by the way, is NOT a situation based on religious extremism, but more on civil rights and economic/educational opportunities for North African immigrants. Denying the KKK (who also targeted Jews and Catholics, not only black people) or IRA (Who were Catholic extremists at war with Protestant extremists in Europe) were terrorist groups to me seems silly. Both used religion to justify violence, both aligned themselves under the banner of Christianity. Both used violence and commited horrible crimes in an attempt to change policy through FEAR... That, in my book, is the definition of a terrorist.

However, as you stated, we agree on the most important thing... Religious law has NO place in American streets. American citizens (in my belief) would never tolerate such a thing, even if the government did, which it wouldn't. I believe the U.S. is the best place for people of ALL religions to live, because we have the right to practice our religion without government interference or mandate, IF one chooses to practice religion at all. To me, it is as simple as this.

There are good people who practice every religion.
There are bad people who practice every religion.
Every religion has extremists, and people who use religion to advocate violence.

It is ALL unacceptable. But so is blaming a whole culture or religion for the appalling actions of a few. You mentioned previously the half-dozen Muslim countries with incredibly oppressive regimes. There are 22 Muslim countries in the Middle East and Central Asia. When you count Africa and South East Asia, the number grows closer to 50. Six countries with serious fundamentalist religious issues, to me, sounds like a small (however vocal) minority. I only hope we can all remember to keep things in perspective while fighting a common enemy.

[longeyes]

The only thing I want to remind people is that this is not unique to Islam, and ALL fundamentalist interpretations of religion have no place here in America; regardless of what types of extremism we have overcome in our own past as Americans.

How often are we going to hear the present compared to the past, often the rather distant past?

I know of no other fundamentalist religious groups on this planet, RIGHT NOW, who are using violence to get their way under the color of their faith and for the advancement of their faith.

As for the situation in France having nothing to do with religion, please read the L.A. Times article previously cited in this thread.

[Cosmoline]

They look like petty criminals to me. What definition of "terrorist" are you using?

How much of your concern is for their motivations vs. what they actually did?

The imposition of Islamic Law in Oakland through spreading terror among liquor store owners pretty much qualifies as Islamic Terrorism in my book. It's the same tactic Muslim extremists use from Indonesia to the Netherlands. Their goal is to impose their religious law here and across the globe.

[coylh]

Cosmoline, I appreciate the answer. I hope you don't mind me pointing out that you used a circular definition.

... spreading terror among liquor store owners pretty much qualifies as Islamic Terrorism ...

I guess I'm trying to discover what makes these people terrorists in your view.

Also, perhaps someone can name the legal concept (I'm not a lawyer) which identifies the kind of harm that a crime causes beyond the normal damage associated with the crime (re cross burning). Maybe this is that sort of crime. So, how much are you concerned with the crime itself (smashing bottles of beer) vs the extra harm (intimidating liquor stores)?

[Cousin Mike]

How often are we going to hear the present compared to the past, often the rather distant past?

I know of no other fundamentalist religious groups on this planet, RIGHT NOW, who are using violence to get their way under the color of their faith and for the advancement of their faith.

As for the situation in France having nothing to do with religion, please read the L.A. Times article previously cited in this thread.

As I recall, the situation in France was sparked over the accidental death of 2 teenagers and the serious injury of a 3rd, whose parents are North African Muslim immigrants - and the riots ensued as a race/nationality/class issue. Claims of not being treated equally in French society. Nothing to do with religion. Just because the people involved may be of one religion or another doesnt make it a religious issue, especially when so many other issues are involved. I don't know who is jumping on what "cause" bandwagon now, but I will read the article.

The American past I refer to is only from as soon as 40 years ago in a lot of cases... I don't consider that to be so incredibly distant. American culture today is largely defined by past and present race relations - I think any educated person would have a hard time denying that. This web site says there are almost 800 active hate groups in the United Stated right now, like the Christian Identity - clearly a hate group under the banner of a religion.

www.tolerance.org/maps/hate/

Some Jewish extremist groups, like the Kahanists in Israel also exist, and are more actively violent than groups in the states. Look them up. Zionism is a fundamentalist view. Look up the true definition. Here's a little something on Jewish fundamentalism. There's lots of other stuff to read on the topic - do a search of your own or two ;)

http://web.mit.edu/cis/www/mitejmes/issues/200105/br_massad.htm

Last post for me - but I'll say it one last time. To say extremism is unique to Islam is simply untrue, and I stick by that statement. Muslim extremism is what's hot right now - in a way, that has allowed other hate groups to enjoy a sort of virtual anonymity. To say no other religious group preaches hate in the world is untrue, and at best an irresponsible assumption, IMHO.

[longeyes]

Muslim extremism is what's hot right now - in a way, that has allowed other hate groups to enjoy a sort of virtual anonymity.

Well, when you're hot you're hot, no doubt about that.