MUSLIM TERRORISTS

Status
Not open for further replies.

Capteddie

Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
50
Location
Down the Bayou, Louisiana
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 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 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 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 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...
 
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
 
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.
 
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.

"[insert unpopular different people], unlike those last victims of ours who turned out to be innocent, are the 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 '[insert unpopular group] is attacking us!!!!'. That way, we'll get the message out that, even though we were wrong last time, this time the target of our collective punishment campaign is the right one!"
 
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.
 
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/
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[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."
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
c_yeager said:
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top