Say no to Islam, not on this forum

[SgtRock]

I had an avatar that said say no to Islam. I was told to remove it. If I tell people they should say no to Islam is that hate speech? I am expressing my opinion. Have we become so politically correct that even saying no to something is offensive. If I had an avatar that said say no to devil worship would I be told to remove it for fear of offending witches and warlock's.

My point is that simply saying no to Islam is a right that everyone should have. It is not hate speech. ~ Sgt Rock

[cherokee]

Originally Posted by SgtRock

I had an avatar that said say no to Islam. I was told to remove it. If I tell people they should say no to Islam is that hate speech? I am expressing my opinion. Have we become so politically correct that even saying no to something is offensive. If I had an avatar that said say no to devil worship would I be told to remove it for fear of offending witches and warlock's.

My point is that simply saying no to Islam is a right that everyone should have. It is not hate speech. ~ Sgt Rock

No its not hate speech.
I guess my USMC patch offends many pro Islamic militants or their supporters, Maybe my nickname offends cowboys in some way?... What’s next, are drug dealers going to get pissed at “Just say no to drugs”?
But gods knows we cant offend Islam…..

[CaptainCourtesy]

'Say No to Islam' is the same as saying 'Say No to Judaism' or saying 'Say No to Christianity, or saying 'Say No to Homosexuality'. Each statement attacks a group of people without differentiation, and is degrading, inciting, and prejudicial against the entire group or belief. If you want to have an avatar that says 'Say No to Islamic terrorists' that would be fine. This addresses a section that advocates and performs violence. These Muslims do, all Muslims don't. That's the difference and why your original avatar was not acceptable.

[A_Wise_Fool]

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

'Say No to Islam' is the same as saying 'Say No to Judaism' or saying 'Say No to Christianity, or saying 'Say No to Homosexuality'. Each statement attacks a group of people without differentiation, and is degrading, inciting, and prejudicial against the entire group or belief. If you want to have an avatar that says 'Say No to Islamic terrorists' that would be fine. This addresses a section that advocates and performs violence. These Muslims do, all Muslims don't. That's the difference and why your original avatar was not acceptable.

Why does the single phrase "Say no to Islam" equate all Muslims to terrorism? It has to right? Otherwise "Say no to Islam" is just a harmless dissenting opinion over Islam; is there something inherently wrong with that? People brand political parties wrong every day, and no one seems to mind. They do not get upset over people attacking "a group of people without differentiation, and is degrading, inciting, and prejudicial against the entire group or belief."


When someone disagrees with something people usually attribute it to said item's most prominet aspect. Islam's most prominent aspect today obviously is the potential for terrorism since we see it in the media so often. I don't think we should be censored in saying what we believe is wrong with something in the world, and especially not have what we say labeled as hate speech(ie. attacking someone). Evidence dictates our opinions, we should share those opinions. Some people think all of Islam promotes violence, I think they should be allowed to freely share their opinions, along with evidence, and let the evidence decide.

[CaptainCourtesy]

Originally Posted by A_Wise_Fool

Why does the single phrase "Say no to Islam" equate all Muslims to terrorism? It has to right? Otherwise "Say no to Islam" is just a harmless dissenting opinion over Islam; is there something inherently wrong with that? People brand political parties wrong every day, and no one seems to mind. They do not get upset over people attacking "a group of people without differentiation, and is degrading, inciting, and prejudicial against the entire group or belief."


When someone disagrees with something people usually attribute it to said item's most prominet aspect. Islam's most prominent aspect today obviously is the potential for terrorism since we see it in the media so often. I don't think we should be censored in saying what we believe is wrong with something in the world, and especially not have what we say labeled as hate speech(ie. attacking someone). Evidence dictates our opinions, we should share those opinions. Some people think all of Islam promotes violence, I think they should be allowed to freely share their opinions, along with evidence, and let the evidence decide.

In the first paragraph you ask, 'why does 'say no to Islam' equate all Muslims to terrorism?' In the second you say, 'Islam's most prominent aspect today obviously is the potential for terrorism'. You are contradicting yourself, and when you add, 'since we see it in the media so often', you give evidence to how comments, really directed towards the militants of Islam, but termed in such a way that the statements encompass all of Islam, has created bias in you towards all of Islam, and therefore, all Muslims. This is how degrading, inciting, prejudicial speech works. And that's why we have Rule #18.

All Muslims are not terrorists or extremists. It is some's interpretation of the religion that causes these things. I wouldn't mind seeing all Islamic (or any) terrorists eliminated. All Muslims? No way. Hating an entire group for the actions of a few is stereotyping and prejudicial.

[bhkad]

Can we assume that about 10 - 15% of the Muslim world is violently Jihadist? And because the act of Jihad is said by many to be required of all Muslims we must assume that the other 85 - 90% of the other believers perform NON-violent Jihad, right?

So what IS JIHAD?

Jihad literally means to "struggle in the way of God" or "to struggle to improve one's self and/or society".

[...]

The primary aim of jihad is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the expansion and defense of the Islamic state. Jihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Three Objectives of the Jihad

1) Tahrir: Liberation

All jihadists want to liberate Muslim lands from "occupation" by non-Muslims. Their definition of "Muslim lands" is any territory that was at any time ruled by Muslims. Thus not only Palestine, but Kashmir, Chechnya and even Spain qualify for "liberation".

2) Tawheed: Unification

All existing states in which Muslims make up the majority are to be dismantled and unified into one superstate. Jihadists do not consider existing national boundaries legitimate.

3) Khilafa: The Caliphate

The eventual goal is to reestablish the Calphiate, which was abolished by Musafa Kemal in 1923. All Muslims the world over are to give their primary political allegiance to it. With its reestablishment, the jihad of old can be restated, which in their view will lead to the fatah, or conquest, of all non-Muslim lands.
The Redhunter: Book Review - "Future Jihad" - Part 1: The Logic of Jihad

So, if the majority of believers are non-violent Jihadists and Jihad is to defend or spread the religion to the rest of the world then most Muslims have in the back of their mind at least the instruction that they should do something, no matter how small, to defend or spread the religion. Even posting in support of Islam on these pages is a form of Jihad.

* Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb) is an inner struggle of good against evil in the mind, through concepts such as tawhid.

* Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is a struggle of good against evil waged by writing and speech, such as in the form of dawah (proselytizing), Khutbas (sermons), et al. It is one weapon in the jihadi arsenal.

* Jihad by the pen and knowledge (jihad bil qalam/lim) is a struggle for good against evil through scholarly study of Islam, ijtihad (legal reasoning), and through sciences (such as medical sciences).

* Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to a struggle of good against evil waged by actions or with one's wealth, such as going on the Hajj pilgrimage (seen as the best jihad for women), taking care of elderly parents, or political activity for furthering the cause of Islam.

* Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God, or holy war), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.

And no one here would ever do anything violent, right? But we know they are working toward spreading Islam and so in that way couldn't they be seen as we used to consider Communists?

Communists were trying to conquer the world but we weren't hostile to the individuals necessarily. We said no to Communism. And we said so. But we ALL KNEW Communism was trying to conquer America. We ALL KNEW they could do it. We ALL KNEW they had a military component and a infiltration/espionage/soft power capacity as well.

But because we have a difficult time recognizing that Islam acts like a religion and ALSO acts like a political philosophy and ALSO a nation with slightly less capability as the Communists did but with greater numbers of committed soldiers/operatives spread throughout the world, we insist on treating them as a RELIGION and we choose to ignore the dangerous aspects
and hope not to upset them when we should be forcing the Muslim world to come to an agreement by taking advantage of our Western freedoms.

Muslims can't speak out against extremists in the M.E. because they haven't the freedom. But here they make use of our freedom to criticize the USA but when we censor ourselves from speaking our minds or speaking the truth about Islam?

This is exactly the Dhimmi mindset that they wish to instill in us. We can't criticize them but they can criticize us.

IMO, we are like the Jews going to the concentration camps and hoping that if we are nice to the Nazis they will spare us.

[bhkad]

Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy

In the first paragraph you ask, 'why does 'say no to Islam' equate all Muslims to terrorism?' In the second you say, 'Islam's most prominent aspect today obviously is the potential for terrorism'. You are contradicting yourself, and when you add, 'since we see it in the media so often', you give evidence to how comments, really directed towards the militants of Islam, but termed in such a way that the statements encompass all of Islam, has created bias in you towards all of Islam, and therefore, all Muslims. This is how degrading, inciting, prejudicial speech works. And that's why we have Rule #18.

All Muslims are not terrorists or extremists. It is some's interpretation of the religion that causes these things. I wouldn't mind seeing all Islamic (or any) terrorists eliminated. All Muslims? No way. Hating an entire group for the actions of a few is stereotyping and prejudicial.

They are all supposed to practice Jihad in one form or another.

The VIOLENT Jihadists want the world to be Islamic tomorrow.

The NON-VIOLENT Jihadists are willing to wait for the world to become Islamic even if it takes a few generations.

Brotherhood members emphasize that they follow the laws of the nations in which they operate. They stress that they do not believe in overthrowing the U.S. government, but rather that they want as many people as possible to convert to Islam so that one day--perhaps generations from now--a majority of Americans will support a society governed by Islamic law.

Chicago Tribune news | Registration

And with non-violent Jihad the acts are so smooth or so innocent and harmless looking on the surface that we never become alarmed to the fact that we are being positioned for conquest, slowly and deliberately and very pleasantly.

And because we are so willing to accommodate that approach it may be slower but it is deadly effective.

Consider this:

The bottom line to what Phares has to say is this; the enemy is much bigger, better organized and has much clearer goals than most people imagine. If you think that the only people out to get us are Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network, you're only seeing a tiny part of the picture.

The point is that people we consider "terrorists" are only a part of the enemy. Many are not trying to kill us, at least not yet.

Phares relates a debate that took place on al Jazeera shortly after 9-11. The show was titled Opposed Directions, and it was set up like a Hannity and Colmes or Crossfire, where the arguments get hot and heavy. The two guests, Phares says, were almost literally at each other's throats.

The question at hand was over the "worthyness" of bin Laden's attacks, whether he had done good or bad to the Arab world. However, one was not for the attack and the other agains. They both argued in favor of the attack. The only difference was that one thought that bin Laden should have waited a few years until the time was more ripe.

This debate, Phares says, was representative of what went on across the Arab and Muslim worlds.

The Redhunter: Book Review - "Future Jihad" - Part 1: The Logic of Jihad

[GarzaUK]

Originally Posted by cherokee

No its not hate speech.
I guess my USMC patch offends many pro Islamic militants or their supporters, Maybe my nickname offends cowboys in some way?... What’s next, are drug dealers going to get pissed at “Just say no to drugs”?
But gods knows we cant offend Islam…..

So if someone had on this forum "Say no to Jews." That isn't hate speech???

If someone said that on had that on their avatar, they'd be hounded out of these forums, maybe rightly so.

Judaism, Islam and Christainity are all religions. If you can't offend one, you can't offend them all.

[rivrrat]

Originally Posted by SgtRock

I had an avatar that said say no to Islam. I was told to remove it. If I tell people they should say no to Islam is that hate speech? I am expressing my opinion. Have we become so politically correct that even saying no to something is offensive. If I had an avatar that said say no to devil worship would I be told to remove it for fear of offending witches and warlock's.

My point is that simply saying no to Islam is a right that everyone should have. It is not hate speech. ~ Sgt Rock

I don't consider it hate speech and wouldn't have a problem with the avatar myself. But then again, I'm a huge proponent of freedom of speech.

And, btw, witches don't worship any "devil".

[cherokee]

Originally Posted by GarzaUK

So if someone had on this forum "Say no to Jews." That isn't hate speech???

If someone said that on had that on their avatar, they'd be hounded out of these forums, maybe rightly so.

Judaism, Islam and Christainity are all religions. If you can't offend one, you can't offend them all.

Ok so we cant say no to a group but its ok to say no to a person, like this one?
“Say No to Bush” (not that I care about him)


And its ok to use nazi or hate symbols in your avatar?