• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Landmark commission hearing may determine future of ground zero mosque

ric27 said:
Since Jet refuses to answer, I'll let others take a shot at my previous question (if they can)

Wtf constitutes "radical" Islam? Is it the desire to declare jihad on unbelievers? To eliminate Israel? To destroy the US? To spread Islam around the world?

Wtf is it?
Click to expand...

Jihad isn't purely a 'radical' belief or focus. . . Jihad, in essence, is actually spreading the word (just like Jehova's witnesses coming to your door or missionaries going to other countries to build churches in exchange for medical care)

But Jihad is in several parts - one is to better yourself as a Muslim, another part is to witness to others and try to get them to convert (tehse first two parts is something that all religions have in common) and another part is to wage a physical war on your adversaries after you've tried to convert as many as possible to the faith.

However- 'racial' islam in our modern view is anyone who is willing to commit an act of violence/terrorism in the name of their religion - mainly so without the support of their head-leaders.
 
Last edited:
Aunt Spiker said:
Jihad isn't purely a 'radical' belief or focus. . . Jihad, in essence, is actually spreading the word (just like Jehova's witnesses coming to your door or missionaries going to other countries to build churches in exchange for medical care)
Click to expand...

No in Islam that's actually called Dawah.
 
Winston Smith said:
I didn't say they weren't Muslims or that they didn't use religion to justify their crimes.
Click to expand...

You said and I quote:

"We haven't always been at war with Islam. It's only since we've interfered in their business that it's become such a big issue."

That is false, we have been attacked by Muslims since nearly the founding of this country.

But Muslims haven't been the only ones to do that. Christians thoroughly plundered the New World and exterminated the natives in the name of Christ, sad to say.
Click to expand...

WTF do the conquistadores have to do with the current conversation?

To a great extent, Islamic radicalism is the creation of Western colonial/imperialist powers who were seeking to counteract democratic forces.
Click to expand...

Bull****, Islam has been expanding by the sword since its very inception. The Islamic powers were just as imperialistic as the European powers.

Democracy has failed to thrive in the Muslim world because we've actively opposed it at almost every turn.
Click to expand...

Bull****. There have been no great democratic movements in the Muslims world. There have been Arab nationalist movements and Islamist movements along with some Communist movements, name the Liberal Democratic movement that the U.S. has opposed in the Muslim world.
 
Winston Smith said:
I wouldn't defend genocide by any regime. Not even a pro-American one.
Click to expand...

No you would just draw some sort of moral equivalency.

See the linked material on "The Bloody Code."
Click to expand...

This is a link to an article about the North America before the formation of the United States.

Also of interest are the race-specific laws applicable only to blacks.
Click to expand...


Now we're on to Jim Crow laws in an attempt to justify the death penalty for apostasy, sodomy, and adultery. :roll:

I don't know the last time, but it does happen:
Click to expand...

What's the name of the case? FYI Lawrence V. Texas found the right to privacy in consensual sexual relations, try again.



So they responded to pressure. Good for them.
Click to expand...

Yay now she'll just get a life sentence. :roll:

The 15th century was closer to it than you might think. It was just before the Reformation, which marked a period of transition from Medieval times to modernity. Islam's current condition is arguably similar.
Click to expand...

As of now mainstream Islam is stuck in the 15th century and is incompatible with a free liberal society.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I think it's fair to say that radical Islam is what you get when the religion is twisted to justify the use of violence against civilians in the interest of disrupting the established order.
Click to expand...

You...like many on these forums are just looking at a symptom, not the cause. The root cause

Radical Islam is merely a symptom and is ultimately, not the problem. The PROBLEM is that "radical" Islam is not "radical". The trouble is many (like yourself) want to call it that to disenfranchise it and separate it from the politically correct "moderate" Islam.
 
ric27 said:
You...like many on these forums are just looking at a symptom, not the cause. The root cause

Radical Islam is merely a symptom and is ultimately, not the problem. The PROBLEM is that "radical" Islam is not "radical". The trouble is many (like yourself) want to call it that to disenfranchise it and separate it from the politically correct "moderate" Islam.
Click to expand...

Princeton's WordNet said:
Radical: extremist: (used of opinions and actions) far beyond the norm; "extremist political views"; "radical opinions on education"; "an ultra conservative"
Click to expand...

If you cannot demonstrate that violent Muslims are not, in fact, far beyond the norm (in fact, I don't think I've seen anybody successfully demonstrate that Muslims are violent in the main), then those violent Muslims are, by definition, radical.

You may not return to your regularly scheduled ignorance.
 
ric27 said:
Winston - The huge difference is, Islam won't collapse under economic pressure. Religions collapse or go by the wayside either through conquest and eradication, or by conversion to a perceived superior religion. Islam protects itself by not allowing the open practice of another religion in their territory and killing anyone who converts to another religion from Islam.

This makes it practically impossible for Islam to ever collapse the way communism did in the USSR.

Islam is even more insidious than communism.
Click to expand...

At different times Muslim societies have been prosperous and poor, tolerant and oppressive, influential and backward. And of course Muslims can have any kind of political beliefs, from libertarian to Marxist. Islam isn't a monolithic ideology.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
If you cannot demonstrate that violent Muslims are not, in fact, far beyond the norm (in fact, I don't think I've seen anybody successfully demonstrate that Muslims are violent in the main), then those violent Muslims are, by definition, radical.

You may not return to your regularly scheduled ignorance.
Click to expand...
That's wrong, you have to include everybody in the definition of Muslims including the radicals and then take the average of that. That will be your definition of how violent is the average Muslim. You cannot just say anybody who is peaceful counts and anybody who is violent doesn't count, that's picking and choosing. You have to look at the per capita violence of Islam.

Also, look at the response to the printing of the Danish cartoons. There were massive protests around the Muslim world, many of them burning effigies of the writer. These people seemed to be mainstream Muslim, and look at their intolerance.
 
Last edited:
Agent Ferris said:
No you would just draw some sort of moral equivalency.
Click to expand...

Between what? Pro-American and anti-American genocide?

Agent Ferris said:
This is a link to an article about the North America before the formation of the United States.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. If you're pointing out that America changed over time and that the democratic United States were different from the theocratic colonies that existed a few generations before, congratulations. You're starting to get it.

Agent Ferris said:
Now we're on to Jim Crow laws in an attempt to justify the death penalty for apostasy, sodomy, and adultery. :roll:
Click to expand...

No, if you read the link you'll see that it has nothing to do with that. It's about death penalty laws in the early 1700s that applied only to blacks.

Agent Ferris said:
What's the name of the case? FYI Lawrence V. Texas found the right to privacy in consensual sexual relations, try again.
Click to expand...

The name of the case isn't given. What difference does it make?

Lawrence v. Texas doesn't necessarily apply to adultery, and even if it does, it's only seven years old.

Agent Ferris said:
Yay now she'll just get a life sentence. :roll:
Click to expand...

Maybe.

Agent Ferris said:
As of now mainstream Islam is stuck in the 15th century and is incompatible with a free liberal society.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion. But many Muslims choose to work and struggle for free societies despite our efforts to deny them.
 
Winston Smith said:
At different times Muslim societies have been prosperous and poor, tolerant and oppressive, influential and backward. And of course Muslims can have any kind of political beliefs, from libertarian to Marxist. Islam isn't a monolithic ideology.
Click to expand...


It is not the entire Muslim population that want's to build this mosque. It is one group, fronted by a man that advocates Shria compliance in American law. Why aren't we allowed to see whom is funding this?


j-mac
 
Opteron said:
That's wrong, you have to include everybody in the definition of Muslims including the radicals and then take the average of that. That will be your definition of how violent is the average Muslim. You cannot just say anybody who is peaceful counts and anybody who is violent doesn't count, that's picking and choosing. You have to look at the per capita violence of Islam.
Click to expand...

You are obviously very confused. I did not say "If you cannot demonstrate that violent Muslims are, in fact, Muslims," I said, "If you cannot demonstrate that violent Muslims are not, in fact, far beyond the norm." In other words, my argument is that the vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, ergo peaceful Muslims are the norm, and violent Muslims are therefore radicals.

Opteron said:
Also, look at the response to the printing of the Danish cartoons. There were massive protests around the Muslim world, many of them burning effigies of the writer. These people seemed to be mainstream Muslim, and look at their intolerance.
Click to expand...

Well, to begin with, I hardly thing that the "massive" protests account for a significant percentage of the Muslim population worldwide, but even if this were so, they protested. What's wrong with protesting?
 
j-mac said:
It is not the entire Muslim population that want's to build this mosque. It is one group, fronted by a man that advocates Shria compliance in American law. Why aren't we allowed to see whom is funding this?
Click to expand...

Why do we need to see who is funding this?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
You are obviously very confused. I did not say "If you cannot demonstrate that violent Muslims are, in fact, Muslims," I said, "If you cannot demonstrate that violent Muslims are not, in fact, far beyond the norm." In other words, my argument is that the vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, ergo peaceful Muslims are the norm, and violent Muslims are therefore radicals.
Click to expand...
No, you are the one who is confused. You are neglecting this part in the point you are trying to make that you have to consider everybody who is part of Islam and not just exclude the radicals. Anybody can say 'the majority were peaceful', that in fact goes for every religion, probably even Christianity, because the majority of peasant farmers were peaceful. Saying that is just a way of escaping accountability for the effects of the religion, because you can't just say the majority are peaceful and exclude anyone who is violent.

TacticalEvilDan said:
Well, to begin with, I hardly thing that the "massive" protests account for a significant percentage of the Muslim population worldwide, but even if this were so, they protested. What's wrong with protesting?
Click to expand...
It they were peaceful protests, it wouldn't be less of a problem, but its the manner in which they were protesting, where they burned effigies and burned the Danish flag. Anyways, it shows general intolerance of any kind of criticism.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Could you rephrase? I'm having trouble following your logic.
Click to expand...


How would you like it phrased?

We have an Imam that has proclaimed that he would advocate for a more Shria compliant US.
He will not renounce Hamas as a terror org.
And he will not say who is behind the funding of the project he is fronting.

I think we should know who is behind this.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
I think we should know who is behind this.

j-mac
Click to expand...

What YOU think is irrelelveant. If I think I should see all your financial records simnply because I don't like how you talk or that you refuse to say something (For example the GOP are wanting to ruin America), are you going to provide them to me? Of course not, so why would you expect a PRIVATELY funded Mosque to provde YOU or the public with their records?
 
TheNextEra said:
What YOU think is irrelelveant. If I think I should see all your financial records simnply because I don't like how you talk or that you refuse to say something (For example the GOP are wanting to ruin America), are you going to provide them to me? Of course not, so why would you expect a PRIVATELY funded Mosque to provde YOU or the public with their records?
Click to expand...


Not even close to the same thing here. They want to destroy the Burlington Coat Factory building, a landmark building, to build a mosque at Ground Zero, and I think that they should tell us who is behind it. Why wouldn't they if there is nothing to hide?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
How would you like it phrased?
Click to expand...

How you just phrased it will do nicely, thanks.

j-mac said:
We have an Imam that has proclaimed that he would advocate for a more Shria compliant US.
Click to expand...

So what? The only way he could even come close would be via contract law. The First Amendment, which I can't imagine would ever be repealed or modified to his tastes, outlaws virtually any other approach.

j-mac said:
He will not renounce Hamas as a terror org.
Click to expand...

So what?

j-mac said:
And he will not say who is behind the funding of the project he is fronting.
Click to expand...

Nobody's business.

j-mac said:
I think we should know who is behind this.
Click to expand...

I think, unless sufficient evidence is uncovered that the law is being broken or there's a conspiracy to break it, we have no grounds whatsoever for knowing who is behind it.
 
j-mac said:
Not even close to the same thing here. They want to destroy the Burlington Coat Factory building, a landmark building, to build a mosque at Ground Zero, and I think that they should tell us who is behind it. Why wouldn't they if there is nothing to hide?
Click to expand...

Because they value their privacy, same as the rest of us.
 
Opteron said:
No, you are the one who is confused. You are neglecting this part in the point you are trying to make that you have to consider everybody who is part of Islam and not just exclude the radicals.
Click to expand...

Again, I did not in any way exclude the radicals in my estimation of Islam. What I did was to look at Muslims in whole, and say to myself, "What's the general norm? Are the majority of Muslims peaceful, or not?" Since I don't see any evidence that suggests that the vast majority of Muslims are anything but peaceful, it stands to reason that the violent Muslims are very much in the minority and therefore "radical."

Opteron said:
Anybody can say 'the majority were peaceful', that in fact goes for every religion, probably even Christianity, because the majority of peasant farmers were peaceful. Saying that is just a way of escaping accountability for the effects of the religion, because you can't just say the majority are peaceful and exclude anyone who is violent.
Click to expand...

Wait -- so you're saying it doesn't matter if the vast minority of Muslims are violent? The peaceful majority is to be held accountable for the actions of the nujobs?

Opteron said:
It they were peaceful protests, it wouldn't be less of a problem, but its the manner in which they were protesting, where they burned effigies and burned the Danish flag.
Click to expand...

Um, by that description, they were peaceful protests. Peaceful doesn't mean "not angry" or "not symbolically burning things."

Opteron said:
Anyways, it shows general intolerance of any kind of criticism.
Click to expand...

Then I guess DP is just packed full of radicals, huh? :lol:
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Jihad isn't purely a 'radical' belief or focus. . . Jihad, in essence, is actually spreading the word (just like Jehova's witnesses coming to your door or missionaries going to other countries to build churches in exchange for medical care)

But Jihad is in several parts - one is to better yourself as a Muslim, another part is to witness to others and try to get them to convert (tehse first two parts is something that all religions have in common) and another part is to wage a physical war on your adversaries after you've tried to convert as many as possible to the faith.

However- 'racial' islam in our modern view is anyone who is willing to commit an act of violence/terrorism in the name of their religion - mainly so without the support of their head-leaders.
Click to expand...

The Koran says that all the world is to be converted to Islam, either through conversion or by killing the pagans. This is jihad, the struggle, and is one of the pillars of faith. Every good muslim is to "struggle" and advance Islam.

Do you think thats a reasonable and fair assessment. If not, why?
 
Winston Smith said:
At different times Muslim societies have been prosperous and poor, tolerant and oppressive, influential and backward. And of course Muslims can have any kind of political beliefs, from libertarian to Marxist. Islam isn't a monolithic ideology.
Click to expand...

Do you think, Islam is a religion that allows for peaceful coexistence with other religions in the long term?
 
ric27 said:
The Koran says that all the world is to be converted to Islam, either through conversion or by killing the pagans. This is jihad, the struggle, and is one of the pillars of faith. Every good muslim is to "struggle" and advance Islam.

Do you think thats a reasonable and fair assessment. If not, why?
Click to expand...

The Bible commands Jews and Christians to do all sorts of nasty things, but we don't condemn them for the contents of their holy book.

Well, I don't anyway.


TED,
Choses to judge others based on what they do, not on their bathroom reading material.
 
Agent Ferris said:
You said and I quote:

"We haven't always been at war with Islam. It's only since we've interfered in their business that it's become such a big issue."

That is false, we have been attacked by Muslims since nearly the founding of this country.
Click to expand...

The Barbary Wars were a minor incident and were soon forgotten. They were nothing like the ongoing problems we've had throughout the second half of the last century and can expect to have for the foreseeable future. The difference has everything to do with how we handle things.

Agent Ferris said:
WTF do the conquistadores have to do with the current conversation?
Click to expand...

About as much as the Barbary pirates.

Agent Ferris said:
Bull****, Islam has been expanding by the sword since its very inception. The Islamic powers were just as imperialistic as the European powers.
Click to expand...

You're right...Muslims in general are about as imperialistic as Christians. I'm glad we agree on that. This means they can be peaceful or violent, depending on the circumstances. In the case of radical Islam as we know it today, the West has fostered the tendency to violence.

Agent Ferris said:
Bull****. There have been no great democratic movements in the Muslims world. There have been Arab nationalist movements and Islamist movements along with some Communist movements, name the Liberal Democratic movement that the U.S. has opposed in the Muslim world.
Click to expand...

Iran in 1953, for example. Probably also Turkey in 1980.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom