• 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!

Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?

Is it important that terrorists be identified as either Muslim or Islamic?


  • Total voters
    33
If they're Muslims, then what else are we to call them?
 
Your first paragraph was quite good, the rest however....

As far as moderate interpretations of Islam, I will look those up, but for the sake of time please confirm that they think it's ok for others to talk bad about Muhammed, draw his picture, drink booze, have sex outside marriage, blaspheme, ok for people to be gay, women can drive, etc. And please confirm that they think Shariah law based on Haddith is a very bad idea, that they are willing to fight to protect western values against what you apparently think is a more extreme version of Islam.

I don't think anyone is worrying about the person that used to be Muslim and isn't practicing anymore. By definition that person is not Muslim. I'm not an ethnocentric, but you seem to be confusing Islam with ethnic Middle Eastern person.

I don't get the reasoning behind your 3rd paragraph. Is this just a context builder?

Your last paragraph is interesting. First, nice job sneaking in a star trek term, second of course it's not a collective. It would be the most disfunctional borg collective ever because all of the borg would be trying to kill each other over who is the rightful successor to chief borg Muhammad. Joking aside, it does not function as a self aware instrument, but the uniting principle behind Islam is intolerance and taken as a group, over time this can and will erode our liberalism if we allow it to.

No one mentioned backlashes except you. I don't think stopping the free flow of Muslims into the Western world is a backlash. Rather, I think it is a defense against an incompatible ideology. Similar to communism. We wouldn't have allowed free flow of known communists into the western world when that was a threat to liberal democracy. Why then are we allowing it now? Have we become so PC that we aren't allowed to identify a threat and take practical measures to stop it?

There are actually quite a few polls about the opinions and attitudes of Muslims, and you'll find there are indeed significant numbers (sometimes a clear majority, sometimes just a large minority) who indeed hold opinions compatible with Western values, depending on the respective region or country. That doesn't mean the many others aren't a problem, or that Islam cannot be the problem -- that's not what I'm saying.

However, what you find is that Muslims too are just people. And when they're living together with people of a different faith and different values over a longer period of time, many Muslims too are going to adopt some elements of their environment. For example, I know a couple of Muslim women who decided to take off their scarf and have sex before marriage, to the horror of their parents, because that's what they witnessed living here in a Western country and they wanted to do the same as their non-Muslim peers.

And even if these Muslims who get influenced by Western way of life are just 20%, or 30%, or 40% -- that's enough to warrant the statement that "Muslims in general are not the problem". Islam maybe is, but Muslims in general aren't.

There was also an extensive study about the attitudes of Muslims in three dozen different Muslim countries, and it yielded a similar result: The most moderate, most compatible with Western values Muslims lived in Bosnia and Albania (sourrounded by Christian and atheist neighbors for centuries), and in former Soviet republics (apparently, 70 years of anti-religious communism was good for one thing, at least).

By backlash, I did not mean organized policies in favor of a more selective and restrictive immigration. As far as I am concerned, when a Muslim immigrant refuses to accept the constitution and its values, kick him out. I mean angry non-Muslim people shooting random Muslims over parking lots, arson attacks on mosques, KKK-like manhunts and discrimination in everyday life. This is has all happened and is still happening, i.e. in Europe.

Creating such an atmosphere of mutual distrust and hatred is exactly Al Qaida's strategy -- has it been in Iraq too, btw: Attack the Europeans so often, until they're reactng in a backlash way. In return, Muslims in Western countries will feel more threatened and recruitment for Al Qaida will be easier among them.


Even if half of the Muslims are idiots, it's still a human duty to judge them individually, when we meet them. That's not just basic decency, it's also necessary for a constructive approach of the problem.
 
Hezbollah essentially has imprisoned the whole of Lebanon. While it is a useful tool of Iran, it is the people of Lebanon who will suffer the consequences of Hezbollah's actions. Their leaders and fighters will be holed up in some tunnel while the population gets bombed in retaliation for the bombing of Israeli cities.

I guess from where you come from bombing Israeli cities is probably more merciful than what would have happened to their parents and grandparents had they not left Europe.


I'm pretty sure you haven't understood what I wrote. Maybe you should try again.
 
So what's the point? A Muslim is someone who follows Islam. Islamic is anything to do with Islam. I don't get this thread at all.

The great prophet of this religion, Mohammed, himself was a militant leader and politician. Before his death in 600 something AD he had managed to unify Arabia. Then he conquered Alexandria in Egypt and finished off the Byzantine rule in that country around 620. With each conquest he put into place a government ruled by his religion and enforced by his military. He waged war against the entire Byzantine Empire. In AD 630, Muhammad led an army of about 30,000 jihadists northward to fight the Byzantines. After he died his patriarchs carried on with their caliphate with the mission to turn the known world to Islam by military force. Hard to believe that Turkey was mainly Christian for almost a 1000 years before they were conquered. It then turned Muslim. But if you have read the accounts on how these people who called themselves Christians were forced to convert it would make the hair on the back of your head stand up and cause your stomach to become quite queasy. So now we have ISIS, the new caliphate. New name, old style.
 
Last edited:
Yes.


Islam is a violent lunatic cult just as Christianity was in its more primordial days. Either way it should be opposed as should all religion. That said, Christianity is more advanced than Islam culturally and is what helped foster the miracle that is Western European civilization.
 
Yes.


Islam is a violent lunatic cult just as Christianity was in its more primordial days. Either way it should be opposed as should all religion. That said, Christianity is more advanced than Islam culturally and is what helped foster the miracle that is Western European civilization.

I disagree. There have been times in history Christianity after it had been established was used by evil people for political gain of power. In the beginnings of Christianity more Christians were sent to heinous deaths than any other in history. One needs not look any further than Rome for that history lesson.
 
Yes.


Islam is a violent lunatic cult just as Christianity was in its more primordial days. Either way it should be opposed as should all religion. That said, Christianity is more advanced than Islam culturally and is what helped foster the miracle that is Western European civilization.

At one point in history, the Arabic lands and peoples had the more tolerant laws and educated population, and the more advanced science and mathematics. Once the EU Dark Ages passed, with the influx of these more advanced ideas, it was Western culture that surpassed them. Kinda think they never got over that. Now these Militant Islamic Fundamentalists (and yes, I believe that this is the more proper and accurate term) want to go back to even before that time when they were more advanced, and want to drag the rest of the world down along with them.
 
I disagree. There have been times in history Christianity after it had been established was used by evil people for political gain of power. In the beginnings of Christianity more Christians were sent to heinous deaths than any other in history. One needs not look any further than Rome for that history lesson.

Yeah, and the Jewish people came into existence and freedom by starting a war of conquest and genocide against the people who previously lived in the promised land. And their laws required stoning women to death when they weren't virgins anymore at wedding night. Yet I don't have the impression that Jewish people today are a particularly violent people.

What's your point? How is it relevant what one or the other religion did 1400 years ago, for today's situation?
 
Yeah, and the Jewish people came into existence and freedom by starting a war of conquest and genocide against the people who previously lived in the promised land. And their laws required stoning women to death when they weren't virgins anymore at wedding night. Yet I don't have the impression that Jewish people today are a particularly violent people.

What's your point? How is it relevant what one or the other religion did 1400 years ago, for today's situation?

Your take on Jewish law is a bit perverted but that aside, it all started with Abraham and every major religion associates with Abraham. The problem for Islam, their claim to Jerusalem came thousands of years too late. My point is this....the prophet Mohammed was himself a militant/politician. Those acting in ISIS are doing so in the same barbaric way Islam was forced on other countries thousands of years ago. It's a new caliphate done in the old guard.
 
Your take on Jewish law is a bit perverted but that aside, it all started with Abraham and every major religion associates with Abraham. The problem for Islam, their claim to Jerusalem came thousands of years too late. My point is this....the prophet Mohammed was himself a militant/politician. Those acting in ISIS are doing so in the same barbaric way Islam was forced on other countries thousands of years ago.

Okay, so you're basically saying "Islam is bad because my religion is better"?

Yes, Mohammed was not just divine prophet, but worldly leader too. Kind of like Jesus and Emperor Constantine in the same person. But so was Moses. And although he didn't have a nation, but just a clan, Abraham was too.

What I'm saying is just because a religion was violently spread at one time or another in the past, or had laws that appear barbaric by today's standards, doesn't allow conclusions how it's followers are going to behave a millennium later. There is no such rule as "once violent, always violent", when it comes to religions.

I agree when you say that too many Muslims are stuck in the past and glorify all the wrong things about their past. But many don't, and it's certainly not some kind of historical requirement that Islam cannot be moderated by the wheel of history like other religions.
 
Yes (Please explain why)
No
Other

I say yes. Terrorists IE the enemy should be identified by what they are and if terrorists were motivated by Christian extremism,Tea Party extremism or extremism by any other group the left despises they would be quick to point out the group.
 
At one point in history, the Arabic lands and peoples had the more tolerant laws and educated population, and the more advanced science and mathematics. Once the EU Dark Ages passed, with the influx of these more advanced ideas, it was Western culture that surpassed them. Kinda think they never got over that. Now these Militant Islamic Fundamentalists (and yes, I believe that this is the more proper and accurate term) want to go back to even before that time when they were more advanced, and want to drag the rest of the world down along with them.



Islam was not really solely responsible for the math and other advancements. It was a merger of Christianity, Islam and Judaism that created the advanced knowledge. It was only when Islam was allowed to be open in its short time in Europe was that it was ever sophisticated truly and even then that was due to the tolerant atmosphere of an alliance with Christians and Jews, not just Islam. Islam in its homelands has never been particularly sophisticated beyond a few ultra powerful elites and their small cadre's. Islam never created a vast, large educated population ever in its homelands. Never. It still has not done this to this day.


Turkey is a "Wannabe secular Ultra Conservative society" that is only falling deeper into Islamic primordialism.

Iran is a "Once great society that is now plagued by primordial Islam" and is on the same path as Turkey except worse so.

Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of "Primordial Islamic Backwards Insanity" and will be smothered in violent Islamic revolutions in the future.

Lebanon is lost and doomed by primordial Islam.

Israel's very existence is on a set timer of inevitable unfathomable doom and mass death via being surrounded by Islamic primordialism that will get far worse in the future.

Iraq as a country (which was always illogical geographically) is crumbling and will cease to exist in 50 years thanks to primordial Islam.

Pakistan is a "Mass lunatic Society of Islam" and will be an even more horrifically awful Islamic cesspool of chaos in the future than it already is if that's even fathomable.

Egypt and its oligarchy are fooling themselves. That country is doomed to Islamists and the Generals stalling of that fate is not sustainable long term. The Pyramids will be destroyed by Islamists one day.

India is going to have civil nuclear war over Islam with Pakistan in the future. Hundreds of millions will die.

Jordan is merely an oligarchy that "Buys Off" the Islamist clerics. It's a fake country for all intensive purposes.

Yemen will break up.

Saudi royals will be butchered by Islamists one day.
 
Okay, so you're basically saying "Islam is bad because my religion is better"?

Yes, Mohammed was not just divine prophet, but worldly leader too. Kind of like Jesus and Emperor Constantine in the same person. But so was Moses. And although he didn't have a nation, but just a clan, Abraham was too.

What I'm saying is just because a religion was violently spread at one time or another in the past, or had laws that appear barbaric by today's standards, doesn't allow conclusions how it's followers are going to behave a millennium later. There is no such rule as "one violent, always violent", when it comes to religions.

I agree when you say that too many Muslims are stuck in the past and glorify all the wrong things about their past. But many don't, and it's certainly not some kind of historical requirement that Islam cannot be moderated by the wheel of history like other religions.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am only stating what history has shown. If you want to understand why a person believes what they do, you must seek out its beginnings. The spread of Islam started in a militant way. There is no denying that. Do I think all Muslims are evil. NO! But I do think there is a faction among them that is very dangerous and if not stopped will find the peace loving Muslims in jeopardy. I see it happening now, there are too many among them afraid to speak out...why? because they have seen what happens to those who do.
 
Well both Muslim and Islamic refer to their religion. There are millions of Muslims in the U.S. who practice their religion and are not terrorists and live here peacefully. What does religion have to do with anything?

If you had 10 terrorist attacks and 9 of them were carried out by Muslims, wouldn't you think that piece of information would pertinent??
 
This is a pretty uninformed and generalizing opinion. But don't worry, many Americans are not good at differentiating. ;)

Do you dare to condescend to Americans? I could think of some pretty damned ripe things to say about the country you apparently live in, if I chose to. Any time you want to cross swords with this American on any issue whatever, come ahead, sir.
 
Islam was not really solely responsible for the math and other advancements. It was a merger of Christianity, Islam and Judaism that created the advanced knowledge. It was only when Islam was allowed to be open in its short time in Europe was that it was ever sophisticated truly and even then that was due to the tolerant atmosphere of an alliance with Christians and Jews, not just Islam. Islam in its homelands has never been particularly sophisticated beyond a few ultra powerful elites and their small cadre's. Islam never created a vast, large educated population ever in its homelands. Never. It still has not done this to this day.


Turkey is a "Wannabe secular Ultra Conservative society" that is only falling deeper into Islamic primordialism.

Iran is a "Once great society that is now plagued by primordial Islam" and is on the same path as Turkey except worse so.

Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of "Primordial Islamic Backwards Insanity" and will be smothered in violent Islamic revolutions in the future.

Lebanon is lost and doomed by primordial Islam.

Israel's very existence is on a set timer of inevitable unfathomable doom and mass death via being surrounded by Islamic primordialism that will get far worse in the future.

Iraq as a country (which was always illogical geographically) is crumbling and will cease to exist in 50 years thanks to primordial Islam.

Pakistan is a "Mass lunatic Society of Islam" and will be an even more horrifically awful Islamic cesspool of chaos in the future than it already is if that's even fathomable.

Egypt and its oligarchy are fooling themselves. That country is doomed to Islamists and the Generals stalling of that fate is not sustainable long term. The Pyramids will be destroyed by Islamists one day.

India is going to have civil nuclear war over Islam with Pakistan in the future. Hundreds of millions will die.

Jordan is merely an oligarchy that "Buys Off" the Islamist clerics. It's a fake country for all intensive purposes.

Yemen will break up.

Saudi royals will be butchered by Islamists one day.

Assuming all that will come to pass, as you clearly do, and I'm not saying it won't, my observation would be that Western nations will be lucky if they survive as well.
 

I would love to see these polls that you so casually cite and fail to show. Here's a couple of my own:

Many British Muslims Put Islam First - CBS News

WikiLeaks: 1 in 3 British Muslim students back killing for Islam, 40% want Sharia law | Daily Mail Online

However, what you find is that Muslims too are just people. And when they're living together with people of a different faith and different values over a longer period of time, many Muslims too are going to adopt some elements of their environment. For example, I know a couple of Muslim women who decided to take off their scarf and have sex before marriage, to the horror of their parents, because that's what they witnessed living here in a Western country and they wanted to do the same as their non-Muslim peers.

1st: As I just said, if they don't follow Islamic rules, then they are not Muslim. So your acquaintances are not Muslim.

2nd: I hope that their families don't retaliate against them...sadly a real concern in Muslim families.

Honor Killing in UK: Muslim Kills His Pregnant Wife, Mother of Three | Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

And even if these Muslims who get influenced by Western way of life are just 20%, or 30%, or 40% -- that's enough to warrant the statement that "Muslims in general are not the problem". Islam maybe is, but Muslims in general aren't.

Reference the last sentence I wrote in my first post to you. That explains my position.

There was also an extensive study about the attitudes of Muslims in three dozen different Muslim countries, and it yielded a similar result: The most moderate, most compatible with Western values Muslims lived in Bosnia and Albania (sourrounded by Christian and atheist neighbors for centuries), and in former Soviet republics (apparently, 70 years of anti-religious communism was good for one thing, at least).

Again, another study cited with no reference. As Obama would say, "JV league". I don't know much about Albanian Muslims, but my gut tells me they are terrified of their Christian neighbors, so perhaps that is why they aren't so outspoken. I also recall that we bombed the crap out of the Christian neighbors of their when they were trying to massacre the muslims. This is what western liberalism does because we operate based on values.

By backlash, I did not mean organized policies in favor of a more selective and restrictive immigration. As far as I am concerned, when a Muslim immigrant refuses to accept the constitution and its values, kick him out. I mean angry non-Muslim people shooting random Muslims over parking lots, arson attacks on mosques, KKK-like manhunts and discrimination in everyday life. This is has all happened and is still happening, i.e. in Europe.

I know what you meant because I know your type. That is why I clarified what I meant so you wouldn't jump to conclusions. No one on this thread has mentioned backlash except for you. No one one this thread has suggested anything that would be counter to our values of freedom. All that I suggested is that we need to start curbing the amount of muslims we let in to this system, because their culture is the antithesis of freedom. Those who are currently here are free to do as they please unmolested as any other citizen. People who attack Muslims in our system with violence are just as stupid as any terrorist.

Creating such an atmosphere of mutual distrust and hatred is exactly Al Qaida's strategy -- has it been in Iraq too, btw: Attack the Europeans so often, until they're reactng in a backlash way. In return, Muslims in Western countries will feel more threatened and recruitment for Al Qaida will be easier among them.

I would love to see where you read that. It's more likely that Al Qaida is quite happy at our loose immigration laws and the ease with with vast numbers of muslims can settle in Europe.

Europe's Angry Muslims - Council on Foreign Relations

Even if half of the Muslims are idiots, it's still a human duty to judge them individually, when we meet them. That's not just basic decency, it's also necessary for a constructive approach of the problem.
[/QUOTE]

I'm with you here. Take people one at a time. Absolutely. What I'm speaking of is the cumulative effect of large numbers and their cultural effect and its potential to erode our basic freedoms. I saw a documentary once where a muslim in Brussels was interviewed and offered quite candidly that there were a lot of muslims in Europe and they are "out breading" their European neighbors.

Ah, here it is: WATCH: Muslims Takeover In Belgium And Europe | Doug Giles | #ClashDaily

I encourage you to watch the whole thing, but if you want to skip to my comments' relevant part: minute 4:15
 
Do you dare to condescend to Americans? I could think of some pretty damned ripe things to say about the country you apparently live in, if I chose to. Any time you want to cross swords with this American on any issue whatever, come ahead, sir.

This was a reply to SBu who chose to insult Europeans.

Don't worry, I like Americans.
 
This was a reply to SBu who chose to insult Europeans.

Don't worry, I like Americans.

I would say it was a rather light hearted insult. Mostly of German background myself, you know.
 

No need to spam me with all that crap. We've chewed threw all these lurid British tabloid stories ad nauseum in the Europe forum for ages.

If you're truly interested, not in just confirming your preconceived opinions, but in actually looking at numbers, you can start here:

The World

You'll find that the numbers are bad enough, but pretty much in line what I said above. Unfortunately, there are no numbers on Muslims living in Western countries.

If you happen to speak German or if you can use an online translation tool, I'd recommend the Bertelsmann Religionsmonitor. Google it.


Apart from that, I get a very aggressive and hateful vibe from you, and you're mixing arguments which perhaps have merit with a lot of sinister accusations and imputations, and you ignore most of the points I made. You've left serious debate and now appear like some lurid tabloid. That's too much for me now, I'm tired and frankly can't stand this level of debate anymore. Because I think human beings deserve better than this.

Hope you're reading the numbers I pointed you to.
 
Last edited:
I voted "yes", but that was assuming that their terrorist acts are connected to their religion. As it perhaps is, in most cases. When someone commits an act of terrorism in the name of an islamist organization, of course his religion matters.

But assuming there is a case a person who happens to be Muslim participates in a terrorist act with an entirely unrelated agenda -- say, for animal protection, or for communism --, then I don't think his religion matters. It would only result in false conclusions if his religion was emphasized, in that case.

That is a good distinction. Was their religion and/or religious leaders/ideology within their motives?
 
No need to spam me with all that crap. We've chewed threw all these lurid British tabloid stories ad nauseum in the Europe forum for ages.

If you're truly interested, not in just confirming your preconceived opinions, but in actually looking at numbers, you can start here:

The World

You'll find that the numbers are bad enough, but pretty much in line what I said above. Unfortunately, there are no numbers on Muslims living in Western countries.

If you happen to speak German or if you can use an online translation tool, I'd recommend the Bertelsmann Religionsmonitor. Google it.


Apart from that, I get a very aggressive and hateful vibe from you, and you're mixing arguments which perhaps have merit with a lot of sinister accusations and imputations, and you ignore most of the points I made. You've left serious debate and now appear like some lurid tabloid. That's too much for me now, I'm tired and frankly can't stand this level of debate anymore. Because I think human beings deserve better than this.

Hope you're reading the numbers I pointed you to.

I do have a somewhat aggressive debate style so if that offended you I sincerely apologize. It's not intended to offend, but it is intended to bring you to my position through stark contrast.

If we can continue:

I haven't seen the European forum thread you have referred to. Do you have a link? Which sources in particular do you take issue with?

I have read your link, but it seems more concentrated on Shariah Law in Muslim countries than in those in the West. Indeed, whenever it mentions Europe, it says 'Eastern Europe' presumably referring to the Balkans and other pockets of Muslim areas in Eastern Europe.
 
Yes, IMO I think its very important to label these terrorists or any terrorists muslim or other faiths. But, on the other hand I would be nervous labeling terrorists islamic because if there is any culture capable of being radicalized, its the muslim culture, and I think governments are just scared to do this with such large muslim populations in their countries. I say we do it now though... deal with it head on regardless of the fallout, because if we continue to appease this menace too much longer, it will eventually destroy us.
 
Back
Top Bottom