That is not what has been said, and you are not exactly showing respect at this point.

Answer the questions you have been asked and participate in a discussion maturely without the hyperbole and exaggeration or go elsewhere to troll.

Frankly, you are coming across more as a petulant, immature teenager than a muslim.

Argue using the facts, not your emotions.

And be respectful of others and their opinions.

TR

Muslim Becoming Softer
 

I have to believe there are many that are not following the rules. This has been going on for decades and the recent uprisings in the last decade are examples of this.

Many Middle Eastern nations have been allowing more Western (can't say Christian) dress, play, work habits as a means to satisfy the people. This has been the younger generations, but think that this is now a generation plus in the making. Remember Iraq before our involvement? I recall Iraq had the highest percentage of population of women and men following Western dress and styles.

The Muslim Brotherhood and many of the related splinter groups have been trying to reel this in. AQ was one extreme group (in our eyes), but they see themselves as Conservatives- wanting to follow the written rules with devastating effect to non-believers. The battles going on are not an "Arab Uprising", as much as it is the people fighting against MB types that want to keep the population opprressed.

I guess Progressivism can have a positive effect, when true believers of Islam can not keep the masses from shifting away.

It is also another glaring example of where our National Leaders are on the wrong side of the battle. In plain sight, Dear Leader has been supporting the MB and conservative Islam. Our national interests should have us supporting more moderate thinking.

Egypt is an example where American and Western influence have done America well, until a few years ago. Our military training influenced the thinking of Officers within their Army, as well as their government. Attached to the FID mission were numerous State projects and other forms of economic partnering, but we also gained a trading partner that was one of the top consumers of US manufactured goods.

Hearts and minds.

No, I do not doubt there are many that want to kill us. I have fought in enough of those countries to know this first hand. What we do know is there are many people in those countires that want nothing more than to live a peaceful life and detest the elements within their country that cause the problems, many times under the guise of "true Islam".

Doc Illinois
 

My browser wasn't updated when I replied, so here is more.

Doc Illinois posts a very good point. Liberal Muslims.

I believe they are like Liberals in our society. A lot of voice but as the work (fight) becomes tougher, the numbers start to diminish.

The tough crowd of Islam happens to be the gang that is willing to fight and kill. I'm not too sure the moderates will ever be able to diminish their numbers or influence. There needs to be a major elimination of those hard liners, and trying to wait them out with pacification can never work.

The big hurdle we also face is we are not "from there" and are injecting ourselves into their society. That is their perspective.

We also have to convince our own people the dangers of allowing Islam to leak into our governments and society. This is a cancer.

Is there a way to influence more of the moderate Muslims to eliminate the hard liners? Right now, kinetic is the only thing to convince them.

How is that working out for the Ahmadi (Ahmadiya) Muslims in Pakistan and Indonesia?

Modern Western Histories of Islam
 

Here are some snips from an article in AT that brings some further to light to our own failing to correctly label this:

Rereading some early history books concerning the centuries-long jihad on Europe, it recently occurred to me how ignorant the modern West is of its own past. The historical narrative being disseminated today bears very little resemblance to reality.

Consider some facts for a moment:

A mere decade after the birth of Islam in the 7th century, the jihad burst out of Arabia. Leaving aside all the thousands of miles of ancient lands and civilizations that were permanently conquered, today casually called the "Islamic world" -- including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and parts of India and China -- much of Europe was also, at one time or another, conquered by the sword of Islam.

In 846 Rome was sacked and the Vatican defiled by Muslim Arab raiders; some 700 years later, in 1453, Christendom's other great basilica, Constantinople's Holy Wisdom (or Hagia Sophia) was conquered by Muslim Turks, permanently.

Nor did America escape. A few years after the formation of the United States, in 1800, American trading ships in the Mediterranean were plundered and their sailors enslaved by Muslim corsairs. The ambassador of Tripoli explained to Thomas Jefferson that it was a Muslim's "right and duty to make war upon them [non-Muslims] wherever they could be found, and to enslave as many as they could take as prisoners."

Yet this may not even be necessary. Thanks to the West's ignorance of history, Muslims are flooding Europe under the guise of "immigration," refusing to assimilate, and forming enclaves which in modern parlance are called "enclaves" or "ghettoes" but in Islamic terminology are the ribat -- frontier posts where the jihad is waged on the infidel, one way or the other.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/..._of_islam.html

TJ,
Islam has not shown any major examples of evolving...on the contrary, some of the most stringent interpretations and mind sets (Wahabiism) as it relates to the Koran came about in the late 1700's early 1800's.
This form of Islam is 'pushed' by Saudi Arabia and the 'free Mosques' in the US come with a free Wahabi Imam.

Trapper John, GR does not have even a minimal understanding of his religion, I do not think we can use him as a microcosim of modern islam. Some day he may take to heart on what has been told to him on his religion and he will read up and either go one way or the other. Islam has been static for 14 centuries, it will remain that way, it is designed to be so. Maybe my opinion on this is harsh but it is from observation and living in their countries for the last 10 years. Historically speaking, this "war" has been going on a long time

GR, how can you accept Islam if you don't agree with its tenets?

The following is Islam, but is it acceptable?

Many things cannot be done without the Caliph’s permission, however:

http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Trave.../dp/0915957728

If one is going to insist that a practitioner of a set of beliefs answer for the history of that set of beliefs, what is to stop others from holding us to the same level of accountability and suspicion?

For example, many Americans talk about states' rights. But how many could lay out the intellectual, political, social, military, and cultural history of that concept and its many twists and turns? Should today's advocates of states' rights be held accountable for how that belief system has impacted adversely not only this country's history, but the history of the world as well?

My point is that we take grave risks if we set standards of inquiry and conduct for other peoples without holding ourselves to a similar set of rules.

My $0.02.

IMO, Moral relativism isn't an excuse to dismiss immoral behavior...

In Islam, the Prophet Muhammad is known as al-Insān al-Kāmil (the perfect human) and uswa hasana (an excellent model of conduct). -Sura 68:4/33:21, etc.-

It wouldn't be an issue if Muslims didn't truly believe that the Prophet Muhammad was the sacred model to emulate, not only by all Muslims, but entire mankind.

I can think of no other historical figures that have affected our modern world more negatively than those of Muhammad.

I agree that the tenets of Islam are a static belief system as PRB suggests (no evidence of its evolution) and that it is designed as such. Wouldn't that, therefore, be its fatal flaw? I contend that Islam was contrived by Muhammad merely as a method for controlling people for his own personal interests. That it has been expanded to what it is today is nothing more than a tool for control by oppression. Every system that has endeavored to control people by oppression has ultimately failed. Islam will also fail. We can either hasten that end or prolong it.

In my view we are at War with Islam and Islam is at War with us and every other non-Muslim, by definition. My question is, are we approaching this the right way? History would suggest not.

To continue the fight from the perspective that I am right you are wrong and justifying our position from a historical context leads to the problem Sig points out -

There's no advancing from that position - stalemate.

I think the battlefield is the human domain. The most striking lesson I learned in SF while working with indigenous peoples (although only briefly with Muslims) is that at the core they are just like me. We aspire to the same things. That's a common ground from which we can win. (FlagDayNCO, I am honored that you picked up on that point in your signature line.)

Hacksaw, GR may not represent a microcosm of the Muslim world, I need to defer to your and PRBs experience on that one. But, he does represent a start and a point for force multiplication.

De Oppresso Liber :lifter

In my mind, we prolong it by challenging it in a manner, as Sigaba pointed out, few of our own could effectively argue. There are about 1.6 billion Muslims, or 23% of the world’s population, making Islam the second-largest religion. So we can argue that they must all read more and then convert or be terrorists... or we can try and co-opt the moderate muslims to separate from the extremists as they keep their cultural identity. There are areas of differences. They seem a better starting point than getting 800 million people not only literate (the current estimate of non-literate muslims) but also well-read and versed in their religion. Statistically, not even the literate will be as well read in Islam as some members of this site. Here is an except from Pew Research.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/08/09/t...utive-summary/

Reading the full report, there seems to be logical places to start. Something I recall about divide and... ;) IMHO, it certainly points out (within the full report) a potential for a force multiplier strategy.

Along the lines of an exemption from Obamacare for Congress and the unions?

I think the biggest problem is that a significant portion of those 1.6 billion muslims are never going to stop killing in the name of allah until there is only one religion, for 100% of the population of the planet.

Whether we are at war or not is irrelevant. They are, and will be for the forseeable future.

Personally, I am not sure that there is anything we can do about it, other than to try and stop them where we can.

Maybe a muslim Martin Luther will emerge. Unfortunately, he will be considered an apostate by the true believers.

TR

"If one is going to insist that a practitioner of a set of beliefs answer for the history of that set of beliefs, what is to stop others from holding us to the same level of accountability and suspicion?"

Every comment I've made regarding Islam is in reference to its practice today....I only reference its 'history' because that history is as valid today as it was in its time...there is no difference in Islamic jurisprudence.
Muhammad is basically 'worshipped' as the most perfect man and his example is to be emulated......there are no provisions for allowing for antiquity.
David Pearl had his head cut off because Muhammad designated that method of slaughter for captured enemies. The Islamists refer to the Hadith, Sira and Koran when committing ritual murder so as to be 'correct'.
Islamic law is not an abstract.
It is written as to what hand you wipe your ass with, how you blow your nose, if you fart during prayer that prayer is abrogated.
Sharia is drawn from Muhammad's actions/example and law giving.
That a woman is worth half of a man...in court. That it takes 4 witnesses to confirm a rape occurred etc. etc......
This is not some abstract relationship between you and allah....it is a lock step eyes right.

I was thinking the same thing. Martin Luther was considered an apostate in his day. Didn't stop him.;)

Sounds like a good premise for a new Phoenix Program. A Thirty Years War would par things down to a more manageable Crusade.

I thought he was a heretic?

TR

Now that's doin' it SF Style! :lifter

Yep, that too. Along with Galileo, Copernicus, and some notable others. Pretty good company if you ask me ;)

As many of the original posts in this thread noted, we have to continue to search for and root out every facet and tactic they are using. Kinetic response (or even pre-emptive strikes) is only a portion of our playbook, at this time. We need to identify more of these Progressive Muslims and work them further. At the same time, the other options should not be diminished.

The Persian Kingdom is emerging again, at speeds faster than even the Muslims ever imagined, thanks in no part to the current POTUS and his Minions. This is not a recent occurrence, but has been developing for decades. Iran and the MB have well laid out plans for their emergence and believed domination, but they did not factor in such wide spread retaliation from their own kind. For Persians, conflict was not limited to the operation of armies, but was carried on behind the front by Persian agents and partisans, by subversion and sabotage, and by propaganda and indoctrination. We should also identify that there is no history to this cause, it is absolute in their terms and considered current for their way of thinking. What we view on our calendar from a thousand years ago is current to them.

The Phoenix plays a part in Persian history. Iran Air uses it as their logo. MR2 is on to something.

This all has to be done knowing that our own people are working in support of the Muslim creep. Whether it is various levels of our government assisting the Muslim cause, partnering with them in some political show of "Make Friends", or business influences, the approach of getting their own to dilute the spread of Muslim into our governance is paramount. We need to use this to help us defend our nation and way of life.

I've been doing this with a Moroccan at my work. He is a Muslim, but absolutely does not agree with Islam by Force. His family follows the same path, which was nationally recognized. Religious freedom is protected under Moroccan Constitution. What is interesting is he shares that an over whelming majority of his "people" back home feel the same way. Yes, there are growing concerns with the MB there, but the people are working to shut that down. His attending prayer here in America helps push his view onto others, so they can see that it is possible to be less intense in their faith.

A Muslim MLK may never emerge, as the True Believers would claim he is diluting Muhammad’s stature and kill him. Then again, there is so much derisive fighting amongst the Islamic world, we may just need to feed the beast.

What I liked in the Pew Research report is that it breaks down by age, by country, by type, etc... so that the sorting function is more controllable. The idea is not to further alienate and challenge 1.6B people, but use vocabulary and focus on where the best leverage points exist. They vary by region and demographic. Isolating a smaller set seems a better approach to me. 800 million are illiterate, so expecting any nuanced understanding from that segment is probably not going to pan out. It is not a solution, but rather places to chip away and plant new ideas.

I admit, it may be no more than an attempt to drive around a blocked road on the wrong one, but it also may be a decent shortcut as well. And the road is blocked...

While nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer,

nothing is more difficult than to understand him.

- Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky -



Just throwing out my simple observations and opinions to add to the more educated and experienced on the subject.

Almost universally, the most recent acts of terror (worldwide) perpetrated by Muslims (wherever located) express grievances against the West on behalf of all Muslims.

Second, regardless of the nationality or ethnicity of the terrorist involved - the one common denominator for many of the recent attacks was that such acts were perpetrated by devout Muslims - true believers who see the world in black and white - us versus them.

Third, it is not uncommon to hear both leader and foot solider terrorist alike, speak of establishing a Caliphate.

Fourth, the terrorists all express a deep hatred of the West - especially the United States.

As for moderate Muslims managing the relatively "small" percentage of radical Muslims...the radical Muslims are just no fun...they are on a mission from Allah...if your argue with them they may kill you. So who is really driving the bus and how does that bode for an actual reduction in violence?

IMO, all Muslims are certainly not the enemy, but Islam has been at war with the West since its inception. One need merely look at all the seemingly unconnected attacks worldwide by Muslims against non-Muslims. I maintain that the attacks are not random and in fact are connected by one root ideology. At this stage, who is at war with whom might be less important than the West aggressively killing the folks who mean to does us harm (and for the most part they let us know who they are) and the West continue developing, as best we can, our counter to the breeding grounds of terrorism - ignorance, poverty, discontent, unemployment and propaganda. People are dying in the name of Allah...lots of them.

See the link below and scroll down:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2013.htm

Yep

The muslims came within a hair's breadth of overrunning all of Europe at Vienna in 1683.

Less than 100 years before our independence, the horde was at the gates besieging the city when the Poles arrived and saved Europe.

Does anyone think that was the end of it?

TR

Fortunately this was before light bulbs were invented.

:D:D:D:D

Gong!!!

The XO and I were sitting on the back porch this morning enjoying the start of a new day. As is her custom, she opened the paper to read and out fell the Parade magazine insert with the picture of Malala Yousafzai captioned "The Face of Courage". Well, that started me thinking about this thread, the demographics of the Muslim world and their beliefs (thanks to 98G), and a Phoenix Program Redux (MR2 is on to something IMO), and the many thoughtful posts of the rest of you here.

Maybe it is young Muslim women that we should target as assets to begin the change? Malala in her view is not unique - she represents the aspirations of most young women of her generation. (98G you might want to verify that from the Pew demographic study.) These are the Muslims we need to support. Their enlightenment with proper support, education, and protection (the darker side of the Phoenix Program comes into play here) would be unstoppable, IMO.

And before my Brothers chastise me for suggesting an army of girls, (I hear the snickering :D) I can tell you from experience of raising two girls, they can be vicious when crossed - like being locked in a closet with a wolverine. :D Exploitable assets? You bet!

And while I'm at it, GR, I can say with almost certainty that Malala would not run away and pout when she was challenged.;)

Maybe there might be an 'in'.....

There is no ambiguity in Islam, Koran. Hadith, Sira or Sharia law as to women's inferiority.
After military conquest Muhammad would give out captured women, in at least one case he asked that they be raped in front of their husbands. They were then the sex slaves/concubines of the new 'owner'...there are 4 Koranic verses that allows that the owner has full sexual rights with his new slave. There are no verses that prohibit rape. (One of the reasons all US female PW's were sexually abused....it is allowed)
The Koran has verses that allow a man to beat his wife...no where does it command him to love her. It states a man 'Is a degree above her' and the Hadith says that they are intellectually inferior and are the majority of hells occupants (because they are weak of will).
A man may divorce his wife at will, if he does this twice and then wishes to remarry she must have sex with another man first (Sharia)...men are exempt from this type of degradation.
Women are not free to marry whom they will as are men...a husband can also marry 3 more wives at his will.
She must be available at all times for sex (as a field ready to be tilled) according to the Koran.
Women do not inherit proportionally to men as they are half of a man.
Her word in court is worth half of that of a man.
If a woman is raped there must be 4 male witnesses or she can be charged with adultery not rape. She can be stoned to death...the male gets lashed.
If an Islamic woman is killed in an accident the blood money is half of that for a man.
If the woman killed is not Islamic it is halved again.
Etc.Etc.....
Islam in Arabic means 'submission' and that submission is twice the load for any female.

Western Females
 

Western Females (NOW types) don't seem to have any problems with any of that - as long as it's not the Southern Baptists....

I have been reading this thread with fascination and appreciate the level of intimate knowledge you all have learned about this religion. I know this thread is not comparing Islam with Christianity, but in pondering the question posed by the OP, I can't help but do so.

In Christianity, free will is paramount, as God wants us to come to him of our own free will and not by force. Islam seems to be a requirement for all believers and non-believers must be forced into it. (I know there are examples in history where this is not the case, but for the past few centuries, Christianity has not been killing non-believers while followers of radical Islam have.)

Christianity follows the Ten Commandments, including "thou shalt not kill", while Islam encourages murder of non-believers and degradation of women.

Our country was founded with the belief that all should have the freedom to worship, or not worship, as they see fit. Radical Islam is not of the same opinion.

In all religions, there are the devout, and the less devout, and the not-so-much. But even the not-so-much devout Christian believes the core principles of Christianity even if they don't always follow them. I am assuming it is the same for Islam. There are also those that pick and choose what they will or won't believe in on both sides, but that is probably not the majority.

So, in theory, if we are not at war with Islam itself, IMO, we should be. And I like the idea of fighting it from within. It seems it would have to be an insidious method to achieve success and chane their way of thinking and the basic fundamentals of their beliefs.

To change "their way of thinking and basic fundamentals of the their beliefs" is an exercise in futility, IMO. You simply cannot change who a person is or any group of people's core beliefs. To fight this battle ("war") from the point of view of Christianity v Islam is a trap and is a no win argument for the reasons that Sigaba and others have pointed out.

The objective (again my opinion) is to find the groups or a demographic that already aspire to personal liberty and reject the subjugation of Islam. The Pew report that 98G references seems to identify possible demographic groups that are aspiring to that. Malala is a case in point and the women under the age of 25 may be the target assets. And the more I think about it, the better I like MR2s idea of a Phoenix Program Redux as a means.

Pete, to your point, I hadn't thought about it, but I don't recall NOW getting their panties in a knot over the subjugation of women under Islam either. Hmmmm!

I don't disagree with anything you said. I was simply contrasting Christianity and Islam. I agree it shouldn't the "war" shouldn't be fought that way. If the Muslims want to be Muslim, I have no wish to talk them out of it. But I do like, as I mentioned, working from the inside, such as using the Malala's in Islam to aide in making a change. Women can influence their children's way of thinking, and if the mindset of the children can be changed, there is hope.

As a woman (raised as Southern Baptist, but not subscribing to all of the beliefs), I have supported the womens' movement (also not subscribing to all of their beliefs) in things such as equal pay for equal work, but have never subscribed to the fact that men and women are equal. Both sexes have different strengths and weaknesses and excel at different things. In things in which we are equal, the business world for example, there should be equality. I am saying this to say that in this regard, I have always supported charities that assist women in this manner, helping them to become more self-sufficient, and in fighting mysogony in their cultures. There are many women's organizations fighting these atrocities, including under age marriage, the rape issues, female circumcision, and other utterly barbaric acts committed in the name of the Islamic religion.

I am not sure how you would go about changing religious beliefs without going after the believers. While we might want islam to go away, I see no sign that we could accomplish that, even if we all agreed on it.

Islam is not only a religion with primitive tenets, but it is also a theocratic political system, and the end requirement is that all non-believers convert, or face the sword.

The largest part of the islamic population is in Asia. At the same time, thus far, they seem to be the least militant. Maybe there is a way to create a schism, but even with that, we are going to have to fight a lot of people who hate us, our religion, our beliefs, and our way of life.

Make no mistake, once the muslims have a nuke, they will be looking for a way to employ it to cause us (the Western world, esp. Israel and the USA) maximum harm. It is allah's will and is undeniable.

Sad, but true.

TR

I think the 10 Commandments did not say t"Thou shalt not kill But Thou shelt not murder. The wording has changed over 2 millia. I could be wrong but this is the way I interpret it, and my way is as good as most clergy.:D

I think you are correct, sir.

Muslims must fight terrorism
 

Muslims must fight terrorism

http://www.arabnews.com/news/466789

"In his article “Gulf between perception and reality of Muslims” (Oct.3), Aijaz Zaka Syed has once again echoed the feelings of all Muslims around the globe who feel bad about the way the entire community is being blamed for the wrongdoings of a few, who in the name of Islam are wreaking havoc around the world and giving a bad name to Islam and Muslims at large.
It is sad to hear and read reports about killings and violence perpetrated by deviant groups who claim to be waging a “holy war.”......."

I post this not so much for the story - but to read the story and then the comments.