And if you were telling me that we should deport, persecute, or even annihilate every former member of the Nazi party or every Communist, regardless of whether they'd actually hurt anyone or did anything wrong, then it would be a legitimate point there, too.
I'm not telling you not to criticize or oppose Islam or the Koran. Go for it. And any Muslim living here should be able to peacefully abide such criticism. If they can't and threaten you with harm, then by all means put them in jail or send them to their home country.
Instead of using this evasive, apologetic device, why not examine the components of Islam that have fueled -- nearly unabated -- aggression, genocide, mayhem and oppression for 1400 years?
Because such arguments are as weak as the arguments that seek to examine the components of Christianity or Western civilization that have fueled plenty of nasty historical events, as well. At the end of the day, the Bible only tells you so much about what real Christians and Jews actually believe, just as the writings of Islam (Koran, Sunnah, and Hadith) only tell you so much about what real Muslims believe. There are plenty of critics of Christianity, Judaism, and even religion as a whole that will happily make the same sort of argument that the Bible is rotten to the core, too, and turns people bad. I'm not saying that there isn't nasty stuff in the Koran but that matters when we're talking about Wahhabists (who even enhance the bad stuff in their translations) but no so much if we're talking about Sufis. I'm not asking people to hug a Wahabbist or give the nasty stuff in the Koran a pass. I'm asking people to understand that not all Muslims are Wahabbists and not all Muslims abide by the nasty stuff in the Koran.
When talking theology, I have no problem with you calling the entire Koran and all of Islam rubbish. But when the discussion terms to persecution, deportations, ignoring Constitutional rights, and even mass murder, then distinguishing the guilty from the innocent is important and not even trying to do so is unconscionable. Even Ann Coulter exhibited more compassion toward Muslims when she suggested killing their leaders and forcibly converting them to Christianity than some people are expressing in this thread.
I too, know many Muslims who abhor the violent, supremacist actions of some of their co-religionists. In fact, my dearest friend; a man I have trusted my life to on several occasions, is a devout, Shia Muslim. That doesn't change the obvious fact that there is something about Islam that today compels a broad swath of its adherents to murder non-Muslims, and mostly other Muslims, in the name of God.
And I have no problem discussion that and also have a problem with the limitation of free speech rights going on to prevent Muslims from being offended. I'm not advocating appeasement. I'm advocating justice which must include not persecuting and slaughtering innocents simply because they belong to a broad group that contains some dangerous characters.
However, if I were to walk outside of my apartment and begin making statements against Islam, I would likely be beaten to death within a very short time.
What does that tell you?
It tells me something that I already know, which is that plenty of Muslims in the Middle East can't handle free speech and criticism of their religion. But what percentage of Muslims there would actually initiate or participate in your slaughter? 100%? 80%? 50%? 20%? 5%? And as I've already mentioned earlier in the thread that I think that could make a great litmus test for immigrants. Can a potential immigrant to the United States watch a movie that contains the infamous cartoons of Muhammed and other blaphemous remarks about Islam (as well as other religions and perhaps even some proselytizing to annoy militant atheists, to be fair) without turning violent or freaking out? If so, then I think they'd do fine here. If not, then maybe they should be sent home. And maybe we should work harder on getting them to accept more free speech in their counties, too. We should look at how individuals behave and what they think rather than trying to exclude an entire group.
Of course the elephant in the room that nobody talks about is that we probably wouldn't even be having any of these discussions if it weren't for oil and oil money.
I haven't even hinted at such a thing, nor do I advocate that, so please refrain from engaging in coy slander by association -- it's a cheap trick.
Now to the topics at hand: I would most certainly agree that any Muslim, be he a layman or cleric who calls for an American caliphate or preaches jihad, who urges his followers to choose the Koran over the Constitution; who urges his co-religionists to commit acts of violence and sabotage against Americans or American interests; who works to supplant our system of laws with sharia-compliant ones -- should be arrested and prosecuted and if he is a non-US citizen, immediately deported. I would consider such actions those of a reasonable people intent on the preservation of their values, their culture and their nation.
Because such arguments are as weak as the arguments that seek to examine the components of Christianity or Western civilization that have fueled plenty of nasty historical events, as well. . .
No, such arguments are entirely valid, since there has been no organized, worldwide, violent, genocidal, mass movement of Bible-thumping Christians for centuries. And if you characterize the Christian Crusaders as analogous to current-day Muslim jihadis, the last of the Crusaders died over a thousand years ago.
I'm not saying that there isn't nasty stuff in the Koran but that matters when we're talking about Wahhabists (who even enhance the bad stuff in their translations) but no so much if we're talking about Sufis.
True, but for practical purposes when we talk about Islam as a political force -- which today it clearly is -- we are speaking of Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims, who together comprise around 95% of the world's Muslims. Sunis and Bahais are a tiny minority of Muslims and they're usually mocked, persecuted or ignored by the two dominant sects. So what's your point?
Even Ann Coulter exhibited more compassion toward Muslims when she suggested killing their leaders and forcibly converting them to Christianity than some people are expressing in this thread.
Coulter's tongue-in-cheek, but she does have a point which I'll illustrate via a personal anectdote: When I was in Iraq, I worked with a crew of Iraqi engineers who were all decent, brave men. We'd often have discussions similar to this one. One evening, in the course of conversation ( as rockets thumped in around us) I asked these guys how much power their clerics had. One of the guys then told a story that drove home a pivotal point. He said that one week there had been a story making the rounds on the news channels about how the burned and blackened spots on the Iraqi bread were bad for one's health. After the story aired, people overwhelmingly ignored the warnings. That Friday during mosque, a number of the clerics made the same point to their flocks. Immediately, people started taking issue with bread that had burn spots on it -- no one would eat the stuff.
After he'd made his point, I asked the same guy this question: "If clerics across Iraq told their flocks next Friday to stop killing each other -- to stop the bombings, the rockets, the beheadings, would they stop?" Without hesitation, he said, "Immediately." Every other Iraqi in the room agreed.
Of course the elephant in the room that nobody talks about is that we probably wouldn't even be having any of these discussions if it weren't for oil and oil money.
I think we would be having this conversation. Here's why: To non- Muslim Westerners, maintaining a Middle East presence is mainly about oil and maintaining access to a few geographically strategic areas. But to most Muslims it's about protecting and spreading their religion until it blankets the entire earth -- and a significant number of them are willing to do that through the sword. And a more significant number of them are in agreement with that approach, even if they themselves would never commit a violent act in the name of Islam. In a nutshell, they don't want us here not because they think we're stealing their oil, but because we aren't Muslims and as such we represent a threat to their deep-held religious/societal beliefs and practices. You cannot begin to understand the depth of truth in my statement, "To most Muslims it's about protecting and spreading their religion until it blankets the entire earth," unless you've spent significant time in the Middle East, surrounded by Muslims from the Gulf, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. I don't say that to slight your opinions, but in retrospect it has taken me years of such immersion to lose my illusions, so to speak.
It's about religion as powerful, addictive ideology.
As a wayward Christian, I could not fathom the incredible depth of religiosity among Muslims until I saw it first-hand, in Muslim lands. I have never seen anything comparable in the West.