The Outlaws of Islam - (specifically for LeSellers)

[Guest]

I saw this on the news today so I thought this would be a perfect time to share information with LeSellers about what's been happening in the world of Islamic Terrorism.

 

First off:

New issue of ISIS magazine Dabiq calls for war on . . . Muslims

ISIS' literary arm charges that Shia Muslims, or Shiites, qualify as apostates to the Sunni majority and therefore deserve to be killed. The radical terror group's target audience seems to be fellow Sunnis who consider Shiites to be Muslims, or at the very least, not deserving of being murdered.

 

Okay.  What makes this interesting... ISIS is calling for a war against Shiites - that would be Iran and Iraq and their corresponding groups (e.g. Hezbollah) and calling for all the Sunni's to unite together to bring death to Shiites using some Prophecy in the Sunni faith that Shiites and Jews will band together.

 

Now, remember... only about 15% of Muslims worldwide are Shiites.  The rest are mostly Sunnis.  The coalition of Muslim nations fighting ISIS are all Sunnis - Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Bangladesh, etc. etc.

 

So, what's all this about?  Well... here's my own opinion.  ISIS has been losing ground in Iraq recently and with Iran making deals with P5+1, ISIS needed something to use to recruit more people to their cause... so they went back to the age-old arsenal of Sunni versus Shiite to get sheeples to sign up and giving them something to use against Sunni nations fighting ISIS - they're siding with Shiites, they need to be fought as well!

 

I encountered this gem of an interview last week with the King of Jordan (Sunni).  I was hesitant to post it as it has some Presidential Candidate mentioned on the interview.  I decided to go ahead and post it anyway because the King of Jordan pointed out that he can't possibly answer that question on an election year - which is the same as lds.net, we can't talk about a candidate on an election season.  But anyway, it is a perfect illustration of how Muslims all over the world are trying to get help from the world powers to squash what the King of Jordan calls "The Outlaws of Islam".

BLITZER:  In President Obama's State of the Union address, he said that the fight against ISIS should not be labeled another World War III because that, he said, plays into the hands of ISIS propaganda.  You called this war against ISIS almost like a World War III. Do you, do you see this war against ISIS now as World War III?

ABDULLAH:  I said that the war against the hawadi, the outlaws of Islam, is a third World War by other means, which is probably slightly different- It's not just ISIS.  All these groups, whether they're from the Philippines, or in Indonesia, all the way to Tenali, these all the same, whether it's ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaad, Al- Nusra, wherever you find them around the world.  And, again, as I said, from Asia all the way to the African continent, there is either a full out war or counter insurgency warfare.  This is a global struggle-

BLITZER:  The Iraqi Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi, says ISIS can be defeated this year.  In the President's State of the Union address, he said that this is a war that's going to go on, it's going to be a generational war.  What's your assessment?

ABDULLAH:  Well, again, let's make the differentiation where we say ISIS, Syria Iraq, or we say this global war against the outlaws of Islam. And so ISIS in Syria and Iraq can be defeated very quickly, but the global war - what I call the third World War by other means - is, is one that is a generational one.  Hopefully, the military security aspect is a short term, or the military part is a short term.  The mid-term is going to be the intelligence and security aspect.  The long-term is the ideological one and the educational one.

BLITZER:  And that's a generational war?

ABDULLAH:  That's the generational one that only inside Islam as we regain, we as Muslims, we regain the supremacy against the crazies, the outlaws, of our religion.  But also reaching out to other religions that Islam is not what they have seen being perpetuated by 0.1 percent of our religion.

 

[LeSellers]

Please stop imagining that I hate Moslems. I do not. Please stop imagining that I think all Moslems are evil. I do not. Please stop imagining that I think Deash/ISIL/S only attacks Christians (and Jews). I do not.

You may also imagine that I think that ISIS goes unchallenged by other Moslems. I do not.

These were never my thoughts.

Lehi

[Guest]

Please stop imagining that I hate Moslems. I do not. Please stop imagining that I think all Moslems are evil. I do not. Please stop imagining that I think Deash/ISIL/S only attacks Christians (and Jews). I do not.

You may also imagine that I think that ISIS goes unchallenged by other Moslems. I do not.

These were never my thoughts.

Lehi

 

Stop the presses.

 

Never in my posts to you on this and the other threads have I ever said that you hate Muslims.  But you have mentioned, if I understood you correctly, that the problem is with Islam.

 

This thread is specifically addressed to you to share with you the latest ploy by ISIS to recruit warriors using a twisted interpretation of Islam to achieve their purposes.

[LeSellers]

This thread is specifically addressed to you to share with you the latest ploy by ISIS to recruit warriors using a twisted interpretation of Islam to achieve their purposes.

Yes, no matter what anyone may think, all of the Deash/ISIS(L) warrior-terrorists think themselves to be the one-true Islam.

But, irrespective of that, there is still no way to determine which Moselm is and which is not a terrorist.

So, my concern remains unchanged: I'll continue to be wary of all Moslems.

And, as I said in a wholly different topic: there is nothing I can think of that they could do to change my mind. And that is sad. I say this, again, as I said elsewhere, only after a painful "conversion" about Islam: I have defended it, and Moslems, in the past. My study four decades ago led me to believe Islam a decent religion. However, observation and more recent study have changed my outlook. It's sad because I'm not, by nature, a suspicious person: I prefer to like and accept people until they prove untrustworthy.

Lehi

[pam]

Did you know that the term Moslem means "One who is evil and unjust."  While the term Muslim means "One who gives himself to God."  Both in Arabic.

 

So in using the term Moslem, I take it that is throwing the whole group under the category of evil and unjust.

[LeSellers]

Did you know that the term Moslem means "One who is evil and unjust."  While the term Muslim means "One who gives himself to God."  Both in Arabic.

I grew up with "Moslem". I learned to spell it that way in a grtf-welfare school (two, actually).

And since, in Arabic, "MSLM" (or its equivalent) gives both "Moslem" and "Muslim" (no vowels, remember?) I'm unsure how you reached this conclusion.

Lehi

Edited January 21, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

Yes, no matter what anyone may think, all of the Deash/ISIS(L) warrior-terrorists think themselves to be the one-true Islam.

But, irrespective of that, there is still no way to determine which Moselm is and which is not a terrorist.

So, my concern remains unchanged: I'll continue to be wary of all Moslems.

And, as I said in a wholly different topic: there is nothing I can think of that they could do to change my mind. And that is sad. I say this, again, as I said elsewhere, only after a painful "conversion" about Islam: I have defended it, and Moslems, in the past. My study four decades ago led me to believe Islam a decent religion. However, observation and more recent study have changed my outlook. It's sad because I'm not, by nature, a suspicious person: I prefer to like and accept people until they prove untrustworthy.

Lehi

 

Well, this thread specifically shows you which Muslims are terrorists and which ones are not.  Wallowing in the muck of prejudice makes you part of the problem as the King of Jordan eloquently stated.

Edited January 21, 2016 by anatess

[LeSellers]

Well, this thread SPECIFICALLY SHOWS YOU which Muslims are terrorists and which ones are not.

Sorry, it does not.

 

I said that the war against the hawadi, the outlaws of Islam, is a third World War by other means, which is probably slightly different- It's not just ISIS. All these groups, whether they're from the Philippines, or in Indonesia, all the way to Tenali, these all the same, whether it's ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaad, Al- Nusra, wherever you find them around the world. And, again, as I said, from Asia all the way to the African continent, there is either a full out war or counter insurgency warfare. This is a global struggle-

Not all "bad Moslems" wear the ISIS label, and many hide behind the camouflage the "good ones" provide. And, contrary to what we have read here, they are not all from Syria or other countries where USmerican forces are on the ground. Boko Haram is in Africa. That's not "holy ground" for Moslems. There are no military forces from USmerica there.

As we saw in San Bernadino, the people who were closest to him in the office had no idea that Farrouk had been "radicalized". The camouflage was virtually complete.

Lehi

Edited January 21, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Wallowing in the muck of prejudice makes you part of the problem as the King of Jordan eloquently stated.

Ya know, name calling just isn't quite my cuppa. Please refrain.

 

That's the generational one that only inside Islam as we regain, we as Muslims, we regain the supremacy against the crazies, the outlaws, of our religion. But also reaching out to other religions that Islam is not what they have seen being perpetuated by 0.1 percent of our religion.

I don't know if Abdullah has a vested interest in understating the fraction of Moslems who are terrorists, but I have seen estimates that are far, far higher than 1:1000. It's more like 3~5%. The difference is huge. His number gives 1,500,000 "crazies", while the more common values sets them at >20,000,000. Even if we take his figure, that's still a very large number of people who want to kill us.

Lehi

Edited January 21, 2016 by LeSellers

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree that the extremists don't represent all of Islam; but King Abdullah is deceiving himself if he thinks Islamists represent only 0.1% of Muslims.  Eleven percent of Muslims globally are okay with perpetuating violence against civilians in order to further their religious aims.  That's not from a conservative/isolationist fringe group; that's from the Pew Forum.

 

In my book, Abdullah gets a pass on his mis-quantification of the problem because he's willing to actually climb into an airplane and go kill the extremists; and because Jordan is a culturally homogeneous nation that seems to be far more wary of its "war refugee" immigrants than our government thinks the United States should be.  But in a nation like ours that claims to celebrate pluralism and welcome immigrants--it is imperative that we have accurate information about the potential security problems that our immigration policies may create.

 

The assertion that "the extremists don't represent all Muslims" should be the beginning of a discussion about American immigration and security policy that goes on to acknowledge that the extremists do, unfortunately, represent a sizeable number of Muslims.  Unfortunately, many in the western world seem to insist that the assertion should actually be the end of the discussion, and that our security apparatus should treat nonagenarian English women the same as it treats adolescent Arab men--hoping that ultimately karma will reward our open-minded benevolence.  That perspective is, frankly, starting to get people killed.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Sorry, it does not.

Not all "bad Moslems" wear the ISIS label, and many hide behind the camouflage the "good ones" provide. And, contrary to what we have read here, they are not all from Syria or other countries where USmerican forces are on the ground. Boko Haram is in Africa. That's not "holy ground" for Moslems. There are no military forces from USmerica there.

As we saw in San Bernadino, the people who were closest to him in the office had no idea that Farrouk had been "radicalized". The camouflage was virtually complete.

Lehi

 

We've been fighting these terrorists since the war with the Ottoman Empire.  ISIS is surely not the ONLY group we're fighting - they just cropped up last year!  Surely you don't think Islamic terrorism only started last year?

 

Yes, they're in the Philippines too.  One of the groups is Abu Sayyaf over there - surely not the only one but is the newest one.  And yes, there are Filipino muslims in the special forces that killed the Abu Sayyaf leadership.  Can you imagine if we were in the same prejudiced mindset against all Muslims?  We won't know who our friends are and who our enemies are!  And in that Muslim region of the Philippines, you need Muslim insiders to get intelligence information.  That's how we won that war.

[LeSellers]

Yes, they're in the Philippines too.  One of the groups is Abu Sayyaf over there - surely not the only one but is the newest one.  And yes, there are Filipino muslims in the special forces that killed the Abu Sayyaf leadership.  Can you imagine if we were in the same prejudiced mindset against all Muslims?  We won't know who our friends are and who our enemies are!

So, you agree with me: we cannot know who is a terrorist and who is not.

And in that Muslim region of the Philippines, you need Muslim insiders to get intelligence information.

This has nothing at all to do with the question at hand.

Yes, we need military intelligence. The best sources are inside. But that does not answer the question. How do we tell who is and who is not a terrorist?

Lehi

[Guest]

I agree that the extremists don't represent all of Islam; but King Abdullah is deceiving himself if he thinks Islamists represent only 0.1% of Muslims.  Eleven percent of Muslims globally are okay with perpetuating violence against civilians in order to further their religious aims.  That's not from a conservative/isolationist fringe group; that's from the Pew Forum.

 

 

That eleven percent is also a deception.  Did they put a demographic qualifier on that 11%?  Did they ask how many Americans are okay with perpetuating violence against civilians in order to further their aims?  

(So Gallup got a bad rap for the 2012 elections - but this study was universally accepted)

Through interviews with 2,482 Americans, Gallup found that 78 percent of Muslims believe violence which kills civilians is never justified, whereas just 38 percent of Protestant Christians and 39 percent of Catholics agreed with that sentiment. Fifty-six percent of atheists answered similarly.

When Gallup put the question a bit more pointedly, asking if it would be justified for “an individual person or a small group of persons to target and kill civilians,” the responses were a bit more uniform. Respondents from nearly all groups were widely opposed to such tactics, with Protestants and Catholics at 71 percent against. Muslims still had the highest number opposed, at 89 percent. Seventy-six percent of atheists were also opposed.

 

 

In my book, Abdullah gets a pass on his mis-quantification of the problem because he's willing to actually climb into an airplane and go kill the extremists; and because Jordan is a culturally homogeneous nation that seems to be far more wary of its "war refugee" immigrants than our government thinks the United States should be.  But in a nation like ours that claims to celebrate pluralism and welcome immigrants--it is imperative that we have accurate information about the potential security problems that our immigration policies may create.

 

The assertion that "the extremists don't represent all Muslims" should be the beginning of a discussion about American immigration and security policy that goes on to acknowledge that the extremists do, unfortunately, represent a sizeable number of Muslims.  Unfortunately, many in the western world seem to insist that the assertion should actually be the end of the discussion, and that our security apparatus should treat nonagenarian English women the same as it treats adolescent Arab men--hoping that ultimately karma will reward our open-minded benevolence.  That perspective is, frankly, starting to get people killed.

 

I agree 100%.  I even agree that immigration should be closed to all people UNTIL we have a working intelligence against terrorism.

 

But this is VERY FAR removed from a person's blanket prejudice who can't exercise judgment such that their next-door neighbor (among all muslims) automatically becomes a terrorist suspect just because he's Muslim.  Yes, it is harder to put such judgment in a national defense policy... but, the same judgment that you use to judge that your next-door neighbor is not a pedophile just because he happens to be a Catholic priest... or your next-door neighbor is not a criminal just because he is a young black man... is the same judgment you use to judge if he's a terrorist... you need to be able to see beyond the prejudice.  It is especially an issue when (like Sean Hannity often says in his program, even going as far as quoting the Q'uran) - terrorism is blamed squarely on the religion of Islam.

Edited January 21, 2016 by anatess

[Guest]

Ya know, name calling just isn't quite my cuppa. Please refrain.

 

Lehi

 

What name exactly did I call you?

[Guest]

So, you agree with me: we cannot know who is a terrorist and who is not.

This has nothing at all to do with the question at hand.

Yes, we need military intelligence. The best sources are inside. But that does not answer the question. How do we tell who is and who is not a terrorist?

Lehi

 

Who is WE - individual people or the American government?

[LeSellers]

What name exactly did I call you?

Here's what you said:

"Wallowing in the muck of prejudice"

The implication, that I am a pig and that I am prejudiced (without cause), is name calling.

You just didn't use nouns.

Lehi

Edited January 21, 2016 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

Who is WE [who needs military intellignce] - individual people or the American government?

Both.

But, since I have almost no faith that the government would tell us what they know (political correctness and all that), while the government is more likely to have it or get it, it is we, the people, who need it most.

Lehi

[Guest Godless]

But, since I have almost no faith that the government would tell us what they know (political correctness and all that)

 

OR, it could be something that military folk call OPSEC. The number one rule of human intelligence is to protect your sources. When it comes to national security and intelligence gathering, quite frankly, I don't want the government telling us everything they know. 

[Just_A_Guy]

That eleven percent is also a deception.  Did they put a demographic qualifier on that 11%?  Did they ask how many Americans are okay with perpetuating violence against civilians in order to further their aims?  

(So Gallup got a bad rap for the 2012 elections - but this study was universally accepted)

 

Here's the full Pew report (see p. 142), which focused on Muslims and not non-Muslims.  The figure for American Muslims who believed violence in the name of Islam was "sometimes" or "often" justified was 8%, as opposed to 11% globally.

 

 

Through interviews with 2,482 Americans, Gallup found that 78 percent of Muslims believe violence which kills civilians is never justified, whereas just 38 percent of Protestant Christians and 39 percent of Catholics agreed with that sentiment. Fifty-six percent of atheists answered similarly.

When Gallup put the question a bit more pointedly, asking if it would be justified for “an individual person or a small group of persons to target and kill civilians,” the responses were a bit more uniform. Respondents from nearly all groups were widely opposed to such tactics, with Protestants and Catholics at 71 percent against. Muslims still had the highest number opposed, at 89 percent. Seventy-six percent of atheists were also opposed.

 

The devil is often in the details.  Pew asked specifically about violence in the name of Islam; Gallup seems to have asked only about violence generally while allowing its hearers to speculate about what sort of motives or greater good might justify violence against civilians.  Most Christian Americans would remember World War 2, for example, where we inflicted massive civilian casualties in both the Eurpoean and Pacific theaters; whereas over the past decade Muslim Americans have gotten pretty used to saying "we don't kill civilians" to anyone who asks.  Of late, American Muslims haven't had the luxury of publicly exploring the nuances of their position; and I think the polling data reflects that.

 

Moreover, when we're talking about US immigration policy, the question isn't "who, in the abstract, is more likely to perpetrate violence against civilians?".  The question is "who's more likely to perpetrate violence against AmerIcan civilians on American soil".

 

 

I agree 100%.  I even agree that immigration should be closed to all people UNTIL we have a working intelligence against terrorism.

 

But this is VERY FAR removed from a person's blanket prejudice who can't exercise judgment such that their next-door neighbor (among all muslims) automatically becomes a terrorist suspect just because he's Muslim.  Yes, it is harder to put such judgment in a national defense policy... but, the same judgment that you use to judge that your next-door neighbor is not a pedophile just because he happens to be a Catholic priest... or your next-door neighbor is not a criminal just because he is a young black man... is the same judgment you use to judge if he's a terrorist... you need to be able to see beyond the prejudice.  It is especially an issue when (like Sean Hannity often says in his program, even going as far as quoting the Q'uran) - terrorism is blamed squarely on the religion of Islam.

 

Conceptually, I agree--unless you get to a point where eleven percent of Catholic priests are pedophiles, or eleven percent of young black men are felons; in which case I think additional caution is warranted.  I think there's a certain statistical threshhold of correlation where, as a reasonably prudent person, you just have to say "Okay, something's going on here and we need to figure out what it is".  I think that's sort of the point Hannity is making; though the vibe I get from Hannity is that Islam is basically not fixable by any external means.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[LeSellers]

OR [as opposed to political correctness's being the reason], it could be something that military folk call OPSEC. The number one rule of human intelligence is to protect your sources. When it comes to national security and intelligence gathering, quite frankly, I don't want the government telling us everything they know.

I'm very familiar with OPSEC. But not revealing the sources of the intelligence does not mean they ought not tell us, in general, what the situation is.

Winston Churchill sometimes let the NAZIs destroy a convoy even though the Brits had actionable intel regarding U-Boat locations and ops. He did it to protect Ultra. But he did not let them kill them all.

Lehi

[NeuroTypical]

And since, in Arabic, "MSLM" (or its equivalent) gives both "Moslem" and "Muslim" (no vowels, remember?) I'm unsure how you reached this conclusion.

 

 

Why Do People Say Muslim Now Instead of Moslem?

 

Is it rude to use the spelling "Moslem" for Muslim in modern English?

 

Basically, whether you're right or wrong, you're wrong here.  Whenever you demand to use a spelling that lots of people find offensive, even if they're mistaken about the issue, you are being intentionally offensive.  Like, on purpose.  Because you figure you're right and they're wrong and to heck with them - even if they are Muslim.  Serves 'em right for not knowing the etymology of their own name - right?

 

LeSellers, your continued use of Moslem is one reason why people are having a hard time taking you seriously here.  I mean, you obviously know a lot of stuff, but we're having a hard time caring since you sound like a a petulant 12-year old.   I mean, I remember when I heard about that villiage in Africa named Compenis. Eventually everyone had enough of me finding ways to work it into every other sentence.  Then I turned 13 and grew up a little. 

 

p.s. We don't say "Hindoo" or "Chinaman" any more either. 

Edited January 21, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Guest]

This somewhat-current somewhat-trend of changing words or spellings, or making words up altogether, in an effort to shove your political opinions in people's faces at every opportunity is so counterproductive. (For instance, "ze" instead of "he" or "she", and the fact that feeling  that way means I should call myself "cisgendered".) Instead of making me want to understand where they're coming from, it altogether strips me of the will to take them seriously. 

[jerome1232]

I have to say, (born in '85 here) I have never once seen the spelling Moslem and assumed it was an intentional derogative, like how people use shortened nicknames for the prophets to be intentionally disrespectful or use various misspellings of "mormon" to be disrespectful.

I think you'll run into that anytime you use that form whether you mean it or not, I would drop it and go with Muslim just to prevent that kind of mix up with your intent.

[LeSellers]

Basically, whether you're right or wrong, you're wrong here.  Whenever you demand to use a spelling that lots of people find offensive, even if they're mistaken about the issue, you are being intentionally offensive.  Like, on purpose.  Because you figure you're right and they're wrong and to heck with them - even if they are Muslim.  Serves 'em right for not knowing the etymology of their own name - right?

You cite two different versions of the same article. Essentially it says that people of my generation learned "Moslem". I've been writing it for nearly five decades. It was, in the words of your article, "Moslem is the form predominantly preferred in journalism and popular usage. Muslim is preferred by scholars and by English-speaking adherents of Islam."

More from your article: "[T]he use of the word Moslem has not entirely ceased. Established institutions which used the older form of the name have been reluctant to change. The American Moslem Foundation is still the American Moslem Foundation (much as the NAACP is still the NAACP--the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). The journal The Moslem World--published by the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut--is still The Moslem World."

We may not write Hindoo (I never did), but it is not wrong, fer cryin' in a bucket! I write "Indian" not "Native American" and I can't stand "African American". I am a native USmerican, born here and everything. And Black citizens (a direct translation of the Spanish Negro) in USmerica are Americans, not Africans.

In short, I just don't buy the PC can't-offend-anyone-no-matter-how-thin-his-skin program that is inundating us.

If you don't trust me because of the spelling of a word, fine: don't read me.

Lehi

Edited January 21, 2016 by LeSellers

[unixknight]

Or you could just go REALLY old school and call them "Mohammedans."