Any Signs of Long-Predicted Anti-Muslim "Backlash"?

[astorian]

This is a serious question, one that calls for a statistical, quantitative answer.

Every time a Muslim carries out a terrorist attack, there is a certain amount of hand-wringing over an imminent anti-Muslim "backlash," in which American rednecks, racists and all-around yahoos are going to start beating up Muslim kids, vandalizing Muslim-owned businesses, and torching mosques.

I think such fears are overblown, and show a decided lack of respect for Americans as a whole. All things considered, I think if a broad, violent "backlash" were likely, it would have happened by now.

But never mind my hunches- what do the numbers say? Are there any statistics showing that anti-Muslim violence is widespread, or rising substantially?

[Silverstreak Wonder]

Well, one can certainly hope. For instance why don't they go disband and remove the mosque where they know training went on, and common sense things like that? If we find a drug lab we disband it don't we? We just don't arrest the people and leave it for others to run, so why not here?

In our own Christian churches I would also like to see more name calling at their allah and things like hymms sung in our churches putting down their beliefs, after all the koran itself is just filled with anti-Jesus statements, saying he lied and was not anyone and that his death was a fake, I have read it myself. So, why don't we have our own against their beliefs? Look at WW2, we certainly stopped the emperor worship, we did not go in and say "hey. maybe he is god" and respect it, did we?

[constanze]

Only for America, or generally? Because the Anti-mosque initiative in Switzerland just passed recently.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by astorian

But never mind my hunches- what do the numbers say? Are there any statistics showing that anti-Muslim violence is widespread, or rising substantially?

How about the Iraq war? And the torture of prisoners; and especially the support from many people for such torture. Why does it only count as a backlash if "rednecks" and "yahoos" do it, instead of guys in offices and bombers?

Originally Posted by Silverstreak Wonder

Well, one can certainly hope. For instance why don't they go disband and remove the mosque where they know training went on, and common sense things like that? If we find a drug lab we disband it don't we? We just don't arrest the people and leave it for others to run, so why not here?

astorian is asking about violence against uninvolved Muslims and Muslim institutions.

Originally Posted by Silverstreak Wonder

In our own Christian churches I would also like to see more name calling at their allah and things like hymms sung in our churches putting down their beliefs, after all the koran itself is just filled with anti-Jesus statements, saying he lied and was not anyone and that his death was a fake, I have read it myself. So, why don't we have our own against their beliefs?

Since when do Christians not "put down" the beliefs of others?

And you do realize that Allah is just another word for God? YOUR God.

[Silverstreak Wonder]

Astor, to better answer why there is not more violent action here, it is because people realize there is insurance and any damage done will be fixed free, and put our police to helping them for free as well.

What many may not know is they usually get these mosques built by their members for free, so any insurance payment becomes yet more money for terror supplies, so no, you sure do not want to do violence to their buildings, it has the opposite effect of what you would want. What you want is laws to cause any mosque that terror suspects come from to be forcibly torn down by the state so there would be no rebuilding or insurance payments. Just the way illegal drug labs are removed.

But you know most of the violent sects do not even build anything here in the first place. Most of the bad sects doing this do not have facilities in this country at all, most here in US are indeed peaceful. In Europe however they do have such facilities but they usually do not do terror nearby so as to get a backlash, so far.

What you do need to watch with peaceful ones is where their offerings go, I suspect the purpose of most of the peaceful sects is fund raising for the others. This is why they will stay peaceful, it is useful to their plan. Many so called islamic charities have openly been found to just be terror funding agencies. I am sure that is true of most of the churches as well, even better if they can attract non-violent people to give as well and not know, see?

[The Great Philosopher]

Yes, the annual FBI statistics recording hate crimes indicate it does happen, and it happens significantly. In the year of 9/11 attacks on Muslims rocketed compared with the year before:

Originally Posted by http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01hate.pdf

Another noticeable increase in 2001 was among religious-bias incidents. Anti-Islamic religion incidents were previously the second least reported, but in 2001, they became the second highest reported among religious-bias incidents (anti-Jewish religion incidents were the highest), growing by more than 1,600 percent over the 2000 volume. In 2001, reported data showed there were 481 incidents made up of 546 offenses having 554 victims of crimes motivated by bias toward the Islamic religion.

For comparison, by 2008 the number of anti-Islamic incidents had fallen back to 155. My guess is that they may well start to go back up again after the events of the last couple of weeks.

Originally Posted by Silverstreak Wonder

Well, one can certainly hope. For instance why don't they go disband and remove the mosque where they know training went on, and common sense things like that? If we find a drug lab we disband it don't we? We just don't arrest the people and leave it for others to run, so why not here?

In our own Christian churches I would also like to see more name calling at their allah and things like hymms sung in our churches putting down their beliefs, after all the koran itself is just filled with anti-Jesus statements, saying he lied and was not anyone and that his death was a fake, I have read it myself. So, why don't we have our own against their beliefs? Look at WW2, we certainly stopped the emperor worship, we did not go in and say "hey. maybe he is god" and respect it, did we?

This whole post is ignorant to the point of imbecility. If you're talking about the recent attempted terror attack, or 9/11 in fact, the 'training mosques' you are referring to were not in the US, so removing them requires military invasions. And the Koran is clearly not filled with "anti-Jesus statements" given that Muslims worship him as a prophet.

OP: When there's people like this around, are you really surprised that fears of a backlash are not overblown?

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Silverstreak Wonder

What you do need to watch with peaceful ones is where their offerings go, I suspect the purpose of most of the peaceful sects is fund raising for the others. This is why they will stay peaceful, it is useful to their plan. Many so called islamic charities have openly been found to just be terror funding agencies. I am sure that is true of most of the churches as well, even better if they can attract non-violent people to give as well and not know, see?

That's just nonsense. There IS no "plan". Islam isn't the Catholic Church; there is no central authority who could create and run such a plan.

[Silverstreak Wonder]

Der, they indeed do a great PR job of hiding their leaders, so much so it is incredible. You can read about Mohammad, Ali, Abdulah and so on leading in the 700's and then nothing, as if suddenly no one is in charge.

Do you really believe the Sunni sect with that billion dollars of gold in that golden palace really has no one in charge? As for the donations here going there sure it is easy, each of these so called charities funnels that money, that was even admitted by our own government a few years ago too. All of these groups certainly do have people in charge.

But try to find out the leader of the Sunnis or the Shitites, no one will even ask. Yet the doctrine differences are mainly ABOUT who leads, with one group wanting a blood line like kings and the other whoever is most ruthless, like the old Soviet premiers were chosen, yet then they try to tell us neither has anyone in charge......yeah. sure. Think about it and you will see this has to be nonsense. There are leaders of each sect, believe me.

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by Silverstreak Wonder

Der, they indeed do a great PR job of hiding their leaders, so much so it is incredible. You can read about Mohammad, Ali, Abdulah and so on leading in the 700's and then nothing, as if suddenly no one is in charge.

The Caliphate was effectively terminated in 1258, though even by then it had long since ceased being much more than a minor regional power. It survived in name until 1924, when Mustafa Kemal abolished the shadow title long claimed by the Ottoman sultans.

Do you really believe the Sunni sect with that billion dollars of gold in that golden palace really has no one in charge?

Yep. It's a fact.

There are leaders of each sect, believe me.

Many, many, MANY leaders. But no singular LEADER. Sorry - I hate to burst the conspiracy bubble, but uncomfortable truths must occasionally be acknowledged .

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Silverstreak Wonder

Der, they indeed do a great PR job of hiding their leaders, so much so it is incredible. You can read about Mohammad, Ali, Abdulah and so on leading in the 700's and then nothing, as if suddenly no one is in charge.

Who is the leader of the Protestants? That is the same as asking "who is the leader of Islam?" The answer is there is no unified leadership at all.

Originally Posted by Silverstreak Wonder

As for the donations here going there sure it is easy, each of these so called charities funnels that money, that was even admitted by our own government a few years ago too.

Some do, some don't. You might as well argue that every single Christian charity is part of a vast scheme to funnel money to the IRA.

Originally Posted by Silverstreak Wonder

But try to find out the leader of the Sunnis or the Shitites, no one will even ask.

Because there isn't one. Just a bunch of different leaders who don't agree with each other on much.

[Silverstreak Wonder]

It is incredible people can believe the Sunnis have no leader, it is obviously one of the Saudi royalty in all probability. Of course as I said there are leaders of each sect, I do agree no total leader, just as Christians do not either have a total leader.

I never said islam had only one, but that each sect did, and it does, do you think not just because they say that? Rather unrealistic, for sure. They also say they only want peace, too, you know.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Silverstreak Wonder

It is incredible people can believe the Sunnis have no leader, it is obviously one of the Saudi royalty in all probability. Of course as I said there are leaders of each sect, I do agree no total leader, just as Christians do not either have a total leader.

And what evidence do you have for such a leader?

Originally Posted by Silverstreak Wonder

I never said islam had only one, but that each sect did, and it does, do you think not just because they say that? Rather unrealistic, for sure.

No, completely realistic. A conspiracy consisting of over a billion people is utterly ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Silverstreak Wonder

They also say they only want peace, too, you know.

Some do, some don't. You pretend that they have a unity that just isn't there.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by constanze

Only for America, or generally? Because the Anti-mosque initiative in Switzerland just passed recently.

To be fair, what you're implying happened is not actually what happened. The Swiss have banned a certain type of architecture, not "mosques". Muslims are still allowed to construct places of worship, just not minaret towers. Sure, it has religious bigotry at its heart, but it's overstating things to say the Switzerland situation is the type of "backlash" predicted in the original post.

[KarlGauss]

On second thought, I should clear my post with a mod first.

[Harriet the Spry]

Here is a cite relevant to employment discrimination as a form of anti-Muslim backlash: http://www.bna.com/bnabooks/ababna/eeo/2006/sinnar.pdf

"In the same period [2001-2005], the EEOC received 2,459 charges of discrimination based on 'religion-Muslim.' For a comparable period of time before September 11, 2001 (6/11/1997 to 9/10/2001), the EEOC received 1,227 charges – half as many -- in the same category."

[handsomeharry]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

How about the Iraq war? And the torture of prisoners; and especially the support from many people for such torture. Why does it only count as a backlash if "rednecks" and "yahoos" do it, instead of guys in offices and bombers?

astorian is asking about violence against uninvolved Muslims and Muslim institutions.

Since when do Christians not "put down" the beliefs of others?

And you do realize that Allah is just another word for God? YOUR God.

Iraq war is not "Anti-Muslim" it is anti Hussein, and the aftermath.
Torture of prisoner is not 'Anti-Muslim' it is anti enemy combatant.
Backlash is much different from war. The results may be the same, but the means are different.
Allah may or may not be another word for the Christian God. There are people with answers, but it is not as clear cut as you seem to imply. If Allah has only one prophet, he cannot be the same as Yahweh/Jehovah.

hh

[handsomeharry]

Originally Posted by Silverstreak Wonder

It is incredible people can believe the Sunnis have no leader, it is obviously one of the Saudi royalty in all probability. Of course as I said there are leaders of each sect, I do agree no total leader, just as Christians do not either have a total leader.

IIRC, the Saudi royalty is extremely un-Sunni. If I understand aright, they are Wahabis.

hh

[Freudian Slit]

What about also, the fact that the kinds of people who would attack Muslims because of 9/11 or terrorism aren't that bright and also attack people who aren't even remotely Muslim (but who, gasp, wear turbans and have beards) like the Sikhs? Is violence against Sikhs or other generic brown people counted, too?

Anyway, this is anecdotal but we had about three family members/family friends who experienced unpleasantness after 9/11. I guess you're more likely to remember it if it happens to you.

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by handsomeharry

IIRC, the Saudi royalty is extremely un-Sunni. If I understand aright, they are Wahabis.

Wahhabis are Sunnis, actually. Just a subsect, if you will. But not a very representative one of Sunni Muslims generally, that's for sure.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by handsomeharry

Iraq war is not "Anti-Muslim" it is anti Hussein, and the aftermath.

Nonsense. Much of the support for the war came from the delusion that Saddam was behind 9-11. And a lot of people treated it as vengeance for 9-11. We clearly just wanted some Muslim blood.

Originally Posted by handsomeharry

Torture of prisoner is not 'Anti-Muslim' it is anti enemy combatant.

Who conveniently happen to be Muslim, in a war aimed at Muslims, justified by an act perpetrated by ( different ) Muslims.

Originally Posted by handsomeharry

Backlash is much different from war. The results may be the same, but the means are different.

Which means they aren't "much different"; you contradict yourself.

Originally Posted by handsomeharry

Allah may or may not be another word for the Christian God. There are people with answers, but it is not as clear cut as you seem to imply. If Allah has only one prophet, he cannot be the same as Yahweh/Jehovah.

They are all speaking of the same mythical being in different ways. The fact that religion A says that Prophet A is wrong and Prophet B right doesn't mean that both prophets aren't talking about the same god.

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by handsomeharry

Allah may or may not be another word for the Christian God.

Well, it is the word Arab Christians use .

There are people with answers, but it is not as clear cut as you seem to imply. If Allah has only one prophet, he cannot be the same as Yahweh/Jehovah.

Muslims generally believe in a line of prophets stretching back to Abraham and including Jesus, with Muhammed as the terminal one.

[jayjay]

With the kind of ignorance being shown in this thread, it would be surprising if there WEREN'T some backlash.

[BKReporter]

Well, there was the effort during the election to cut Obama down by portraying him as a secret Muslim, as if being Muslim would automatically make him an America-hating heretic who was in cahoots with terrorists.

[handsomeharry]

Originally Posted by Tamerlane

Muslims generally believe in a line of prophets stretching back to Abraham and including Jesus, with Muhammed as the terminal one.

Yeah, I had to get the post off quickly...I even had to go back and make sure that I didn't say "If Allah is his prophet...." long night.
Actually, to get to the matter, if Mohammed was his prophet, Jesus wasn't, Christianity-wise, so it is not unreasonable to say that they are different gods. Either argument can be made, and I have no dog in this fight, but to imply that it is idiotic or unfair to say that they are different is not right.

hh

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by handsomeharry

Yeah, I had to get the post off quickly...I even had to go back and make sure that I didn't say "If Allah is his prophet...." long night.
Actually, to get to the matter, if Mohammed was his prophet, Jesus wasn't, Christianity-wise, so it is not unreasonable to say that they are different gods. Either argument can be made, and I have no dog in this fight, but to imply that it is idiotic or unfair to say that they are different is not right.

hh

How did you come up with the idea that there is only one prophet per god? There are something like 20 "official" prophets in the Bible alone. Islam believes that all of those, plus Jesus, plus Muhammad, were prophets of Allah (which is the same god...Arab Christians call their god (which I assume is the same as non-Arab Christians' god) Allah, as well).

[wmfellows]

Originally Posted by jayjay

How did you come up with the idea that there is only one prophet per god? There are something like 20 "official" prophets in the Bible alone. Islam believes that all of those, plus Jesus, plus Muhammad, were prophets of Allah (which is the same god...Arab Christians call their god (which I assume is the same as non-Arab Christians' god) Allah, as well).

Also Arabic speaking Jews I understand used the word Allah to refer their Jewish interpretation of God, so....

I always understood that classically Jews in the Mediterranean world considered the Islamic approach to God / Allah to be rather more theologically compatible to the Judaic understanding of God in fact than Christian Trinitarianism.

[Maastricht]

There certainly is a backlash in the Netherlands. Populist politician Geert Wilders founded his Party for Freedom (PVV) in 2006. The agenda of the PVV isn't very clear, and they aren't big on suggesting practical solutions and reasonable compromise. What they ARE big on, however, is a lot of strong retoric that those towelheads need to tone it down, or else.
And it works, with a large part of the malcontent electorate.

The Party for Freedom (Dutch: Partij voor de Vrijheid, PVV) is a Dutch right-wing political movement. Founded in 2006 as the successor to Geert Wilders's one-man party in the House of Representatives of the Netherlands, it won nine seats in the 2006 general election, making it the fifth largest party in parliament, and third largest opposition party. It came second in 2009 European Parliament elections, winning 4 out of 25 seats.

The Party for Freedom breaks from the established centre right parties in the Netherlands like the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy with its hardliner assimilationist stance on the integration of immigrants—especially Muslim—into Dutch society.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Tamerlane

Many, many, MANY leaders. But no singular LEADER. Sorry - I hate to burst the conspiracy bubble, but uncomfortable truths must occasionally be acknowledged .

Yes, there are many many leaders just as there are in all religions. While there is a flatter structure to the hierarchy they all still meet for lunch once a year which is a tighter bond than any other religion holds over it's various sects. When calls of jihad or fatwas are made they are made to all Muslims. It is truly an "us versus them" mentality that transcends the myth of local mosques operating in a vacuum. Countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia have a supreme religious leader or a common religious manifold that extends itself physically with a religious police force.

If you're trying to suggest there isn't a hierarchy that funnels money and terrorists from around the world then I disagree. The last 2 terrorist attacks had connections overseas that extended outward from a local mosque and then to another country. The same applies to 9/11. These terrorists came from many countries.

[Gala Matrix Fire]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Yes, there are many many leaders just as there are in all religions. While there is a flatter structure to the hierarchy they all still meet for lunch once a year which is a tighter bond than any other religion holds over it's various sects. When calls of jihad or fatwas are made they are made to all Muslims. It is truly an "us versus them" mentality that transcends the myth of local mosques operating in a vacuum. Countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia have a supreme religious leader or a common religious manifold that extends itself physically with a religious police force.

If you're trying to suggest there isn't a hierarchy that funnels money and terrorists from around the world then I disagree. The last 2 terrorist attacks had connections overseas that extended outward from a local mosque and then to another country. The same applies to 9/11. These terrorists came from many countries.

They all still meet for lunch once a year? Was this meant to be a joke?

Jihads aren't "made," and fatwas are made to whoever feels compelled to listen to them. Nobody is under any obligation to honor any fatwa pronounced by anybody.

You state that there's a hierarchy that funnels money and terrorists from around the world. Please describe that hierarchy. Thank you.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Gala Matrix Fire

They all still meet for lunch once a year? Was this meant to be a joke?

Not unless the requirement to travel to Mecca is a joke.

Originally Posted by Gala Matrix Fire

Jihads aren't "made," and fatwas are made to whoever feels compelled to listen to them. Nobody is under any obligation to honor any fatwa pronounced by anybody.

and yet they're made and followed. I guess the religious police don't exist in Iran and Saudi Arabia to enforce the word of the religious leaders.

Originally Posted by Gala Matrix Fire

You state that there's a hierarchy that funnels money and terrorists from around the world. Please describe that hierarchy. Thank you.

What's to describe. Money is funneled to organizations that train people for terrorist actions. Do you think the money magically pools itself? It's not hard to google.

[Gala Matrix Fire]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Not unless the requirement to travel to Mecca is a joke.

You are equating millions of Muslims making a yearly, days-long pilgrimage that most of them only make once in their lives to a yearly meeting of a cabal of Islamic religious leaders are who secretly planning to rule the world? I'd love to hear your views on how people going to Disneyworld constitutes an Illuminati plot.

and yet they're made and followed. I guess the religious police don't exist in Iran and Saudi Arabia to enforce the word of the religious leaders.

Describe the "making" of a jihad. Thank you.

Police exist in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and they enforce laws. Many of those laws are based on Sharia law.

What's to describe. Money is funneled to organizations that train people for terrorist actions. Do you think the money magically pools itself? It's not hard to google.

Individual Islamic charities do not equal a hierarchy. Speaking of Googling, try "hierarchy."

[handsomeharry]

Originally Posted by jayjay

How did you come up with the idea that there is only one prophet per god?

How did you come up with the idea that I came up with that idea?

hh

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by handsomeharry

How did you come up with the idea that I came up with that idea?

hh

Because of this...

Originally Posted by handsomeharry

Actually, to get to the matter, if Mohammed was his prophet, Jesus wasn't, Christianity-wise, so it is not unreasonable to say that they are different gods.

Why are they mutually exclusive? Why is it that if Mohammed was Allah's prophet, Jesus couldn't be? Because Muslims certainly believe he was.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Gala Matrix Fire

You are equating millions of Muslims making a yearly, days-long pilgrimage that most of them only make once in their lives to a yearly meeting of a cabal of Islamic religious leaders are who secretly planning to rule the world? I'd love to hear your views on how people going to Disneyworld constitutes an Illuminati plot.



Describe the "making" of a jihad. Thank you.

Police exist in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and they enforce laws. Many of those laws are based on Sharia law.



Individual Islamic charities do not equal a hierarchy. Speaking of Googling, try "hierarchy."

Describe islamic terrorism. Thank you

[wmfellows]

Originally Posted by Magiver

Describe islamic terrorism. Thank you

An amorphous ideology with a loose, non-hierarchal network of radicals.

You're quite welcome chap.

Originally Posted by Gala Matrix Fire

You are equating millions of Muslims making a yearly, days-long pilgrimage that most of them only make once in their lives to a yearly meeting of a cabal of Islamic religious leaders are who secretly planning to rule the world? I'd love to hear your views on how people going to Disneyworld constitutes an Illuminati plot.

Once in a lifetime trip as well, generally. Damned hard to get a place I am led to understand by my mates.

Originally Posted by Magiver

Not unless the requirement to travel to Mecca is a joke.

Errr a once in a lifetime do it if you can religious obligation for a pilgrimage isn't a hierarchy.

and yet they're made and followed. I guess the religious police don't exist in Iran and Saudi Arabia to enforce the word of the religious leaders.

Mate, the Saudi religious police (who are more like a militia) enforce Saudi code, not individual religious scholars' dictates, and the Saudi King is not a religious figure at all.

Of course that King plays to the Religious Conservative Base, rather like your Republican Party in the US, so they have all kinds of retarded laws.

[handsomeharry]

Originally Posted by wmfellows

Mate, the Saudi religious police (who are more like a militia) enforce Saudi code, not individual religious scholars' dictates, and the Saudi King is not a religious figure at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Saudi king head of the Wahabis, sort of like Queen Elizabeth is the head of the Anglican Church?

hh

[Colibri]

Moving from GQ to GD.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Tamerlane]

Originally Posted by Magiver

. When calls of jihad or fatwas are made they are made to all Muslims.

They're voiced as such, but in actuality have no authoritative force in that regard. Sunni fatwas are pretty much completely non-binding for everyone but the scholar who made it. Shi'a fatwas are slightly more complicated. So for example Khomeini's infamous fatwa against Rushdie wasn't even binding on all Iranians or Shi'a. It is supposed to be taken seriously at least by those who view him as a religious "source of emulation", which is an entirely voluntary association and had nothing to do with his government position ( technically - de facto I'm sure the prestige associated with the title brought many more followers ). But Khomeini was one of probably a dozen such at the time. Small ( or no, probably ) consolation to Rushdie, but it wasn't like all Muslims were suddenly enjoined to seek his death - only those who were personal followers of Khomeini and not too squeamish. Quite a bit fewer than the whole Muslim world.

It is truly an "us versus them" mentality that transcends the myth of local mosques operating in a vacuum.

This is quite exaggerrated. To the "myth of local mosques operating a vacuum" one should add the myth of a unified hivemind or structure. There is none.

Countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia have a supreme religious leader or a common religious manifold that extends itself physically with a religious police force.

Iran is a theocracy, but in a bit of a semantic twist it does not have a supreme religious leader. That is to say that the supreme leader is a religious figure by constitutional fiat, but said leader is not head of the religion. Khamene'i is one of a number of Grand Ayatollahs in the Shi'a world and none have any hierarchical supremacy over any others. Influence and power varies, but it does so relative to individual abilities as theologians plus simple charisma. Khamene'i is actually not thought of that highly as a working theologian.

Saudi Arabia has a government-appointed head cleric, part of SA's careful management and control of the religious establishment. However his position, such as it is, is owed to government authority, not religious mandate or hierarchy.

And that's about it. With the Taliban no longer functioning as a state government, you'd be hard-pressed to find many other strong examples. Some voices, even in the Sunni world, carry more weight than others such as the clerical pronouncements from the Al-Azhar Mosque in Egypt. But their influence in informal, without the sort of ex cathedra infallibility that can be exercised by the Pope.

If you're trying to suggest there isn't a hierarchy that funnels money and terrorists from around the world then I disagree.

I'm trying to suggest exactly what I did - that there is NO single leader of either the Shi'a or the Sunni religious sects as Silverstreak Wonder insists much exist. I was speaking to the actual clerical hierarchy or lack of it in the religion, which has fuck-all to do with the cell and leadership structure of terrorist organizations, an entirely separate topic.

The last 2 terrorist attacks had connections overseas that extended outward from a local mosque and then to another country. The same applies to 9/11. These terrorists came from many countries.

Again, this has nothing to do with anything I was saying . Some terrorists are likely lone nuts, some may be part of wholly independent cells inspired by outside forces, some are no doubt part of loosely organized networks and some, undoubtedly, are members of tightly structured, highly hierarchical core organizations. I imagine the third is most typical, but I expect all are in play at one time or another.

Which has exactly zip to do with whether there is currently a single Sunni or Shi'a Caliph anywhere in the world. Except perhaps for the very tangential fact that ObL wishes there were one and that he agreed with him .

[handsomeharry]

Originally Posted by jayjay

Because of this...



Why are they mutually exclusive? Why is it that if Mohammed was Allah's prophet, Jesus couldn't be? Because Muslims certainly believe he was.

I didn't say mutually exclusive.
Many of the pagan deities are more than happy to incorporate all other gods that come along into their pantheons, including Jesus. If we recall Paul's address to the Athenians on Mars Hill, we can see that they even had a statue, or something or other, can't remember, to the Unknown God.
Point being, orthodox Christianity disallows the doctrine that Muhammed is a pretty good guy, since he removes Jesus from His rightful place, irrespective of Mo's giving Jesus a patronizing, and begrudging nod.


hh

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by handsomeharry

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Saudi king head of the Wahabis, sort of like Queen Elizabeth is the head of the Anglican Church?

No. It sounds like you are thinking of Wahabbism as a church, which it is not. It's a school of thought in Islam. The Saudi government enforces some of these beliefs but the King is not in charge of it.

[The Tooth]

Originally Posted by Silverstreak Wonder

Well, one can certainly hope. For instance why don't they go disband and remove the mosque where they know training went on, and common sense things like that? If we find a drug lab we disband it don't we? We just don't arrest the people and leave it for others to run, so why not here?

Because without the lab there is no way to make drugs. There's nothing intrinsic about a mosque that makes it necessary to train in one.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by handsomeharry

I didn't say mutually exclusive.
Many of the pagan deities are more than happy to incorporate all other gods that come along into their pantheons, including Jesus. If we recall Paul's address to the Athenians on Mars Hill, we can see that they even had a statue, or something or other, can't remember, to the Unknown God.
Point being, orthodox Christianity disallows the doctrine that Muhammed is a pretty good guy, since he removes Jesus from His rightful place, irrespective of Mo's giving Jesus a patronizing, and begrudging nod.


hh

And...the reason we're taking Christianity's viewpoint as objective fact on this subject?

Maybe it's because I'm looking at the whole thing from an outsider's perspective (not being attached to either Christianity or Islam (or Judaism or Hinduism or whatever, either)), but it seems to me that simple common sense dictates that if the "God" of the Abrahamic religions looks, acts and sounds like the same god, it IS the same god. Just because Christianity has a thorn up its butt about Jesus being a Person of God doesn't mean that anyone else is particularly obligated to humor that.

[sqweels]

Originally Posted by handsomeharry

Point being, orthodox Christianity disallows the doctrine that Muhammed is a pretty good guy, since he removes Jesus from His rightful place, irrespective of Mo's giving Jesus a patronizing, and begrudging nod.

But you're still not getting it. Islam recognizes a whole line of prophets, most of whom would be familiar to Jews and Christians. This is part of the reason why your contention that Allah and God are different gods is incorrect. Muslims and Christians disagree to some extent on the nature of God, but then again, Republicans and Democrats disagree even more about the nature of Barack Obama.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by astorian

This is a serious question, one that calls for a statistical, quantitative answer.

Every time a Muslim carries out a terrorist attack, there is a certain amount of hand-wringing over an imminent anti-Muslim "backlash," in which American rednecks, racists and all-around yahoos are going to start beating up Muslim kids, vandalizing Muslim-owned businesses, and torching mosques.

Speaking of statistical answers, it would be interesting to see you quantify "certain amount" into anything resembling a significant number.

After any violent event, most news agencies will send out reporters and camera holders to get quotations from anyone who might be involved with any group that might have a tangential relationship tothe event. Where is the evidence that there are more people worrying about anti-Muslim backlash than general racism or drinking at sports events or second hand smoke?

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Gala Matrix Fire

You are equating millions of Muslims making a yearly, days-long pilgrimage that most of them only make once in their lives to a yearly meeting of a cabal of Islamic religious leaders are who secretly planning to rule the world? I'd love to hear your views on how people going to Disneyworld constitutes an Illuminati plot.

I'm equating one of the 5 pillars if Islam to a common denominator that draws worldwide support in the form of money and religious dogma. 9/11 was a cross section of Middle Eastern people. The most recent attack was a Nigerian who was connected via a mosque in the UK to terrorist camps in Yemen. It is organized to the point of funneling money on a large scale and above individual mosques. While the religion looks flat on paper it takes a higher level of organization to create a worldwide network of training camps. It is a strawman argument to say this doesn't exist because there isn't a single grand poo-bah of Islam driving the train.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Magiver

9/11 was a cross section of Middle Eastern people.

I thought 15 of the 19 attackers (and Osama Bin Laden) were from Saudi Arabia. That doesn't sound like much of a cross-section. Anyway I think the two of you are talking at cross purposes. I think it's beyond dispute that there are organizations that funnel money from terrorist supporters to terrorists, but that applies to fundamenalist terrorists, not to all Muslims. You also suggested there was a tight knit orthodox heirachy within Islam ("While there is a flatter structure to the hierarchy they all still meet for lunch once a year.") and you weren't on very solid ground there.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Marley23

I thought 15 of the 19 attackers (and Osama Bin Laden) were from Saudi Arabia. That doesn't sound like much of a cross-section. Anyway I think the two of you are talking at cross purposes. I think it's beyond dispute that there are organizations that funnel money from terrorist supporters to terrorists, but that applies to fundamenalist terrorists, not to all Muslims. You also suggested there was a tight knit orthodox heirachy within Islam ("While there is a flatter structure to the hierarchy they all still meet for lunch once a year.") and you weren't on very solid ground there.

I'm suggesting that the religion at large breeds terrorists. It's not in spite of the flat hierarchy of individual mosques but because of it. Call it the Fred Phelps syndrome but it exists.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Magiver

I'm suggesting that the religion at large breeds terrorists.

There's over a billion Muslims. If Islam was all that prone to producing terrorists you'd have tens of millions of Islamic terrorists at the least. Not just a few here and there. And if that's your standard for a religion being prone to breeding terrorists, then Christianity also qualifies.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Silverstreak Wonder

It is incredible

Point of information: when Tamerlane chooses to spend time posting in a thread, the correct response is generally to thank him for sharing his wealth of knowledge.

[Aelita Daystar]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

And you do realize that Allah is just another word for God? YOUR God.

Actually Allah is general term for a deity, and also a term for a specific for a deity. It's comparable to the Levantine "El" which is "just another word for God" but also refers to one particular deity in particular. Whether or not he's "the same God" is debatable, although maybe if Arabs had been more prominent in antiquity they're would have been temples to El-Cronus-Allah?

Also... the "lineage" of these traditions are not as cut and dry and you make them out to be (then again you make everything out to be cut and dry ) When you say Yahweh do you mean in the sense of the original Yahweh that came out of Midian, or the Levantine "El" whom he eventually got syncretized with? From what I understand, there is little comparison between the original Yahweh and Allah, but there is comparison between the original El and Allah. However the modern Allah is a bit different due to syncretism of the later Yahweh with Allah to make him.

The question is, at what point does this idea become another God? It doesn't matter whether anybody believes any of these deities ever existed or not, it's kinda hazy.