So radicalized Muslims have no self control?

[schaick]

It appears that Rauf of the 9/11 victory mosque believes this is the case. As often seen in Islam it is the fault of the victim.

Very often that is why any criminal is a criminal- no self control!!!

youtube.com/watch?v=zkHjCk1c8qs&feature=player_embedded

(1:16) "It’s a cycle. The radicals fuel each other and feed on each other. So when something happens like this, it arouses hostility among the other, the non-Muslim community. You have a Christ[ian]- evangelical leader, for example who says Islam is an evil religion. That becomes the banner headline in the Muslim world, both domestically, and more important, overseas. It arouses hostility there. The Danish cartoon – the Danish paper commissions cartoons. It creates hostility in the Muslim world. People in the West begin to say, oh, look, there’s no freedom of speech, and you create this cycle, this spiral. It is this spiral that we have to stop.

OK so stop it!!

Actually explains also why the women must be covered head to toe, it is the woman’s fault if she is raped. It is not the fault of the men who have absolutely no self control!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Interesting.

 

[Lucky10279]

I think they have self control, but having been brainwashed they might not realize it is wrong.
Lucky10279

 

[benidict]

It appears that Rauf of the 9/11 victory mosque believes this is the case. As often seen in Islam it is the fault of the victim.

Very often that is why any criminal is a criminal- no self control!!!

youtube.com/watch?v=zkHjCk1c8qs&feature=player_embedded

(1:16) "It’s a cycle. The radicals fuel each other and feed on each other. So when something happens like this, it arouses hostility among the other, the non-Muslim community. You have a Christ[ian]- evangelical leader, for example who says Islam is an evil religion. That becomes the banner headline in the Muslim world, both domestically, and more important, overseas. It arouses hostility there. The Danish cartoon – the Danish paper commissions cartoons. It creates hostility in the Muslim world. People in the West begin to say, oh, look, there’s no freedom of speech, and you create this cycle, this spiral. It is this spiral that we have to stop.

OK so stop it!!

Actually explains also why the women must be covered head to toe, it is the woman’s fault if she is raped. It is not the fault of the men who have absolutely no self control!

Well Said. I think the radicals have very good self control. they plan sometimes years in advance what they are going to do. They use rape as a weapon in some cases to get more moderate Muslims to go along with their war on the west. They are in no wise stupid or ignorant. They are in many cases very intelligent and dangerous. I just wish the rest of Islam would stand up en-mass and say ENOUGH! Hopefully this can happen one day. Peace

 

[St_Francis]

in the early '90s, I had a conversation with the son of some ex- hippies. He thought all the nations of the world should get rid of their weapons, and I pointed out that then we wpuld be at the mercy of nations which violated that idea, and replied to his argument that a nation could build up a military in buildings or underground so that the other nations would know nothing about it til the military showed up at their borders. He was then able to see the wisdom of maintaining a miitary.

Given their pacificistic orientation, which excluded the potential for evil in people, his parents had been unable to stop him from promoting this idea to an annoying degree.

In the same way, those whom we consider moderate Moslems are unable to find Moslem arguments which with to debate their radical brethren. My conclusion is that any true moderation within the world of Islam comes from exposure to western ideas rather than from Islam itself.

 

[Syrophenikan]

In the same way, those whom we consider moderate Moslems are unable to find Moslem arguments which with to debate their radical brethren. My conclusion is that any true moderation within the world of Islam comes from exposure to western ideas rather than from Islam itself.

Actually, there are plenty of Islam-based arguments against terrorism, and many can be found in the Qur’an itself. It cannot be read in such a way that it supports terrorism unless context is completely disregarded. And believe me, I’ve read it enough times to know.

Btw, you may want to update your spelling of “Muslim”. Spelling it “Moslem” is considered offensive, as when pronounced aloud it translates as “oppressor”.

 

[schaick]

Actually, there are plenty of Islam-based arguments against terrorism, and many can be found in the Qur’an itself. It cannot be read in such a way that it supports terrorism unless context is completely disregarded. And believe me, I’ve read it enough times to know.

Btw, you may want to update your spelling of “Muslim”. Spelling it “Moslem” is considered offensive, as when pronounced aloud it translates as “oppressor”.

Are you talking about the earlier verses here or those that have been taken out of “context” of time and place? Which doesn’t quite work if the book is for all man for all times.

 

[Syrophenikan]

Are you talking about the earlier verses here or those that have been taken out of “context” of time and place? Which doesn’t quite work if the book is for all man for all times.

One of the problems with reading the Qur’an is that, unless you’re already a major Islamic history buff, you need a rather large amount of footnotes to provide context.

Many of the verses commonly used to bash Islam and call it “violent” aren’t taken out of time/place context, but context of the text itself. They’ll take a single verse that says to cut the necks of unbelievers, but ignore the fact that the group of unbelievers mentioned had declared war, and that Muslims were directed in the Qur’an to fight only until the other side surrendered, at which point killing was no longer morally acceptable.

 

[Nine_Two]

Actually, there are plenty of Islam-based arguments against terrorism, and many can be found in the Qur’an itself. It cannot be read in such a way that it supports terrorism unless context is completely disregarded. And believe me, I’ve read it enough times to know.

Btw, you may want to update your spelling of “Muslim”. Spelling it “Moslem” is considered offensive, as when pronounced aloud it translates as “oppressor”.

You mean like the verses that say kill all pagans and the ones that say kill all who oppose Islam right after telling us why Jews and Christians are like the pagans? Have you read Surrah 9?

 

[Nine_Two]

One of the problems with reading the Qur’an is that, unless you’re already a major Islamic history buff, you need a rather large amount of footnotes to provide context.

Many of the verses commonly used to bash Islam and call it “violent” aren’t taken out of time/place context, but context of the text itself. They’ll take a single verse that says to cut the necks of unbelievers, but ignore the fact that the group of unbelievers mentioned had declared war, and that Muslims were directed in the Qur’an to fight only until the other side surrendered, at which point killing was no longer morally acceptable.

Surrender meant submitted to Islam, either convert or come under their yoke.

 

[rdscheirer]

First of all there are no “moderate Mohamadans” - all Mohamadans who keep the koran believe that Mohammednis

There are no “radicalized” muslims- they believe that islam is the be all and end all for the world and if it takes viloence, terrorism to make everyone be subsurvient to allah
Read Robert Spenser’s book " What Mohammad meant" ande you will see what the Mohammadans think of you

 

[GaryTaylor]

One of the problems with reading the Qur’an is that, unless you’re already a major Islamic history buff, you need a rather large amount of footnotes to provide context.

Many of the verses commonly used to bash Islam and call it “violent” aren’t taken out of time/place context, but context of the text itself. They’ll take a single verse that says to cut the necks of unbelievers, but ignore the fact that the group of unbelievers mentioned had declared war, and that Muslims were directed in the Qur’an to fight only until the other side surrendered, at which point killing was no longer morally acceptable.

Did anyone inform Bin Laden and Al Quada of this? Apparently their under the impression their interpretation is correct.

And while we are at it, did “all” muslims also receive these footnote to help interpret? Because apparently their’s a problem. Maybe we need to send another memo out with a new updated package to correctly interpret the Quran. Because there is definatly a problem.

And when you add the ignorant, and those who think its a fad, or doing it because of peer pressure. Then the problem just escalate’s. One only need to view the wonderful hate filled videos on You Tube to see how far the insanity has escalated.

I find it facinating that anyone could read the Quran and miss the total lack of Human Compassion in it. And what we are seeing is a result of exactly that. Learned behavior breed in hate which has gone of for decades. For three decades Islam promoted racial violence and hate right here in the states. Did all those followers suddenly receive anger managment therapy? The “blue eyed devil” concept was promoted right until the late 90’s

What do you suggest happened to all these followers or the children they raised with a racist learned bahavior for an up-bringing?

We all know there are some very good civil muslim’s. Thats doesn’t eliminate the existing problem which has been perpertuated for decades and still is with radical Islam.

Unless its like you said. we all just don’t have the footnotes to help us understand?

 

[dzheremi]

Btw, you may want to update your spelling of “Muslim”. Spelling it “Moslem” is considered offensive, as when pronounced aloud it translates as “oppressor”.

What the heck? Where do people get this stuff? Source, please!

 

[rdscheirer]

So lets see when mohamed declared himself as the oracle of god he allowed himself more wives than anyone else was allowed, but of course he is the prophit who could excuse himself from blasphemes .

 

[Syrophenikan]

You mean like the verses that say kill all pagans and the ones that say kill all who oppose Islam right after telling us why Jews and Christians are like the pagans? Have you read Surrah 9?

Which ayat are you referring to?

 

[Syrophenikan]

Did anyone inform Bin Laden and Al Quada of this? Apparently their under the impression their interpretation is correct.

And while we are at it, did “all” muslims also receive these footnote to help interpret? Because apparently their’s a problem. Maybe we need to send another memo out with a new updated package to correctly interpret the Quran. Because there is definatly a problem.

And when you add the ignorant, and those who think its a fad, or doing it because of peer pressure. Then the problem just escalate’s. One only need to view the wonderful hate filled videos on You Tube to see how far the insanity has escalated.

I find it facinating that anyone could read the Quran and miss the total lack of Human Compassion in it. And what we are seeing is a result of exactly that. Learned behavior breed in hate which has gone of for decades. For three decades Islam promoted racial violence and hate right here in the states. Did all those followers suddenly receive anger managment therapy? The “blue eyed devil” concept was promoted right until the late 90’s

What do you suggest happened to all these followers or the children they raised with a racist learned bahavior for an up-bringing?

We all know there are some very good civil muslim’s. Thats doesn’t eliminate the existing problem which has been perpertuated for decades and still is with radical Islam.

Unless its like you said. we all just don’t have the footnotes to help us understand?

I’m not making excuses for the actions of radical Muslims. I am pointing out that justification for terrorism isn’t in the Qur’an.

 

[Syrophenikan]

What the heck? Where do people get this stuff? Source, please!

Here’s one article on it, but Google will gladly give you more: hnn.us/articles/524.html

 

[dzheremi]

Here’s one article on it, but Google will gladly give you more: hnn.us/articles/524.html

This is a folk etymology, i.e. wrong. As two of the commenters (seemingly the only Muslims to have commented) on the article point out, the words being described in the article are two different words that seem to have similar pronunciation to the non-Arabphone ear. Even as a barely Arabic-speaking person, I can tell immediately the difference between “Mozlem” (مظلم) and “Muslim” (مسلم). They sound completely different, they are spelled differently, and they come from different roots (Z-L-M and S-L-M, respectively). There is absolutely no reason to prefer one or the other pronunciation of “Muslim” in English, and any MOSLEM who tries to make an issue out of this is being incredibly disingenuous and basically just making trouble for the sake of it, or needs to educate himself on the very basics of his religion’s holy language.

As commenter Anas Nemmassi clarifies, the word which means “oppresor” is zalem (ظالم), another word from the Z-L-M root, not related to “Muslim” either.

 

[Nine_Two]

Which ayat are you referring to?

9:5, cf. 9:30 on in which Christians and Jews are made out to be pagans.

 

[schaick]

One of the problems with reading the Qur’an is that, unless you’re already a major Islamic history buff, you need a rather large amount of footnotes to provide context.

Many of the verses commonly used to bash Islam and call it “violent” aren’t taken out of time/place context, but context of the text itself. They’ll take a single verse that says to cut the necks of unbelievers, but ignore the fact that the group of unbelievers mentioned had declared war, and that Muslims were directed in the Qur’an to fight only until the other side surrendered, at which point killing was no longer morally acceptable.

Not sure what you are saying here - not knowing the history is taking it out of context of time and place.

Did you realize though that Muslims today do believe we have declared war on them?

We **are **making mischief in the land by simply talking about Mohammad and the Quran and saying he is not the one to follow to the truth!!

The Quran is pretty vague about alot of issues. It can easily be twisted to mean many different things!!

Why would a clear book for all man for all times need footnotes and hadith to understand?