Here is What happens inside a Mosque

a reply to: ketsuko

The scapegoat mechanism that allowed Christ to take on the sins of the world in a sacrificial reading of atonement, also allowed Christians historically to transform Jews into scapegoats. During plagues in the fourteenth century, for example, Christians murdered Jews in order to stop the fatal consequences of the black death.

African-American writers have understood this. Trudier Harris is clear on this point in her book, Exorcising Blackness,118 which she begins by suggesting that lynching is a "Peculiarly American Ritual" and that it is very much like the scapegoating mechanism of ancient ritual that Sir James Frazer had discussed in The Golden Bough.

The Southern Rite of Human Sacrifice

Christians have been just as violent as those they are pointing fingers against. The religion is preempted by special interests. The branch of Islam known as Wahhabi for example.

a reply to: ketsuko

I just wish things didn't look so dire in the world for all of them because they seem incapable of or unwilling to divide themselves.

WTF? I thought the biggest criticism of Muslims is that we're always fighting each other? You know, the whole "Sunni vs Shiite", "Wahhabi vs Shiite", "Wahhabi & Salafi vs every other Islamic denomination & group", "Kurdish Muslims vs Turkish Muslims", "Arab Muslims vs Persian Muslims", "Syrian Alawites with Syrian Sunnis and Lebanese Shiites vs Syrian Salafis, Gulf Salafis & Wahhabis", "secular Muslim movements vs theocratic Muslim movements", "deeply conservative Muslims vs moderates & non-practicing Muslims" etc.

Damned if we do and damned if we don't. This is probably why a lot of the other Muslims aren't posting in this lame thread. Because it's like talking to a wall. A contradicting, bias driven, circle-jerk-of-double-standards-and-ignorance wall.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: 23432


Evidently , you are in ignorance of 163000 google results containing " piss drinking " and i can assure you that none of it have anything to do with Islam.

Drinking of Urine is an issue that tresspassess genders,cultures,religons .

It was meant as satire. lol Lighten up.

Let the man himself tell you the truth about the " World Peace " ;

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Educate us.

You might fight each other, but get one faction to actually and openly criticize another faction in front of an "infidel". When it comes to THAT, they stand side by side (sort of), right?

a reply to: queenofswords

They don't, or at least it is not meant and simply delusive.
Hence, Saleh Abdeslam was able to reside in Molenbeek until a huge anti terror mission was carried out.
4 days later, two suicide bombers killed and wounded many in Zaventam Brussel Airport.

a reply to: queenofswords

It's hard to educate people who don't really want answers. People like Kapusta, myself, and many others have tried to "educate" people here. But it simply doesn't work. Most people here already have their own opinions of Islam and will only listen to the things that confirm what they think they know. Every thing else is brushed off.

For example, look at the list of groups I mentioned in my previous post. That list barely touches on the vast variety of denominations, schools of thought, and regional interpretations in modern Islam. Now tell me this: what school of thought does the mosque in the OP belong to? Do you even care?

There are almost 2 billion Muslims in the world now, yet people act as if any single mosque will represent all or even most of our views. That's no different than me pointing to the controversial teachings of a church in Rwanda or Mississippi and claiming that it accurately represents all Christians worldwide. LOL Then again, do you even care whether this analogy is accurate or not?

But for the record, if you really want me to "educate" you, start with this old thread of mine: (HERE). It only touches on some of the basics, but if people aren't willing to start there, then there's no point in me going any further.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

The time for nuance is over, it has brought us where we are today.
Not a pleasant image when so many children are being destroyed, attacks being prepared, and segregation is ongoing with 'no go zones' as a result.
Islam is the tree that brings forth this fruit, hence something must be done because there is certainly no question of self-cleaning capacity within the muslim community.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

You fight each other and then you fight the rest of us because we aren't you.

You are a religion founded in a heavily tribal culture.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I read it.

No, thank you.

It's totally against Western thought. I won't say any more than that.

However, in all fairness, high control religion of all stripes bother me. "Doctrines of men" is what it's called. No, thanks, and I shudder to think it could take root in our country to any great extent.

a reply to: LABTECH767

The k you. That's really wrong. I'm fine with anyone's faith even if it's not for me (I've got my own thing going on). This however is. And out of order. Has anyone checked to see if it's one of the ones shut down ?

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: maddy21


Even though evangelical Christians are just as critical of other religions and they have audiences of millions.


One small sectarian WAHHABI mosque is hardly reflective of Islam.

Oh ok, what Christian countries would I be kidnapped and executed in just for having a different belief system??.. It is this level of blinkered thinking that is causing untold issues and it will not be so much for our generation but the next..


RA

I agree the rhetoric shown in this video is IMO awful and something I profoundly disagree with and find both sad and alarming. And, if the legal standard of incitement to violence, conspiracy to commit violence, or etc. are met, I will even say legal action should be taken.

However, I also agree with enlightenedservant. So in addition to what enlightenedservant above has already pointed out (such as asking: which denomination or sect does the mosque in question belong to?) I have some questions for those using this to advocate surveillance.

Those questions are:

There are other forms of speech and bigotry that I profoundly disagree with in this country, in distinctly non-Muslim quarters. Some of them sound like they're potentially dangerous. Should they be surveilled as well, despite no crime necessarily having been committed yet, and no evidence of conspiracy to commit crime or foment violence necessarily existing? Do we get a warrant for that first, or do we just pass legislation to make that something that can be done now, just on the basis that they're whatever group they are? Do we do it for the KKK for instance?

How do we choose which mosques get surveilled and which don't? Do we just surveil all of them? Is that not a bit... broad strokes?

If we're doing mosques... why not city gang hangouts? It's not as if law enforcement don't know where they are in many places and instances. Surely all sorts of criminal behavior must go in street gangs. Do we start finding out where they congregate and install surveillance regardless of any other evidence? They're gangs, so that's enough reason, right? How do we determine what constitutes a gang?

How do we legally delineate between Islam and other religions if we say we are going to do this? What safeguards exist that ensure it only applies to Islam, and is that singling out of Islam not a direct circumvention of the constitution already in and of itself, should we go there? In which case, wouldn't it, to avoid that, have to apply to any and all places of worship potentially? Are people comfortable with that? Or are we just doing mosques?

If this is not an isolated incident or an isolated example unique a given sect or denomination, then evidence should exist persuasively proving that. Is law enforcement investigating said evidence? And if so, does a mechanism for obtaining a warrant and other necessary approval for surveillance or search and seizure not already exist under existing law and case precedents, eliminating the need for additional surveillance mechanisms?

The San Bernadino shooter was radicalized on the internet. Do we increase surveillance of internet discussions? How do we determine who should be targeted? Should it be on the basis that they are Muslim, since the suggestion being made is that many (all?) of them "secretly hate us?" Are we comfortable with law enforcement, or government agencies, targeting individual American citizens predicated solely on the basis of their faith and the presumption that "they all secretly hate us," for internet surveillance? Presumably without the serving of a warrant? Everyone seemed terribly up in arms just a few years ago about warrantless wiretapping, hence the question.

Or should there be other, more objective constellations of fact-based evidence that justifies it? And if the latter... why treat mosques in a blanket context in this way, without the same nuance and evidence to predicate that action upon? And again, does not legal recourse for this already exist? What new authority or capability would be being added by new legislation or other decree to empower whatever entity to carry out said surveillance?

Is surveillance enough to prevent plots from being hatched? And to that end, what should be done when such speech is detected in said surveillance? What laws would we be enforcing? What penalties would there be? Would people be jailed? Fined? Deported? (Even American citizens?) Put on a watch list? What would happen to people on the watch list?

Since we're doing surveillance of mosques, how do we track them when they're not in the mosque? Do we have everyone sign up to a registry (an idea already bandied about) so there is clear identification, address, phone number, license plate, or other contact information? Papers, please? On what legal basis would this be predicated? Solely that they are Muslim and attend a mosque?

So since no one is asking those questions or answering them... this is where I stand on the matter.

We have laws. I'd even be for toughening laws somewhat. But just enforce those laws, or toughen and then enforce them, and use evidence-based discretion when determining when and for whom or what to obtain a warrant, and then execute said warrant to obtain further evidence and prosecute if a crime is underway, or conspiracy to commit crime and harm is proved, and give people the right to challenge those proceedings under the law. That's called due process.

Otherwise... all you have is speech. Detestable speech imo, at least in this instance, to be sure. But still speech, in a religious institution, that some are now advocating we establish effectively blanket surveillance on/in. Because, "they secretly all hate us and want to do us harm."

That's the logic that led to the interment of Japanese American citizens. How close are we as a nation willing to teeter toward something like that stain on our history being repeated? Already we've seen people in the news, when questions about a Muslim registry come up, citing Japanese interment as "a precedent." Not a terrible, immoral, unconstitutional blunder, but a "precedent." Because, "Hey, we made it legal. So it wasn't technically unconstitutional." Yep. Their constitutional rights were suspended in the name of national security. It has happened before. (That's not a good thing, for those keeping score at home.)

In addition to being grossly unconstitutional, it would also, frankly, in my opinion, simply be grievously immoral. Freedom entails risk. Just as I do not advocate the banning of weapons or ammunition, I cannot in good conscience advocate the prejudicial singling out of one religion as a whole, with no nuance or thorough evidenciary basis, for surveillance on the premise that "they all secretly hate us and plan to do us harm."

Does this entail risk? Absolutely. Freedom being selected preferentially over security always does. But I will always choose love over fear, and if I end up getting stabbed in the back for that, I'll die still believing it was right. I'd rather take risks and potentially suffer for what I truly believe to be right, than seek to ensure security by doing what I firmly believe to be wrong.

No matter how repugnant the speech displayed in this video is to me.

If evidence - real evidence - exists to suggest the plotting or incitement of illegal activity or harm, then prosecute the hell out of that under our existing laws. Including this video. If it meets the standard of a crime? Throw the book at the individuals proven to be engaging in said criminal activity. Definitely.

But what's being advocated here goes perilously far beyond that, as tends to be the case these days, disturbingly.

Just my opinion. I respect the views of everyone else.

Peace.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Always look forward to you weighing in on these issues.

I'd like to ask if anything is actively done within the Muslim community to rid this behavior? I ask because, you know, you speak for all Muslims!

It's the stories like this that shut minds down and stifle conversation. Conversation that needs to be had.

a reply to: earthling42

The time for nuance is over, it has brought us where we are today.

BS. I live in a Christian majority country where the majority of businessmen/women, politicians, bankers, warhawks, and entertainers are Christians. Scapegoating Muslims for "where we are today" is preposterous, seeing as we have no influence over the political or social system here.

Not a pleasant image when so many children are being destroyed,

Like the "collateral damage" from the constant drone strikes & military interventions by non-Muslim countries? Oh, those kids don't count now?

attacks being prepared,

The US is a country that's literally built on war and conquest. Many people even think our economy would collapse if we stopped our constant wars, interventions, and unbridled support for the MIC. Or do those attacks that are being prepared & executed not count? And it's even more ironic that you'd say this when it's your own govts that support the very groups who are doing those "attacks" that you were referring to.

and segregation is ongoing with 'no go zones' as a result

Such hypocrites. When Muslims spread out and move to your areas, you panic and want us out. When Muslims congregate with other Muslims & stay to ourselves, you panic and want us out. Like I said earlier, damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Islam is the tree that brings forth this fruit, hence something must be done because there is certainly no question of self-cleaning capacity within the Muslim community.

Let me guess, a final solution? Living space? A hunger plan?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Always look forward to you weighing in on these issues.

I'd like to ask if anything is actively done within the Muslim community to rid this behavior? I ask because, you know, you speak for all Muslims!

It's the stories like this that shut minds down and stifle conversation. Conversation that needs to be had.

But I've already spoken many times on the programs that Muslim communities have with law enforcement and our local govts. I've gone into detail on how my Dad's an Imam where he lives, and how he & his associates have a working dialogue with their local law enforcement, local govt, the college where he teaches, and even federal agencies like the FBI. They helped when his mosque was vandalized, when he and others received death threats, and much more (like providing security during Eid festivals).

Though if you really want to know, start with a google search for programs like the FBI's "shared responsibility" programs (like this). For better or for worse, the FBI has been deeply involved in African American Muslim communities since at least the Nation of Islam and the Civil Rights Movement.

The reason so many lone wolf terrorists are already known to law enforcement is because they've already been alerted by their communities. So law enforcement (local and/or federal) will typically investigate them and try to get close to the person. If nothing is found, they'll typically just keep an eye on the person.

originally posted by: cenpuppie

ancient ritual that Sir James Frazer had discussed in The Golden Bough.

Christians have been just as violent as those they are pointing fingers against. The religion is preempted by special interests. The branch of Islam known as Wahhabi for example.

The clue is ^^^^^^there^^^^^^ ancient ritual

most religions have out grown ancient rituals ......


Wars are fought now days for power not religion most religions

have moved on with the more enlightened times we live in today,

they have modernised and the law deals with crime. and

punishment.


The only religion today as far as I can see that carries out and condones

stoning, maiming, beheading, burning, raping, (how grossly medieval

is that!) is the Muslim religion.

a reply to: maddy21

Wow...it wasn't that bad at all. It was very tame from what I thought it would be. He made a few good points actually. As long as they don't start telling the students to kill others in the name of their god, they can believe and teach whatever they want in their school.

a reply to: ketsuko

Which "you" are you talking about? Or are you lumping all Muslims together yet again?

ETA: Though for the record, people always have conflict within their own demographics. Look at the majority of killing in America and you'll find it's typically non-Muslims killing other non-Muslims from the same demographics. So I don't really get your point here.

Lets quit all the bollocks This is a trojan horse. They are going to take over and your will have to be a religitard just like them or they will kill you, rape your wives, daughters, sisters, mothers and grandmothers.