re: How moderate are "Moderate Muslims", really?

quote:

---

I used to work with quite a few muslims. And the only thing you would notice is that they didn't drink

---

Unless they are religious fanatics about to fly planes into American buildings.

So much inbreeding to care for me really.

quote:

---

crazy4lsu

---

Thank you for your answer. I agree that it is a complicated answer, and we need to proceed with caution. I think blindly assuming that the vast majority of Muslims will assimilate in America may not work out well for us, and it will be difficult to get the genie back in the bottle if it doesn't.

I don't support immigration policies that discriminate based on ethnicity, but I think we should be reasonably certain that the people we are letting into this country are going to adapt to life here and not take advantage of our generosity to undermine us from within. That has nothing to do with ethnicity, but rather to do with personal political beliefs.

quote:

---

I think blindly assuming that the vast majority of Muslims will assimilate in America may not work out well for us, and it will be difficult to get the genie back in the bottle if it doesn't.

---

I tend to agree, but what we are dealing with in Islamism (not Islam itself) is something akin to any other political ideology. Islamism is the political ideology that the state should be focused around the religion. It's not new. It's actually a very old ideology. But it doesn't represent the entirety of Islamic belief, which can be as benign as the Sufis or as harsh as Salafis. Focusing on Salafis first would aid the problem tremendously. The countries where Salafism has taken root are ironically the ones that haven't been banned.

The French case also serves as a warning, in that there isn't a practical reason to allow immigrants into a country and then discriminate against them. This creates room for Islamism, which purports to be supra-national, to work on groups of people who are rejected by their parents country and their new country. This plays into the Islamists hands, as we've seen already in France. If we are going to allow immigration, we should vet, we should choose only the well educated, and we should make clear that we expect them to conform but avoid possible demonization. I think this course is more difficult, but the fact that an Indian-American Muslim can host a major event (like the WHCD) and no one really give a shite is a major indication that America already deals with immigrants better than the rest of the West.

quote:

---

Radical Muslims want to kill you. Moderate Muslims want radical Muslims to kill you for them.

---

People say this but moderate muslims would be killed and tortured by radical ones for their views.

quote:

---

How moderate are "Moderate Muslims", really?

---

Well. Imagine a state that is 100% Pat Robertson clones. OK. You have that?

Now, imagine a state that is 100%, the exact perfect "moderate Muslim" clones.

OK. Now, recognize Alabama is less right of California than the Muslim state would be to the Robertson state.

quote:

---

Those who profit enormously by funding and creating terrorism in the name of Islam is the problem. Who's doing the funding? Take a good long look in a mirror. Without your tax dollars, these Muslim extremists would still be playing in their own little sandbox, killing off one another while we narcissists remain oblivious to it

---

Well its the kingdom where the most extreme rhetoric comes out of. They are also the ones trying to pump the most money into masque around the world.

You're problem is you assume that Islamism isn't an organic movement formed by centuries of imperial oppression, first by the Ottomans, and then by various colonial powers.

Islamism doesn't immediately mean terrorism. I'm specifically referring to the political movement. If all the money behind it disappeared right now, Islamism would still exist. All the Islamist groups would too. You also probably think Arab Spring was a Western orchestrated event. And with regards to immigration, which is the context of this conversation, Islamism is still the problem.

quote:

---

You're problem is you assume that Islamism isn't an organic movement formed by centuries of imperial oppression, first by the Ottomans, and then by various colonial powers.

---

Your problem is, you are taking an incredible leap of assumption.

Like I said; without funding, this "movement" would still be in its own backyard killing each other and we wouldn't give two fricks about it like we've done for centuries.

I guess you believe it's just coincidence that it has come to light in this country at the exact same time that the establishment decided long-term involvement in the Middle East became necessary, including regime change, controlling of central banks, cultivation of untapped natural resources (no, not oil) and building of pipelines.

quote:

---

And with regards to immigration, which is the context of this conversation, Islamism is still the problem.

---

Wrong again. With regards to immigration, the problem is with those who purposely disregard immigration laws, thus allowing Islam to become a problem.


ETA: It's like telling me the problem with government handouts is the people who take those handouts.

No, the problem is the government that establishes government handouts.