Redstate

would vilify Muslims the way they vilify Christians.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

However, the MSM, as it existed back "in the day," only began its war against all things Christian with the kind of thing going on now against Muslims. The MSM didn't just become frothing at the mouth anti-Christians overnight. It took time to develop.

I think ISNA, or for that matter, any concerned Muslim organization can read the history of anti-Christian media as well as any of us can, hence their concern.

don't attribute legitimate concerns to an organization affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

The difference between most Islamic organizations vs. "radical Islamic extremists" as compared to Christian organizations vs. the KKK, abortion clinic bombers, and Fred Phelps is that pretty much every Christian organization denounces those that pervert their religion, whereas you have a task comparable to that of Diogenes searching for a honest man to find Islamic organizations that will do the same.

You can't separate yourself from people that you don't denounce; demanding that others do it for you when you don't do it yourself is the height of hypocrisy, and deserves to be ignored.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

The ISNA is doing just that by calling them "criminals." How is this not a denouncement?

criminals, and in any case ISNA is an organization with ties to terrorism, just like CAIR is.

ISNA is linked with the Muslim Brotherhood, and is an unindicted co-conspirator along with CAIR

They are just at the grassroots organizing level right now and, I suspect, many people are unsure of who to trust. As rightly pointed out a few comments above, certain Muslim organizations have veerrryyy shady ties to terrorist organizations (CAIR is one of them). Also, and this isn't an excuse, but many Muslim majority nations are relatively impoverished, therefore they lack the communications infrastructure that we have. A good global PR campaign is tough to organize in many of these countries. Plus, unlike most Christian and Jewish sects, there is simply no worldwide body that speaks for all Muslims (be they Sunni, Shia, etc.).

Here is a good example of a group that seems to be making some inroads against extremism. It is headed by former President Wahib of Indonesia. http://www.libforall.org/index2.html

I was going to make the same point, particularly that the proper analogy would be to compare the KKK misusing Christian ideology to support their hatred with radical Islamic extremists misusing Islamic ideology.

I don't have a problem with McCain using the phrase "radical Islamic extremist" per se because it's technically correct, but unfortunately it seems that a lot of American's conflate these extremists with all of Islam. So I'm sympathetic with efforts to remove the mental association, even if it means pushing our politicians to use a different phrase.

And I don't think McCain really has the best track record for "educating" American's on our ignorance about Islam, since he regularly conflates Al Qaeda (who are Sunni) with the Iranian-backed Shi'a terrorists.

McCain misspoke twice at the most on that count; it was clear that he knew what he was talking about seeing as how he corrected himself. So "regularly" is a little prejudicial.

It has been reported that Hamas, which is a Sunni organization has collected hundreds of millions of dollars from Iran, which is Shiite, and has sent terrorists to be trained in Iran. This whole notion that Iran doesn't support Sunnis is a fallacy.

AQ, maybe not, but there have been reports of AQI using Iranian territory.

As far as the KKK analogy, I don't think it quite fits. The KKK did burn crosses and persecute other denominations and religions, but what it did it did in the name of racial and cultural purity, which they tortured the Bible to support.

AQ is not a racist organization...they have fighters from all over the world. What they are is an Islamist organization.

How are we to defeat an enemy if we aren't even allowed to speak its name?

This sort of censorship is a slap in the bloodied faces of all people of faith who have been killed by Radical Islamic Extremists in the name of Islam, and such censorship will only create a backlash against Islam, which is what we don't want.

Muslims should be the first to champion calling them what they are.

I will speak its name, and I shout its name louder if the PC police try to stifle the truth.

"The most dangerous form in which oppression can overshadow a community is that of popular sway" -James Fenimore Cooper

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

AQ is essentially an Arab group. Do they have operatives of non-Arab ethnicity? Sure they do, but I suspect that has more to do with the ability to infiltrate other societies than any particular egalitarian racial views on the part of OBL.

I think the Iran-Sunni argument has long since been put to rest. The current regime in Iran, headed by the Grand Ayatollah and his jackbooted military thug backers, is willing to use anyone as a proxy for their schemes: Sunni, Shia, whatever.

Some Muslims are speaking out against terrorism. See the link I pointed out above.

I think too many armchair analysts are attempting to "formulate doctrines" for our GWOT. One need only visit, for example, LGF or Jihad Watch for excellent examples of that kind of thing. My favorite has to be the "study Muhammed" to learn the "REAL" terrorist strategy. That one still makes me chuckle.

Here's the thing: all of us are allowed to say pretty much anything we want. If Senator McCain or whomever wants to call AQ, Hamas, etc. radical "Islamic" extremists, he's free to do that. No one will arrest him. I think a more careful study of the actual goals and methodologies used by the above-named organizations will show a great deal of variance from both Sharia and the Qu'ran. So much so, that I think they have essentially become nationalist terrorists rather than religious terrorists. Now Joe Suicide Bomber probably does not realize that he is merely a tool of political extremists. He has probably bought into the rhetoric of holy war preached by AQ, etc. That is the great lure of AQ's propaganda and why feeding it is such a disastrous policy. This is also why I find the comparison between AQ and the KKK to be apt. The Klan was, at heart, a political organization, not a racial or religious organization, but it used race and religion to recruit its footsoldiers.

I, for one, support reasoned dialogue between all faiths, in the spirit of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Inflammatory comments, especially if made simply out of spite for the other side or the PC crowd, only aggravate an already bad situation. Put another way: a great general once said that when two opposing armies are in close proximity to each other, a dogfight can start a battle. The same applies here and no rational person on either side can possibly want that.

AQ is not primarily an Arab group. The constant in AQ is their FAITH not their Nationality. It therefore is primarily an extremist, religious group.

"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy

conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!

AQ draws its membership primarily from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Palestine and the Gulf States. In addition, it draws support from Iran and Syria. With the possible exception of Iran, all of those are Arab nations. Its leadership is made up of Arabs, not Indonesians, Malays or Bosnians. OBL wants to recreate the great Arab empires of the past. Islam is nothing more than a recruiting tool and an ideological shield.

Howdy partner, just your reality check here. There's no "possible" about it; Iranians are not Arabs. They're not even Semitic, which Arabs and Hebrews both are. Nope, they're Persian -- Indo-European stock, and more closely related to Western Europeans and Americans of that descent than to Arabs.

You have accounted for intermarriage, migration, population displacement, etc. in your analysis?

I said "possible" because, as a rule, Iranians are still majority Persian stock, which, as you point are, are Indo-Europeans, not Arabs. There is general consensus on this, however, not much has been done that I am aware of in terms of ethnogeographic analysis of Iran circa 2008. The above factors that I mentioned certainly play a part in such an analysis.

religious symbols....right?

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

And respect for reasoned debate, please explain to me why you believe that coexistence amongst the believers of the world's religions is a bad thing as indicated by your comment.

Just an incredibly naive one. But hey, keep crying "coexist!" and surrendering everything you can while you wonder eternally why showing weakness -- showing that being bullied makes you give in -- doesn't create calm and peace, but causes the bullies to do what they do more.

What? Nuke Tehran. Thank you, Congressman Tancredo. I didn't know that you posted here.

Co-existence is the only solution that rational, RELIGIOUS people can accept. Jews, Christians, Hindus, what have you formally endorse dogma that demands co-existence with other religions (although Chrisitans continue to pray for the conversion of non-Christians). Muslims, as a rule, historically have endorsed co-existence, though not always on an equal basis (dhimmi status).

On the other hand, nihilists, ignorant fanatics and devout disciples of the Huntington/Lewis school of thought have no problem with, even welcome annihilation. That is not the position held by the rational man.

And I don't think McCain really has the best track record for "educating" American's on our ignorance about Islam, since he regularly conflates Al Qaeda (who are Sunni) with the Iranian-backed Shi'a terrorists.

No, he said that (Sunni) al Qaeda is receiving support, material assistance, and bases for refitting and training from (Shi'a) Iran.

Guess what? He was 100% correct. Iran is aiding al Qaeda in Iraq with money, materiél, and bases for refitting, and it has been since at least 2006.

As goldenboy points out above, he corrected himself (at Lieberman's behest); however, the correction was the mistake, not the original statement.

And really? You're so informed and brilliant (with your simplistic, black-and-white world view) that you know for a fact that two of our enemies who seek the same short-term goal in the same place in the world and who use similar means to achieve it, could never, ever help each other out, because their religious denominational differences simply won't allow them to kill the same enemy together?

Do you know how ridiculous you sound? Somehow, I think you might suspect it deep down.

We'll be keeping an eye on you. However, I was raised a Baptist, and Erick a Methodist, so we clearly can't keep an eye on your trolling together; after all, we're different denominations, and as you've clearly shown, that kind of cooperation just can't happen.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

The MSM in this country insists on referring to the conflict in Northern Ireland as Catholics vs. Protestants. It's actually an ethnic conflict between the Irish and the descendents of English "colonists", who have traditionally controlled the government and been in a better economic position.

This conflict has nothing to do with religion; no one is trying to convert anyone or impose any kind of religious government.

The terrorist groups cited here are a lot more closely linked to Islam, if arguably a "warped view" of Islam, than the IRA or the Royal Ulster Constabulary are linked to either the Catholic or Anglican churches.
_______________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

One need only look at the life of Muhammad, held out to all Muslims as the example to emulate in all things. At one point, in reaction to a betrayal, Muhammad orders the eradication of a Jewish tribe in Medina. Somewhere around 750 males are executed, and the women and children are sold into slavery.

As a Muslim (born and raised), I was taught that Muhammad (SAW) regularly forgave even those who physically assaulted him and thereafter would not hesitate to remove the shirt off his back to assist that very same person even if he was unrepentant to boot.

That's why I am non-plussed when I see Muslims burning down Churches all around the world because of someone in Denmark's ill-considered decision to just caricature (even in the worst way) the Prophet - he who always forgave trespasses against him.

The proper response would have been a collective; "We forgive you. And if you do it again, we'll forgive you again. Until you get tired of doing it. We leave you to the Judgment of Allah ... and may He have mercy on your soul."

Romney/Pace 2008

.

would have been to either forgive or ignore it. But it is highly instructive, at least to those who value western civilization, that for very, very large parts of the Muslim world that was most certainly not the response.

John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course