
Dear FBI, Please think again.. - overtnibble
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/fbi-muslims-radical/all/1
======
wccrawford
Any religion that states that violence is the answer to non-believers is going
to be the same. I don't see how they can possibly single out that one.

~~~
jameskilton
Except for the fact that Islam does NOT advocate violence against non-
believers, neither does Christianity, and I highly doubt Hinduism does either,
but I'm less knowledgeable about that one. The Arab leadership, and the Muslim
extremists are perverting the Koran to "prove" their ideals much in the same
way the American Republican Party is perverting the Bible to prove theirs.

Where there's power to be taken, nothing is sacred. As long as we give these
extremists even the time of day, they are winning.

~~~
wccrawford
[http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979...](http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979001993)
Those quotes are pretty telling.

[http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071221015548AA...](http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071221015548AAmweWD)
And the Bible, for good measure.

~~~
jameskilton
When you take statements out of context, you can use them to prove anything.
While I can't directly talk about the Koran (I've been meaning to read it),
but I can about the Bible.

You _cannot_ take statements out of the Old Testament without also including
the New Testament books. The OT is about setting up history and pretext for
what the NT teaches about life. Yes the OT has some very violent stories, but
you cannot read through them and say "oh, this is telling ME, TODAY, to be
violent". To do so is to say that killing intellectuals is OK today because
the Khamer Rouge did it in Cambodia. Or that it's ok to drop a nuke on someone
because we did it to Japan. The Old Testament is history and context so that
you understand the importance of the coming of Jesus and his teachings in the
New Testament, and no-where does Jesus's teaching tell people to take up arms
and cause violence.

------
Udo
This is politics and religion, it shouldn't be on HN.

But it's here, so... From a logical and humanist point of view I would say
that the FBI looking out for people who adhere to violent and radical
philosophies is a valid activity no matter if the background is islamic or
not. There is certainly a point to be made that mainstream Islam is more
radical than the mainstream of many other religions on the basis that it is
one of the last mainstream movements violently opposed to human rights and
democracy. Whether that is universally true I cannot verify and I doubt the
FBI can either.

I certainly know a few Muslims who are about as pious as the average Christian
who only goes to church when weddings and funerals are taking place. Whether
those people are mainstream Muslims and mainstream Christians as opposed to
"mainstream citizens" I cannot say and it would probably be counterproductive
for law enforcement to make assumptions on what "mainstream" actually means in
practice.

~~~
dalke
"one of the last "mainstream" movements violently opposed to human rights and
democracy"

I have been trying to figure out what you mean by this, to no success. Does
the violence against blacks in the US during the mid-1900s Civil Rights
movement, to say nothing of slavery in the 1800s, carried out often by pious
Christians certain of the morality of what they were doing, not serve as an
example of a "mainstream movement violently opposed to human rights and
democracy" within the Christian faith?

I also point out the numerous dictatorships in Central and South America, in
devoutly Catholic countries, held by force of arms. The estimated 30,000
desaparecidos of Argentina are certainly due to nothing other than "violent
opposition to human rights and democracy", and the actions of the government
was certainly influenced by the conservative Catholic views of the leaders -
the leader Oganía dedicated the country to the "protection and intercession of
the Immaculate Heart of Mary."

The third largest religious group, after Christianity and Islam, is Hinduism.
I honestly have no idea how the tenants of that religion affect, say, caste
violence in India. Since it's one of the mainstream movements you mentioned,
perhaps you can say something about it?

~~~
Udo
> _Does the violence against blacks [...] not serve as an example of a
> "mainstream movement violently opposed to human rights and democracy" within
> the Christian faith?_

I think so, yes. Have I given you reason to believe I would have liked to
exclude that? I apologize if I didn't express myself clearly enough. My point
was not to single out Islam and/or to absolve any other religion. For the
record, I don't have a stake in any of them, either.

> _I honestly have no idea how the tenants of that religion affect, say, caste
> violence in India._

Neither do I. I think we're on the same page here, just maybe looking at it
from different angles. The majority of my post could have been expressed as
"what does mainstream mean, anyway?" I did express a belief that violent
preachings and principles do have an influence on the behavior of the majority
of believers, however. The way I see it from the outside, "moderate" Islam is
still pretty radical because it is still in opposition to the principles of a
free society. But it's wrong to assume that I wouldn't apply the same
reasoning to, say, the Old Testament or whatever. It's not a zero-sum game,
one religion's horror does not automatically make the other ones better. And
of course, even a peaceful religion can breed violent fanatics.

Coming back to the article itself, I think that the FBI would do good to look
at the content that is being preached at individual mosques, because I do
believe there is a correlation from this to violence perpetrated (not only
terrorism per se, but also things like domestic violence) - and to reserve
judgement based on some definition of what's mainstream. And yes, I would
suggest the same scrutiny for the Westboro Baptist Church.

~~~
dalke
Indeed, I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "mainstream movement."

I get the feeling that most of the the movements for human rights and
democracy have little direct justification in religion faith, at least not in
the broad strokes where "moderate Islam" is meaningful.

By that I mean that I see many strongly religious people who use their faith
as justification to prevent voting or public participation from women and
minorities. Just like I see those using tenants of their religious faith to
justify human rights and democracy.

It's hard in the US to make sense of a large portion of the Republican Party -
which must certainly be representative of a mainstream movement - without
drawing the conclusion that don't have the same sense of human rights as I do,
and would prefer that the poor and others in the US have fewer rights and less
democratic say. While Martin Luther King Jr. strongly based his views on
equality and social rights in his religious faith.

What I have difficulty disambiguating is the effect of specifically Saudi oil
money promoting the Wahhabism, which seeks a pure Moslem faith, vs. the other
Moslem faiths. I also have to believe that the history of British and French
control (eg, the Sykes-Picot Agreement) plus the US involvement in Operation
Ajax hasn't helped promote democracy. As a comparison, perhaps Turkey or
Indonesia are useful ways to see more secular Moslem majority countries.

