Well of course out of a billion people you can find some. But on the aggregate they do not fuck with their religion. Same reason why they can walk by people bashing rocks on to a girls skull without doing anything about it. Their religion compromises their morality. It has nothing to do with them as people, it's solely their religion. No different than the KKK. Their thought process is just skewed and their beliefs are counterintuitive to a productive democracy.
There are "Moderate Muslims" who do condemn these terrorist actions all the time. They don't fit the narrative that our media tries to push, though, that Muslim is an evil Religion, so they aren't afforded much airtime, except when the Media wants to mock them as not doing enough. Here is a good article on the subject.
[h=1]Stop Saying “Moderate Muslims.” You're Only Empowering Islamophobes.[/h] [h=5]By Nathan Lean[/h] Last week’s Heritage Foundation panel on the 2012 attacks in Benghazi was bound to be an ugly affair, what with the presence of panelist Brigitte Gabriel, a self-described “terrorism analyst” with a laundry list of offensive statements about Islam and Arabs. Sure enough, when attendee Saba Ahmed, an American University law school student, explained that not all Muslims are terrorists, Gabriel retorted that “the peaceful majority were irrelevant” in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the way that peaceful Germans were irrelevant during the Holocaust.
That prompted much hand-wringing, primarily on cable news, about the supposed silence of “moderate Muslims” in this supposed age of Islamist extremism. What no one on either side of the debate questioned, though, was the legitimacy of the phrase "moderate Muslims" itself.
In the years that I’ve spent writing about and studying the phenomenon of Islamophobia, that phrase has always troubled me. Muslims and non-Muslims alike bandy it about, though the latter usually demand that the former prove that they are such. What bothers me is not that there aren’t “moderate Muslims”—from my perspective, there certainly are. The unacknowledged problem is how that phrase informs our judgments.
Brigitte Gabriel, for instance, told the Australian Jewish News in 2008, “Every practicing Muslim is a radical Muslim,” meaning “moderates” must be only those who don’t practice their religion. Celebrity atheist Sam Harris writes that “moderate Muslims” are those who express skepticism over the divine origins of the Quran and “surely realize that all [sacred] books are now candidates for flushing down the toilet.” Then there’s conservative columnist John Hawkins, who enumerates seven criteria that Muslims must meet in order to be considered “moderate” while the queen of Muslim-bashing, Pamela Geller, asks in typical fashion, “What’s the difference? Today’s moderate is tomorrow’s mass murderer.”
To be fair, it’s not just the wackos. Newsweek, NPR, the Wall Street Journal, Reuters, TIME, The New Republicand many others have used this phrase to describe Muslims who fit a certain preferred profile. Many Muslims themselves have bought into this dichotomy, if only to distance themselves from the so-called radicals and extremists—to assure paranoid non-Muslims, in other words, "I'm not that kind of Muslim."
How is it that we talk about Muslims much like we talk about Buffalo wings, their “potency” being measured not by some objective rubric but rather by our personal preferences?. It’s the mild ones that we seem to search out: not so spicy in their religious practices that they burn us, yet not so bland that they dilute our religious diversity altogether.
The idea of a “moderate Islam” or “moderate Muslim” is intellectually lazy because it carves the world up into two camps: the “good” Muslims and the “bad” Muslims, as Columbia University professor Mahmood Mamdani has noted. (Saba Ahmed herself used the word "bad" in her remarks at the Heritage panel.) Until proven good, or in this case “moderate,” all Muslims are perceived as “bad,” or potentially extreme. We certainly don’t spend our time searching out “moderate” Christians or Jews, but rather reckon that the Westboro Baptists, Jewish Defense League, and others are aberrations. And sure, Muslims give us plenty of bad examples, but it’s our own fault if we allow those examples to constipate our ability to perform basic logic.
During the panel, Gabriel argued that “15-25 percent” of the world’s Muslims are extremists, and that the remaining “moderates” are “irrelevant” (I shouldn’t have to explain that it’s usually the majority of a given group that makes the minority irrelevant, not vice versa). Based on the lower end of that range, that’s 240 million of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims — the equivalent of every single Muslim in Sub-Saharan Africa, or nearly six times the number of all Muslims on the entire continent of Europe. Where are the examples of such supposedly widespread extremism? Even if a mere 1 percent of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims is committed to violence, why is it that we haven’t seen 16 million violent attacks?
Proving one’s “moderation” is a trap, anyway. The only way to do it is to meet the criteria set forth by the person making the demand. For Gabriel and others, it’s by supporting Western foreign policies in the Middle East, cheering continued military aid to Israel, and even rejecting certain Islamic tenets. It’s why a figure like Zuhdi Jasser, a darling of the Republican Party and Peter King’s star witness in the “radicalization” hearings, is held up like a trophy while Saba Ahmed is mocked.
That’s the problem with this “moderate Muslim” nonsense: it empowers anti-Muslim activists by implying that the degree to which a Muslim digests their religious faith is indicative of their status as a potential terrorist. Thus, “moderately” subscribing to the teachings of the Quran is OK, but should they cross over into the world of daily prayers, Friday afternoons at the mosque, and, God forbid, Ramadan, they’re suddenly flirting with extremism. That way of thinking is predicated on the unfounded notion that pious religious orthodoxy necessarily entails Muslims behaving badly. It also implies that religious “moderation” involves swallowing up one particular political narrative.
Lastly, calling on “moderate Muslims” to condemn violence or other loathsome acts presumes that anyone who doesn’t is a terrorist lying in wait. It gives credence to the idea that only those who are at the beck and call of Islam’s credential police are the peaceful ones, and that the ones posing the question—“where are the moderate Muslims”—are sufficient arbiters of what Islam really is and isn’t.
In order to arrive at a more peaceful and equitable place in our society, we must divorce ourselves from the notion that we are authorities on the faith traditions of others and as such are entitled to prescribe how they must interpret them in order to be welcomed. The diversity within religious traditions is just as important to the pluralistic fabric of America as the diversity of religious traditions. Carving up our Muslim compatriots into categories that fit our idea of what they should be isn’t going to get us there.
Here's another article on the subject.
[h=1]Do You Even Hear Muslims When We Condemn Violence?[/h] Posted: 04/22/2013 1:40 pm
It took 9,000 officers, five days, and roughly $1 billion in lost revenue for Boston, but suspect one is dead and suspect two is in custody.
So let me start with the standard roll call: As an American Muslim, I condemn all violence in the name of religion. Terrorism has no religion and Islam is no exception. If the Tsarnaev brothers are guilty of the Boston bombings, then I hope they are brought to justice.
Is that condemnation clear enough? Because I'm pretty sure a whole lot of people instead read blah blah blah blah blah.
Here's the deal. It is a shame that we had to employ 9,000 officers, put our lives on hold for five days, and sacrifice $1 billion in Boston revenue to catch these culprits. It is a shame that Muslim women were assaulted in retaliation, and that's even before we knew who the suspects were. And it is a shame I received threats of anti-Muslim violence and that even my non-Muslim but non-white friends called me, fearing for their safety.
And now the public lynching and double standards against Islam begin. Mental illness was the culprit during Newtown, Conn., Oak Creek, Wis., and Aurora, Colo. More than 70 percent of America's 64 previous mass shooters were white American men. But not one pundit, nor any politician, nor any Muslim has ever asked why White Americans or Christian Americans are not aggressively condemning these acts of terror. After all, why ask such a ludicrous question? Anyone with a functioning cerebrum could comprehend that these terrorists represent only themselves.
But why do our brains shut down when the slightest indication exists that the culprit might maybe possibly be Muslim? No sooner did the Boston tragedy occur -- and even before the slightest indication emerged regarding who perpetrated the attack -- but I received dozens of emails and messages asking why "moderate Muslims" aren't condemning the attack?
This was my initial reaction to such demands for condemnation.
Muslims condemned 9/11, we condemned 7/7, we condemned the Fort Hood tragedy, we condemned the underwear bomber, we condemned the Times Square bomber, and now yet again we find ourselves condemning the Boston Bombers on the mere suspicion that they were "motivated by Islam."
And this is why I am unsure if people hear Muslims when Muslims declare -- in response to every violent act or attempt at violence -- that Islam condemns all forms of religious violence and terrorism. Because even after condemning the Boston bombers, I receive messages that the condemnation wasn't "loud enough" or "clear enough" or passionate enough." " In other words, all they heard from me was blah blah blah blah blah.
And the fact is Muslims have gone far beyond mere condemnation but taken action. The Muslims for Life campaign has raised over 25,000 blood donations in the past two years to honor 9/11 victims. The #MyJihad campaign serves to demonstrate Jihad's true meaning. The Muslims for Peace campaign champions true, peaceful Islam. I could go on but hopefully you get the picture.
America is not under threat from radical Islam, but it is under threat from radical ignorance. This ignorance is a far more powerful and far more destructive force than any act of terror. I speak having experienced the horrific after effects of such ignorance.
Some 40 years ago, Pakistan decided to succumb to such ignorance and direct its wrath against my peaceful and pluralistic Muslim sect -- the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. What began as passive discrimination advanced to laws banning our freedom of expression and worship, to now open violence against all religious and belief minorities in Pakistan -- Ahmadi Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Shiite Muslims, Baha'is, and atheists. Pakistan went from a relatively peaceful nation entirely alien to terrorist attacks, to one that suffers through 3,000 civilian deaths from terrorists annually and now devoid of religious freedom.
If Americans have any hope of winning the "war on terror," it won't come from demonizing American Muslims, or Islam in general. It will come from education through interfaith dialogues, joining together in service of humanity, and recognizing that we are all equal human beings in search of similar goals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It will come from all Americans rejecting ignorance and uniting even stronger against extremism that tries to divide us.
The path of radical ignorance is a one way street; if we go down this path, don't expect to come back so easily. As I said, I've tried reasoning with extremists in Pakistan to give up discrimination and favor tolerance.
But all they seem to hear is blah blah blah blah blah.
Follow Qasim Rashid on Twitter: [url]www.twitter.com/MuslimIQ [/URL]
My biggest issue is why is it all of a sudden cool to go out of your way to kiss Muslim ass?
Its almost like its a politically correct requirement these days.
Dont dare bring a bible to public school. But if you want to bring a Koran that's ok.
Its almost like its a politically correct requirement these days.
Dont dare bring a bible to public school. But if you want to bring a Koran that's ok.
No, it's not. Don't let the hatred and rhetoric get to you. If it WAS The Religion itself, there would be no Peaceful Muslims, instead of the vast majority of them being peaceful. I would be dead many years, since my neighborhood has many Muslims, and many Jews. The neighborhood would be in flames, instead of the peaceful Middle class neighborhood it is.
Extremist Islamic Terrorism IS a sick Cult, within a Religion, that use the Religion for their nefarious Purposes. But they are NOT The religion.
