4 ms·

As one of the resident HN muslim users I think I should mention that within the muslim community nearly everyone assumes they're under some kind of surveilance

by cup 12y ago

As one of the resident HN muslim users I think I should mention that within the muslim community nearly everyone assumes they're under some kind of surveilance whether it be targeted or indiscriminate. I mean the fact that Faisal Gill was nominated for special consideration is the icing on the cake. I think over time more and more Americans are going to start to wake up and appreciate that the freedom loving utopia that America is percieved to be has slowly become a creeping monolithic police state. I don't say that to be controversial or alarmist but just to state what is in my view a fact. What I'm interested in is whether Americans: 1. Care. 2. Care enough to change it. 3. Actually can change it. My personal belief is that all three are no.

waps 12y ago
To be frank, reasonable people are nervous because muslim ideology, as published, matches the modus operandi of things like ISIS, the states of Pakistan and generally middle eastern countries to some extent. And frankly what also makes me horribly nervous is that when talking to muslims that are clearly well integrated, at work, or when going out. I can't get them to condemn terrorist behaviour. Not even when we're talking obviously immoral behaviour, like the 1972 olympic attack (just to avoid 9/11), or today ISIS' modus operandi. When it comes to the obvious religious extermination policies that exist in places like Pakistan or Bangladesh, or all over the middle east, again, it does not seem to be possible, in my experience, to hear condemnations of that behaviour. And frankly, when going over the behaviour that muslim history claims "the prophet" had, like exterminating Khaybar, men, women and children over a trivial conflict, again you can't get muslims to condemn that behavior. He, by the way, did not just kill them, but tortured them first, forced kids to watch family members' executions and worse. They just deny it exists, how it's all a massive conspiracy against islam, muslims, those countries or some other such claim that they can't defend at all. Regularly muslims suggest that the whole of the quran, hadith and other sources has been falsified just for the purpose of that very discussion. Knowing that these are well-integrated muslims, not "normal" ones is worrying, very, very worrying. To be honest, if someone were to try something like ISIS is doing in Iraq[1] in America, I am absolutely convinced there would not be serious opposition to that from the American muslim community. I don't get how we can ever really live together with this religion. There simply is no interest in doing that on the muslim side. Yes there is a period of calm that has started with the WWI extermination of the Caliphate by the Turks. I feat that period is ending, and things will get much, much worse in the medium term. I know I'll get downvoted for this, but I feel this is a legitimate concern. [1] http://rt.com/news/166436-isis-execution-video-iraq/ http://rt.com/news/166436-isis-execution-video-iraq/
- acqq 12y ago
  Thanks for mentioning Khaybar. Anybody looking for context can start here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm "Understand that it is the Hadith (traditions), Sira (biography of Muhammad) and the Qur'an together that provide the true Islamic counterpart to the Christian Bible and Jewish Torah." http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-rape.htm http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-rape.htm "It is against Islam to rape Muslim women, but Muhammad actually encouraged the rape of others captured in battle. This hadith provides the context for the Qur’anic verse (4:24): The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433) Actually, as the hadith indicates, it wasn't Muhammad, but "Allah the Exalted" who told the men to rape the women in front of their husbands - which is all the more reason not to think of Islam as being the same as other religions." "There are several other episodes in which Muhammad is offered the clear opportunity to disavow raping women - yet he instead offers advice on how to proceed. In one case, his men were reluctant to devalue their new slaves for later resale by getting them pregnant. Muhammad was asked about coitus interruptus in particular: "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432) As indicated, the prophet of Islam did not mind his men raping the women, provided they ejaculated within the bodies of their victims." The references are to the actual "holy texts" of Islam and can be easily checked online. (Instead of downvoting, please point to anything that isn't true.) (And just that it doesn't appear that I'm cherry picking only Hadith, Sira and Quran, for the list of the killings of the God as written in the Bible, refer to: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.co.at/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.co.at/2010/04/drunk-with... Also with the exact references. Do check the original texts yourself!)
hackuser 12y ago
"What I'm interested in is whether Americans: 1. Care. 2. Care enough to change it. 3. Actually can change it. My personal belief is that all three are no." I'm not Muslim but those questions scare me. What if we fail? For what it's worth, many civil rights movements faced the same obstacles and persevered. Consider how black leaders felt, how LGBT leaders felt: They were advocating for minorities whom it was politically and socially acceptable to openly despise. Here's Martin Luther King writing from jail: "First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." Somehow it turned around; I don't know how it happens. Look at the tidal wave for gay rights recently.
- acqq 12y ago
  It would be of the huge benefit of all societies that the religions also disavow the inhumane ideas and practices appearing in their holy texts. See the examples with the exact references in my other comment here. The problems exist and are real even if it's hard to talk about them.
- hadoukenio 12y ago
  Further to this. I'm interested if this is a "limited hangout"... What if Snowden really is a limited hangout and the Arab Spring was just the rehearsal. What if the powers that be wanted to see how far they could poke the stick at the American people to see (like in a controlled burn) how they would respond. Even after ripping up The Constitution, spying domestically, and approving drone strikes to kill US citizens abroad, the general populace are asleep. No mass protests. No impeachment. What if this all was a charade to prove that complete control is within grasp without consequence.
pogue 12y ago
First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak out because I was not a Muslim...
opendais 12y ago
I think the problem is ignorance and the level of effort required: 1) Technology is "magical" to most people and they don't really understand the dangers. 2) Normal people can't actually vote against this on party lines which makes it hard for "normal people" to fight it. They'd have to think and learn about who they need to remove which is something they've rarely done. [e.g. Feinstein (D) needs to go but so does McCain (R)] The majority of Democrats & Republic politicians [at the federal level] support it. It is why attempts to remove it have failed. 3) Those of us that vote against such people in every election don't really get anywhere because of #1 & #2. I vote against my House Rep & Feinstein in every election for all the good it does me.

by cup 12y ago

waps 12y ago

To be frank, reasonable people are nervous because muslim ideology, as published, matches the modus operandi of things like ISIS, the states of Pakistan and generally middle eastern countries to some extent. And frankly what also makes me horribly nervous is that when talking to muslims that are clearly well integrated, at work, or when going out. I can't get them to condemn terrorist behaviour. Not even when we're talking obviously immoral behaviour, like the 1972 olympic attack (just to avoid 9/11), or today ISIS' modus operandi. When it comes to the obvious religious extermination policies that exist in places like Pakistan or Bangladesh, or all over the middle east, again, it does not seem to be possible, in my experience, to hear condemnations of that behaviour. And frankly, when going over the behaviour that muslim history claims "the prophet" had, like exterminating Khaybar, men, women and children over a trivial conflict, again you can't get muslims to condemn that behavior. He, by the way, did not just kill them, but tortured them first, forced kids to watch family members' executions and worse. They just deny it exists, how it's all a massive conspiracy against islam, muslims, those countries or some other such claim that they can't defend at all. Regularly muslims suggest that the whole of the quran, hadith and other sources has been falsified just for the purpose of that very discussion. Knowing that these are well-integrated muslims, not "normal" ones is worrying, very, very worrying. To be honest, if someone were to try something like ISIS is doing in Iraq[1] in America, I am absolutely convinced there would not be serious opposition to that from the American muslim community. I don't get how we can ever really live together with this religion. There simply is no interest in doing that on the muslim side. Yes there is a period of calm that has started with the WWI extermination of the Caliphate by the Turks. I feat that period is ending, and things will get much, much worse in the medium term. I know I'll get downvoted for this, but I feel this is a legitimate concern. [1] http://rt.com/news/166436-isis-execution-video-iraq/ http://rt.com/news/166436-isis-execution-video-iraq/

acqq 12y ago
Thanks for mentioning Khaybar. Anybody looking for context can start here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-home.htm "Understand that it is the Hadith (traditions), Sira (biography of Muhammad) and the Qur'an together that provide the true Islamic counterpart to the Christian Bible and Jewish Torah." http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-rape.htm http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/muhammad/myths-mu-rape.htm "It is against Islam to rape Muslim women, but Muhammad actually encouraged the rape of others captured in battle. This hadith provides the context for the Qur’anic verse (4:24): The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433) Actually, as the hadith indicates, it wasn't Muhammad, but "Allah the Exalted" who told the men to rape the women in front of their husbands - which is all the more reason not to think of Islam as being the same as other religions." "There are several other episodes in which Muhammad is offered the clear opportunity to disavow raping women - yet he instead offers advice on how to proceed. In one case, his men were reluctant to devalue their new slaves for later resale by getting them pregnant. Muhammad was asked about coitus interruptus in particular: "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432) As indicated, the prophet of Islam did not mind his men raping the women, provided they ejaculated within the bodies of their victims." The references are to the actual "holy texts" of Islam and can be easily checked online. (Instead of downvoting, please point to anything that isn't true.) (And just that it doesn't appear that I'm cherry picking only Hadith, Sira and Quran, for the list of the killings of the God as written in the Bible, refer to: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.co.at/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.co.at/2010/04/drunk-with... Also with the exact references. Do check the original texts yourself!)

hackuser 12y ago

"What I'm interested in is whether Americans: 1. Care. 2. Care enough to change it. 3. Actually can change it. My personal belief is that all three are no." I'm not Muslim but those questions scare me. What if we fail? For what it's worth, many civil rights movements faced the same obstacles and persevered. Consider how black leaders felt, how LGBT leaders felt: They were advocating for minorities whom it was politically and socially acceptable to openly despise. Here's Martin Luther King writing from jail: "First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." Somehow it turned around; I don't know how it happens. Look at the tidal wave for gay rights recently.

acqq 12y ago
It would be of the huge benefit of all societies that the religions also disavow the inhumane ideas and practices appearing in their holy texts. See the examples with the exact references in my other comment here. The problems exist and are real even if it's hard to talk about them.
hadoukenio 12y ago
Further to this. I'm interested if this is a "limited hangout"... What if Snowden really is a limited hangout and the Arab Spring was just the rehearsal. What if the powers that be wanted to see how far they could poke the stick at the American people to see (like in a controlled burn) how they would respond. Even after ripping up The Constitution, spying domestically, and approving drone strikes to kill US citizens abroad, the general populace are asleep. No mass protests. No impeachment. What if this all was a charade to prove that complete control is within grasp without consequence.

pogue 12y ago

First they came for the Muslims, and I didn't speak out because I was not a Muslim...

opendais 12y ago

I think the problem is ignorance and the level of effort required: 1) Technology is "magical" to most people and they don't really understand the dangers. 2) Normal people can't actually vote against this on party lines which makes it hard for "normal people" to fight it. They'd have to think and learn about who they need to remove which is something they've rarely done. [e.g. Feinstein (D) needs to go but so does McCain (R)] The majority of Democrats & Republic politicians [at the federal level] support it. It is why attempts to remove it have failed. 3) Those of us that vote against such people in every election don't really get anywhere because of #1 & #2. I vote against my House Rep & Feinstein in every election for all the good it does me.