This is a novel argument, but it completely supports what I'm saying,Weiseth wrote: > But yes I'm saying those Muslims who are not radical are not
> really muslims. You are American so I'm guessing you don't have
> much experience living with muslims but I grew up in the ghetto
> with 30% muslims in my city and those muslims were completely
> non-religious. The only thing they observed was not eating pork
> with the exception of bacon and they all partied and consumed
> alcohol. So of those 1.8 billion "muslims" that are not radical
> they are "muslim" in name only just like the Nazis were mostly
> "Christian" in name only and the Soviets were "Christian" in name
> only as if you study National Socialism it is not a coherent
> ideology but the teachings of Himmler, Hitler, Wiligut which were
> based on Guido Von List they are not Christian at all, they are
> based on a mix of pagan inspired esotericism mixed with Blavatsky
> and the Soviets were completely based on dialectical
> materialism.
and contradicts what you're saying.
Those who support the "all Muslims are evil" view point to madrassas,
and say that Muslims go to madrassas, and clerics tell them to go out
and kill the infidels. There are two major problems with this claim.
First, as you say, the Muslims committing crimes are not really
Muslims at all, and don't follow Muslim practices. I agree.
Committing crimes or killing infidels is not a Muslim practice. So
you're blaming all Muslims for the crimes of a few people who, by your
own testimony, are not Muslims at all.
Second, what exactly is a Muslim? Let's look at Catholics as an
example.
If a man goes to morning mass every morning, we'd certainly agree that
he's a Catholic. What if he only goes to mass on Sundays? Is he less
of a Catholic? What if he only goes on Christmas and Easter? Is he
only 0.001% Catholic? Can someone be Catholic who doesn't go to
church at all?
Here's another example: Suppose a husband and wife go to morning mass
every morning, but they still use birth control? Are they still
Catholics, even though they clearly and knowingly violate Catholic
rules and injunctions?
What about when two people live together without marriage. Do they
automatically stop being Catholics?
So the same issues are true about Muslims. First, madrassas do not
preach "kill the infidel" in any but the most extreme situations.
Second, Muslims are still Muslims even if they don't face Mecca and
pray five times a day. Third, if they go to Friday prayers every
week, they don't necessarily do what the cleric tells them to do, just
as married Catholics still use birth control.
You go to the ridiculous extreme of saying that Nazi policies were
based on the writings of Guido Von List, whoever that was. Do you
really believe that the millions of ordinary Church-going Christian
Germans who were cheering Kristallnacht and bashing Jews had ever
heard about Guido Von List, or cared?
Finally, a word about Sharia Law. Sharia Law doesn't exist or, to put
it another way, Sharia Law is just like Western law, in that it can be
anything a society wants it to be. The example I like to point to is
wearing a head scarf. Is that a part of Sharia Law? A lot of people
with the "all Muslims are evil" view think that it is. And yet,
headscarfs are not used in Egypt. They were not required in Iran
before 1979, and they are required today. In Turkey, they were
required before 1924, then they were forbidden until 2007 when they
became optional, and today they're becoming required again. So what
does Sharia Law say about it? Nothing, except what the society wants
to claim it says.
I wrote about all this and a lot more in a post to Coordinated Fires.
Check it out:
http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 009#p32009
http://gdxforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php ... 1&start=10
Read through the entire thread, because there was a lot of discussion
on all sides of the issue, and it may answer your questions.