Truck attack in NYC

Frank Rich‏Verified account @frankrichny 3m3 minutes ago

Frank Rich Retweeted Donald J. Trump



Surprising it took this long for Trump & @foxandfriends to blame a Jewish Senator for what they call “radical Islamic terrorism.”

It's widely known Menachem Begin was a terrorist.
 
my friend did acknowledge it was just a matter of time before he becomes radicalized...what should I do with him

The best way to work against radicalization, which happens readily in the West - is not by fearing Muslims nor by patronizing them from a self-righteous, secularism but by loving them as one's neighbor (Gospel sort of things you know).
 
Just sickening

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...IS-flag-taken-exact-site-New-York-attack.html

Chilling image of an ISIS flag taken at the exact spot as the New York terror attack appeared online just weeks ago

A chilling photograph of an ISIS logo on a cell phone was taken just weeks ago in the exact spot where the Manhattan truck attacker mounted a bike path killing eight, it has emerged.

The image, posted two months ago, shows a man holding a phone on the corner of Houston Street and West Street in Manhattan with skyscrapers including 1 World Trade Center in the background.

On Tuesday, at the same spot, terrorist Sayfullo Saipov drove a hire truck on to West Side Highway before plowing down pedestrians and cyclists along a bike path.
 
The best way to work against radicalization, which happens readily in the West - is not by fearing Muslims nor by patronizing them from a self-righteous, secularism but by loving them as one's neighbor (Gospel sort of things you know).

yup...i gave him my leftover Halloween candy and told him to get a shave
 
The best way to work against radicalization, which happens readily in the West - is not by fearing Muslims nor by patronizing them from a self-righteous, secularism but by loving them as one's neighbor (Gospel sort of things you know).

Defending Muslims from claims of blanket barbarism is a lot different than "patronizing them from a self-righteous, secularism".
 
A real tu quoque here, friend. You've been nothing in this thread if not highly patronizing.

jp, by patronizing I mean that your question (and the voiced perspectives of fellow secularists in this thread) seemed to me to be from the very Western-secular idea that all religions are basically the same (to think that is to put yourself above them and better than the religionists) and one which won't take historic-orthodox Islam seriously, upon it's own standards. It's a view that wants to fashion others after one's own heart and worldview, instead of actually taking people on their own terms and per their own beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaw
jp, by patronizing I mean that your question (and the voiced perspectives of fellow secularists in this thread) seemed to me to be from the very Western-secular idea that all religions are basically the same (to think that is to put yourself above them and better than the religionists) and one which won't take historic-orthodox Islam seriously, upon it's own standards. It's a view that wants to fashion others after one's own heart and worldview, instead of actually taking people on their own terms and per their own beliefs.

so Bernard Lewis was mistaken when he wrote:

Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements. ... At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays.
 
Defending Muslims from claims of blanket barbarism is a lot different than "patronizing them from a self-righteous, secularism".

I'd have far fewer problems with my secular friends on here if you guys wouldn't in knee-jerk fashion discount the very strong place Muhammad's life plays in historic-orthodox Islam and if you'd actually acknowledge the struggles people I love face in the Muslim countries I've worked and work in. It's as if you can't fathom the reality of it. I truly don't get it.
 
Islam was propagated by its founder by the sword let it be noted for the record.

Let it also be noted for the record that it's Islam 101 to desire that all the world become dar-al-islam. That's a no brainer.

This feels like frustration at proselytization competition. Bringing people into the House of Peace sort of gets in the way of piling the whole world into the van and driving them to the City of God, huh?

Let is also be noted, that it's not good form as a faithful follower of "Allah's prophet Muhammad" to criticize Muhammad's practices...

How acceptable, in Christianity, is it to criticize Christ's practices? Maybe this is a problem with theocracies more than specific religions?

So pardon me if I don't get on board with this Western, naive, and patronizing view of Islam held by folk who've taken Comparative Religions 101.

This is a nice appeal to authority. I suppose, on matters of religion, we should all just step aside and let you preach.

Well, I haven't even taken Comparative Religions 101, but I think I know enough of history over the past two thousand years (not to mention the current moment) to say it's hard for me to buy that Christianity has sufficient moral high-ground to look down on Islam in judgment.

I feel like there's something you always say about minding your own house first ...
 
I'd have far fewer problems with my secular friends on here if you guys wouldn't in knee-jerk fashion discount the very strong place Muhammad's life plays in historic-orthodox Islam and if you'd actually acknowledge the struggles people I love face in the Muslim countries I've worked and work in. It's as if you can't fathom the reality of it. I truly don't get it.

Is it fair to say "Good people can be taught and believe bad things?"
 
so Bernard Lewis was mistaken when he wrote:

Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements. ... At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays.

Lewis, obviously whom I respect particularly in his undercutting of this canard that the conflict between the West and the Islamic world is a modern invention due chiefly to American foreign policy, isn't always correct. No historian is.
 
Lewis, obviously whom I respect particularly in his undercutting of this canard that the conflict between the West and the Islamic world is a modern invention due chiefly to American foreign policy, isn't always correct. No historian is.

so he is factually incorrect in the passage I quoted?

btw, I think he is a great historian both in terms of getting the facts right and in terms of the way he interprets history and its implications for the world we live in
 
jp, by patronizing I mean that your question (and the voiced perspectives of fellow secularists in this thread) seemed to me to be from the very Western-secular idea that all religions are basically the same (to think that is to put yourself above them and better than the religionists) and one which won't take historic-orthodox Islam seriously, upon it's own standards. It's a view that wants to fashion others after one's own heart and worldview, instead of actually taking people on their own terms and per their own beliefs.

I certainly don't believe, and have never stated, that "all religions are basically the same", and by that same token all Islams are not the same. To treat various adherents as monolith—and, further, to dehumanize them en masse—is just as wrong-headed and wrong-hearted as presuming "all religions are basically the same" or presuming to put oneself above the religiously-minded and -hearted.

I have plenty of problems with Islam, just as I have plenty of problems with orthodoxies, generally. But I won't countenance the sort of blindly and hatefully dismissive discourse that tries to position all Muslims as violent Other against the otherwise-edenic world.

I'd have far fewer problems with my secular friends on here if you guys wouldn't in knee-jerk fashion discount the very strong place Muhammad's life plays in historic-orthodox Islam and if you'd actually acknowledge the struggles people I love face in the Muslim countries I've worked and work in. It's as if you can't fathom the reality of it. I truly don't get it.

Only speaking for myself here, I'm not dismissing or discounting "the struggles people [you] love face in" Muslim countries; but it's also not the principal piece of information I'm considering when I "fathom the reality" of these problems. I truly don't see how/why you think I'm ignoring your pain when I argue that institutional religious intolerance, period, is wrong and hurtful, even if all religions aren't created or practiced equally, or when I protest the blanket dehumanization of Muslims.
 
orange one blames Schumer but you know, facts

"In 2013, as a U.S. senator, Schumer actually proposed ending diversity visas as part of efforts by the so-called "Gang of 8," aimed at a broader immigration overhaul."
 
1. Is anything in my statement incorrect? We all want what we want don't we? Even jp? I absolute would rather people look to Christ as Savior and Lord. And so I recognize that my Muslim neighbor should want me to see his light and my secular neighbor would want me to see her's. That's the way the world works isn't it?

2. Why would a Christian want to criticize Jesus? But criticizing Jesus doesn't generally result in threat of life. Also, again comparatively speaking do you really want to say that Jesus' actions warrant the critique that Muhammad's are? Do you think this is an apple to apple comparison? If so then are you really taking their biographies seriously? And your appeal to theocracies, Jp, what did Jesus say about his kingdom? A Muslim has a legitimate right to appeal to an earthly-political theocracy. A Christian, imho, does not. Again, this seems to be another evidence of not taking both faiths seriously enough.

3. By no means. Speak on but I ask that you do recognize that some of us have been in the trenches and have a perspective that might just have some value here.

4. And I'd encourage you to take a look in your own eye and the eyes of your fellow secularists...

1. This feels like frustration at proselytization competition. Bringing people into the House of Peace sort of gets in the way of piling the whole world into the van and driving them to the City of God, huh?

2. How acceptable, in Christianity, is it to criticize Christ's practices? Maybe this is a problem with theocracies more than specific religions?

3. This is a nice appeal to authority. I suppose, on matters of religion, we should all just step aside and let you preach.

4..Well, I haven't even taken Comparative Religions 101, but I think I know enough of history over the past two thousand years (not to mention the current moment) to say it's hard for me to buy that Christianity has sufficient moral high-ground to look down on Islam in judgment.

I feel like there's something you always say about minding your own house first ...
 
so he is factually incorrect in the passage I quoted?

btw, I think he is a great historian both in terms of getting the facts right and in terms of the way he interprets history and its implications for the world we live in

As I'm prone and others are no doubt prone to do, he paints with too broad of a brush with that quote. And doesn't take enough account of the life of the prophet himself. He also is weak, if I remember my reading of him correctly, in the sort of idea that fueled the neocon movement - that the Western idea of freedom and democracy was desired throughout the Muslim world.
 
ftr

i will and would hate muslims trying to force their religious laws on everyone just the same as i do the Mike Pences, Huckabees and the rest of the religious christian right that is trying to do the same thing with the republican party

until those people stop pushing their religious laws on us, complaining about radical muslims etc falls on deaf ears imo

cause it's 6 in one hand and a half dozen in the other
 
Back
Top