Scot Dutchy wrote:

babel wrote:I haven't seen a definition of 'definition' so I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to present you with? If you can't clarify what you're asking for, I can't answer you.
HTH!

Well you have hit it on the head which is why I asked the question. After being accused that I had claimed all muslims were extremists which of course I did not. I said all muslims were muslims.

That seems to be a fairly obvious statement.
I think that people here define a muslim as 'someone who believes in Allah', nothing more, nothing less. To what extent this influences their lives is what determines if they are considered

Scot Dutchy wrote:moderates and extremists/fundamentalists.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I produced a load of opinion polls that showed this was untrue.

You did not. You showed not a single poll where all muslims were polled and even those that were polled, didn't share 'the fundamentalist' interpretation of islam.[/quote]

Scot Dutchy wrote:So I asked the question define a moderate muslim..

But defining something doesn't entail anything else but a description, in words, of what is 'a moderate muslim'. As such, it's an answer to your question, just not one you were expecting.
What you should be asking for, is how people know that there are different 'brands' of islam or muslims and if they have the evidence to back up that claim.
But for the record, even if you asked that question, the existence of different sects, muslims who will visit mecca and others, muslims who pray 5 times a day and others, muslims that are violent and others, muslims who fast and others,... just shows that 'the muslim' is a general idea that can't be defined by nothing but their common aspect: their belief in a deity they call Allah.

!	GENERAL MODNOTE Locked for review of multiple reports

.

Laughable.

One person's definition of 'moderate' has yet to be given.

There appear to be no shades of gray in black and white thinking.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

babel wrote:And what do you reckon is a definition. I'm not really an authority in this area, but pretty sure that definitions tend to be worded as assertions. You can then either accept them or reject them.
Since that is the format definitions tend to be presented in, you have been given multiple definitions.
Read them and either accept or reject them, but you can't say you haven't been given answers/definitions.

A definition can be backed up with data and surveys which is something I have not seen.

Data and surveys showing significant division amongst muslims on the issue of supporting extreme or violent positions has been posted in this thread. By you. So the claim to not have seen data and surveys is a lie.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Anecdotes are not facts. The story of the guy down the road is not fact. They are purely assertions as was Oliver's little ditty.

I've already quoted my questions for you here:

OlivierK wrote:Clearly, this is an example of your writing that people, including me, interpret as a No True Muslim argument. If that's not what you meant, then (a) what did you mean?, and (b) can you see how people interpret this as a No True Muslim argument? I'm genuinely curious about how you can't see this, so if you could give a thoughtful explanation rather than some snide dismissal or evasion, I'd appreciate it.

and here:

OlivierK wrote:Thirdly, it's not an argument. It's a request. I've given my interpretation of your post (the one I've enlarged in red), and you've said I'm wrong to read it as a No True Muslim argument. So I've asked for your intended meaning. I'm giving you a blank piece of paper to lay out your position.

Scot Dutchy wrote:It is not a question. It is a load of assertions without any evidence.

The only assertion there is that I'm genuinely curious as to what your intended meaning was if it wasn't a No True Muslim argument. I think I'm well-paced to judge that assertion as true - I am curious as to what other interpretation is possible, or what exactly you meant. For someone who claims to be being misrepresented, you seem very reluctant to provide clarification, when this would seem to be a path to putting all your troubles to rest.

To call these requests for clarification "purely assertions" is factually incorrect. To do so knowingly is a misrepresentation - a lie.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Another assertion being banded about is that moderates and extremists have a different form of islam...

No, that assertion is not being bandied about, that's a third lie.

Scot Dutchy wrote:...but yet again there is a complete lack of data or surveys.

And that's the first lie, repeated.

Scot Dutchy wrote:The only thing is certain that they still use the same version of the koran.
Apart from all the personal attacks and the trolling it has become pretty foggy here.

Then I suggest you stop trolling and fogging the place up with lies and misrepresentations.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

babel wrote:I haven't seen a definition of 'definition' so I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to present you with? If you can't clarify what you're asking for, I can't answer you.
HTH!

Well you have hit it on the head which is why I asked the question. After being accused that I had claimed all muslims were extremists which of course I did not.

How are we to interpret this:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Some people just cant get it. They have this illusion that there is a safe version of islam.

What were the families where the jhadists came from in England? Extremists? No.

?

That's a serious question; I don't find it particularly coherent.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I said all muslims were muslims.

No you didn't, you claimed that Muslims who did not hold extreme positions were not muslims.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

OlivierK wrote:What's a moderate Muslim? Someone who doesn't want to kill infidels, keep non-muslim girls as sex slaves, marry 5-year-olds, or support ISIL?

I mean, you've actually answered your own question in your own post

They are not muslims then?

Scot Dutchy wrote:After which I was informed that are a difference between moderates and extremists/fundamentalists. In fact it was claimed they had nothing to do with each other. I produced a load of opinion polls that showed this was untrue.

No, you produced a load of opinion polls that showed that this was true. Your polls showed significant proportions of muslims, often a majority, rejecting the position you ascribed to "all muslims". To characterise the opinion polls as supporting your position is to misrepresent them. It's another lie.

Scot Dutchy wrote:So I asked the question define a moderate muslim. This resulted in a couple of anecdotal remarks further very little.

And another misrepresentation.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I was then called bigot. Nice.

And another lie.

This entire thread was a 'look over there' to unlink the topic from the contentions made in the previous thread.

Apparently it has now served its purpose and will equally be abandoned.

Perhaps so. I wasn't following the other thread, I just noticed this thread pop up with a nonsensical OP in my unread posts list. So while it may have served to move the idiocy out of view of those in the other thread, it also exposed it to a new audience

I think the main problem for Scot is that "Muslims" don't exist as some sort of monolithic entity. They are a collection of a multitude of sects and belief systems that are no way united.

Their authority structure alone guarantees that no such homogeneity exists: imams obviously interpret the Koran and Hadiths in accordance with their local upbringing and experience, yet they have sufficient authority to dictate what the words mean. When you consider that a significant percentage of Muslims are unable to read the Koran in the original Arabic, this amounts to substantive differences between different expressions of Islam, which is precisely what we see today in the world.

The Wahhabi version of Saudi is not aligned with the Sunni expression in India, in which there are numerous other prevalent interpretations of Islam such as Sufism, Ahmadiyya, and extremely local and practically unknown ones. In Indonesia, Islam is differently interpreted than in Africa, where the various schools of Islamic belief vie for control.

Any claim that they are a homogenous, monolithic entity is a crude caricature of the facts. There's assuredly no question that numerous Islamic groups are perpetrating violence in the name of their religion, but no rational account will ever extrapolate the actions of a few onto the group. That collectivizing of guilt represents only prejudice, and is particular transparent when the group itself is being manufactured and propped up by the same claimant who charges them all with the crimes of the few.

Whatever a moderate is, I think that collectively they need to be the voice that publicly denounces the acts of the extremists like ISIS. They sure don't appear to want to listen to the infidels, and they certainly won't be droned in pacifism.

Thanks for the links.

From the first:

Why don’t we hear Muslims condemning the barbarian ISIS terrorists?

Turns out they are loudly condemning ISIS … but our press isn’t covering it.

Can't argue the press angle.

Also, the FB page linked to Frontline's Rise of ISIS which I watched this week.

Yeah, my take on it is that Muslims, like all of people, are disparate and individual. Some people will feel strongly enough about IS that they do want to stand up and be heard, others will be 'meh'.

I don't think it's rational to condemn all Muslims who don't stand up and express their thorough disapproval of IS or any other violence conducted in the name of Islam. Instead, I think it's only justified to criticize Muslims who use their public time to dismiss or obfuscate criticism of IS and criticism of Islam, to repeat the bollocks claim that criticism of Islam and Muslim extremists behavior is racist, or to do everything in their power to point the other way and use the actions of groups like IS to blame the West, or attack some other entity for some other transgression.

The group we can be thoroughly justified in calling out and demanding they make a stand are the religious leaders of the various branches of Islam. It is there voice which will have the weight within the Muslim world to crystallize a peaceful expression of Islam as being the desirable one.

Unless we (as white westerners) are expected to apologize for anything another 'white dude' does wrong or be equally condemned if we fail or refuse to do so. I actively refuse to do so, as I have no responsibility for any if it. So why hold all muslims accountable for wrongdoings others have done? Makes...no...sense.

Spearthrower wrote:Yeah, my take on it is that Muslims, like all of people, are disparate and individual. Some people will feel strongly enough about IS that they do want to stand up and be heard, others will be 'meh'.

I don't think it's rational to condemn all Muslims who don't stand up and express their thorough disapproval of IS or any other violence conducted in the name of Islam. Instead, I think it's only justified to criticize Muslims who use their public time to dismiss or obfuscate criticism of IS and criticism of Islam, to repeat the bollocks claim that criticism of Islam and Muslim extremists behavior is racist, or to do everything in their power to point the other way and use the actions of groups like IS to blame the West, or attack some other entity for some other transgression.

The group we can be thoroughly justified in calling out and demanding they make a stand are the religious leaders of the various branches of Islam. It is there voice which will have the weight within the Muslim world to crystallize a peaceful expression of Islam as being the desirable one.

Agreed. But if the press ignores them or actively suppresses the message, it will be a much longer road to hoe.

babel wrote:Unless we (as white westerners) are expected to apologize for anything another 'white dude' does wrong or be equally condemned if we fail or refuse to do so. I actively refuse to do so, as I have no responsibility for any if it. So why hold all muslims accountable for wrongdoings others have done? Makes...no...sense.

It's an <insert appropriate group label here> problem. If I subscribe to being a liberal and a liberal group commits a crime, am I (and every other self-described liberal) required to arrange a public platform from which to express my condemnation of that act?

It's an unfair and irrational burden to expect all Muslims everywhere to be obliged to publicly express condemnation of what people on the other side of the world whom they've never met did under the label of their group.

NuclMan wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Yeah, my take on it is that Muslims, like all of people, are disparate and individual. Some people will feel strongly enough about IS that they do want to stand up and be heard, others will be 'meh'.

I don't think it's rational to condemn all Muslims who don't stand up and express their thorough disapproval of IS or any other violence conducted in the name of Islam. Instead, I think it's only justified to criticize Muslims who use their public time to dismiss or obfuscate criticism of IS and criticism of Islam, to repeat the bollocks claim that criticism of Islam and Muslim extremists behavior is racist, or to do everything in their power to point the other way and use the actions of groups like IS to blame the West, or attack some other entity for some other transgression.

The group we can be thoroughly justified in calling out and demanding they make a stand are the religious leaders of the various branches of Islam. It is there voice which will have the weight within the Muslim world to crystallize a peaceful expression of Islam as being the desirable one.

Agreed. But if the press ignores them or actively suppresses the message, it will be a much longer road to hoe.

Indeed, and it also represents a burden on the individual to ensure that they are well informed before permitting their ignorance to be the grounds from which they make accusations: at the very least to change their minds when presented with evidence which shows they were operating under a lack or distortion of information before!

I think we need to be especially careful of this within the context of the internet when we know very well that sites are ever more tailoring presented content to match what their algorithms show we've read about before.

I refuse to use words such "moderate" and "extremist / fanatic / radical" because if we use one of these words we admit that moderates aren't true muslims. Therefore when western medias speak about moderate muslims and radical muslims we can conclude that moderates don't practice all Islamic rules because of the word moderate.
Personally I think that Islam itself (what we call Islamism is nothing more that true face of Islam over centuries. Do you know that this word is from French Islamisme that means Islam to the origin).
I can't define really what is a true Muslim but I can define what's a cocktail Muslims (I know a woman that I consider as a cocktail Muslim). This woman don't cover her face with anything. She said me in French (I precise it to indicate that she speak the official language of the country in which she live that it's France because many Muslims that I know that are born in France have serious problems with French language. This woman isn't born in France and she speak it better than many Muslims born in France that I knew) that she refuse to cover Hijab and that she haven't any problem to marry herself with a non-Muslim because we're in the XXIth century. I suppose that everybody know there that Islam is against religious exogamia for women but this is authorized for men.
Also I have anecdotes to tell about Muslims that I knew who show that these aren't cocktail Muslims (I'm not saying that they are among the so-called extremist even if they are nearly to this state when we know how they interact with non-Muslims westerners).

Anecdote 1:
A day I was in the cafeteria of a "Lycée professionnel" or "Vocation School" in English.
A young Muslim man (btw 16 and 20 years old) did asked if the meal is Halal. The canteen woman answered that all meals are Halal except the pork. Also she did precised that he doesn't must say it to others people because France is a secular state. (French law forbide public institutions to serve foods tied to religious practice but French authorities close theirs eyes. I precise that it happen in a vocation school in which Muslims are approximately 80% of student).

Commentary : This anecdote show that this man refuse French secular laws.

Anecdote 2 :
It was the (Lesser eid). The majority of people were'nt in the school (the same school that in the first anecdote) because nearby all students are Muslims. Therefore the place was empty.
I did had the opportunity to speak with a man who work here. Do you know what he did said ? he did said something like : Après ça nous prétendons vivre dans un pays laïque. (After that [the fact that the majority of Muslims student aren't in school and that Institutions accept it even if offically they are not OK with it] we pretend to live in a secular state). Also I can note that I can read a flyers where it was wrote that Muslims are allowed to skip school for feast of breaking the fast. Do you know who was the author of this flyers ? answer : the vocation school itself. Therefore the school didn't observed the French law again.

Commentary : This anecdote show they they think have the right to skip school under pretext that this is a religious holiday. Can I know if people from another religion skip school these day ? answer : few people from other religious groups.

Anecdote 3 :
I was somewhere (this is not the same town than anecdote 1 and 2 and I wasn't in my city) to take part to a professional training.
The majority of people to this place were "muslims immigrees and descendant of muslim immigrees" and at a moment some "black [I precise the color of skin for that people imagine the scene] descendant of muslim immigrees" did screamed الله أَكْبَر (Allah akbar). Nobody did reacted everybody continued to listen the charged of convention.
Result : I didn't registered myself for this formation because I don't want progress in an Islamic middle.
When people who take care of those who are looking for a job asked me why I didn't registered myself. I did lied to avoid problems with French institutions. (Who want to know what was this lie ?).

Commentary : Can I know if this is normal to say a war scream (I reknown that this is more than a war scream because a Muslim can say that for any reasons).

Anecdot 4 :
At this same convention an "immigree muslim maghrebin (try to imagine the scene with this detail) woman" was wearing a hijab. (The French law forbide it in this kind of place). I can remember that I did laughed in my mind because I saw a print on a wall of this room about secularity that say that is outlawed to wear anything to cover your face in this kind of place.

Comment : Is this normal to disrespect a law for religious reason ?

I read the Qur'an in my language , English and a little in Arabic and I can conclude that this book is certainly the most violent religious book. I read some sunni ahadith from Sahih Muslim and Sahih Bukhari and I can conclude that this religion is violence even if all Muslims aren't violent. Islam is difficult to define in one phrase because it does exist many denominations. Approximately 80% of Muslims are sunni. In sunnism there are subgroups such Malikism and Hanbalism.
Muslims that aren't Sunnis are generally shi'a. Likewise for sunnism it does exist subgroups such Ismaelism and Duodecimal Chiism. Also it does exist Qur'anism that isn't a sunni nor a shi'a branches etc...

Conclusion : I think that speak about moderates and fanaticals is really ridiculous because we must define what's a true Muslim but we cannot define what that is.