FIVE AMERICANS WHO ARE STANDING AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM

[whichphilosophy]

Yes, and often it is actually very good and constructive to listen to such people. You're more likely to learn something when you listen to people who strongly disagree with than when you live in an echo chamber, even if that something is merely why these people think as they do. If those I disagree with are willing to have civil discussion with me (which isn't always the case, and rare with some groups), I often engage with them in that conversation and I find it interesting more often than not.

Except you don't actually listen. You have an agenda just like everyone else, and that agenda doesn't budge in the face of contradictory evidence. You like to parade around like some kind of level-headed interlocutor seeking constructive dialogue, but over the course of literal years you haven't changed your views at all even when you've been shown to be flatly wrong.

I think you are widening something that does not need widening. This distorts things, but I am not saying your intention is to distort.
The film is about somewhat unaddressed issues in Islamic countries in support of Muslims who are campaigning for human rights in Muslim countries.
Is there anything non factual in the trailer.

It's too bad that a certain amount of Muslim rights groups in the USA are not only themselves not campaigning or at least supporting such campaigns but running around bleating Islamophobia. In certain cases they may have a point.

The point is these issues in the film are real.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yeah, you guys love to hide behind the "but it doesn't matter cuz (we think) they're right" act when you can't defend your crappy sources. But it's utterly naive to think you can divorce a blatant agenda from the message in a film on such a volatile topic. And the trailer certainly doesn't suggest that that's the case here, or that I need to take time out of my day to watch it.

Would you guys be demanding that everyone ignore the problems with the source if the thread were focused on a film about crime in black communities, or maybe illegal immigration, and it was produced by a group of known white supremacists and racists?

No?

If the film was made predominantly by black people then could you call the black people racist? In a similar manner, could any Germans during WWII who whistle blew about the gas chambers be deemed as anti-German.

If it contains truth, it is truth no matter who said it. We may want to take what they say with a grain of salt, so we can figure out what is true and what is not, and verify and look for other sources, and that can actually be a thoughtful and illuminating exercise in and of itself. Often without the other extreme opposite to your own view making claims you disagree with, you'd never be aware of such claims and may miss some interesting ideas and information and how to debunk lies, etc.

 

[Warpoet]

I think you are widening something that does not need widening. This distorts things, but I am not saying your intention is to distort.
The film is about somewhat unaddressed issues in Islamic countries in support of Muslims who are campaigning for human rights in Muslim countries.
Is there anything non factual in the trailer.

It's too bad that a certain amount of Muslim rights groups in the USA are not only themselves not campaigning or at least supporting such campaigns but running around bleating Islamophobia. In certain cases they may have a point.

The point is these issues in the film are real.

I'm tired of going around in circles with you over this. I've explained the credibility problems with the film's creators and its apparent desire to place the blame on Islam above all else. You clearly don't want to listen to any of this. You keep falling back on the refrain that it has Muslims involved as though this made these problems vanish, but it doesn't. And you've refused to answer my demands - twice - that you substantiate your claims about Muslim organizations in the US being fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.

I'm sorry, but I'm scratching you off my list of people I can have reasonable discussions with. You are clearly far more interested in advancing your own views than in listening to what anyone else is saying.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I think you are widening something that does not need widening. This distorts things, but I am not saying your intention is to distort.
The film is about somewhat unaddressed issues in Islamic countries in support of Muslims who are campaigning for human rights in Muslim countries.
Is there anything non factual in the trailer.

It's too bad that a certain amount of Muslim rights groups in the USA are not only themselves not campaigning or at least supporting such campaigns but running around bleating Islamophobia. In certain cases they may have a point.

The point is these issues in the film are real.

I'm tired of going around in circles with you over this. I've explained the credibility problems with the film's creators and its apparent desire to place the blame on Islam above all else. You clearly don't want to listen to any of this. You keep falling back on the refrain that it has Muslims involved as though this made these problems vanish, but it doesn't. And you've refused to answer my demands - twice - that you substantiate your claims about Muslim organizations in the US being fronts for the Muslim Brotherhood.

I'm sorry, but I'm scratching you off my list of people I can have reasonable discussions with. You are clearly far more interested in advancing your own views than in listening to what anyone else is saying.

I'm aware that you have issues with the Clarion Project. This is not an issue.
I have a list of documents which I am going through regarding the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR. I will post these in a couple of days. I just want to make sure as best as possible these are not fakes or half baked. So rightly you can query this. You can critisize me for this as I replied a couple of days late.

My views are only relating to the film itself and and the validity of the contents. So the question was as to what your views on the content are but you said were Islamophobic. I would say this is not the case.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

.
I have a list of documents which I am going through regarding the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR. I will post these in a couple of days.

Please do post this. I would be interested in reading and discussing them with you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-a-e-is-calling-2-american-groups-terrorists/

Nothing in the link says either group is a front group from the Muslim Brotherhood.

It's the UAE saying it is.

You're setting an impossible burden of proof here--this is the sort of thing spies know, not something you can readily prove.

 

[laughing dog]

Nothing in the link says either group is a front group from the Muslim Brotherhood.

It's the UAE saying it is.

The link is reporting that the UAE lists the two groups as terrorist groups. If the UAE claimed Israel was a terrorist state, would that make it true?

You're setting an impossible burden of proof here--this is the sort of thing spies know, not something you can readily prove.

I didn't ask for proof. But rumors and innuendo are not convincing evidence of anything,.

 

[Warpoet]

It's the UAE saying it is.

And the UAE is not exactly neutral or unbiased. It loathes the MB in all its forms and is extremely zealous in its crackdowns on them; your own link notes that they've come under fire from human rights groups for this reason. So, that they've labeled tons of Muslim groups around the world as MB fronts without evidence proves nothing.

You're setting an impossible burden of proof here--this is the sort of thing spies know, not something you can readily prove.

That's an irresponsible cop-out. An accusation of this weight cannot be made absent evidence. This is exactly the kind of logic that McCarthyists used to try and absolve themselves of guilt as they ruined the reputations of others based on rumors and hearsay. What you're doing is no less despicable just because it's Muslims on the receiving end. I guess if I hear a rumor that someone abuses his wife and kids, I can publicly accuse them, since it can't be disproven, and I don't need evidence, since it's nigh impossible to prove too. Heads I win, tails you lose.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And the UAE is not exactly neutral or unbiased. It loathes the MB in all its forms and is extremely zealous in its crackdowns on them; your own link notes that they've come under fire from human rights groups for this reason. So, that they've labeled tons of Muslim groups around the world as MB fronts without evidence proves nothing.

Loathing the MB would not make them claim MB association for a group unless they thought there was a link.

You're setting an impossible burden of proof here--this is the sort of thing spies know, not something you can readily prove.

That's an irresponsible cop-out. An accusation of this weight cannot be made absent evidence. This is exactly the kind of logic that McCarthyists used to try and absolve themselves of guilt as they ruined the reputations of others based on rumors and hearsay. What you're doing is no less despicable just because it's Muslims on the receiving end. I guess if I hear a rumor that someone abuses his wife and kids, I can publicly accuse them, since it can't be disproven, and I don't need evidence, since it's nigh impossible to prove too. Heads I win, tails you lose.

That doesn't change the fact that you're asking for something that can't reasonably be proven.

 

[whichphilosophy]

.
I have a list of documents which I am going through regarding the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR. I will post these in a couple of days.

Please do post this. I would be interested in reading and discussing them with you.

I am going through a list of documents which are about 200 pages. I am trying to avoid any bias by ultra-right wing groups and look at a report regarding the FBI. Hamas does come up also, but in reality whether we agree or not, Hamas can also claim to be at war with an occupation force and also my understanding that it has not been implicated with any terrorist attacks in the USA.

 

[whichphilosophy]

And the UAE is not exactly neutral or unbiased. It loathes the MB in all its forms and is extremely zealous in its crackdowns on them; your own link notes that they've come under fire from human rights groups for this reason. So, that they've labeled tons of Muslim groups around the world as MB fronts without evidence proves nothing.

You're setting an impossible burden of proof here--this is the sort of thing spies know, not something you can readily prove.

That's an irresponsible cop-out. An accusation of this weight cannot be made absent evidence. This is exactly the kind of logic that McCarthyists used to try and absolve themselves of guilt as they ruined the reputations of others based on rumors and hearsay. What you're doing is no less despicable just because it's Muslims on the receiving end. I guess if I hear a rumor that someone abuses his wife and kids, I can publicly accuse them, since it can't be disproven, and I don't need evidence, since it's nigh impossible to prove too. Heads I win, tails you lose.

I would agree that the UAE banning it, is in itself insufficient to show any links with anyone. To clarify my earlier post, I don't have any issues with your points about the Clarion Project. See my reply above. Further, I don't have a problem with Sharia civil courts in the UK and USA providing, like any other religions or groups they don't violate any laws of the host Western country. In the UK the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) contains legal advisers, some of whom are trained solicitors. They are governed under the Arbitration Act. Some other Sharia courts may have violated this in granting divorces without going through the legal system. A religious marriage is acceptable but this also should go through the registry process.

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organisation but I see no evidence of attacks against the USA and other countries. I can be corrected. While agreeing with an Israeli State and a Palestinian state, we can argue that both sides are committing acts of violence.

The point about rumours is a valid one; disproving a negative. The burden of proof is therefore on the accuser. Our courts of course don't accept such types of assertions without evidence on the part of the person making the claim.

 

[laughing dog]

Loathing the MB would not make them claim MB association for a group unless they thought there was a link.

Nonsense. People make claims all the time without any evidence.

If you had bothered to read your own link, it suggests hat the UAE is making that accusation because of the organizations' support democracy - something the UAE is against in its own country.

 

[Warpoet]

Loathing the MB would not make them claim MB association for a group unless they thought there was a link.

Silly, hand-waving non-logic. The UAE is not a trustworthy source for such a designation. Until their claims are substantiated, they don't mean anything.

That doesn't change the fact that you're asking for something that can't reasonably be proven.

I used the word evidence, not proof; there is a large gray area between simply asserting that said groups are MB fronts, and their leaders publicly admitting such. That's where evidence comes in - and neither you nor WP have presented any of substance. The burden remains entirely on you, and not a shred of it is on me or anyone else.

 

[Warpoet]

I would agree that the UAE banning it, is in itself insufficient to show any links with anyone. To clarify my earlier post, I don't have any issues with your points about the Clarion Project. See my reply above. Further, I don't have a problem with Sharia civil courts in the UK and USA providing, like any other religions or groups they don't violate any laws of the host Western country. In the UK the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) contains legal advisers, some of whom are trained solicitors. They are governed under the Arbitration Act. Some other Sharia courts may have violated this in granting divorces without going through the legal system. A religious marriage is acceptable but this also should go through the registry process.

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organisation but I see no evidence of attacks against the USA and other countries. I can be corrected. While agreeing with an Israeli State and a Palestinian state, we can argue that both sides are committing acts of violence.

The point about rumours is a valid one; disproving a negative. The burden of proof is therefore on the accuser. Our courts of course don't accept such types of assertions without evidence on the part of the person making the claim.

I hope you appreciate the gravity of the accusations you are making. That's true in both cases, but Muslim Students Association, in particular, is a very large and mostly decentralized organization with chapters all over the planet. Calling them a Muslim Brotherhood front group is at best irresponsible - certainly, it's not at all plausible that every chapter of it across the globe could be. But even if you're talking about some level of its leadership, that's a very bold claim that requires thorough, substantiating evidence. You are essentially labeling them a fifth column, and accusing them of covertly working to undermine democracy - you're basically saying that it and its members are untrustworthy at best and enemies at worst.

Many people on this forum think that standards of evidence are automatically lowered when the targets of these kinds of accusations are Muslims, and putting that sort of stupidity in its place is a good chunk of what I spend my time here on. If you wish to maintain some credibility, at least in my eyes, you need to a far better job than most others here do, or retract your accusations. So far, you've yet to do either.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I would agree that the UAE banning it, is in itself insufficient to show any links with anyone. To clarify my earlier post, I don't have any issues with your points about the Clarion Project. See my reply above. Further, I don't have a problem with Sharia civil courts in the UK and USA providing, like any other religions or groups they don't violate any laws of the host Western country. In the UK the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) contains legal advisers, some of whom are trained solicitors. They are governed under the Arbitration Act. Some other Sharia courts may have violated this in granting divorces without going through the legal system. A religious marriage is acceptable but this also should go through the registry process.

Hamas is listed as a terrorist organisation but I see no evidence of attacks against the USA and other countries. I can be corrected. While agreeing with an Israeli State and a Palestinian state, we can argue that both sides are committing acts of violence.

The point about rumours is a valid one; disproving a negative. The burden of proof is therefore on the accuser. Our courts of course don't accept such types of assertions without evidence on the part of the person making the claim.

I hope you appreciate the gravity of the accusations you are making. That's true in both cases, but Muslim Students Association, in particular, is a very large and mostly decentralized organization with chapters all over the planet. Calling them a Muslim Brotherhood front group is at best irresponsible - certainly, it's not at all plausible that every chapter of it across the globe could be. But even if you're talking about some level of its leadership, that's a very bold claim that requires thorough, substantiating evidence. You are essentially labeling them a fifth column, and accusing them of covertly working to undermine democracy - you're basically saying that it and its members are untrustworthy at best and enemies at worst.

Many people on this forum think that standards of evidence are automatically lowered when the targets of these kinds of accusations are Muslims, and putting that sort of stupidity in its place is a good chunk of what I spend my time here on. If you wish to maintain some credibility, at least in my eyes, you need to a far better job than most others here do, or retract your accusations. So far, you've yet to do either.

This is true. I also have reports from the FBI but then the FBI can also be unreliable. I sometime investigate fraud, so this takes time. Then I have to check more on CAIR response. If anyone has connections with Hamas, I don't see that as a problem. It hasn't conducted any bombings outside of the Middle East. I also don't want to offend my Palestinian boss.

It started with censorship by CAIR and the MSA. This is very un-American.

The issue that attracted this, was CAIR continues to try to censor the showing of this film where on one interview said there was no fault with the content (Fox News). I will get this to you all in a couple of days. There again the more evidence the more debate. Why not. This does not diminish the rights of all American Muslims to enjoy full rights in the USA as anyone else.

- - - Updated - - -

Loathing the MB would not make them claim MB association for a group unless they thought there was a link.

Nonsense. People make claims all the time without any evidence.

If you had bothered to read your own link, it suggests hat the UAE is making that accusation because of the organizations' support democracy - something the UAE is against in its own country.

Holding hands in the UAE is banned also. I believe this is because the UAE is at odds with the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Hey Nightsky,

You wrote me a long thoughtful post, and I responded in kind, and then you vanished. You did this once before in another thread. Should I take the time to respond to you next time or was your long and thoughtful post to me (including questions and invitations) to be considered rhetorical?

 

[Warpoet]

Maybe he realized you're just going to run and hide behind the ignore function when you can't take the heat, like you're doing with me, and decided not to bother.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Maybe he realized you're just going to run and hide behind the ignore function when you can't take the heat, like you're doing with me, and decided not to bother.

I'm still busy. However I will also highlight Muslim groups who object to CAIR. I iwill also mention the background of the 3 people who formed CAIR.
This is to show there are diverse views when it comes to reformation. I should sign the rent agreement for a new flat tomorrow.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Maybe he realized you're just going to run and hide behind the ignore function when you can't take the heat, like you're doing with me, and decided not to bother.

I have still not had time to complete but I can see that CAIR is a civil rights group representing the Muslim community of the USA. It's works include correcting history books and issues of discrimination in the USA. It does operate worldwide but my point so far seems to show that it is not involved in civil rights for Muslims abroad. It has recently condemned the things the Honor Diary highlights but has no active campaigns against these. (FGM, Honour Killings etc).

 

[Warpoet]

I am only interested in the assertion that they are a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. Ditto MSA. Whether or not you like their priorities and rhetoric is a separate issue.