Continuing from another thread:
It's not a "tall order" at all. You made an unsubstantiated claim and all I'm asking for is substantiation. I'm not going to play this silly numbers game, but perhaps some clarification is necessary to make my point.
I'm just trying to stave off any pedantic objections later on. My claim was that, "I heard and read plenty of comments from mainstream Muslims denouncing Islamic radicals and terrorists actions." I didn't claim that I read or heard any of that from high level Muslims, or from those who were speaking or writing for the mainstream media. The conditions of high level Muslims and those who actually speak for, or write for, the mainstream media were conditions you introduced. You're not asking for substantial of my claim, you're asking for substantiation for something which I did not claim. Therefore, I will substantiate what I claimed. Do with it what you will.
Here is
a list of fatwahs condemning terrorism perpetrated by Muslims, issued by high clerics such as
Shaykh 'Abdul-'Azeez Aal ash-Shaykh, the Grand Mufti of the Saudi Arabia Kingdom. In one of them (several of them, actually) he condemns Al-Qaeda as enemies of Islam, and instructs Muslims to fight along side of Christians and others in Afghanistan against Al-Qaeda.
In another fatwah regarding the suicide bombings in Riyadh and Yanbu, Dr. Osama Khayyat, an Imam at al-Masjid al-Haraam in Mecca, slammed those who carried out the attacks as being stooges of Muslim extremists, and thus stooges of the enemies of Islam. Not only that, but such acts of terror only bolster the resolve of those who want to kill Muslims. He and other Muslims recognize that such acts of terror isn't exactly the best way to win friends and influence people. Khayyat calls this a "grave danger" to Islam and to Muslims, and instructs Muslims to reject and denounce the violence.
Here is list of Muslims Americans who condemn Muslim terrorism:
IslamiCity.com - Muslim Americans Condemn Attack
Here is another one:
Islamic Statements Against Terrorism ? Charles Kurzman
From the AP:
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Condemns Boston Marathon Bombings
From a thread here on EO:
http://www.expeditersonline.com/forum/soapbox/61332-extreme-cowardice-3.html#post660330
That's a thread and a topic, incidentally, in which you participated, and incorrectly dismissed the examples as being simply from Muslim public relations firms, and saying that Muslims aren't trying hard enough to convince people that they condemn terrorist attacks. That's why I wanted to see if there was a certain number of examples which would satisfy you, and why I balked at your restrictions and limited scope of your request of substantiation, because I feel very confident that you will either ignore the above examples, or dismiss them outright for one reason or another, as they don't fit with your narrative.
You assert that Islamic radicals and terrorists are given a pass by the Muslim community at large, and have even implied that the radicals are supported by the Muslims at large. You assert that, with the exception of Egypt, these radical Islamists are not only tolerated, but accepted by all Islamic governments, religious leaders and mainstream Muslims. Your assertions are patently false, they were false the last time you asserted them, and they will be false the next time you assert them. You won't admit it, because you believe, in the face of the contrary, that you are right. I have a feeling that what you truly believe about Muslims and what their fate should be, you won't even state publicly for the record.
A quote from the following article does a pretty good job of doing just that:
The questions and comments from the article you quoted, some of which are similar to questions you, yourself have have asked here, are questions and comments from someone who believes Muslims should think and behave like Christians, and doesn't understand why they won't. Christians don't understand that it is against Islam for Muslims to condemn other Muslims, unless it is a high cleric or imam doing the condemning (calling another Muslim a kaafir), so most Muslims will remain silent in such matters. But many aren't silent, because just like so many Christians ain't really all that Christian, most Muslims ain't all that Muslim, either.
But it's more than that. The current terrorist episode is fundamentally a civil war, a war of Muslim against Muslim, over the soul and meaning of Islam, which for a variety of reasons has spilled out of the Muslim world and into the rest of it. Wars of this sort lead inevitably to euphemism, reticence, and rationalization intended to paper over the reality of the conflict, that being brother against brother and finding it hard to admit that they really
are making war against each other. Frankly, Americans, of all people, ought to stop pretending the incomprehension of it.
One other issue to watch in the coming days since we've been discussing the topic of Sharia barbarism and women's abuse. Let's see how moderate Muslims in Sudan and around the world react and if they come to the rescue of this pregnant Christian woman who is about to be tortured and hanged for being a Christian.
As the verdict was read in the courtroom, a handful of Muslims cheered the decision, but about 50 Sudanese Muslims protested the decision outside the court. As I have noted in the past, religion is about control as anything else, and people have historically used religion in order to carry out all sorts of barbaric acts. Sudanese president Omar Hassan al-Bashir's career has been defined by war and ruthless killing. He came to power in a coup in 1989 and has ruled what was until this year Africa's largest country with an iron fist ever since. Under sharia law, and according to the Qur'an, it is illegal and against God's will to abandon your faith for another. The penalty is death. (The Bible has similar sentiments, and similar punishments.) This is just one more in a long history of examples where someone in power uses persecution and death to keep control of the people, and uses religion as the tool with which to do it. 
