These findings (http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/muslim-americans-nojustification-violence.

aspx ) are among the many featured in a new report released

Tuesday by the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center, Muslim Americans: Faith, Freedom, and
the Future, based on Gallup surveys conducted throughout 2010. Building on
Gallup's early 2009 report on America's Muslim community, Muslim Americans: A
National Portrait, this analysis tracks changes since 2008, delves into current
social and political research topics, and provides a series of data-driven policy
recommendations.
In sharp contrast with Americans who identify themselves with other faith groups,
Muslim Americans are more likely to say military attacks on civilians are never
justified (78%) than sometimes justified (21%). Respondents from other faith
groups, particularly Mormon Americans, are more likely to say military attacks are
sometimes justified than never justified. The opinions of Americans who don't
identify themselves with any religion are more in line with those of Muslim
Americans, but they are also more divided.

Gallup analysts (http://www.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx ) tested

correlations between the level at which populations say these attacks are
"sometimes justified" and a number of independent indicators, and they found
human development and societal stability measures are most strongly related.
Residents of the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states are
slightly less likely than residents of non-member states to view military attacks on
civilians as sometimes justified, and about as likely as those of non-member states
to say the same about individual attacks.

Taliban attacked you, was it islamically correct or wrong, or you were deserved to
be killed or not, I will not go in this argument now, lets we leave it to Allah All
mighty, He is the best judge.

Here I want to advise you as I am already late, I wish I would have advised u in my
prison time and this accident would never happened.

First of all please mind that Taliban never attacked you because of going to school
or you were education lover, also please mind that Taliban or Mujahideen are not
against the education of any men or women or girl. Taliban believe that you were
intentionally writing against them and running a smearing campaign to malign their
efforts to establish Islamic system in swat and your writings were provocative.
Adnan Rasheed (https://arnulfo.wordpress.com/2015/12/16/malala-yousafzai/ )
The modern Islamic fundamentalist movements have their origins in the late 19th
century. The Wahhabi movement, an Arabian fundamentalist movement that
began in the 18th century, gained traction and spread during the 19th and 20th
centuries. During the Cold War following World War II,
some NATO governments, particularly those of the United States and the United
Kingdom, launched covert and overt campaigns to encourage and strengthen
fundamentalist groups in the Middle East and southern Asia. These groups were
seen as a hedge against potential expansion by the Soviet Union, and as a means to
prevent the growth of nationalistic movements that were not necessarily favorable
toward the interests of the Western nations. By the 1970s the Islamists had
become important allies in supporting governments, such as Egypt, which were
friendly to U.S. interests. By the late 1970s, however, some fundamentalist groups
had become militaristic leading to threats and changes to existing regimes.
The overthrow of the Shah in Iran and rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini was one of
the most significant signs of this shift. Subsequently fundamentalist forces
in Algeria caused a civil war, caused a near-civil war in Egypt, and caused the
downfall of the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. In many cases the military
wings of these groups were supplied with money and arms by the U.S. and U.K.
[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPvnFDDQHk]
Published on Dec 10, 2015

By the Numbers is an honest and open discussion about Muslim opinions and
demographics. Narrated by Raheel Raza, president of Muslims Facing Tomorrow,
this short film is about the acceptance that radical Islam is a bigger problem than
most politically correct governments and individuals are ready to admit. Is ISIS,

the Islamic State, trying to penetrate the U.S. with the refugee influx? Are Muslims
radicalized on U.S. soil? Are organizations such as CAIR, who purport to represent
American Muslims accepting and liberal or radicalized with links to terror
organizations?
It's time to have your say, go to http://go.clarionproject.org/numbers-...

OUT OF PROPORTION
01.14.155:45 AM ET

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. How many times have you heard that one? Sure,
we heard Fox Newss Brian Kilmeade say it.

Want to guess what percent of the terrorist attacks there were committed by Muslims over the past five years?
Wrong. That is, unless you said less than 2 percent.

Per the 2013 State Departments report on terrorism, there were 399 acts of terror committed by Israeli settlers
in what are known as price tag attacks. These Jewish terrorists attacked Palestinian civilians causing physical
injuries to 93 of them and also vandalized scores of mosques and Christian churches.

Back in the United States, the percentage of terror attacks committed by Muslims is
almost as miniscule as in Europe. An FBI study looking at terrorism committed on
U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were
committed by non-Muslims. In actuality, 42 percent of terror attacks were carried
out by Latino-related groups, followed by 24 percent perpetrated by extreme leftwing actors.
And as a 2014 study by University of North Carolina found, since the 9/11 attacks,
Muslim-linked terrorism has claimed the lives of 37 Americans. In that same time
period, more than 190,000 Americans were murdered (PDF).

More than other modern societies, United States relies, even depends, on myth to
cement its confidence. Americans are profoundly ahistorical
(https://arnulfo.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/the-morality-of-evolution/ ).
Our national myths are representations of identity and the actual instrument of
acculturation. This process of acculturation through myth, moreover, is achieved
through entertainment: television and movies. The culture of a societyits ethos
defines distinctive patterns of individual and group behavior. Culture shapes the
way we look at the world. Whatever our immediate group membership, our final
sense of identity is shaped by larger cultural patterns. If we define ourselves
according to myth, what kind of worldview has it given us?
First, at the core, the United States has an essentially religious value system. The
primal myth of our origin is that of the "Pilgrims Progress," with the Plymouth
Colony completely overshadowing Virginia and its lineal transplanting of British
class and caste. We believe that the source and inspiration of America is bound up
in religion: religious freedom, but also the moral vantage of Calvin. The impact of
Protestant thought is felt in the ways we talk about mission, service, sacrifice,
restraint. It underlies the sense that Americans share of serving a higher calling.
This underpinning remains dominant today even though it is highly secularized,
and transmuted into legal, constitutional language.
Second, Americans still hew a set of specific myths about the United States. One of
these is that America is the source of human progress and can achieve perfection as
a society. Americans believe that there has never been a society quite like our own.
This American "exceptionalism" suggests that we are a people graced with unusual
natural endowments. We think of ourselves literally as a "people of plenty." But our
mythology also reminds us that this land was a great "untamed wilderness," a "land
of savagery." It was the exceptional will, unity and vision of the American people
and their beliefs that transformed the landscape. The twin icons of national bounty
and national achievement have inspired two senses of an American national
purpose: a conviction that the United States should serve as an example to the
world, that America and its people are the model for all human development; and
an impulse to change the world for good, to become the active agency of human
progress. Tyranny and resistance to change are so entrenched in the world that
only direct American intercession can shift the direction of history. Americas gifts
demand that it assume a missionary role.
In the United States at the turn of the 20th century, Darwinism was greeted with
glee because it seemed so compatible with the prevailing ideology of theday, where
robber-baron capitalists like the Carnegies, Mellons, Sumners, Stanfords and yes,
even Jack London, could not stop rattling on about how the "survival of the fittest"

justified crushing unions, exploiting immigrant labor or being left unregulated to

amass huge fortunes while administering monopolies. In the popular ethos of the
United States, there is a confusion of Capitalism with the American worship of the
individual and the nuclear family. It can be argued that these ideas are related but
they are different and independent. According to the American work ethic you only
get what you work for, but this is not what Capitalism is. Capitalism is the idea that
market forces, carried out by intelligent agents looking for profit (self interest), let
by themselves will generate wealth and prosperity for society as a whole. The
dichotomy Capitalism/Socialism is actually dated. If one understands socialism as
government control of the economy, all, 100%, of the world's governments are
socialist to some degree. In any case, we now live in a competitive society and are
often told that to get ahead we require drive, commitment and determination, that
we must expend a great amount of energy and, if necessary, use force to get what
we want. A survival of the fittest mentality is deeply entrenched in our culture.
Despite the fact that this Wild West mentality is a historical byproduct, it is now
attributed to Darwins Origin of the Species.
Religious fundamentalists are sincere on their view of the World as a battleground
between Good and Evil. For them anything that undermines faith in God, specially
with regards to children, is utterly evil. The teaching of Science to children, in
particular Evolution, is seen as a threat to children indoctrination. Nonetheless,
the attack on Evolution is an attack on Science as a whole. Science is not about
what to believe but rather a method to perceive Reality. It is the critical objective
look at reality aspect of Science that is perceived as a treat by the religious
establishment. However, teaching religious ideas as an alternative to factual
descriptions of reality undermines science education by misinforming students
about the scientific method the basis for science literacy.
The scientific method teaches students the fundamentals of science how to
observe data, perform experiments and form scientific theory. Religious
explanations for creation are not science they cannot be confirmed or denied by
the scientific method. Teaching them as science confuses and misleads students
about the scientific method, thereby warping their ability to live in a technologydriven society
Most people don't read scientific papers because they are extremely complex. Even
college science students have a hard time digesting scientific papers. But what is
easy to understand is that, since the bible says this, science says that, therefore
science is the devil, and since we hate the devil and our job is to fight him, we must
hate science and fight it. Christian leaders can be blind sighted to the outside world
at times. All this commotion about a science that goes against the bible. The Bible

today, still says that the Earth does not move around the sun as much as it did
thousands of years ago. The Bible did not change. At the end of the Middle Ages,
Christian leaders threatened heavy punishment to Galileo for suggesting that,
based on his scientific evidences, the Earth revolved around the Sun.
Any effort to introduce a theological doctrine into public school science curricula
would inevitably offend some teachers and students. After all, a Protestant
fundamentalist's "literal" reading of Genesis would likely differ markedly from that
of a Catholic or an Orthodox Jew. Both public school educators and religious
leaders should be concerned about the prospect of biology lessons degenerating
into debates on Biblical or religious interpretation.
Evolution by natural selection, at its core, works like this: living organisms are
characterized by heritable variation for traits that affect their survival and
reproductive abilities. This heritable variation originates from the (truly random)
process of mutation at the level of DNA. The process of evolution turns out to be
largely the result of two components: mutations (which are random) and natural
selection (which, again, is not random). It is the joint outcome of these two
processes thataccording to evolutionary theoryexplains not only the diversity of
all organisms on Earth, but most crucially the fact that they are so well adapted to
their environment: those that werent did not survive the process. Because the
environment changes overtime, and therefore, what characteristics of life forms
are better changes, and it cannot be said in absolute terms that extinct forms are
inferior to those present today.
You may find it intuitively difficult to believe that two relatively simple natural
processes can produce the complex order we observe in living organisms. But the
beauty of science is that it so often shows our intuitions to be wrong. Because
nature does not always function according to our common sense or intuition,
the scientific method a necessity on the quest of the human race for survival.
The Moral Status of Animals
First published Tue Jul 1, 2003; substantive revision Mon Sep 13, 2010
What is distinctive about humanity such that humans are thought to have moral
status and non-humans do not?
(http://plathttp//plato.stanford.edu/entries/moralanimal/o.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/ ) Providing an answer to this
question has become increasingly important among philosophers as well as those
outside of philosophy who are interested in our treatment of non-human animals.
For some, answering this question will enable us to better understand the nature of
human beings and the proper scope of our moral obligations. Some argue that

there is an answer that can distinguish humans from the rest of the natural world.
Many of those who accept this answer are interested in justifying certain human
practices towards non-humanspractices that cause pain, discomfort, suffering
and death. This latter group expect that in answering the question in a particular
way, humans will be justified in granting moral consideration to other humans that
is neither required nor justified when considering non-human animals. In contrast
to this view, many philosophers have argued that while humans are different in a
variety of ways from each other and other animals, these differences do not provide
a philosophical defense for denying non-human animals moral consideration.
What the basis of moral consideration is and what it amounts to has been the
source of much disagreement.
The notion parens patriae is the fundamental principle behind the States role as a
sovereign guardian over persons under disability. It ultimately places the power
in the state government to determine to what extent it will act to protect the
interests of its children. Thus, the state is always the backstop and referee behind
every parent. The state is the one that prescribes a legal duty to those charged with
the care of a child to provide that child with medical attention. The parents are
prosecuted for breaching this duty, and religious freedom is involved only
parenthetically as a possible argument against state intrusion. But medicine is not
an exact Science; it exists in the empirical world of complex human organisms,
which means no particular result is predictable with 100 percent accuracy. The U.S.
Government Office of Technology Assessment reports that 80 to 90 percent of
doctors treatment methods are not based on scientifically proven principles and,
consequently, the results are not guaranteed reproducible. Vaccinations that were
supposed to wipe out illnesses are themselves responsible for causing severe health
problems and even death in a small minority of children. According to the
California Department of Health Services, the risk of dying or developing brain
damage from the pertussis vaccine is estimated to be one in 100,000, and the
chance of developing paralysis from the polio vaccine is one in 500,000.
Whatever the intentions, parental rights should be bounded by the rights of the
children; children are not property (https://arnulfo.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/power-of-theholy-spirit/ ).