Islam - What's your view on it?

[PeterJB]

A good 80-90% of the posts in the God thread are about Christianity in some way. Ask any atheist to make their case and they will pretty much always start with Christianity. Discussions of that nature surrounding Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Bah'ai, Sikhism or Neo-Paganism are almost unheard of to me.

If a source or news article about an Islamic terrorist attack or atrocity doesn't also give a list of terrorist attacks or atrocities by other religions it doesn't automatically mean they're saying all other religions are perfect. It's just reporting on something around Islam, because it's its own unique religion.

 

[Scaff]

A good 80-90% of the posts in the God thread are about Christianity in some way. Ask any atheist to make their case and they will pretty much always start with Christianity. Discussions of that nature surrounding Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Bah'ai, Sikhism or Neo-Paganism are almost unheard of to me.

From my experience that'snot the case, most will mention all faiths. However depending on who they are talking to the will use the religion that person will culturally best relate to. Here on GTP that is most commonly Christianity, however I've had conversations about atheism with Muslims on her and in the wider world just about every faith and belief system.

If a source or news article about an Islamic terrorist attack or atrocity doesn't also give a list of terrorist attacks or atrocities by other religions it doesn't automatically mean they're saying all other religions are perfect. It's just reporting on something around Islam, because it's its own unique religion.

And maybe that wider context would not hurt from time to time.

However were the article in question actually correctly quoted and discussed then it would have been a far more balanced citation than it was.

As a Christian how do you feel when people (and I'm sure they do) blame the actions of the few on the many?

Do you feel you have to personally apologize for the abuses of some in the Catholic church, or in the Australian church run homes for children?

Should you be held accountable for the actions of Britain First or Anders Brevik?

As that is the manner I see the conversation phrased by some on here and i make no apology for calling it out (and I certainly don't see it occuring with other faiths in the same way).

Now i have no issue with a good discussion about any faith (and i have been critical of aspects of just about all of them), however to single out an entire faith based on the action of some of its members is something I see limited to just one faith.

 

[PeterJB]

People make generalisations all the time. These days pretty much all public criticisms have to have a footnote saying something along the line of "I don't think all people in this demographic are evil or stupid, but here are some examples of people within that demographic who have said or done evil or stupid things". It would be unjust to call out the entire Islamic world if there had only been one terrorist attack in the past 10 or 20 years, but when attacks with death tolls going in to the double figures happen several times a year, seven Islamic countries still prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality, and women are seen as subservient and held to a different standard of modesty behaviour to men in almost every Islamic country you really must wonder how many followers that haven't grown up in the West really do share the same values, ideals, and outlook as we do.

 

[Scaff]

People make generalisations all the time. These days pretty much all public criticisms have to have a footnote saying something along the line of "I don't think all people in this demographic are evil or stupid, but here are some examples of people within that demographic who have said or done evil or stupid things". It would be unjust to call out the entire Islamic world if there had only been one terrorist attack in the past 10 or 20 years, but when attacks with death tolls going in to the double figures happen several times a year, seven Islamic countries still prescribe the death penalty for homosexuality, and women are seen as subservient and held to a different standard of modesty behaviour to men in almost every Islamic country you really must wonder how many followers that haven't grown up in the West really do share the same values, ideals, and outlook as we do.

And once again i have to ask why you seem to be infering that Islam is alone in that, or that it's impossible to condemn the actions of some without throwing all into the same pile.

A non-Muslim country just made domestic abuse legal, non-Muslim terrorist groups existed for decades carrying out attacks across continents, non-Muslim countries have also attempted (with funding from non-Muslim groups in the US) to put the death penalty in place for homosexually, the government and police of a number of non-Muslim countries turn a blind eye to the murder of the LGBT community (with murders occuring on an almost daily basis, and arrest rates, let alone convictions almost never happening).

Yet I'm sure many would be outraged if i held you, as a Christian, somehow accountable for this as part of some vague collective. Ignoring the secular, cultural and theology differences that exist within Christianity. Hence my questions above that you have arguably skirted around.

Yet here we are with you giving seeming justification to doing the same thing to 1.6 billion people.

I hate to break it to you but it's unjust to call out all Muslims even if terrorist attacks have been carried out for twenty years. The IRA, KKK, Army of God and many others managed time spans at least as long as that. Does that now given justification to call out the entire Christian world? Of course not, to do so would be absurd. Yet what you have just argued as being justified (in the eyes of some of not yourself) you cry foul over if Christianity is even mentioned as a comparison. That is confirmation bias to a rather large degree.

All religions, faiths and world views can and have been used as justification for abuse, violence and oppression. Just as they all have been used as justification for charity, goodwill and enfranchisement.

At any given time they will all be at different point in those cycles, often with some at opposite ends at the exact same time. So just as ISIS are engaged in violence and hate, other Muslims are raising money and giving time to repair damage to a Jewish cematary. Just as Christians are killing trans people daily in Brazil, other Christians are working to feed the poor and disadvantaged.

For the vast majority of us on this planet we have far, far more in common than we do different. To condemn the whole or even majority of a group so easily is simplistic, innacurate and also something you clearly and understandably object to when it's done to you.

I suspect that some of the reason why people object to me using comparisons to other faiths is that to look in the mirror and acknowledge ones own faiths/worldviews issues and problems is never comfortable.

 

[PeterJB]

It's not alone, but it carries a large amount of the weight. It's one thing for particular demographics to be oppressed or persecuted in some way by localised groups of citizens, but when it is being done by the state, or some form of para-military or quasi-governmental faction there is no way of challenging or countering it short of a revolution or an invasion by foreign powers.

Islam is ingrained into politics in a way that no other religion currently is. Almost every theocracy currently in existence is an Islamic one. There is very little room for people of other or no religions, at least not without conflicts of some kind. When you have authoritarian states such as this it creates two kinds of people; Those who don't buy what Big Brother is telling them but must keep their thoughts secret for their own safety, and those that buy everything they're told because their entire life and worldview revolves around it. Many Islamic countries still have laws that were thrown out by Western ones decades or even centuries ago, their treatment of minorities and dissidents is worse than Western countries by almost every definition.

Granted, places such as Turkey have an almost exclusively Islamic population but still hold what is by Middle Eastern standards fairly progressive laws on social values and separate of church/mosque and state. Some countries, such as Iran and Afghanistan have managed to go backwards, and ones like Saudi Arabia are moving like a snail's place. Such widespread religious influence in politics exists in no other sphere, and that influence extends to the people these countries serve.

 

[Scaff]

It's not alone, but it carries a large amount of the weight. It's one thing for particular demographics to be oppressed or persecuted in some way by localised groups of citizens, but when it is being done by the state, or some form of para-military or quasi-governmental faction there is no way of challenging or countering it short of a revolution or an invasion by foreign powers.

Which again is not a reason to label the many based on the few, particularly given that the main religion of those fighting against that oppression are Muslims.

Islam is ingrained into politics in a way that no other religion currently is.

I disagree. While you are right that all but one of the worlds Theocracies are Islamic, they are still a minority and the number of countries in which religions still play a very active and influential part in politics is far far greater in number. You have for example the legalisation of domestic abuse in Russia, justified by the importance of the religious basis of marriage, which was also used to remove the rights of the LGBT community. Another example would be that abortion is illegal in Ireland, something that has lead to the death of a number of women; and something that may religious politicians in the US would like to see put in place as well (Poland and Malta are the same). We also have the persecution of the LGBT community in a largest number of non-Muslim countries.

Almost every theocracy currently in existence is an Islamic one. There is very little room for people of other or no religions, at least not without conflicts of some kind.

In some cases yes, in others no. Iran has a very complex picture in that regard for example, with the largest Jewish community in the Middle East outside of Israel, and 5 places in the parliament reserved for religious minorities.

Its also difficult to state that the lot of minorities in the US and UK has improved post Brexit / Trump, with reported hate crimes on the rise. As such its not a black and white picture on either side.

When you have authoritarian states such as this it creates two kinds of people; Those who don't buy what Big Brother is telling them but must keep their thoughts secret for their own safety, and those that buy everything they're told because their entire life and worldview revolves around it.

Sorry but no, its not that simple and its not just two types of people.

Many Islamic countries still have laws that were thrown out by Western ones decades or even centuries ago, their treatment of minorities and dissidents is worse than Western countries by almost every definition.

In some cases yes, in other cases no and in some cases progressive laws were removed following Western intervention.

Granted, places such as Turkey have an almost exclusively Islamic population but still hold what is by Middle Eastern standards fairly progressive laws on social values and separate of church/mosque and state. Some countries, such as Iran and Afghanistan have managed to go backwards, and ones like Saudi Arabia are moving like a snail's place. Such widespread religious influence in politics exists in no other sphere, and that influence extends to the people these countries serve.

You raise an interesting case with all three you have mentioned as being an issue, in particular Iran and Afghanistan. Are you aware that both of these countries had democratically elected a secular government that was then overthrown by the intervention of non-Islamic countries? The issues in all three have roots back to Western and Russian intervention to remove secular leaders and put in place puppet regimes that then (predictably) failed and the resulting power vacuum was filled by aggrieved nutters (and in the case of Afghanistan helped by the West and in Iran helped by the Russians).

Turkey is another interesting one, being as it was the Ottoman empire, which legalised homosexuality long before any European country, a law that was removed following the end of WW1 and its take over by European countries.


Now as interesting a discussion as this is, its still not a justification for holding the vast majority accountable for the actions of the few. You may feel that it doesn't matter and that its not important to make that distinction, but when I see the likes of this....

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/people-sharing-picture-welsh-dog-12736471

...I disagree. Note the cross in his twitter profile picture, does this now allow me to assume his lies are shared by all Christians, that his hate and bigotry are acceptable to all Christians and they should be held to account for it?

Of course not.

 

[PeterJB]

My point is that when a variety of actions considered wanting are committed not only by terrorists, but by political leaders and generals citizens, it amounts to more than a few.

Now, the number of terrorists may be small compared to the total number of Muslims, but there is a large enough number of them that want nothing more than the utter annihilation of the West and all infidels, that may or may not have the means to do this, to pose a significant threat to our safety. They're not just a small group of nutjobs hiding in the desert saying hurtful things, there are interconnected cells all over the world who can send a whole city (or even country) into shut-down with a single bomb. The IRA were only concerned about Ireland, the Tamil Tigers were only concerned about Sri Lanka, and yet there are several separate yet closely-allied Islamic terrorist groups that want to extend their reach far beyond the Middle East and the Mahgreb. That's what people fear, that's what they don't like, what people are criticising can be found all over the place. It's not everyone, but it's more than any other religion.

 

[Scaff]

My point is that when a variety of actions considered wanting are committed not only by terrorists, but by political leaders and generals citizens, it amounts to more than a few.

So no non-Muslim country has political leader and general citizens who could be found wanting? Who support the actions of extermists?

Are you aware of the rise in right wing terror suspects, a third of which now make up all referrals to Prevent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...d-rise-far-right-extremism-nazi-a7623931.html

Sorry but I simply can't agree that this is an issue limited to one group at all.

Now, the number of terrorists may be small compared to the total number of Muslims, but there is a large enough number of them that want nothing more than the utter annihilation of the West and all infidels, that may or may not have the means to do this, to pose a significant threat to our safety.

Actually they pose far more of a risk to other Muslims than to the west. However we are not going to reduce that risk by treating all Muslims the same, quite the opposite.

They're not just a small group of nutjobs hiding in the desert saying hurtful things, there are interconnected cells all over the world who can send a whole city (or even country) into shut-down with a single bomb. The IRA were only concerned about Ireland, the Tamil Tigers were only concerned about Sri Lanka, and yet there are several separate yet closely-allied Islamic terrorist groups that want to extend their reach far beyond the Middle East and the Mahgreb.

The IRA had a united Ireland as its aim, yet were active and carried out attacks across Europe, trained in North Africa, assisted other terrorist groups in central and south america and had it primary fund raising activities in the US (including the current President).

The Tamil Tigers were also active in India, to the extent that they assassinated the former PM Rajiv Ghandi, killing 14 other in the process.

The Red Brigade were active right across Europe, the JRA (Japanese Red Army) carried out attacks world wide. ETA have carried out attacks across Europe and carried out more attacks in Europe that every Islamist group combined. ISYF (International Sikh Youth Federation) have carried out attacks worldwide and were responsible for the deadliest aircraft terror attack prior to 9/11. I can keep going for a very long time.

So once again, no its not a factor that's unique to Islamic terrorist groups.

Now if you want to open it up to state actors as well (as you did in your previous posts) then you would struggle to beat the British Empire in terms of global reach and level of atrocity (all for God, king/queen and country). However we like to forget about that past, white man's burden and all that. Not that our European relations were that far behind.

That's what people fear, that's what they don't like, what people are criticising can be found all over the place.

I have no issue with people being critical and condemning terrorism, I agree 100% with doing so (I just do so equally), what I don't agree with is holding the majority responsible for the minority, not only is it unjustified, but its also utterly counter productive in terms of making anyone safer.

It's not everyone, but it's more than any other religion.

Now aside from needing a citation for that can you tell me what percentage within a religion/worldview/faith/ethnicity is OK as a maximum before you think its OK to hold the majority accountable for the minority?

What classification do you use to judge who should be included in that percentage?

Just to be clear as well, what you seem to be advocating is a form of collective punishment, holding the majority responsible for the actions of a few, when the majority have actually committed no crime themselves. Do you honestly think that to be justified in any way and how exactly do you square that with your own faith?

 

[Johnnypenso]

No it was the actions of two people and if you believe that such abuse is limited to only those two people you are very much mistaken.

Nowhere did even hint that this type of abuse was limited to those two people so I'm not sure why you're even bringing up that diversion. You brought up the example so I simply compared your example to the twerking incident. One is an isolated action of an individual person which you chose to compare to the vitriolic response of hundreds of people on social media to a Muslim girl twerking, that included death threats. I also quite clearly didn't infer that the entire community condemned her. If you had actually read my response you'll see that it said, "in part of the Muslim community", not the whole community. The negative part of the community response is way out of proportion to the action IMO. In some areas of the world she might be killed for such an affront to the faith. Qandeel Baloch is a very famous example of a woman recently killed simply for the outrageous crime of being attractive and not afraid to show it. There are thousands of others who are killed every year for far less. Over 1000/year in Pakistan alone according to Wikipedia. Clearly a significant proportion of the community doesn't think Muslim girls should be dancing, after all it is haram according to some practitioners of the faith. It's a horrible thought but it wouldn't surprise me at all if this poor girl also turned up dead in the near future.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Clearly a significant proportion of the community doesn't think Muslim girls should be dancing, after all it is haram according to some practitioners of the faith.

And if you read up on the subject, you would know that what is practiced in Pakistan is a mix of selectively-chosen bits of Islam and archaic tribal practices that pre-date Islam's arrival in Pakistan.

 

[Scaff]

Nowhere did even hint that this type of abuse was limited to those two people so I'm not sure why you're even bringing up that diversion.

The exact words you used:

"Difference here is that the abuse, horrific as it may be, is the action of a single person. It's horrible and no one in their right mind would think it was okay."

The actions of a single person would certainly suggest you think its limited, that and you would need to be mentally ill to think its OK. Fact is that hundreds of thousands of people have bought books based on this kind of 'corrective' action.

You brought up the example so I simply compared your example to the twerking incident. One is an isolated action of an individual person which you chose to compare to the vitriolic response of hundreds of people on social media to a Muslim girl twerking, that included death threats. I also quite clearly didn't infer that the entire community condemned her. If you had actually read my response you'll see that it said, "in part of the Muslim community", not the whole community. The negative part of the community response is way out of proportion to the action IMO. In some areas of the world she might be killed for such an affront to the faith. Qandeel Baloch is a very famous example of a woman recently killed simply for the outrageous crime of being attractive and not afraid to show it. There are thousands of others who are killed every year for far less. Over 1000/year in Pakistan alone according to Wikipedia. Clearly a significant proportion of the community doesn't think Muslim girls should be dancing, after all it is haram according to some practitioners of the faith. It's a horrible thought but it wouldn't surprise me at all if this poor girl also turned up dead in the near future.

I wasn't implying that you had said that, I was referring to the original post on the subject, apologies if that was not clear.

However you seem to be suggesting now that 'honour killings' are a unique part of Islam, despite they being found it just about every religion on the face of the planet.

India has a massive issue with it within both the Sikh and Hindu faiths, however this again is not specifically due to the faiths themselves, but rather the very strict caste based system that still exists to this day. India even has its own particular sub-set, Dowry deaths, in which brides who's dowry is not considered good enough is either murdered or forced to commit suicide. These occur at a shocking rate of 8,000 a year (higher that Pakistan or Bangladesh both of which have similar issues). Now India is minority Muslim, while Pakistan and Bangladesh are majority Muslim. However it has to be remembered that until 1947 they were one country, as such this is clearly a cultural issue that occurs across multiple religions.


Brazil until recently treated the murder of an adulterous wife as a lower crime and men were often acquitted as a result. A number of Christian countries still allow a 'crime of passion' defense, which is little more than an honour based excuse, both the French and Italian legal system until recently had a lower penalty for honour crimes, something that has an influence on the legal system of the former colonies of those countries.

I can keep going with this, however to me its clear that this is not specifically a religious issue, but a cultural one, with instances occurring across all faiths (and arguably the Indian faiths being the most prone). You may be happy to conflate it with a single religion, but I don't see that coming even close to helping solve the issues that are the root of the problem.

 

[PeterJB]

I don't see how mentioning that something bad has been done by a Muslim/a group of Muslims means that only Muslims do it.

You keep bringing up atrocities by non-Muslim groups (a lot of which happened decades or even centuries ago) as if I need a reminder that Christians and Hindus do bad things too, but that's not the subject at hand. If a news article simply reports on a Muslim atrocity, or someone condemns it because it's not the first time it's happened, it's not the same as saying only Muslims do it, and that all Muslims are either responsible for it or commended it, they shouldn't have to list every atrocity by every other religion in the interest of fairness, atrocities by separate religions are separate topics.

I stated my case as to why Islam receives a lot of criticism for actions done by its followers, I'm also not a relativist, I have no hesitation in saying in the 21st century Islam harms more people than any other religion. I could've gone on a massive tangent about the LRA or the Vatican sex abuse scandal if I wanted, but that would've been a bit strange when the topic is bad things in Islam and how to approach and deal with them.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't see how mentioning that something bad has been done by a Muslim/a group of Muslims means that only Muslims do it.

You keep bringing up atrocities by non-Muslim groups (a lot of which happened decades or even centuries ago) as if I need a reminder that Christians and Hindus do bad things too, but that's not the subject at hand. If a news article simply reports on a Muslim atrocity, or someone condemns it because it's not the first time it's happened, it's not the same as saying only Muslims do it, and that all Muslims are either responsible for it or commended it, they shouldn't have to list every atrocity by every other religion in the interest of fairness, atrocities by separate religions are separate topics.

I stated my case as to why Islam receives a lot of criticism for actions done by its followers, I'm also not a relativist, I have no hesitation in saying in the 21st century Islam harms more people than any other religion. I could've gone on a massive tangent about the LRA or the Vatican sex abuse scandal if I wanted, but that would've been a bit strange when the topic is bad things in Islam and how to approach and deal with them.

Exactly. It's the Islam thread so I talk about Islam and a common response is, "hurr durr the Jews, hurr durr the Christians, hurr durr [insert other religion that's committed atrocities any time in the past 2000 years]". Someone brings up a single example of a murderer who happens to be another faith to contrast it directly to the twerking incident so I talk about that single example and contrast the two, but somehow that means I'm not being fair because I'm not saying that Christians aren't slaughtering their children in droves or some such nonsense. Whenever I give an answer that's simple and direct I'm always "implying", or "inferring" some grand accusation that really should apply to all religions don't ya know.

And if you read up on the subject, you would know that what is practiced in Pakistan is a mix of selectively-chosen bits of Islam and archaic tribal practices that pre-date Islam's arrival in Pakistan.

I'm sure the thousands of women murdered in honour killings will be quite satisfied with that explanation. Thanks. For a minute there I thought those killings were done for no good reason.

 

[Dotini]

archaic tribal practices that pre-date Islam's arrival in Pakistan.

What tradition or religion was that? What tribe?

 

[Johnnypenso]

What tradition or religion was that? What tribe?

Are you inferring or implying that that the Joos are perfect because they're not. They killed a of people back in the olden days a long time ago. Let me find some wikilinks to show you how bad the Joos are. Probably the Seeks too. Yeah, the Seeks. The Chrischuns? Well, that goes without saying.

/s

 

[Scaff]

I don't see how mentioning that something bad has been done by a Muslim/a group of Muslims means that only Muslims do it.

It doesn't automatically, but context and posting history are also a factor.

Would you agree that a proportion of the media and public however do make that assumption?

You keep bringing up atrocities by non-Muslim groups (a lot of which happened decades or even centuries ago) as if I need a reminder that Christians and Hindus do bad things too, but that's not the subject at hand. If a news article simply reports on a Muslim atrocity, or someone condemns it because it's not the first time it's happened, it's not the same as saying only Muslims do it, and that all Muslims are either responsible for it or commended it, they shouldn't have to list every atrocity by every other religion in the interest of fairness, atrocities by separate religions are separate topics.

A lot of them are also current as well, but given that people will also bring up past issues as well then I see no issue with doing the same.

I stated my case as to why Islam receives a lot of criticism for actions done by its followers, I'm also not a relativist, I have no hesitation in saying in the 21st century Islam harms more people than any other religion. I could've gone on a massive tangent about the LRA or the Vatican sex abuse scandal if I wanted, but that would've been a bit strange when the topic is bad things in Islam and how to approach and deal with them.

Your post here actually to a degree illustrates exactly why the discussion does need to be had.

In this post you make reference to the LRA and Vatican, distinctions of sect within a religion, when you read about a Christian abuse scandal the particular sect is almost always made, almost every article I have read on the LRA either fails to mention Christianity or makes a point of highlighting that its a sect in Christianity with elements of regional animalistic culture. Growing up almost every article on the IRA, UDF, etc. made sure to cover the particular sect involved (well apart from Protestant ones - when religion was often not even mentioned). In other words an piece on the LRA

When it then comes to reports around Islamic terrorism this distinction is very, very often absent, particularly when it comes to the tabloid press.

As a quick example I used the terms 'Lords Resistance Army Daily Mail' and 'ISIS Daily Mail' and picked the most recent news article.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-Resistance-Army-recall-lives-shattered.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4263726/Terror-group-teaching-fighters-EAT-non-Muslims.html

Mention of faith in headline:
LRA: 0
ISIS: 1

Number of mentions of faith in main article (Christianity / Christian / Islamic / Muslim)
LRA:0 (2 if you include the side bar)
ISIS: 7

Now despite the article on the LRA being significantly longer the closest you get to a religious mention is in a box out, a long way down the piece when it says Kony 'Claim's to be fighting under Gods orders to build a society around the 10 commandments.

A discrepancy around the accuracy of the headline in the ISIS article also exists, in that it reads "ISIS CANNIBALS: Terror group are teaching their fighters to EAT non-Muslims"; now the body of text does clarify that its also includes Muslims who don't follow ISIS's view. However given that 80% of people do not read past the headline, let alone halfway down the text the impression is already given.

This is my issue with how the two approaches differ, with extremists from other faiths its either not mentioned, they are mentally ill, from a cult that can in no way be considered representative or if it can't be avoided then the actual sect is mentioned. Almost never is the entire faith put into a single homogeneous group in a negative article, and particularly in the headline.

In the case of Islam the exact opposite most commonly applies, sectarian difference are almost never mentioned or made, the problems of certain sects are turned into the issues of the faith as a whole.

Now I have no issue with regard to discussing the issues within Islam, but let do so accurately and look at which countries and sects within it are the root cause of this issue. Lets actually demand sanctions against them. Lets point out that its the Wahhabi's that are central to these issues, lets highlight the funding they provide to the terrorist organisations (who almost exclusively from the same sectarian worldview) and take action against them.

So I ask, why do you think this difference in reporting exists?

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Meanwhile in Australia......

http://i.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/67576351/boy-spent-last-months-being-abused-court

.....Ends up dead.


Given that it seems the main use of this thread is to simply throw out negatives with little in the way of context or balance (which the source material in your case does actually attempt to provide and you once again omit), it's getting close to the point in which this thread and the God one get merged into a general religion thread.

 

[Dotini]

Are you inferring or implying that that the Joos are perfect because they're not. They killed a of people back in the olden days a long time ago. Let me find some wikilinks to show you how bad the Joos are. Probably the Seeks too. Yeah, the Seeks. The Chrischuns? Well, that goes without saying.

/s

I was merely wondering what religion predated Islam in the region of Afghanistan. Zoroastrianism?

 

[PeterJB]

So I ask, why do you think this difference in reporting exists?

I think the reason that Islam is more explicitly associated with Islamic terrorists groups is because they themselves declare full obedience towards the Qu'ran and Allah, with little other religious or ideological influence in their creed, calling yourself Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant doesn't help either. The LRA are not very widely known, at least not as a Christian terrorist group, because they're hiding out in the jungles of Uganda, attacks by them are no where near as frequent as IS, none (to my knowledge) have occurred in Europe, North America or Australasia, and their creed is influenced not only by Christianity but by traditional African religions as well.

There is also a degree of bias with reporting in that attacks outside the West get far less attention than those in. Boko Haram once killed almost 3,000 people in a single attack, more than 9/11, which got largely swept under the journalistic rug. Any Western attack, no matter how small stays in the news for weeks. If it's not something to be perceived as a direct threat, then there's unfortunately little demand to publicise it. The LRA poses very little threat to the West, IS and Al-Qaeda do not.

 

[Scaff]

I think the reason that Islam is more explicitly associated with Islamic terrorists groups is because they themselves declare full obedience towards the Qu'ran and Allah, with little other religious or ideological influence in their creed, calling yourself Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant doesn't help either. The LRA are not very widely known, at least not as a Christian terrorist group, because they're hiding out in the jungles of Uganda, attacks by them are no where near as frequent as IS, none (to my knowledge) have occurred in Europe, North America or Australasia, and their creed is influenced not only by Christianity but by traditional African religions as well.

ISIS identify with the Wahhabi sect of Islam, which does differ in terms of how the Koran is interpreted. Islam is not a single theology with total agreement of how the texts should be read and interpreted any more than Christianity or Judaism is.

In terms of naming I would agree that is a point, and a very deliberate move by ISIS, and one that the western media has bitten on firmly. Yet we have had groups such as the Army of God, who were active in the West, carrying out murders and bombings, yet the distinction is still made from Christianity as a whole.

There is also a degree of bias with reporting in that attacks outside the West get far less attention than those in. Boko Haram once killed almost 3,000 people in a single attack, more than 9/11, which got largely swept under the journalistic rug. Any Western attack, no matter how small stays in the news for weeks. If it's not something to be perceived as a direct threat, then there's unfortunately little demand to publicise it. The LRA poses very little threat to the West, IS and Al-Qaeda do not.

I would not disagree with any of that, however I don't see that as any reason for lazy or deliberately biased journalism to exist.

It doesn't help us as a community to combat terrorism or extremism either, here in Britain we in particular should have learnt that lesson, as collective association and punishment was known to drive up levels of IRA recruitment. When communities were engaged and the differences in view understood, discussed and communicated, those same communities became one of the biggest assets in ending the troubles. Alienating the moderate majority, particularly those living in the west will not help to defeat the threat at all, quite the opposite.

Yet many are happy to circulate the press that does just that, while the likes of ISIS sit back and watch as we create a recruitment drive for them. The very, very last thing that ISIS want is for the west to engage and work with the moderate majority, as a core part of the strategy of ISIS (and AQ before it) is to try and make the west isolate Muslims in the west to make them easier to radicalize.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-you-to-hate-muslims/?utm_term=.fb999a1e61f1

The Jihadi strategist Abu Musab al Suri wrote about this approach in detail and ISIS have been following it closely, and the west is doing pretty much exactly what they wanted. The following is a long read, but if you are really interested in the subject its well worth it.

http://www.orfonline.org/research/the-strategist-how-abu-musab-al-suri-inspired-isis/

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What tradition or religion was that? What tribe?

There are a variety of tribes across northern and western Pakistan and the southern parts of Afghanistan, such as the Pashtun. There wasn't a singular religion there (although Zoroastrianism is commonly associated with the region) until Islam arrived, but like I said, only bits and pieces of the faith are practiced. To suggest that the version of Islam practiced in Pakistan and Afghanistan is the same as the version of Islam practiced elsewhere is like suggesting that Aleph is the same as Christianity.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think the reason that Islam is more explicitly associated with Islamic terrorists groups is because they themselves declare full obedience towards the Qu'ran and Allah,

You're right, I can't think of any Christian terror groups that have done that. Good point.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Perhaps something can be explained to me, since I'm a little slow.

Apparently the murders last week "weren't Islamic", and according to our PM when asked about a comparison to the murder or Airey Neave:

“I absolutely agree, and it is wrong to describe this as ‘Islamic terrorism’,” she said.

“It is ‘Islamist terrorism’, it is a perversion of a great faith.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-bridge-prime-minister-commons-a7645626.html

Does that mean that the attacks recently in
France
Italy
Germany
Iraq
Egypt
Bangladesh
Syria
Somalia

were also "perversions of a great faith"?

Does it also mean that such statements as

""I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam...

"Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion."

and

“My motivation is paradise itself. It is the sacrifice of my life to fight the enemy of Allah... To establish Jihad in Australia and to put fear into those who are enemies to Allah."

and

“And Quran has decided waging Jihad against the disbelievers until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled and the Islamic State has asked them to give it but they refused.”

and etc
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/in-the-name-of-allah.aspx
are all hokum?

Does it also mean that the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt are only be "pervertors of a greath faith (TM)"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266209/islamic-projection-why-muslims-hate-infidels-raymond-ibrahim

 

[Scaff]

Perhaps something can be explained to me, since I'm a little slow.

Apparently the murders last week "weren't Islamic", and according to our PM when asked about a comparison to the murder or Airey Neave:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-bridge-prime-minister-commons-a7645626.html

Does that mean that the attacks recently in
France
Italy
Germany
Iraq
Egypt
Bangladesh
Syria
Somalia

were also "perversions of a great faith"?

Does it also mean that such statements as

""I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam...

"Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion."

and

“My motivation is paradise itself. It is the sacrifice of my life to fight the enemy of Allah... To establish Jihad in Australia and to put fear into those who are enemies to Allah."

and

“And Quran has decided waging Jihad against the disbelievers until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled and the Islamic State has asked them to give it but they refused.”

and etc
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/in-the-name-of-allah.aspx
are all hokum?

Does it also mean that the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt are only be "pervertors of a greath faith (TM)"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266209/islamic-projection-why-muslims-hate-infidels-raymond-ibrahim

Yes.

BTW have you worked out the common link between the majority of your anti Islamic sources yet?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Perhaps something can be explained to me, since I'm a little slow.

Apparently the murders last week "weren't Islamic", and according to our PM when asked about a comparison to the murder or Airey Neave:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-bridge-prime-minister-commons-a7645626.html

Does that mean that the attacks recently in
France
Italy
Germany
Iraq
Egypt
Bangladesh
Syria
Somalia

were also "perversions of a great faith"?

Yes.

Until you can prove that the majority of ordinary, everyday Muslims are suiting-and-booting for eternal jihad (hint, you can't because that's bollocks) then terrorist action by a small minority of muslims who take millenia-old texts literally is extreme and perverse.

By your own standards you are a terrorist - as a christianical you share a faith with some extremists who want to take millenia-old texts literally and use them to justify forcing their will on the lives (and deaths) of others. Stupid, right?

Saw this on Facebook the other day, seems germane:

 

[Scaff]

Yes.

Until you can prove that the majority of ordinary, everyday Muslims are suiting-and-booting for eternal jihad (hint, you can't because that's bollocks) then terrorist action by a small minority of muslims who take millenia-old texts literally is extreme and perverse.

By your own standards you are a terrorist - as a christianical you share a faith with some extremists who want to take millenia-old texts literally and use them to justify forcing their will on the lives (and deaths) of others. Stupid, right?

Saw this on Facebook the other day, seems germane:

View attachment 637967

Yep, by DLRs logic my mum and wife have to get grouped in with that lot. I'm only about a 1/4 Irish at most, not sure how I stand.

 

[LeMansAid]

Yes.

Yes.

Maybe.

Until you can prove that the majority of ordinary, everyday Muslims are suiting-and-booting for eternal jihad (hint, you can't because that's bollocks) then terrorist action by a small minority of muslims who take millenia-old texts literally is extreme and perverse.

Majority does not denote being correct, especially if the "bad eggs" are the ones being less perverse with their interpretations of God's supposed book of directives.

Muslims, you want to be free of the nuts? Separate yourselves by generating a version of the book that achieves an acceptable standard of clarity, and put the old version in a museum. It's your choice whether or not to be subject to the ambiguity, and tarred with a same brush.

 

[BobK]

Muslims, you want to be free of the nuts? Separate yourselves by generating a version of the book that achieves an acceptable standard of clarity, and put the old version in a museum. It's your choice whether or not to be subject to the ambiguity, and tarred with a same brush.

That would be great advice for Christians as well. Somehow I don't imagine either would be in any great rush to do so.

 

[novcze]

View attachment 637967

Do you want to compare worldwide jihadism with IRA?

Until you can prove that the majority of ordinary, everyday Muslims are suiting-and-booting for eternal jihad (hint, you can't because that's bollocks) then terrorist action by a small minority of muslims who take millenia-old texts literally is extreme and perverse.

From what I saw in the polls, that small minority isn't so small.

 

[Imari]

A good 80-90% of the posts in the God thread are about Christianity in some way. Ask any atheist to make their case and they will pretty much always start with Christianity.

Well, if they speak English then the odds are pretty overwhelming that they come from a majority or historically Christian country. As such, their primary exposure is to that religion. I think it's natural that a western atheist would first speak about Christianity. Christianity is also the largest religion, so it makes sense to start there for that reason as well.

I mean, in terms of religions that one should speak about first it's pretty much Christianity or Islam, given that they are the two major religions and by covering them you by default cover a lot of aspects of other religions as well.

It would be unjust to call out the entire Islamic world if there had only been one terrorist attack in the past 10 or 20 years, but when attacks with death tolls going in to the double figures happen several times a year...

You are aware that western militaries are also killing thousands of Muslims a year? It's not exactly all going one way. If anything, I would say that your average Muslim is in a lot more danger of being killed in an inadvertent drone strike or something than any westerner is of being killed in a terrorist attack.

You might not see it as the same thing, but I bet you a lot of Muslims do. Living in fear of sudden random violent death is all much the same, regardless of the source.

Now, the number of terrorists may be small compared to the total number of Muslims, but there is a large enough number of them that want nothing more than the utter annihilation of the West and all infidels, that may or may not have the means to do this, to pose a significant threat to our safety. They're not just a small group of nutjobs hiding in the desert saying hurtful things, there are interconnected cells all over the world who can send a whole city (or even country) into shut-down with a single bomb.

Ironically, that's exactly what the radical Muslims fear about the West. That they will come and simply stomp Islam out of existence, something that the US and Russia demonstrated that they were quite capable and willing to do in the latter part of the last century.

Is the solution really more violence? Or is it perhaps to listen a little more to the holy books that preach acceptance and tolerance? Be the bigger man and show your neighbour that he no longer has anything to fear from you.

Perhaps something can be explained to me, since I'm a little slow.

Apparently the murders last week "weren't Islamic", and according to our PM when asked about a comparison to the murder or Airey Neave:


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...r-bridge-prime-minister-commons-a7645626.html

Does that mean that the attacks recently in
France
Italy
Germany
Iraq
Egypt
Bangladesh
Syria
Somalia

were also "perversions of a great faith"?

Does it also mean that such statements as

""I am one of the servants of Allah. We do our duty of fighting for the sake of the religion of Allah. It is also our duty to send a call to all the people of the world to enjoy this great light and to embrace Islam and experience the happiness in Islam...

"Our primary mission is nothing but the furthering of this religion."

and

“My motivation is paradise itself. It is the sacrifice of my life to fight the enemy of Allah... To establish Jihad in Australia and to put fear into those who are enemies to Allah."

and

“And Quran has decided waging Jihad against the disbelievers until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled and the Islamic State has asked them to give it but they refused.”

and etc
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/in-the-name-of-allah.aspx
are all hokum?

Does it also mean that the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt are only be "pervertors of a greath faith (TM)"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266209/islamic-projection-why-muslims-hate-infidels-raymond-ibrahim

If I were to declare war upon Uzbekistan in the name of Australia by immediately destroying their supply of gummy bears, that would probably not be described as Australian terrorism. I am Australian, and I would have declared that I was doing it in the name of Australia, but because I do not represent Australia in any fashion nor are my views and actions generally compatible with Australian views as a whole it is misleading to describe my act as Australian terrorism.

It's just terrorism.

From what I saw in the polls, that small minority isn't so small.

Really? How many of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims are gearing up for eternal jihad?