Islam - What's your view on it?

[Scaff]

Seems that the Fox news bit yesterday was only a shorter version of another piece he did on Fox that was even more absurd.

Steve Emerson's comments on Europe are so utterly inaccurate that its flat out lies....



http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...view-is-even-worse-than-you-think--lkO4fdUh5x

...its effectively six minutes of utter nonsense, yet a number of Americans are going to watch this and actually believe this is factual.

His claim at the end is (and I quote) "Europe is finished", sorry but this kind of nonsense is a big part of the problem.

 

[Dotini]

Seems that the Fox news bit yesterday was only a shorter version of another piece he did on Fox that was even more absurd.

Steve Emerson's comments on Europe are so utterly inaccurate that its flat out lies....



http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...view-is-even-worse-than-you-think--lkO4fdUh5x

...its effectively six minutes of utter nonsense, yet a number of Americans are going to watch this and actually believe this is factual.

His claim at the end is (and I quote) "Europe is finished", sorry but this kind of nonsense is a big part of the problem.

Do the "no-go zones" he referred to actually not exist?

 

[CinnamonOD]

Do not believe stuff that has a Fox News logo on the screen or title

 

[ECGadget]

Do the "no-go zones" he referred to actually not exist?

Of course not xD
First time I have heard of these Muslim "fashion police" too, and I have lived here my entire life...
Birmingham does have a lot of Muslims yes, but it is a fairly big city and to be honest when you go into the Bull Ring (Shopping Centre in the middle of B'ham) you get a good idea of what the actual proportion is. Personally though, I don't really like B'ham and wouldn't want to live there...
But it has some nice cinemas and Star City (Arcades, resturants, bowling, etc) is quite nice too!

 

[Scaff]

Do the "no-go zones" he referred to actually not exist?

No.

 

[spacecowboy73]

I have a question:

Why is it when a person that says they are muslim commits terrorism people come to the defense of Islam and say the terrorist isn't really a muslim?

When someone who says they are a religion other than Islam commits terrorism people don't come to the defense of those other religions?

 

[ClydeYellow]

Do the "no-go zones" he referred to actually not exist?

Nope, not in Italy - nor, as far as I know, in any other European country.

As a matter of fact, I'm quite sure if he asked the Bruxelles police, "take me to the Muslim zone", they would've called him crazy, not because of the danger such an endeavour represented, but because there is no Muslim ghetto here.

(Although there are "popular" quarters, even in small cities, that have a far higher proportion of Muslims. To which I've been - also because I have friends and colleagues that live there - and as you can probably desume, I survived just fine).

As for the Iranian-style fashion police, as far as I know a couple of blokes tried that in Germany, but were almost immediately arrested.
The patrols organized by far right-wing parties and homophobic groups here in Italy have been far more problematic than any Muslim endeavour, resulting in many aggressions towards immigrants and the gays RC45 was so interested in.

But hey, wonder why that guy's talking on TV (presumably being paid for) while many characters with a better understanding of the phenomena aren't?

I have a question:

Why is it when a person that says they are muslim commits terrorism people come to the defense of Islam and say the terrorist isn't really a muslim?

When someone who says they are a religion other than Islam commits terrorism people don't come to the defense of those other religions?

I actually adopt the same attitude towards all religions: if a terrorist commits an act of terror in their name, unless the religion clearly orders them to kill (and as I've said a while ago, there's no way a religion focused on killing people would succeed in attracting a lot of people), I don't blame the religion, I blame the terrorists.

Of course, when people say that all terrorists are muslims, or worse yet, that all muslims are terrorists, I have to remind them of the existence of christian terrorists - but I do not blame Christianity and the almost-2 billion christians in the world for the acts I sometimes quote anymore that I blame Islam and the 1.6 billion muslims for Islamist terrorism. They have nothing to do with religion in its mainstream forms, and often those terrorists have to bend and twist its moral rules to make them fit a design that is political in nature.

(Also, one could argue that a muslim terrorist, while strongly identifying as a muslim, isn't a real muslim - as by committing to killing innocents he's showing a clear disregard of many passages of the Quran and hadit that many ulama believe to be quite important. Would a christian that kills other people because they don't respect minor indications provided by the Bible and Gospels still be a christian for you? And for the deity who will eventually judge him?)

 

[CinnamonOD]

Why is it when a person that says they are muslim commits terrorism people come to the defense of Islam and say the terrorist isn't really a muslim?

Because one is an extremist religious group and the other people are peaceful like you and me.

When someone who says they are a religion other than Islam commits terrorism people don't come to the defense of those other religions?

They do, but they don't get as much attention as muslims doing that.

 

[Dotini]

But hey, wonder why that guy's talking on TV (presumably being paid for) while many characters with a better understanding of the phenomena aren't?

Occasionally you can see Juan Cole on MSNBC. But really, cable TV news is a racket in the gutter.

 

[spacecowboy73]

They do, but they don't get as much attention as muslims doing that.

I would like to believe that but in this thread people are saying the IRA and KKK are actually Christian groups. I'm not sure Jesus would be happy with their methods or beliefs.

 

[Touring Mars]

I have a question:

Why is it when a person that says they are muslim commits terrorism people come to the defense of Islam and say the terrorist isn't really a muslim?

When someone who says they are a religion other than Islam commits terrorism people don't come to the defense of those other religions?

It probably depends on whether the religion itself is being touted as the central motivation of the attacker, which is often the case when a Muslim attacker commits an atrocity. Of course, it would be wrong to do so, since that would require conflating violent radical Islamists with non-violent followers of Islam.

Bear in mind that a huge proportion (estimated to be anywhere between 80-95%) of victims of Islamist violence are Muslims.

 

[spacecowboy73]

Bear in mind that a huge proportion (estimated to be anywhere between 80-95%) of victims of Islamist violence are Muslims.

I'm aware of that. It's pretty terrible, and often doesn't get reported or is under reported in western media since it didn't happen here.

 

[ECGadget]

I have a question:

Why is it when a person that says they are muslim commits terrorism people come to the defense of Islam and say the terrorist isn't really a muslim?

When someone who says they are a religion other than Islam commits terrorism people don't come to the defense of those other religions?

Because they are not Muslims, as the religion in entirity forbids Terrorism.
As for coming to a defence, I guess this round it is the Muslims turn, as it once was the Christians. However I will proudly come to the defence of any religion that has people commit acts of terrorism in its name

 

[Dotini]

...the Muslim zone"

I see what you mean. With a bit of research, I find they are more properly called "sensitive urban zones".

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21572248-young-diverse-and-unemployed-forgotten-banlieues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_urban_zone

 

[Spurgy 777]

Because they are not Muslims, as the religion in entirity forbids Terrorism.

Unfortunately being a Muslim and being a terrorist aren't mutually exclusive.

However I will proudly come to the defence of any religion that has people commit acts of terrorism in its name

Sounds as if you're saying no religion can be responsible for causing terrorism, which is a ridiculous position to have.

 

[Furinkazen]

Because they are not Muslims,

I share that viewpoint 👍

as the religion in entirity forbids Terrorism.

Unsure of entirety but pretty sure it does for the most part.

Unfortunately being a Muslim and being a terrorist aren't mutually exclusive.

👍

Sounds as if you're saying no religion can be responsible for causing terrorism, which is a ridiculous position to have.

I wouldn;t say the religion directly, but rather how people choose to twist it and then claim they are following it.

 

[Spurgy 777]

I share that viewpoint 👍

👍

Gadget said they aren't Muslims because they are terrorists. I said Muslims can be terrorists, you can't agree with both points of view Furi

 

[Furinkazen]

Gadget said they aren't Muslims because they are terrorists. I said Muslims can be terrorists, you can't agree with both points of view Furi

I'm of the viewpoint that they claim to be muslims, but do not represent true muslims but rather twist around religious passages for their own extremist agenda - if they did then we'd have a few million suicide bombers around.

 

[ECGadget]

Gadget said they aren't Muslims because they are terrorists. I said Muslims can be terrorists, you can't agree with both points of view Furi

haha; I think what he means, and to clarify what I mean too is that Terrorists are not Muslims because they break some of the fundamental rules of Islam, but they are still called Muslims under the banner.

gah, Tree'd

 

[MatskiMonk]

As a matter of fact, I'm quite sure if he asked the Bruxelles police, "take me to the Muslim zone", they would've called him crazy, not because of the danger such an endeavour represented, but because there is no Muslim ghetto here.

I go to Brussels about once a year and I've never really seen anything that makes me worried, but the very first time I went the hotelier warned us not to come back to the Hotel via certain routes after dark, these routes were specifically referred to as Muslim areas. But as I say, I've never seen anything to make me think there'd be a problem.

 

[ECGadget]

Sounds as if you're saying no religion can be responsible for causing terrorism, which is a ridiculous position to have.

I didn't see this part, sorry for not replying earlier. I am not say that no religion can be responsible for it. What I am saying is that if a religion condemns terrorism I will stand with those people and defend them.

Example: If the IRA ever made a crazy comeback, I would stand arm in arm with the Prodestant Christian groups to defend them and make it clear that this is not something that their religious values say to do. Etc etc! Sorry for being vague!

 

[Scaff]

I have a question:

Why is it when a person that says they are muslim commits terrorism people come to the defense of Islam and say the terrorist isn't really a muslim?

I can only answer for myself in this regard and you have actually posed two questions.

The first in regard to 'coming to the defense of Islam', its not actually that specifically its more an understanding that simply because some people commit acts in the name of a religion doesn't mean that all who follow that religion want to do the same.

In regard to saying the terrorist isn't a Muslim, well that's not something I would myself say. If someone self identifies as a Muslim and is carrying out acts in that name and using (even bastardized) scripture to claim justification then that's what they are or believe they are. Doesn't mean they are a good one or that they are following the scripture as they should (however with all faiths scripture is contradictory - so if you want to find a bit that will justify your actions then you will), nor does it mean they represent all others of that faith.

When someone who says they are a religion other than Islam commits terrorism people don't come to the defense of those other religions?

Actually my views would be entirely consistent with the one I have posted above regarding Islam. That some Christians kill to try and prove supremacy of whites or to unite a country under Catholic rule doesn't mean that all of them do.

I'm a good example of just that, given that I have friends who were fortunate enough to survive IRA attacks, but that didn't stop me marrying a Catholic, as I'm quite able to understand that religion is a complex and multi-faceted things.

I would like to believe that but in this thread people are saying the IRA and KKK are actually Christian groups. I'm not sure Jesus would be happy with their methods or beliefs.

They are both very much Christian groups (but with one being Protestant and the other Catholic they would be quite happy to attack the other), the KKK used the burning cross as a symbol of reverance to Christ during attacks and the IRA wished to unite a single Catholic Ireland.

As for Jesus not being happy with the methods or beliefs, on that I'm not quite so sure given that both the Old and New Testament are littered with the use of violence to further the aims of God.

I didn't see this part, sorry for not replying earlier. I am not say that no religion can be responsible for it. What I am saying is that if a religion condemns terrorism I will stand with those people and defend them.

Example: If the IRA ever made a crazy comeback, I would stand arm in arm with the Prodestant Christian groups to defend them and make it clear that this is not something that their religious values say to do. Etc etc! Sorry for being vague!

The IRA are Catholic not Protestant, but you are right that not all from that sect (Catholics) have or would support the IRA.

 

[ECGadget]

I can only answer for myself in this regard and you have actually posed two questions.

The first in regard to 'coming to the defense of Islam', its not actually that specifically its more an understanding that simply because some people commit acts in the name of a religion doesn't mean that all who follow that religion want to do the same.

In regard to saying the terrorist isn't a Muslim, well that's not something I would myself say. If someone self identifies as a Muslim and is carrying out acts in that name and using (even bastardized) scripture to claim justification then that's what they are or believe they are. Doesn't mean they are a good one or that they are following the scripture as they should (however with all faiths scripture is contradictory - so if you want to find a bit that will justify your actions then you will), nor does it mean they represent all others of that faith.



Actually my views would be entirely consistent with the one I have posted above regarding Islam. That some Christians kill to try and prove supremacy of whites or to unite a country under Catholic rule doesn't mean that all of them do.

I'm a good example of just that, given that I have friends who were fortunate enough to survive IRA attacks, but that didn't stop me marrying a Catholic, as I'm quite able to understand that religion is a complex and multi-faceted things.




They are both very much Christian groups (but with one being Protestant and the other Catholic they would be quite happy to attack the other), the KKK used the burning cross as a symbol of reverance to Christ during attacks and the IRA wished to unite a single Catholic Ireland.

As for Jesus not being happy with the methods or beliefs, on that I'm not quite so sure given that both the Old and New Testament are littered with the use of violence to further the aims of God.


The IRA are Catholic not Protestant, but you are right that not all from that sect (Catholics) have or would support the IRA.

Oh man! I am so sorry, I got that completely wrong! Can I blame that on all the confusion of all the different religious values flying around??
But yes, I would then stand arm in arm with Catholics to defend them!

 

[Scaff]

Oh man! I am so sorry, I got that completely wrong! Can I blame that on all the confusion of all the different religious values flying around??
But yes, I would then stand arm in arm with Catholics to defend them!

Nothing to be sorry about , its an easy mistake to make and actually helps illustrate a point I often make when discussing this kind of thing.

Within every religion you get various sects, many of which will offer very different interpretation the same text, its a point often missed when discussing any religion. However it does take on a rather important meaning (that is lost on the likes of Fox news and RC45) when discussing religious violence.

Sharia is a good example of the differences that exist in regard to differing sects. I believe that around a dozen different interpretations of how it relates to the various Islamic texts and these vary between sects and even within sects.

Some are firm in the view that any debate around these is closed and can't be discussed and as such have a very strict and rigid view on it (and tend to be the extreme views), while others are firmly of the view that its is still very much open to discussion and interpretation and can change (and these tend to be the moderate and modern views).

Now these are critical factors that have to be taken into account with any discussion around Sharia, and its an issue I have with the Pew study, it doesn't attempt to take this into account at all.

It ties into a very important (and stunningly under-reported) speech that Eygpt's el-Sisi gave recently that calls for all Mulsim's to open Islam up to discussion, debate and interpretation again...

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/06/africa/egypt-president-speech/

...which in the context of the above, the importance of him giving it is quite significant (and lost on many in the west who are unaware or ignore these differences between Islamic sects).

 

[ECGadget]

Nothing to be sorry about , its an easy mistake to make and actually helps illustrate a point I often make when discussing this kind of thing.

Within every religion you get various sects, many of which will offer very different interpretation the same text, its a point often missed when discussing any religion. However it does take on a rather important meaning (that is lost on the likes of Fox news and RC45) when discussing religious violence.

It really is a shame, this whole world just seems to be one big mess right now and everything is just generalised.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

His claim at the end is (and I quote) "Europe is finished", sorry but this kind of nonsense is a big part of the problem.

It's a wonder he didn't claim that a liberal-Zionist conspiracy was to blame (I always find it amusing when they blame the "liberal media", given that the majority of private media ownership is conservative).

 

[ClydeYellow]

I see what you mean. With a bit of research, I find they are more properly called "sensitive urban zones".

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21572248-young-diverse-and-unemployed-forgotten-banlieues

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_urban_zone

Well, it's not the same thing that was being described. The French ZUS (or the less acknowledged periferie of many Italian cities) aren't muslim ghettos - they are areas with high unemployment and where only a small percentage of the population has marketable skills. And as a consequence of the low cost of housing in these areas immigrants tend to flock them - and with such diversity and a scarcity of resources that is exacerbated by the high density of population, conflict is not a possibility, but often the normality.

To further explain myself - there may be some French ZUS in which gangs of arab immigrants (beurs, as they are called in France) have a monopoly on criminal activities and violence. In the periferia of Milan, it's latino pandillas. Hell, in the depressed economic areas of Northern England it (used to be) white, anglo-saxon boneheads. Race and ethnicity are the factor here, more than religion may be, and one would really have to be in bad faith to say that those gangs are religiously-motivated (although of course, an high concentration of disenfranchised persons who happen to be muslims, regardless of their belonging to a gang, is a fertile ground for Islamists, therefore it poses a problem that we should adress, sooner or later, possibly by enfranchising these people and improve their social mobility so that they can get out of the economically depressed areas rather than by adopting other solutions that would probably do more harm than good).

Steve Emerson also mentioned Islamic courts in Europe - which simply don't exist, as he desribed them. The only Islamic "court" in Europe is the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in the UK, which however can only provide arbitration in civil cases - there are also christian arbitrators.

 

[Furinkazen]

depressed economic areas of Northern England it (used to be) white, anglo-saxon boneheads

Off topic a little but as someone from the north west of England thank you for giving me a good laugh 👍

 

[Scaff]

Well, it's not the same thing that was being described. The French ZUS (or the less acknowledged periferie of many Italian cities) aren't muslim ghettos - they are areas with high unemployment and where only a small percentage of the population has marketable skills. And as a consequence of the low cost of housing in these areas immigrants tend to flock them - and with such diversity and a scarcity of resources that is exacerbated by the high density of population, conflict is not a possibility, but often the normality.

To further explain myself - there may be some French ZUS in which gangs of arab immigrants (beurs, as they are called in France) have a monopoly on criminal activities and violence. In the periferia of Milan, it's latino pandillas. Hell, in the depressed economic areas of Northern England it (used to be) white, anglo-saxon boneheads. Race and ethnicity are the factor here, more than religion may be, and one would really have to be in bad faith to say that those gangs are religiously-motivated (although of course, an high concentration of disenfranchised persons who happen to be muslims, regardless of their belonging to a gang, is a fertile ground for Islamists, therefore it poses a problem that we should adress, sooner or later, possibly by enfranchising these people and improve their social mobility so that they can get out of the economically depressed areas rather than by adopting other solutions that would probably do more harm than good).

Steve Emerson also mentioned Islamic courts in Europe - which simply don't exist, as he desribed them. The only Islamic "court" in Europe is the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in the UK, which however can only provide arbitration in civil cases - there are also christian arbitrators.

The film La Haine is well worth a watch for a view of exactly what you are describing from a French perspective, while a documentary as someone who grew up on a council estate in the UK I can certainly attest to some of the realities described.

Rather than being 'no-go' areas for the police (as was inaccurately claimed in the Fox piece) they are simply policed differently than an affluent suburb. Not exactly surprising news, and as you have said the issues in these areas are predominantly socio-econmoic, which can and does allow all manner of people to take advantage from the criminal to the extremist. However that once again doesn't mean that all who reside in them fall into that category or that 'escape' isn't possible (I now live a comfortable middle class existence in a suburb and my father runs two businesses).

 

[Spurgy 777]

haha; I think what he means, and to clarify what I mean too is that Terrorists are not Muslims because they break some of the fundamental rules of Islam, but they are still called Muslims under the banner.

gah, Tree'd

Would you mind providing specific examples of actions committed by terrorists, and what Islam says to forbid those actions? I'm not too familiar with most of the Quran, and it's important to the discussion, because if it's not extremely clear and is open to interpretation, then you can't justify saying they aren't "true" Muslims because arguably they just have a different interpretation of both their actions and of the religion.

Also, if they are "fake" Muslims for not following a certain rule, where do you draw the line between "true" and "fake" Muslims, or people of any religion for that matter. Are Christians who don't stone disobedient children "fake" Christians? What about Muslims who eat pork and drink alcohol, how much is that open to interpretation, and are they all "fake" Muslims?

This is why I tend to avoid categorising people into "true" and "fake" beyond the absolute core of having a belief in god "X", because it can easy become completely subjective and meaningless.

Also, if you're right that every religious terrorist, whose religion doesn't condone their actions, is actually a fake religious person, does that mean that pretty much only atheists and deists (guessing that covers everyone who believes in a god, but not a religion) can be terrorists?