General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI know those who defend islam have there hearts in the right place
People always ask me how can i be so critical of islam considering i was born into the culture and religion and being from there. I dont have a lot of posts but most of the ones i do especially the earlier ones deal with this extremism and where it comes from.
What makes me so angry and obviously its hard to decide what can make you angrier in this situations.. obviously the innocent innocent lost of lives is right at the top but what makes it unbreakable for me to see these attacks is that hospitable of people in western civilization welcoming us with open arms. The heart breaking aspect of the people that died in the past 24 hours could have been the same people just a week or a month ago protesting the so called "right wing islamaphobe" and carrying banners of welcome muslims to europe.. only to be killed by those same people they had there hearts opened up to. THAT is the hardest part for me..
The truth of the matter is this isnt going to stop.. in fact its only going to get worse and worse.. with saudi arabia being allowed to finance the endless mosques whose preachers across europe teach the wahhabi form of rhetoric that they teach and left unchecked.
Sure there will be more solidarity protests with muslims in europe.. with the refugees in europe.. but as those jews who wear jewish clothing start being harassed in cities with large muslim populations with the police helpless to stop it. Immigration out of countries like france and to israel will start becoming more appealing. We in fact are already starting to see this now. the solidarity protests will have a few less people.. as the parents of the these dead kids in Belgium start burying there loved ones there will be even less so.
For those who have the facebook apps that allows you to paint your profile picture with a picture of the flag of the country that just got attacked by an islamic extremist. I hope the youll consider putting up not just the pictures of flags of european capitals.. but Nigeria, and the Philippines, and Thailand, and turkey, and Algeria, and tunisia, and Morocco, and india where innocent people have there lifes cutt short by some young man whose mind has become so warped that he thinks by killing Innocent people somehow he will go to heaven.. The unchecked saudi arabian funded wahhabi wing of the islamic religion will put Muslims against muslims.. jews agianst muslims Christians against Muslims..
Wait till the coming war of shai vs sunni war of islam starts hitting european capitals.. I know many here dont want to jump on the band wagon of bashing muslims.. painting broad strokes.. etc.. etc.. that is commendable. But turning the blind eye to wahhabism.. to the terrible things that saudi arabia does is not defending innocent muslims. On the contrary it is laying the ground work for more conflict. The strategy should not be to go after the muslim family down the street. The strategy should be who built the mosque that the family is going to. and was it built using saudi arabian money. Because if it was i promise you that the person who paid for the mosque is the same person who gets to choose the Imam. If that imam is wahhabi believing jew hating isis sympthetic imam who has access to young muslim kids. The please please i beg of you. Dont pretend not to know where they come from.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
villager
(26,001 posts)Not only what it's doing to our whole biosphere, but as you point out, the unchecked funding of Saudi Arabia's "hate franchises..."
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)And I will continue to defend the 99.99% of Muslims who peacefully exercise their faith.
agnostic102
(198 posts)are the ones who first get killed by muslim extremists.. you see many topics being created today by the attacks in belgium.. did you not see just yesteryda or so a suicide bombing in instanbull? or syria? or the dozens that were killed in egypt? innocent muslims are getting killed everyday. Its only that now its starting to reach European and western capitalists that people are starting to notice.
You might feel very proud of your selfs in taking some line of all muslims are peaceful and other one liners that go well in some circles around here. Im more concered with my kurdish uncle in turkey who takes hes kids to school everyday doesnt get blown to peacees by some asshole suicide bomber who thinks hes doing gods work. Because some saudi arabian funded isis imam told him so.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)You are exactly right. Those in the most danger from islamic extremists are their fellow Muslims. Attacks like those in Belgium and Paris are commonplace in the Arab world. We only care when it comes to our doorstep.
LiberalArkie
(15,713 posts)I think that is correct.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)All have elements of pacifism, just as all have elements of violence. To try and paint one of the big three as a "religion of peace" is pandering, especially if you yourself aren't a practitioner. I'm assuming that when you assigned your glowing description, you'd considered all the practitioners who disagree, as well as all the hadiths, chapters of the Qur'an, words of modern and ancient imams, clerics, etc that don't support your view.
Islam doesn't fit into a neat little box, whether your aim is to absolve it of all violence done in its name, or to vilify the practitioners as complicit across the board.
Duppers
(28,120 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1)
"I've nothing to die for."
- Ricky Gervais
SylviaD
(721 posts)...there is a big difference between Christianity and Islam. There is no well funded, popular, and growing sect of Christians that likes to kill people in cold blood and blow up themselves and others.
The OP is correct, wahabbi Islam is not a religion of peace, no more than extreme Christian groups in Northern Ireland were a religion of peace in 1970 or 1980.
Now, today, in 2016, the ISIS brand of extreme Islam is not a religion of peace and it should NOT be taught in mosques or Islamic schools. Call me whatever you want, in my mind that is the truth.
PassingFair
(22,434 posts)
linuxman
(2,337 posts)I was in agreement with the OP.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)A pox on all these idiotic, nonsensical, and harmful mythologies.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)The reality is much more complicated than that.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Why did you exclude him?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Interesting source you are using there. Other videos hosted include Hillary barking like a dog.
In any case, Islam is not a religion of peace, though most Muslims are peaceful.
It is a religion of myths and fairy tales with bizarre instructions to behave in ways that are subservient to a make-believe sky deity - just like Christianity and Judaism.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Its a youtube video. Of him speaking. Are you suggesting its not true?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)No, I'm not suggesting it is not true. Just thought the source was odd.
I think a US President has to make a statement like that for diplomatic reasons.
The reality is that Islam is not a religion of peace, and is in fact a religion that explicitly calls for violence under certain circumstances.
This is not a trait that is unique to Islam by any means but, to the contrary, is a feature of Judaism and Christianity as well.
The Koran and the Bible both clearly and explicitly sanction acts of violence.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)So President Bush really believed that Islam is a religion of peace, but President Obama only says it for diplomatic reasons? Is that your conclusion?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)At least that's my general perception. Obama is generally very sensitive about these sorts of things and chooses his words much more carefully than Bush ever did. It's possible, though, that Bush was smart enough to know that he also had to say what he said for diplomatic reasons. Although he seemed like a moron at times, perhaps he had more political savvy than it appeared. He did manage to get elected to a second term somehow.
Is truth
Sky gods are fairy tales ment to keep the hapless hapless.
FUCK ALL RELIGION
Oneironaut
(5,492 posts)Islam is not peaceful. Followers who ignore most of their holy book in favor of common sense and being civilized are. Calling Islam peaceful is like calling Christianity peaceful - both are not at their core.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Except, of course, by people who want justification to hate anyone who practices that religion. Most of whom will ardently oppose any such treatment of themselves or their faith.
Oneironaut
(5,492 posts)They believe that their religion says it was ok to do what they did. This is based on their interpretation of the Koran.
If religion is not based on its core principles (which come from their holy books), then what are they based on? Which interpretation is the correct one? Is an interpretation really the correct one just because it's less violent, or because more people follow it?
Every terror attack that happens, somebody comes up with this "Islam is no good inherently in itself" bit, as if no other groups have had terrorists and as if all Muslims are terrorists.
Gore1FL
(21,127 posts)
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)And then ask yourself why you had to Google that.
Gore1FL
(21,127 posts)Ask yourself why you had to Google that.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Color me surprised.
As for the "Filicidal bastard" comment, you're painting with an awfully broad brush. There are a lot of Christians whose christology doesn't include the idea of propitiatory atonement. You might need to get out more often and actually meet some of the people you're running down.
Gore1FL
(21,127 posts)As far as Christians not believing that Jesus didn't dies for their sins, do they believe that Jesus didn't die, or that he did so for fun?
If it's the latter, God is still a dick.
and I love your sig line!
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)As are extremist Quakers.
Gore1FL
(21,127 posts)Even their God is a son-killing asshole in need of severe anger management.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)By Charles Haviland
BBC News, Colombo
30 May 2015
The principle of non-violence is central to Buddhist teachings, but in Sri Lanka some Buddhist monks are being accused of stirring up hostility towards other faiths and ethnic minorities. Their hard line is causing increasing concern.
~ snip ~
The peaceful precepts for which Buddhism is widely known barely figure in his words. Instead, the monk, Galagoda Aththe Gnanasara Thero, talks of his Buddhism in terms of race. Most Buddhists here are ethnically Sinhalese, and Sinhalese make up three-quarters of the island's population.
~ snip ~
This firebrand strain of Buddhism is not new to Sri Lanka. A key Buddhist revivalist figure of the early 20th Century, Anagarika Dharmapala, was less than complimentary about non-Sinhalese people. He held that the "Aryan Sinhalese" had made the island into Paradise which was then destroyed by Christianity and polytheism. He targeted Muslims saying they had "by Shylockian methods" thrived at the expense of the "sons of the soil".
~ snip ~
In the small town of Aluthgama last June, three people died in clashes that started when the BBS and other Buddhist monks led an anti-Muslim rally in a Muslim area. At the time, I met Muslim families whose homes and shops had been burnt and utterly destroyed, and who were cowering in schools as temporary refugees.
~ snip ~
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Sadly, it is not.
Myanmar’s Buddhist terrorism problem
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/2/myanmars-buddhist-terrorism-problem.html
February 18, 2015 2:00AM ET
by Usaid Siddiqui
On Feb. 11, Myanmar’s President Thein Sein rescinded a voting rights offer to the country’s Rohingya community amid intense pressure from far-right Buddhist groups. Last week hundreds of Buddhists took to the streets to denounce the continuation of a 2010 law that extended the right to vote to the country’s more than 1 million ethnic Rohingya. Myanmar does not regard the minority group as citizens.
The violence directed toward the Muslim Rohingya community has been characterized in the media as Buddhism’s terrorism problem. However, the faith-based portrayal of the Rohingya crisis devalues the political and social nuances necessary to understanding the conflict.
~ snip ~
The Rohingya are one of the most persecuted groups in the world. Stripped of citizenship in the 1980s, the Rohingya have been a subject of frequent racist propaganda and blistering violence. For years numerous human rights organizations have documented the persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar’s northern Rakhine state. The community continues to live under constant threats, with few legal rights.
~ snip ~
Myanmar’s government and local authorities have long been complicit in the violence against the Rohingya and other minority groups. “Burmese officials, community leaders and Buddhist monks organized and encouraged ethnic Arakanese backed by state security forces to conduct coordinated attacks on Muslim neighborhoods and villages in October 2012 to terrorize and forcibly relocate the population,” HRW said in a detailed report in 2013. “Included in the death toll were 28 children who were hacked to death, including 13 under age 5. ”
~ snip ~
EVERY religion is bloodstained.
Gore1FL
(21,127 posts)If you sincerely need to suggest otherwise please come up with better examples than mythical characters created by people with an agenda.
blm
(113,043 posts)actually mean what you say, but, it's really all just one big laugh, isn't it?
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)do you?
blm
(113,043 posts)Pretty sure that is why you post as you do.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Still, it all comes down to intent...always.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)btw, 99.99% of Muslims who peacefully exercise their faith?
above 50.0% of Muslims worldwide agree with the stoning of adulterers.
Do you call this peaceful?
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)APRIL 30, 2013
According to the survey findings, most Muslims believe sharia is the revealed word of God rather than a body of law developed by men based on the word of God. Muslims also tend to believe sharia has only one, true understanding, but this opinion is far from universal; in some countries, substantial minorities of Muslims believe sharia should be open to multiple interpretations. Religious commitment is closely linked to views about sharia: Muslims who pray several times a day are more likely to say sharia is the revealed word of God, to say that it has only one interpretation and to support the implementation of Islamic law in their country.
~ snip ~
Penalty for Theft or Robbery
Among those who want sharia to be the law of the land, in 10 of 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis at least half say they support penalties such as whippings or cutting off the hands of thieves and robbers.17 In South Asia, Pakistani and Afghan Muslims clearly support hudud punishments (see Glossary). In both countries, more than eight-in-ten Muslims who favor making sharia the official law of the land also back these types of penalties for theft and robbery (88% in Pakistan and 81% in Afghanistan). By contrast, only half of Bangladeshis who favor sharia as the law of the land share this view.
~ snip ~
Penalty for Adultery
In 10 of 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis, at least half of Muslims who favor making sharia the law of the land also favor stoning unfaithful spouses.
~ snip ~
Penalty for Converting to Another Faith
Compared with attitudes toward applying sharia in the domestic or criminal spheres, Muslims in the countries surveyed are significantly less supportive of the death penalty for converts. Nevertheless, in six of the 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis, at least half of those who favor making Islamic law the official law also support executing apostates.
~ snip ~
brooklynite
(94,502 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)It's whatever you want it to be. You can justify any act through any of the Holy books.
You want peace? It's in there. You want to slaughter some folks? Got that too
Marry a child? Check
Anything...
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Should we condemn all Christians?
theboss
(10,491 posts)B. There have been 11 deaths related to anti-abortion terror in the last 30 years. Today's attack will probably triple that number alone.
dembotoz
(16,799 posts)i might change my mind.
by for me the last death threat i got came from a christian
bvf
(6,604 posts)Why are you limiting deaths at the hands of christians to the anti-abortion issue? Seems a bit unfair.
agnostic102
(198 posts)Im not christian.. i dont have many christian family members other then maybe an uncle or aunt that was married into it. Im not here to defend crazy Christians. I cant take that responsibility on right now. Im to busy trying to shape the young minds of middle eastern boys not to buy into the crazies in our religion. I try and speak within my community with any young muslim or even middle eastern who i over hear say a derogatory thing about jews or israel.. about other forms islam. i try and explain to them and guide them. Im sorry but i cant add that a list of crazy christians who think killing abortion doctors somehow is the right thing to do. Please allow me to deal with one crazy at a time.
SylviaD
(721 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)And recognize that there is a problem with any religion that would inspire that kind of violence.
Gore1FL
(21,127 posts)Christianity is every bit as evil.
lastone
(588 posts)Of Christians that look the other way, so yes.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)knr
linuxman
(2,337 posts)Duers have a hell of a time understanding that one can know, understand, and love muslims, yet also have the good sense to understand that Islam is becoming increasingly more radical and in some ways dangerous. We're a globalized world in every sense now. That means an increase in movement and spread of ideas and the people carrying them. Those peoples and ideas aren't always going to be a good thing for the new places they reach.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)don't take it so seriously.
On matters relating to Islam, I've learned DU is many times no better than conservative news talk programs, and that nobody ever changes their minds on the basis of what anyone else is saying. So I have drifted towards the idea that staying out is energy better spent than wading in.
Peace to you. 
agnostic102
(198 posts)I understand but i have to do my part. I cant just pretend i dont see young midddle eastern men (and sometimes women) are being duped by this disease called wahhabism that is casting its long arms across the muslim world. I cant act like im helpless.
You see poeple like me are the most unpopular in the world. A lot of times we feel like we have no home..
When i came to this country comments like sand nig#$# were routinely used to described me. even though i have blue eyes fair skin and light brown hair. just my name was good enough reason. How i wish my name was michael smith growing up lol. but the truth of it is i talk about uncomfortable things.
You know how popular im at our local resturant where we all hang out when someone bashes jews and israel and im the asshole that points out all the great technology and good that comes from that country? The room usually goes silenct for almost 2 seconds before they ALL jump on me pointing out one thing after another about how we are the victims of israel. Im like dude were not even Palestinian. youve been here all your life and your nickname is david because you were to embarrassed to go by saad and that btw is a jewish name you ignorant dummie.. sorry im going on a rant now about our arguments but u get the point.
but as i was saying poeple like me are not popular.. the donald trumps of the world hate me.. the extremist mindset of the world i come from hate me.. i get labled an islamaphobe for being critical of the religion and culture i grew up because im trying the save the hearts and minds of my people. Which i find amusing.. but like i said.. poeple like me are not very popular lol.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Just realize that most people who come to DU to talk about Islam are malicious intruders or otherwise lost souls who are not prepared to change their minds about Islam and want only to come here to reinforce their fears and hate.
I'm now of an age where I've decided that I'm not wasting any more of my life doing this sort of thing. Activism is for the young, perhaps?
Anyway, cheers.
P.S. It's supposedly axiomatic of bigots to say, 'some of my best friends are (*insert minority group here*)', but some of my best friends are muslim, albeit none fanatic and almost all Western-oriented.
ancianita
(36,023 posts)across the more peaceful Muslims within the different sects which are allegedly infighting, as well?
from Harun:
"...if khilafah were still in place, there would have been no catalyst for people to create Al-Qaeda, Dawlah, Taliban, JAN, Hamas etc and all the groups the West complains about. Absence of the central leader is why people have the ability to create paramilitaries in the first place, because there should already be an organized Islamic army which was the job of the caliph. With no caliph, no army, and no state representation the global needs of the Muslims, anyone can start a militia or paramilitary if they have guns and people. Albeit the Ottoman caliph became a figurehead towards the end, but hell we don't even have a figurehead. We have less than that these days. And these kuffar complain about chaos in the region, their creed destroyed the Muslim World and it has coming back on their own lands, which was inevitable. All of the groups that they have on the "terror list" (AQ, ISIS, Hamas, Taliban, Al-Shabab) were all formed in the late 80's, 90's, and 2000's. What was happening all those decades before? It was oppression without retaliation. They are fortunate that it took the ummah 60 years to respond to them because it could have come earlier."
and then from Blackbeard:
"...It's all matters of itjihad. There is no specific ruling set in stone when it comes to issues like this. How could there be? Stuff like this never happened during the time of Muhammad , the salaf all the way until explosives and guns were invented.
The contemporary saudi scholars who are sponsored by the apostate rulers are not the only scholars of muslims. One cannot declare another party as non-muslims or them going against Islam without proper evidence.
Simply, there will always exist two views on this matter. The scholars of jihad deriving the ruling that it's allowed in matter of qisas and the other party deriving ruling that it's not allowed even in matters of qisas. BOTH having enough evidence to make them both valid. The famous position ibn uthaymeen r.a. had which allowed qisas to be executed on civilians is proof of that.... that is that this whole issue is all based on matters of itjihad and this was the itjihad of ibn uthaymeen r.a.
I am not saying I condone the attacks or that I follow this opinion, matter of fact I don't. I refrain however from talking about those who do and I can't say what they do is haram when they have evidence that the apparent is that it's allowed. But don't get me wrong, nothing of this is the sunnah of our prophet.
It all depends where you look at, naturally the saudi scholars wont allow it. Hence why I stay away from discussions like this, why I warn others to stay away from it as we have no knowledge in this subject."
-------------------------------------------
I'm not disagreeing with you, agnostic, since I'm atheist (raised Christian).
My exposure to knowledge of Islam at the University of Chicago's Center for Middle Eastern Studies (during my year as a U. of C. Mellon Fellow) -- and even sites like this that possibly exclude Christian opinion (I don't know if that's a fact of this site, since I haven't yet tried to join) -- makes me wonder if the conversations across the billion or more Muslims who are peaceful will end up ruling the day.
And should we in the West defend Western-controlled land bases regardless of former "sins" like the crusades, colonialism and the war on terror.
I don't expect some final definitive answer, just am curious about what a concerned American former Muslim thinks.
I very much appreciate your OP.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)Thank you for your efforts in seeking peace by freeing minds.
It is far more precious to be honorable than popular.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)I see a benefit to this thread. It has helped me identify posters to put on ignore.
Response to agnostic102 (Original post)
Post removed
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Ignore list for you all.
Wounded Bear
(58,647 posts)It's about perhaps if we stop attacking Islam, maybe they will stop feeling so revengeful.
What did we say in the 60's? Oh, right....
or something along those lines.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Chickens are coming home to roost
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)It was
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity"
I agree with your opinion. Well said!
Martin Eden
(12,863 posts)I won't defend any religion or ideology or group of people who intentionally murder innocent people.
Do all worshippers of Islam support such atrocities?
If not, then you should have worded the title of our OP more judiciously.
Personally, I'm agnostic. I don't subscribe to any religion. None can be the "one true" religion, and as long as the cumulative effect of religion is to divide people rather than bring them together, my view of religion will be negative.
I abhor injustice and dogma that curtails freedom of thought and expression and human rights. It may very well be that Islamic societies are for the most part worse in this regard than the other major religions. Whether this is inherent to the religion or due to lack of cultural progress remains to be seen. In the not too distant past Christian societies were considerably more narrow minded and restrictive than today, and you don't have to look too far to see "conservative" Christians in America full of hate and bigotry and eager to unleash the world's greatest military on brown people halfway around the globe.
Religion, including Islam, is here to stay for the foreseeable future. It is pointless and very likely counterproductive to speak in terms of condemning an entire religion, as the leading contender for the Republican nomination has done.
As a nation state we must do what is necessary to defend the life and liberty of our citizens, but beyond that we should be known for our generosity, kindness, understanding, and for setting an example that others will be eager to follow. We need to be what we expect or want others to be, and if we diligently follow that course the world will slowly become a better place.
We can't force people to change, but we can show them a better way.
alarimer
(16,245 posts)I think we can assume that they knew where he was, as did other family members and friends.
Why didn't they turn him in? I'd turn in my family members who did something like this. In fact, i'd be pissed that he was willing to foul the nest so badly with his rancid ideology. It only fuels the haters. But I guess they are probably afraid of being targeted themselves by the terrorists.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)and I'm not sure they all have their hearts in the right place. Many don't actually want to understand the nature of the religion. If death is acceptable by stoning for adultery or blasphemy, how can the religion be peaceful. If someone can't leave without being killed, if Rushdie can be sentenced to death by a country for writing a book - how can there be claims to the majority being peaceful?
Duppers
(28,120 posts)Response to agnostic102 (Original post)
Post removed
ladjf
(17,320 posts)followers of the man from Nazareth for although they are not true believers of Allah but their hearts are in the right place.
Note: Those words were my recollection from having read the passage about 45 years ago.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)as a tool to get what they want. I know several peace loving Muslims who only want to go to work in the morning and come home to their children in the evening. If all the world's religions disappeared tomorrow we would still have the same wars. They would just use a different tool to get what they want is all.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Science Crow
(21 posts)While the Irish in that conflict could reliably be assumed to be Catholic or Protestant based on the side they chose, the fact remains that religion and religious identity had absolutely nothing to do with the violence. Read some history.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Look at the long time conflict between Arabia and Persia.
Science Crow
(21 posts)Ireland is not in the Middle East. There were many causes for that conflict and every one stemmed from England's conquest and occupation. If you think either unionist or republican harmed a hair on anyone's head because that person disagreed with their opinions about Jesus then you're missing the point and should educate yourself before comparing either side to Koran memorizing lunatics who think murdering people will earn them a truck load of virgins. There is no comparison and believing otherwise is an insult to the Irish people.
What next, will you claim that the American Civil war was a battle against the Southern Baptists?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)True.
They don't drink in the Middle East.
BTW: The Civil War had lunatics spouting Bible verses claiming God was on their side.
Read a book.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)every so often, as though the Irish would have been perfectly happy to be ruled by the British if only Britain had been a Catholic country.
At least the claim that the Holocaust was Christian terrorism hasn't appeared in this thread yet.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Last edited Tue Mar 22, 2016, 08:00 PM - Edit history (1)
Not really sure what your argument is. That Islam is somehow more inherently violent than Christianity or Judaism? That's a pretty silly direction to go considering the history and the actual content of the holy books they use.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Christianity was a pretty big element of Nazi propaganda, and Christian anti-semitism was a powerful tool used by the Nazi regime well before that article was written (and that national church mutated out of a national Christian church itself). That's why I used the word "inspired". While Hitler rationalized the killing of Jews in bullshit "scientific" bable, the holocaust was pushed with Christian anti-semitic propaganda and ideas that were present and persisted looooong before Hitler was even born.
Edit: I just noticed I said "motivated" instead of "inspired" in my post up thread. Inspired is the better word as I don't mean Hitler and the Nazi leadership were directly motivated by Christian religiosity.
Locrian
(4,522 posts)Read this via BEN NORTON at Salon.com: http://www.salon.com/2015/11/17/we_created_islamic_extremism_those_blaming_islam_for_isis_would_have_supported_osama_bin_laden_in_the_80s/
Also read this via KAMEL DAOUD at The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/opinion/saudi-arabia-an-isis-that-has-made-it.html
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Whether they are Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or any other sort of religious followers. For instance, when we have an American school shooting, it's usually... "Damn, that was one severely messed up individual" When it comes to acts of terror, suicide bombings and so on... it's "Damn, we gotta do something about them crazy Muslims!" Ultimately, you get similar results. Innocent people dead - and usually the shooter also ends up dead, whether through suicide or police action.
I certainly don't doubt that there's a lot of hatred and ignorance being spread and taught to young children at the most basic level. When it comes to that though, it doesn't really matter if you're a Muslim extremist or a Christian extremist - it comes down to how you act. Don't think Christians in more, so called "Christian Nations" wouldn't act in exactly the same manner were the situation reversed. The history of the Crusades, the Inquisitions, and so on... clearly indicates this.
Poverty, oppression, the silencing of free thought and free expression... so many things play into this, but I believe poverty leads. I believe that if we increase financial equality as well as individual rights throughout the world, we will slow down this kind of extreme hate and violence. Give people a chance for a better education, for a life without crushing poverty or religious oppression, and I think we might have a better world in which to live.
To blame Islam as a whole, or Christianity, or any other religion... I believe is inaccurate. The people who commit these terrible acts of violence are individuals - and individuals should be blamed for their actions. As for those who preach hatred and the condemnation of other peoples in ignorance... well, there are plenty of "Christian" individuals who are just as guilty of this as radical Imams. Yes, they deserve part of the blame too.
I commend you for doing what you can to reach out to young people in your community. There will always be that battle for peace and compassion over zealotry and extremism, for coexistence over constant violence and war. I am also agnostic... religion doesn't make much sense to me, if it ever did. I think we can choose to do the right things because they are the right things. We can choose to live by the golden rule without some higher power telling us we must. We can be decent to each other because human beings are capable of empathy, of compassion, or courage and kindness.
The kind of things that Trump and Cruz are talking about are not at all solutions to the problem. They will make it worse. For ignorance begets ignorance, violence begets violence - and hate begets hate. How far is it from "We need Muslims to Register", or, "We need to patrol Muslim neighborhoods" to - "We need to put Muslims in concentration camps"?
Xenophobia is xenophobia. Hate is hate. Ignorance is ignorance. People like Trump and Cruz are just as guilty of spreading such as those Imams you are talking about.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)This was not an act by an individual. This was a carefully planned operation by an organization who is committed to orchestrated terror attacks killing as many civilians as possible specifically in the name of Islam.
As many have pointed out, this attack in Belgium is one of many that have been carried out by ISIS all over the world over the past few months deliberately killing thousands of people.
To say that it has nothing to do with religion is preposterous.
davidthegnome
(2,983 posts)Whether ISIS acts through individuals or as a group... they are individuals - they do not represent the whole of the Muslim people, no more than Westboro Baptists represent the whole of Christianity. Their own interpretation of their religion may have plenty to do with it - but then you have the vast majority of Muslims, who do not behave that way. Once again - these are extremists and they are individuals . No group in it's entirety should (or even can) be held responsible for what some of it's members do. To suggest otherwise would lead you down a rather slippery slope, would it not?
I also did not say that religion had nothing to do with it. There are different ways one might interpret one's religion - the bible, for instance, is full of so many parables that they can be taken to mean a wide, wide variety of different things.
Yes, ISIS is an organization claiming to act on behalf of their religion... regardless of whether or not that religion, or the vast majority of it's followers actually want them to act on their behalf. Again... it is not ISLAM that is to blame, it is the individuals within the terrorist organization/s.
They are not doing things on behalf of their religion, they are doing things on behalf of their own interpretation of that religion... which is interpreted in many different ways by many different people. Philosophies, principles, many things come into play here, in addition to faith and/or zealotry.
Religion itself is an idea - not an action. Plenty of people use it as an excuse to commit terrible crimes - but that IS what it is - an excuse. An attempt to justify what cannot be justified rationally through using one's faith. It is wrong when anyone does it - but it is the individual and not the religion that is to blame.
As an agnostic - should I be held responsible for the actions of all agnostics everywhere? If I do terrible, cruel things... does that say something about agnosticism itself? Or just me?
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)And the innocent people that radical ISILs are murdering in the Mid East nations, too. I also agree with you about the danger caused by Saudi-funded Wahabi radical sunnis, the danger posed by Saudi Arabia itself and their Standard Oil bush pals, and the threat from non-Saudi radical Shias.
But, where the pig repug party wants to take attacks like this politically and philosophically, I disagree 100% with. I don't know you as a post-er, and am not indicting you. But the people who slaughtered the Belgians are not "those same people they had there hearts opened up to". So having you feel that "THAT is the hardest part for me.." is a false feeling based on an idea that is factually incorrect, but it is a bogus idea that the repug Islamophobes will try to push forward and get propaganda mileage out of.
Again, you haven't posted here long, and I read your journal to try to see where you're coming from better, and it didn't leave me feeling you're advocating for the other team. But that feeling of yours, coming from a factually incorrect place, that believes that "Islam in whole" committed this mass murderous crime, is exactly what good people of all religions and no religion have to fight against. And we are going to get this false idea promoted endlessly by the bad guys in the other party, so why does it need to be promoted here, even taking into account the extremely high level of heartbreak or outrage the attack has caused?
I'm a Catholic, and don't feel I should tell someone steeped in the Islamic tradition where to get off, regarding how to feel about the Islamic religion. But Islam didn't do this, and all moslems aren't to blame. The killers are to blame, and their leaders and financial backers are to blame. If you are personally now against Islam, fine. That's your experience, your choice. You can't blame a billion people for the actions of a very tiny minority. The people who got killed who you think may previously have been protesting in favor of refugee immigrants weren't welcoming their own killers, they were welcoming other victims of those same killers.
To use the deaths of those pro-refugee Belgians as a tool to advocate that Western countries do exactly what the killers want -- when what the killers want is to get their hands on other victims who are trying to escape those killers -- that use of the victims' deaths is a supreme disservice to those pro-refugee people who were murdered by those killers. It's exactly the same as saying "Those people killed you, so we're going to obey them and give them other victims to kill, because they said that's why they killed you. Since they said that's what they want us to do, we're going to do it. Because we're terrified, furious, and heartbroken, so this supremely non-sensical idea seems completely sensible to us."
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Islam is a philosophy like any other philosophy. Just because it's a religion does not make it free from analysis and criticism.
We are completely comfortable criticizing Republicanism on this board even though there are literally millions of Republicans right here in the United States, many of whom are kind and wonderful people.
We can still recognize that there are problems with a philosophy or belief system without impugning all the people who adhere to said set of beliefs, be it a religious or political philosophy.
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)that makes your analogy not work. There was no campaign or vote where Islam decided to back those few people who commit these atrocities, those terrorists weren't voted in as representatives for all of Islam. The kind and wonderful people who are repubs that you know are watching their leaders promise policies and enact laws that are frankly fascist, then they vote to put them in office, or to give them another term, anyway.
The post I responded to conflates the few terrorists with the entire religion, right in the title. Your response to my reply poorly characterizes the o.p. as 'looking critically at Islam', because it ignores the several factually incorrect ideas contained in the o.p. that I pointed out, incorrect ideas which are anathema to critical thinking. Since you replied to me, though I really was looking to talk to ag102, here are the factually true ideas that you bypassed, which ag and you didn't respond to, obe:
1) The people who slaughtered the Belgians are not "those same people they had there hearts opened up to". The killers are not the refugees who are fleeing from the killers. 2) Those who 'defend Islam' are not defending the few terrorist murderers who falsely claim they represent Islam, they're defending the vast majority of a billion Islamic people. The dead 'defenders of Islam' didn't defend the killers, but defended the killers' intended Islamic victims. and 3) the repug party is trying to attack all adherents to Islam as terrorist murderers, whether or not you believe that there are many kind and wonderful rank and file people in it. All Islamicists aren't terrorist killers, only a tiny number are, despite the repugs' attempt to spin reality to get votes. 4) The people who got killed who may previously have been protesting in favor of refugee immigrants weren't welcoming their own killers, they were welcoming other victims of those same killers. The pro-immigrant victims were helping other victims, and opposing the killers. 5) To use the deaths of those pro-refugee Belgians as a tool to advocate that Western countries do exactly what the killers want -- that use of the victims' deaths is a supreme disservice to those pro-refugee people who were murdered by those killers. Using their deaths to do the opposite of what they want, to do exactly what their murderers want, is a massive inversion in terms of thought and action, and is not critical thinking.
The party that this whole site is here to oppose excoriated the people who demonstrate in favor of helping the refugees, made it very clear they were working as hard as possible with everything they've got against those peoples' correct ideas, and now is trying to take their deaths out for a right wing spin, to justify working against the dead victims' correct, kind, and wonderful ideas.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)One should feel equally comfortable criticizing any philosophy or belief system that one disagrees with.
There are Islamic leaders who promise policies and enact laws that are fascist and they are supported by people who vote them into power in the name of Islam.
With respect to your other points:
1. That's true. The refugees and the terrorists are not the same people. One should not conflate the two.
2. There is a difference between "defending Islam" and "defending the vast majority of a billion Islamic people". One should be free to attack Islam as a philosophy without being seen as attacking a billion Muslim people. In the same way that one should be free to attack Republicanism as a philosophy without being seen as attacking millions of Republican people.
3. Obviously all adherents to Islam are not terrorist murderers and anyone who says so is a hate-monger. However, it is misguided to pretend that the terrorist murderers have no connection whatsoever to Islam. They plainly do. In the same way that someone who attacks an abortion clinic has a connection to Christianity even though most Christians don't attack abortion clinics.
4. Agreed.
5. What the murderers want or don't want is irrelevant. One should take appropriate action irrespective of what they want.
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 25, 2016, 04:25 PM - Edit history (1)
I don't mind if one attacks Islam as a philosophy, or if one finds that many good and wonderful people can be found within the g o p. Neither of those issues form the basis of my reply to the o.p.
The simple issue for me is that these terror attacks occurred, then certain 'critical thinkers' in the right wing began stating that the religion of Islam and all its adherents made them happen, which is wrong. The o.p.s implication that the victims' own 'incorrect' critical thought analysis -- that 'Islamic refugees and Islamic people in general aren't murderous terrorists' -- is what tragically led to their deaths -- that implication is also just wrong.
I frankly DO indict millions of repuglican people, because they see the ideas and performance of their leaders, and wholeheartedly back them anyway. Or they don't have the tiniest scintilla of a clue about those leaders' ideas and performances, and vote to put them in power anyway. And no such endorsement of those terrorist attackers by hundreds of millions of Islamic religious adherents occurred; the small number of terrorists didn't run on a platform of terrorist action, then get the go-ahead supportive endorsement or vote 'in favor' from the rest of Islam. So one who conflates anti-repug sentiments with anti-Islam sentiments on this issue (or any other) is way off base, staggeringly so. The super super majority of Islam's adherents are simply practicing their faith and not committing violent massacres, but the practice of boosting promoting adhering to the repugs is an attack on billions of other people, as it aims to put our country's very considerable power in the hands of people with abhorrently bad ideas who promise to do very bad things with that power.
I'm hard pressed to come up with 'democratically elected' sharia governments you may be thinking about, when you discuss "Islamic leaders who promise policies and enact laws that are fascist and they are supported by people who vote them into power in the name of Islam", in your post. I do know about a ton of western backed feudal monarchies, Standard Oil installed strongman dictators, beaucoup west-sponsored coups that toppled democratically elected leaders in Islamic nations, one party elections with mandatory participation, weapons shipments to and intel backing of radical islamic sects for geopolitical purposes, the elimination of moderate oppositional leaders, etc. Which democratic Islamic countries are you thinking of here, obe? I've been paying attention for a long time, but apparently I'm playing catch up.
Despite what the american taliban repug party aims for, there is a very big difference between religion and political party, at least according to the people who founded our system of government. That's a key reason for our separation of church and state. Under our system, one can feel free to criticize any and all religions, for whatever reason they want, and speak freely about their critical thinking on the subject. Where the boundary exists is that religous zealots can't take control of our gov and use its tremendous powers to go after people who have the 'wrong' religious philosophies/belief systems, to enforce their own zealous religious beliefs. And secular political parties can't circumscribe peaceful legal religious practice. Religion can't take over gov, and gov can't take over religion, which is how it should remain.
So what exactly is the 'appropriate action one should take' regarding this terrorist attack, in your estimation, obe? The way I have it figured, determining the right course of action won't come from the unclear thinking and spur of the moment gut reaction feelings discussed in the o.p., and it certainly won't resemble anything that our kind opponents in the gop are pushing for, now.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)I do agree that we are reacting to different elements of the OP, so I will try to make sure to focus only on the points you are raising.
Of course, you are correct to point out the ridiculousness and bigotry implicit in right-wingers blaming all Muslims for these terrorist attacks. That does not, however, mean that it is unreasonable to consider the role that Islam played in these terrorist attacks rather than pretending that there is no relationship there, which some critical thinkers tend to do. One should feel free to be critical of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Scientology, etc. without being labeled a bigot.
I think you miss the point of what I am saying about Republicanism and Islam. What I am asking you to consider is that both of these are philosophies. Just because one is labeled a religion and one is labeled a political philosophy does not mean that they ought not both be subject to the same degree of scrutiny. If it is OK for someone to look at the basic tenets of Republicanism and say these values are antithetical to my own, so should it be OK to look at the basic tenets of Islam and come to that same conclusion.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is the example I will provide of a democratic Islamic country. This is a country where the president and prime minister are required by law to be Muslim and whose constitution indicates that all laws must be in accordance with Islam. One can look at the religious persecution of the Ahmadis there as an example of the systematic religious-based oppression. This is a country with rampant sexism, and abuse of women and girls in massive numbers according to numerous human rights groups.
In terms of appropriate action to take regarding this terrorist attack, I think that people like Bernie Sanders are on the right track when they speak of better communication among intelligence agencies and the like. Obviously one cannot stop all terrorist attacks, but coordination among law enforcement agencies internationally could help to prevent these attacks before they occur.
Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 26, 2016, 10:17 AM - Edit history (1)
would be a backlash that keeps refugees from being able to safely flee the terrorists, because the refugees are of a certain religion or racial extraction, and/or a successful effort by our fascist elements to win power or legislative fights by using the attacks as a propaganda tool.
I agree that overall, in general, political ideas and religious ideas can be discussed philosophically. My objection in this case is very specific and is limited to the conflation of the aims and actions of .001% of Islamic people with the rest of Islamic people, and the conflation of the stated aims/ acts/ results/ responsibility-of-supporters of Islam with those of our far-right political movement here. The practitioners/supporters of the two philosophies are polar opposites, in what they're doing individually and in how responsible they are collectively for the harm done by the active harmful minority that comes out of them. The issue's not about passing judgement on someone for judging Islam and saying 'that's not for me', it's about opposing the repug party saying openly 'due to these attacks, here's how we falsely judge all Islamic people, so we're making laws and using force to set those judgements in stone, in reality, for everyone within our very very long and powerful reach. Sit down, strap in, and shut up, because we're taking the reins of power and charging hard to the right.'
I have to admit that I never considered Pakistan as a pro-sharia democracy, due to the both long and recent history of coups, assassinations, CIA/ISI skulduggery, constitutional suspensions, mass detentions, manipulations against the Supreme Court followed by extreme judicial interference against vote integrity investigations, and election irregularities that include shootings and bombings. Pro-sharia, maybe.
I'm opposed to sharia law, too. I also don't like the anti-woman bent of Islam's fundies any more than I like our gov's pols' anti woman zealotry. I'm backing Bernie, too. But what to do about terror attacks, I don't know. I just know that anything the repugs propose ain't it. And no good course of action can come out of the factually incorrect ideas espoused by the o.p., whose author left this thread long ago.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)But remember that war is a racket, and while we hate terrorism as a people, the American war machine loves terrorism. It's a horrible, vicious cycle that need someone to stop bombing people. Why can't it be us.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)we need Bernie!
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Feel free to ignore
Two parts:
1- What role is climate change playing in the growth of Wahhabism. We both agree it is a problem, but it is far from the totality.
2.- what role has colonialism, and the needs of those willing to colonize the ME, have played in the rise of Wahabism as an ideology of liberation? Unlike Liberation Theology, also an answer to colonialism, this is far from inclusive.
These questions might tell you why I believe looking at Islam as wholly evil is unhelpful. Never mind that like Shining Path it has it's crazies. And in this case the crazies control a government.
But the answers might help to create a response. Right now the response has been kill 'em all and that is hardly going to work with 1.5 billion people.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)As does violence in the name of Judaism and Christianity.
Each of these religions are rooted in violence and conquest.
agnostic102
(198 posts)The direct roots of modern day sunni terrorism can be traced back to the wahhabi version of islam. Very very distorted very violent. The country it was founded in with billions of dollars of oil was able to spread this idealogy across mosques built and paid for by the saudi wahhabi family and its followers.. The difference between the wahhabi saudi family and isis is that isis is the honey badger version. it doesnt give two shits what anybody thinks while the family in saudi arabia wants to maintain there power and be part of the larger community. They believe what isis belives in but not enough to give up the gravy train.
In regards to climate change. This is effecting the muslim world terribly. Most poeple dont realise this but there was a devastating drought in syria.. poeple become desperate. They saw asad living the life while hes wife was on a shopping spree in europe and the average farmer couldnt feed hes family. The droughts which i believe are connected to climate change diffnenately made atleast part of the population who felt were treated as 2nd class citizens much more desperate. Asad harsh reaction to the protest made it even worse and things just went crazy and you have what is today.
colonialism created isis from the ashes of the iraq war that is for sure. I think colonialism has contributed significantly to the attacks on the west. no doubt about it. That being said. If there was no colonialism the hatred between shia and sunni go back a thousand years and that would have kept going in the middle at the very least.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)at least show minimal scholarship so people who are not supporters of the real estate swindler from New York, say, or fans of Dick Cheney, can take you seriously. That's not a hard and fast rule, as people who cannot spell frequently outclass themselves with their writing.
I don't think that is a concern here.
The content of the post seems to ignore hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims. It also ignores the fact that, writing that in the U.S. one is writing it atop the bones of tens of millions of indigenous people, killed to make way for us. And you are also writing it because of the free labor of black folk for hundreds of years, their labor and that of women at a discount now. And all that followed hundreds of years of Christians burning, hacking, torturing and killing their way across the old Europe and Eastern lands on their way to salvation.
I'm not honestly sure that white Europeans have that much they can hold up as a better moral compass, as you seem to suggest. If your scenario of conflict comes about it may simply be the harvest of what we sowed in the first place, not something that arose independently.
There are also events such as climate change and the fraud of an economy we have built to pretend we are still solvent, the outcome of which might yet be far worse than any of the little wars we have seen fit to delight ourselves with so far.
Here's a hint. Don't place too much emphasis on things which Fox News deems as scary or important.
You suggest in the beginning of your post that anyone who disagrees is defending Islam, but I 'm not, They don't need me. I am suggesting the criticism is weak, and while maybe partially correct, hardly the most important thing for us to deal with.
Clean the crystal ball. It appears to have been so smudged important things were missed.
REP
(21,691 posts)In fact, I am highly critical of almost all organized religions - from their tenets to how they are run, despite simultaneously believing deeply in their right to exist and for people to freely believe in them. While there are some individual members of various religions I feel it is proper to criticize, they tend to be either leaders of their particular branches, extreme fundamentalists, or both.
So yes, I think there is much to criticize in the Muslim religion and culture today - and friends from secular and not-so-secular Islamic countries agree (then again, they moved to the US for various reasons). Even if I didn't know so many real, live Muslims who are unhappy, distressed and frightened by what is being done (not just terrorism, but so-called "honor" murders, more militaristic readings of scripture, etc), common sense would tell me that most Muslims - like most other people - don't want constant chaos and death. Like everywhere, people get brainwashed in a way by what they're told over and over again, and we get the absurd situation of two Semitic peoples hating each other to everyone's detriment.
I don't have a solution. All I can do is refuse to hate groups of people I don't know because a small number of people have done unspeakably horrible things. Not hating doesn't mean being unaware; there are some groups that should be monitored whether they're planning to blow up a women's health clinic or a train station.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)blm
(113,043 posts).
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I care about Muslims. It's a crucial difference.
Rex
(65,616 posts)and just want to live a peaceful co-existence with everyone else on the planet. Just because they are Muslim, doesn't mean anything to me.
ALL of it comes down to (what I've always gone by) on just about everything - what is the INTENT of this person/group/government/society/nation etc..
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)If religion is only a reflection, who needs it? Let societies be.
But if religions (and their violent commands) inspire violence, discard them.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Better still, define mysticism and tell me what good it does to anyone.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...because I used to be one.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Long, long before the books of the new atheists, as a kid and teenager,
I questioned religions, and saw they offered nothing real.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)such as Europe or the USA or Canada or Australia, etc-
"How do you feel about the recent terror attacks?"
I have a feeling that a larger percentage of muslim fundamentalists would sympathize with the terrorists, than most DUers would even venture to guess.
Iggo
(47,549 posts)But I do defend people against bigots.
And I don't need to see another list of excuses for why a person wants to be bigoted toward certain other people.
I've seen them and I've given them the weight they deserve.
Have a wonderful day.
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)this illiteracy actually pervades your post.
