I think this is a well written article and what I find most interesting is the author's suggestion to keep cultural identity distinct from religious identity - although he seems to be a bit vague about what he means by "reforms".
Is it through Islam accepting that their religious texts - and hadiths - are questionable, open for discussion that we achieve some sort of peace? How do we educate (or should we even try) those on the other end of the spectrum (ie. not the so-called "moderates" but the extremists)?
Thoughts?
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: brenden on January 13, 2015, 06:06:10 pm
I'm just going to preface this and warn everyone to remain constructive and non-comparative. Like, even if you want to back a basic generalisation like... "Most Muslims", you'd better be pretty sure what you're saying is empirically supported. Similarly, if you're offended enough by anything said to start calling people names I will ban you immediately for a period of time I feel is appropriate. Just keep it constructive, people.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: slothpomba on January 13, 2015, 06:31:19 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/Io6tCbB.jpg)
Yeah i'm going to echo what Brendan says, if you're going to make an argument, make it a proper one with reasoning and evidence. You are fine to say what you like, *within a degree* long as it is well reasoned and not outrageously offensive just for the sake of being offensive of controversial. If it goes down that path, we'll have no hesitation in reprimanding anyone. If you don't even really know what Islam is, i wouldn't bother.
It sounds harsh but i've been here a long time and in my experience, most (but not all, we actually have some good discussion) end up in a circle-jerk or a shitstorm. If everyone could be civil and we could have a nice discussion for once that'd make me so happy.
I'll respond later to the article.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: charmanderp on January 13, 2015, 07:35:25 pm
My moderator advice: don't be an ass and you'll be fine.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: Professor Polonsky on January 13, 2015, 11:08:12 pm
Okay, we done power-tripping mods? ;)
I actually have to say that a lot of the things the article says are right on-point.
Islam, like the other Abrahamic religions, has terrible things in its religious texts. There's no way around that. But the difference between Islam and those other religions is that we don't see those texts being used as an excuse to terrorise people, to impose its ideology through violence, and so on.
The question is how you respond to the nasty stuff in your text. Judaism has slowly interpreted them away, over thousands of years. I'm not sure what Islam has done, but clearly there are people whose interpretation of their religion is a rather extreme one. I'm not going to try to come up with a figure of how many Muslims are fundamentalist, because that's really not the point. The issue is that there are enough radicalised Muslims for those attacks to occur.
While, of course, not every deeply religious person is going to become a violent radical, it is impossible to avoid how the former feeds the latter. Anti-abortion Christian theology is what inspires abortion clinic shooters; and anti-democratic Islamic theology is what inspired the Charlie attackers. Even if the willingness to use force to enforce those values is the bigger issue, we must as a society eschew not only those who use violence, but also the values they seek to uphold.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: Navy223 on January 14, 2015, 12:49:53 pm
Bill Maher is spot on here!
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: M_BONG on January 14, 2015, 03:42:38 pm
Ok I will weigh it on my views now.
I think it's important not to see Muslims in discrete categories - i.e. moderates vs extremists. Rather, we need to understand why extremism exists and accept a middle ground exists. Because if we don't understand what drives so-called moderates to extremism, we will never solve the root problem - we will only start polarising people further. This is what the current government and the media have been doing - they have been calling out the so-called minority of Jihadists and isolating them from what they see to be "good" Muslims when in reality, it is never so black and white.
Understanding different people through the lens of their own cultures (not our own!!) is important. A lot of Muslims, I think, do not want to integrate into Australian mainstream society and that's fine with me, as long as they abide by the law. Why are we so defensive about our Australian ideals anyway? Equating Shariah law (when it's used peacefully, to a large extent, in Australia) with terrorism, publicly calling the burqa confronting etc. will not bring us closer to our aims. Forcing people to integrate to one mainstream society has never been the point of multiculturalism. There was an article in The Age recently entitled (I forgot the exact title) "Why I don't Want You To Ride With Me" (in response to #Illridewithyou) is such example and we need to understand that perhaps these Muslim people don't believe in our Western, Anglo-Saxon ideals and we should judge their actions from their point of view. And although there has been a few people championing rights movements for Muslim women (such as Malala) we need to understand that these do not reflect the views of all Muslim women. Not all of them want education (even though from our point of view, who wouldn't); not all of them need Westerns to "save them".
In saying that, we should never censor our society (eg. stop satires of Muhammed) to prevent extremist attacks. And terrorism is terrorism, period. But perhaps it's time to realise that a middle ground exists - that not all terrorism stem from one single action, not all terrorism is an unprovoked attack on our ideals, not all terrorism stem from one deranged faction of society.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: ValiantIntellectual on January 14, 2015, 06:29:28 pm
There is usually a lot more to the case then just terrorist hating our freedom. I am not saying they don't but I just don't buy the idea that terrorist are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to change other people to their liking. Especially since there are plenty of nations and people far more accommodating to their beliefs to immigrate to. Committing an act of terror is not something that just comes to you. There are strong motivations for it, religious and non religious. I guess I am more skeptical of how simplistic the coverage seems to be of these terrorist. They are painted as one dimensional villains and it actually hampers debate on topics such as these. Surely there had to be some sort of rationale to motivate their acts? More then just them hating the lifestyle of a particular nation. I do want to know why the Charlie Hebdo attackers did what they did, not the media's interpretation of it but their own response. Of course nothing can justify their actions but no act of this magnitude could be committed without at least some rationale behind it. That's is what I would like to hear.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: Professor Polonsky on January 15, 2015, 02:49:04 am
There is usually a lot more to the case then just terrorist hating our freedom. I am not saying they don't but I just don't buy the idea that terrorist are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to change other people to their liking. Especially since there are plenty of nations and people far more accommodating to their beliefs to immigrate to. Committing an act of terror is not something that just comes to you. There are strong motivations for it, religious and non religious. I guess I am more skeptical of how simplistic the coverage seems to be of these terrorist. They are painted as one dimensional villains and it actually hampers debate on topics such as these. Surely there had to be some sort of rationale to motivate their acts? More then just them hating the lifestyle of a particular nation. I do want to know why the Charlie Hebdo attackers did what they did, not the media's interpretation of it but their own response. Of course nothing can justify their actions but no act of this magnitude could be committed without at least some rationale behind it. That's is what I would like to hear.
Islamic terrorism is usually about a discontent with Western liberalism or foreign policy. You can concentrate on the individual, and point out to the events in their lives that caused them to be fucked up - you can do that for almost any offender. I don't think one can seriously suggest some form of 'higher motive', though - so much has been confirmed by Islamist groups' statements and their targets. If I recall correctly, the group that trained the Charlie attackers was AQAP - and that should tell you enough.
I think it's important not to see Muslims in discrete categories - i.e. moderates vs extremists. Rather, we need to understand why extremism exists and accept a middle ground exists. Because if we don't understand what drives so-called moderates to extremism, we will never solve the root problem - we will only start polarising people further. This is what the current government and the media have been doing - they have been calling out the so-called minority of Jihadists and isolating them from what they see to be "good" Muslims when in reality, it is never so black and white.
I don't think I agree with you there. While in the public sphere, we should (as individual citizens) oppose the creeping in of religion into it, the use of violence to effect fear and societal change in that direction is a line that should not be crossed, and the government has the obligation to protect us from it. So yes, I think that isolating those extreme enough to use violence is important.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: ValiantIntellectual on January 15, 2015, 01:39:01 pm
Islamic terrorism is usually about a discontent with Western liberalism or foreign policy. You can concentrate on the individual, and point out to the events in their lives that caused them to be fucked up - you can do that for almost any offender. I don't think one can seriously suggest some form of 'higher motive', though - so much has been confirmed by Islamist groups' statements and their targets. If I recall correctly, the group that trained the Charlie attackers was
I completely agree with you, terrorism is primarily for those reasons. But that was what I was inferring as a higher motive. I am not trying to be some crazy conspiracy theorist but I am just saying that in my personal opinion the media coverage of these attacks hardly discuss the initial discontent the terrorist had to an appropriate level. I truly don't expect the media to give a complex analysis of every story it covers but I find that bad guy good guy card is repeatedly raised in situations like this which really simplifies the whole situation. For instance, I just don't believe the Charlie Hebdo attackers would commit an act as heinous as terrorism due to something as trivial as a cartoon. Nor do I believe they would throw their lives away in order to suppress freedom of speech for a nation they obviously don't care about. I believe that I order for a person to be driven to such violent extremes there must be stronger motives then what the media present to us and you are right on the money when you say it is discontent with western society and it's foreign policy. It's just that I would love to see more coverage exploring that discontent. There HAS to be some sort of rationale that the attackers had and we never get to hear that rationale.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: M_BONG on January 15, 2015, 09:59:22 pm
To the extent that I agree and understand what you are saying, Professor Polonsky, I don't think there is a clear separation between what the "extremist" Muslim and the "moderate" Muslim is taught and indoctrinated with - difference is, as you point out, how one chooses to interpret and act on these dogmas. This is why I don't support the media or the government polarising one group of people because in many instances this is what drives the moderate to extremist behaviours - because they feel isolated and the need to defend their religion from being infiltrated by Western values.
This is why I believe we need to see different cultures through the lens of cultural relativism (as I talk about above). I believe one of the reason why extremism thrives is the reaction and attention it gains - terror groups recruit followers through the guise of them being able to defend their religion, be rewarded with virgins in Heaven etc. Of course, terror attacks cannot be hidden under the carpet or concealed from the public eye but if the media stops its polarisation, governments stop its finger-pointing (and I know how hard that is), and start forming a more rational debate there may be less reason for these people to do these atrocious acts.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: Professor Polonsky on January 16, 2015, 02:03:04 am
I completely disagree with you there, for the simple fact that I'm not a relativist and believe that society's norms are far more correct than the ones they are trying to impose (and that's regardless of how wrong it is to try to impose it through violence, that's a different matter). And these extreme beliefs are what often yields violence, not vice versa. That's why it is that you see anti-choice Christians blowing up abortion clinics, extreme libertarians just blowing stuff up generally in the US, and extremist Islamists doing what they do. That's why we, as a society (not the state - it's not usually its role to regulate opinions, with the rare exceptions such as Holocaust denialism or, in some contexts, extreme forms of fascism) must shun those extreme beliefs in and of themselves, because they have no place in our society.
You are wrong about all Muslims following those beliefs that the extremists would have imposed on us, though. Religion moderating is its only way forward in our society.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: Navy223 on January 16, 2015, 12:39:41 pm
To the extent that I agree and understand what you are saying, Professor Polonsky, I don't think there is a clear separation between what the "extremist" Muslim and the "moderate" Muslim is taught and indoctrinated with - difference is, as you point out, how one chooses to interpret and act on these dogmas. This is why I don't support the media or the government polarising one group of people because in many instances this is what drives the moderate to extremist behaviours - because they feel isolated and the need to defend their religion from being infiltrated by Western values.
This is why I believe we need to see different cultures through the lens of cultural relativism (as I talk about above). I believe one of the reason why extremism thrives is the reaction and attention it gains - terror groups recruit followers through the guise of them being able to defend their religion, be rewarded with virgins in Heaven etc. Of course, terror attacks cannot be hidden under the carpet or concealed from the public eye but if the media stops its polarisation, governments stop its finger-pointing (and I know how hard that is), and start forming a more rational debate there may be less reason for these people to do these atrocious acts.
I'm sorry, THEY need to "need to defend their religion from being infiltrated by Western values". I mean you only have to look at the front few pages of your newspaper to see articles about IS and see photos IS combatants holding severed heads of westerners, and somehow i don't see that as a defence mechanism against being infiltrated by western values. The goal of the IS is to establish a universal and fortified caliphate. These Islamist extremists, seem to be doing quite a lot of finger pointing themselves blaming the western world for "poisoning" the minds of muslims around the world, if that is not a hasty generalisation i don't know what is. I also notice that you attribute the motives of "these people to do these atrocious [terrorist] acts" possibly due to polarisation of the media. Personally, i find this a very facile and implausible reasoning for their actions, the media is not where the problem stems from, although it may not necessarily assuage the situation after a terrorist attack, the problem lies within the Islamic religion, more specifically within those Islamist extremists.
To further your sentiment about the media 'role' in these terrors attacks (which i personally find ludicrous) as expected, Al Jazeera reports "After Charlie Hebdo attack, fears of a ‘witch hunt’ against Muslims" and hundreds of bloggers and columnists make a similar point. Yes, we must be concerned about discrimination and any attacks on any innocent people. But isn't it disturbing how quickly the commentators move away from the real victims of Islamic terrorism and immediately worry about the imagined victims of a potential reaction or the wider muslim community? Even in Australia immediately after the Lindt caffe siege their was a wave of twitter uses tweeting 'i'll ride with you'. In no way am i critisizing that sentiment of solidarity, i find it unusual how their is always a public outcry for the wider Islamist community. What about those whose lives were cut short in the Lindt caffe or those innocent people who were callously murdered in Paris by those Islamist extremists. On another level, i beleive in our society fear of being labeled “Islamaphobic” leads otherwise sensible people to reject any association between Islam and terrorism. In this upside-down world of convoluted thinking, the very fact that Monis used Islamic symbols and invoked the cause of ISIS is itself the incentive to rush to declare the siege to be no more than a crime, lest the Muslim community become targets of bigotry.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: ValiantIntellectual on January 16, 2015, 01:24:41 pm
To further your sentiment about the media 'role' in these terrors attacks (which i personally find ludicrous) as expected, Al Jazeera reports "After Charlie Hebdo attack, fears of a ‘witch hunt’ against Muslims" and hundreds of bloggers and columnists make a similar point. Yes, we must be concerned about discrimination and any attacks on any innocent people. But isn't it disturbing how quickly the commentators move away from the real victims of Islamic terrorism and immediately worry about the imagined victims of a potential reaction or the wider muslim community? Even in Australia immediately after the Lindt caffe siege their was a wave of twitter uses tweeting 'i'll ride with you'. In no way am i critisizing that sentiment of solidarity, i find it unusual how their is always a public outcry for the wider Islamist community. What about those whose lives were cut short in the Lindt caffe or those innocent people who were callously murdered in Paris by those Islamist extremists. On another level, i beleive in our society fear of being labeled “Islamaphobic” leads otherwise sensible people to reject any association between Islam and terrorism. In this upside-down world of convoluted thinking, the very fact that Monis used Islamic symbols and invoked the cause of ISIS is itself the incentive to rush to declare the siege to be no more than a crime, lest the Muslim community become targets of bigotry.
I can assure you that the victims of terror get plenty of outcry, its all we hear about for the next three days after a terrorist attack. Not saying that's bad since they deserve this outcry but you cant possibly suggest that they are not getting enough media attention. As for the Muslim community, its perfectly natural and beneficial for the media to highlight some of the implications of terror attacks that average Muslims must go through. And after all, if moderate Muslims are going through abuse and discrimination then i don't see why the public wouldn't be concerned especially since they are a minority group. In fact it actually helps build stronger ties between the two communities. I am all for criticizing the Muslim community when we must but we must also spare sympathy for them if they are truly feeling alienated.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: M_BONG on January 16, 2015, 09:12:09 pm
I'm sorry, THEY need to "need to defend their religion from being infiltrated by Western values". I mean you only have to look at the front few pages of your newspaper to see articles about IS and see photos IS combatants holding severed heads of westerners, and somehow i don't see that as a defence mechanism against being infiltrated by western values. The goal of the IS is to establish a universal and fortified caliphate. These Islamist extremists, seem to be doing quite a lot of finger pointing themselves blaming the western world for "poisoning" the minds of muslims around the world, if that is not a hasty generalisation i don't know what is. I also notice that you attribute the motives of "these people to do these atrocious [terrorist] acts" due to polarisation of the media. Personally, i find this a very facile and implausible reasoning for their actions, the media is not where the problem stems from, although it may not necessarily assuage the situation after a terrorist attack, the problem lies within the Islamic religion, more specifically within those Islamist extremists.
To further your sentiment about the media 'role' in these terrors attacks (which i personally find ludicrous) as expected, Al Jazeera reports "After Charlie Hebdo attack, fears of a ‘witch hunt’ against Muslims" and hundreds of bloggers and columnists make a similar point. Yes, we must be concerned about discrimination and any attacks on any innocent people. But isn't it disturbing how quickly the commentators move away from the real victims of Islamic terrorism and immediately worry about the imagined victims of a potential reaction or the wider muslim community? Even in Australia immediately after the Lindt caffe siege their was a wave of twitter uses tweeting 'i'll ride with you'. In no way am i critisizing that sentiment of solidarity, i find it unusual how their is always a public outcry for the wider Islamist community. What about those whose lives were cut short in the Lindt caffe or those innocent people who were callously murdered in Paris by those Islamist extremists. On another level, i beleive in our society fear of being labeled “Islamaphobic” leads otherwise sensible people to reject any association between Islam and terrorism. In this upside-down world of convoluted thinking, the very fact that Monis used Islamic symbols and invoked the cause of ISIS is itself the incentive to rush to declare the siege to be no more than a crime, lest the Muslim community become targets of bigotry.
Sorry, at no point did I attribute the media, or even governments, as the root cause of extremism. Please read carefully before you go on a internet rampage.
EDIT: Also, I don't think you can reasonably say IS is an isolated incidence or schizophrenic Muslims wanting excessive power through force. It is largely a failure of world leaders to deal with Al-Qaeda, post and pre 9/11. Why did 9/11 (and Al-Qaeda gain leverage?) really happen? Imperialism. It wasn't a bunch of violent Muslims wanting to annihilate all the infidels, it was due to a string of bad foreign policies; a string of manufactured wars and accusations slowly providing the thrust for a radical interpretation of the Koran (to defend the religion).
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: ShortBlackChick on January 17, 2015, 04:40:00 pm
I think OKeefe has a point when he says that we have been engaging with the wider Muslim community, we always have and we always will. I think we choose to ignore what their beliefs, what their actions, are telling us.
They tell us they dont like the Western occupations of their lands but we again and again refuse to accept that. Its easier to blame it on their shortcomings over our greed right?
We know Islamic extremism exists, but we refuse to look at why or how to stop it, because its a 'global pandemic' that helps to fuel our Islamophobia and deflect the blame.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: Navy223 on January 17, 2015, 04:58:29 pm
I think OKeefe has a point when he says that we have been engaging with the wider Muslim community, we always have and we always will. I think we choose to ignore what their beliefs, what their actions, are telling us.
They tell us they dont like the Western occupations of their lands but we again and again refuse to accept that. Its easier to blame it on their shortcomings over our greed right?
We know Islamic extremism exists, but we refuse to look at why or how to stop it, because its a 'global pandemic' that helps to fuel our Islamophobia and deflect the blame.
"Western occupations of their lands"? Please elaborate.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: Professor Polonsky on January 17, 2015, 05:10:05 pm
The 'Islamic extremism is a result of imperialism' argument is so tired.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: Navy223 on January 17, 2015, 06:02:41 pm
The 'Islamic extremism is a result of imperialism' argument is so tired.
Right on point Professor Polonsky, not only is it tired, it is a poor excuse and deflection of the real issues surrounding Islam and extremism. Surely we’re entitled to conclude that something specific to Islam seems to license violence, especially as the majority of terror attacks around the world in the past 12 months let alone, have been carried out by the hands of Islamist extremists (e.g Boko Haram, Paris massacres, IS, 2014 shooting at Parliament hill in Canada, Jewish museum of Belgium shooting and the Lindt caffe siege). surely to not acknowledge that these acts are not coincidences is to be in denial. According to many (not all) muslims, Western countries are to blame for not being welcoming enough, for being part of the US-led alliance in the Middle East, for supporting Israel’s right to exist, for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, for raising the terror alert level. i mean, if you rationalise hard enough, any act can be considered and incitement to Islamic extremists. If we are to make a change for the betterment of our future, moderate, peaceful Muslims, the media and the general public need to unconditionally condemn and help solve instead of engaging in unhelpful games of deflection.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: ShortBlackChick on January 17, 2015, 11:00:35 pm
Man Haron Monis sent letters to the family's of deceased soldiers from Afganistan, equating them as murders and calling from the removal of troops from Afghanistan. If he ever did get through to Tones on the day of the siege I'm sure he'd have lots to say about that. One of Osama Bin Laden's reasons behind attacking the US and the West was the occupation of US bases in Saudi Arabia, amongst other hatreds including US support of Isreal.
Who doesnt condemn these acts committed by Islamic extremists? This is what I'm saying, we condemn them obviously, but we choose to ignore why. Why is the imperialism argument so easy to dismiss?
And if violence is a characteristic only prevalent in Islam, go ahead and fix it. But you dont know why you're fixing it and what you're fixing. You choose to ignore the why and go for how. You think extremists wake up one day and think 'fuck yeah gonna make the world follow the Islamic caliphate' but you fail to look at the end of that sentence when they say 'because of...'
Not going to bother touching the whole Islam =violence thing. People + the media sees what they want to see. Hell, Bush invaded Iraq and Afganistan from the Internal push from Jews and his own Evangelic faith but no one cares about that right, it's just Islam that forces er1 to go batshit crazy.
EDIT: I never thought I'd see the day where I gave a shit about the Imperialism argument either, but its 2015 ffs, havent we heard enough of Muslims telling us to gtfo of their states. It's about time we leave them alone to do whatever the fuck they want. Bring back sovereignty, let them fuck up themselves. Saudi Arabia will always be money hungry enough to sell us their oil.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: M_BONG on January 18, 2015, 01:03:26 am
Right on point Professor Polonsky, not only is it tired, it is a poor excuse and deflection of the real issues surrounding Islam and extremism. Surely we’re entitled to conclude that something specific to Islam seems to license violence, especially as the majority of terror attacks around the world in the past 12 months let alone, have been carried out by the hands of Islamist extremists (e.g Boko Haram, Paris massacres, IS, 2014 shooting at Parliament hill in Canada, Jewish museum of Belgium shooting and the Lindt caffe siege). surely to not acknowledge that these acts are not coincidences is to be in denial.
Read over what you have just said. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat again, until you feel ashamed of yourself.
Did you know, by a simple google search, you can find that the Bible and the Torah, all have provisions that incite violence - it's only a big fool who takes everything literally.. It's totally not the fault of some deranged extremist, but some religion that tells everyone to screw us all!!1
). surely to not acknowledge that these acts are not coincidences is to be in denial. According to many (not all) muslims, Western countries are to blame for not being welcoming enough, for being part of the US-led alliance in the Middle East, for supporting Israel’s right to exist, for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, for raising the terror alert level. i mean, if you rationalise hard enough, any act can be considered and incitement to Islamic extremists.
Cutey, at no point did any of us try to justify extremism. Also, the thing about slippery slopes is that they only work if there is direct causation and effect. There is clearly one here. You can't deny something by using the blanket argument "oh, everything is a slippery slope if you make it one" just like you can't deny the assassination of some random Austrian guy instigated WWI by saying "oh if you look hard enough, anything could have caused WWI".
I won't even bother to respond to anything you say anymore - one can only tolerate as much ignorance and red herring.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: Navy223 on January 18, 2015, 01:56:05 am
Read over what you have just said. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat again, until you feel ashamed of yourself.
Did you know, by a simple google search, you can find that the Bible and the Torah, all have provisions that incite violence - it's only a big fool who takes everything literally.. It's totally not the fault of some deranged extremist, but some religion that tells everyone to screw us all!!1 Cutey, at no point did any of us try to justify extremism. Also, the thing about slippery slopes is that they only work if there is direct causation and effect. There is clearly one here. You can't deny something by using the blanket argument "oh, everything is a slippery slope if you make it one" just like you can't deny the assassination of some random Austrian guy instigated WWI by saying "oh if you look hard enough, anything could have caused WWI".
I won't even bother to respond to anything you say anymore - one can only tolerate as much ignorance and red herring.
"i mean, if you rationalise hard enough, any act can be considered and incitement to Islamic extremists." SARCASM.
"Did you know, by a simple google search, you can find that the Bible and the Torah, all have provisions that incite violence". This may be so but where else outside of Islam are these interpretations actually taken literally! I challenge you, find me religions other than islam that stone homosexuals, jails bloggers without cause or beheads dissidents!
i don't believe what i have just read - completely nonsensical. "It's totally not the fault of some deranged extremist, but some religion that tells everyone to screw us all!!", do you know there are just as many Buddhists here as Muslims, yet not one Buddhist has killed here for his faith. The same goes for Jews, how many Jewish terrorist attacks have occurred here? You have just substantiated my point, when i say "surely we’re entitled to conclude that something specific to Islam seems to license violence". You do admit that it's not the individual but the religion that envokes these acts of terror? You say, and i will repeat (maybe then you'll understand the naive nature of your statement), "it's totally not the fault of some deranged extremist, but some religion that tells everyone to screw us all!!" The thing is there's a problem. It's screaming and shouting. Many Muslims realize there's a problem. The Egyptian president spoke recently of "a need to effect a substantial change in Islam." And in 2004, Abdulrahman al-Rashed, the former general manager of the al-Arabiya television news channel, said: "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims." I want a straight and simple answer to this question, do you think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of terror attacks around the world in the past 12 months let alone, have been carried out by the hands of Islamist extremists (e.g Boko Haram, Paris massacres, IS, 2014 shooting at Parliament hill in Canada, Jewish museum of Belgium shooting and the Lindt caffe siege).
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: ninwa on January 18, 2015, 01:26:02 pm
"Did you know, by a simple google search, you can find that the Bible and the Torah, all have provisions that incite violence". This may be so but where else outside of Islam are these interpretations actually taken literally!
Mate you really need to learn to use Google, it's a fantastic resource!
You have not proven anything, other than the ability to type things into google. When was the last Jewish terrorist attack? or when was the last Buddhist attack? When was the last Christian attack on an abortion clinic? It would serve you well to actually browse those links yourself. It would be absurd to think that there would be no terrorist attacks from other religions, but surely it is not a coincidence when the majority of terrorist attacks we hear about are coming from Islamist extremist preaching in the name of god.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: ShortBlackChick on January 18, 2015, 02:12:27 pm
"i mean, if you rationalise hard enough, any act can be considered and incitement to Islamic extremists." SARCASM.
"Did you know, by a simple google search, you can find that the Bible and the Torah, all have provisions that incite violence". This may be so but where else outside of Islam are these interpretations actually taken literally! I challenge you, find me religions other than islam that stone homosexuals, jails bloggers without cause or beheads dissidents!
i don't believe what i have just read - completely nonsensical. "It's totally not the fault of some deranged extremist, but some religion that tells everyone to screw us all!!", do you know there are just as many Buddhists here as Muslims, yet not one Buddhist has killed here for his faith. The same goes for Jews, how many Jewish terrorist attacks have occurred here? You have just substantiated my point, when i say "surely we’re entitled to conclude that something specific to Islam seems to license violence". You do admit that it's not the individual but the religion that envokes these acts of terror? You say, and i will repeat (maybe then you'll understand the naive nature of your statement), "it's totally not the fault of some deranged extremist, but some religion that tells everyone to screw us all!!"
WTH did I just read? You really do need to educate yourself, those links Ninwa posted are a great start. I was going to mention that Buddhists in Sri Lanka created a State of Emergency when state-wide Muslims were attacked by protests led by a right-wing Buddhist extremist group. Islamophobia within Sri Lankan Buddhists is actually the norm, there's probably more intolerance there than there is here. Some would call the ongoing war in the Gaza strip as acts of terrorism by Jews, but thats totally up to your interpretation.
But no, its ok, you can continue to see what you want to see. Rationalise YOUR Islamophobia however you want.
In any case, how about you tell us what acts of terrorism IS have committed/been directly linked to, I see them there on your list of terrorists. Are you aware of the difference between an Insurgency group and a terrorist organisation?
Honestly I dont think it's Islam thats the problem, I honestly think its RELIGION as a whole that is the issue, but as most on AN know, that's an entirely a new topic ahaha
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: ninwa on January 18, 2015, 02:42:31 pm
You have not proven anything, other than the ability to type things into google. When was the last Jewish terrorist attack? or when was the last Buddhist attack? When was the last Christian attack on an abortion clinic? It would serve you well to actually browse those links yourself. It would be absurd to think that there would be no terrorist attacks from other religions, but surely it is not a coincidence when the majority of terrorist attacks we hear about are coming from Islamist extremist preaching in the name of god.
Lol okay so you've decided to shift the goalposts from "where else outside of Islam are these interpretations actually taken literally" to "where else outside of Islam are these interpretations actually taken literally recently. using my own personal definition of 'recently'".
Your objective here is clear: you are not interested in discussion, you are only interested in furthering your personal agenda of Islamophobia.
Nonetheless, here's my suggestion: before you learn to use Google, maybe learn how to read :)
I don't know when the MOST recent attacks were, but here are some pretty recent ones:
But that power void, exacerbated by a lax justice system, was quickly filled by anti-balaka. The groups of armed vigilantes, initially organized to combat local crime and whose ranks of Christians and animists includes ex-soldiers, have fought back against the militants and furiously targeted the Muslim minority, which they view as complicit in Séléka’s unpunished abuses.
Anti-balaka now stand accused of crimes worse than what prompted their retaliation as the burning of whole villages and gruesome mutilations, among other threats and attacks, have killed an untold number of people and pushed hundreds of thousands of others from their homes. Amid tales of ethnic cleansing in the west and as reports of crude attacks surface in the east, where Séléka remains in control and is regrouping, the country continues to slide into perhaps the bloodiest and most unstable crossroads of its independence.
Jewish: 2009 (and possibly more recently, depending on your position on the Israel/Palestine issue)
JERUSALEM, Israel - An alleged "Jewish terrorist" who immigrated to Israel from the United States has been arrested in connection with several bombings, murders and attempted murders in Israel, including the bombing in the community of Ariel that severely wounded a teenaged Messianic believer, Ami Ortiz.
Ortiz is the Israeli Christian boy who was nearly killed in a bombing attack that made news around the world.
The teenager miraculously survived the bombing in March 2008, when he opened a package disguised as a gift for the Jewish holiday of Purim. The bomb devastated the Ortiz family apartment, shattered car windows three stories below and left 15-year-old Ami Ortiz near death.
Israeli police say the suspect, 37-year-old Yaakov "Jack" Teitel, plotted to bomb the Ortiz family. According to court documents, police found explosives and weapons and in his home.
Teitel was arrested by an Israeli elite counter-terrorism unit on Oct. 7 while he was distributing flyers praising the bombing this summer of a Tel Aviv club that catered to gays and lesbians.
A Buddhist mob has attacked a mosque in the Grandpass area of the Sri Lankan capital, Colombo, leaving at least five people injured.
Buddhists and Muslims clashed after the attack, and police imposed a curfew in the area.
Last month, a group of Buddhist monks had protested near the mosque, demanding it be relocated.
In recent months, hardline Buddhist groups have mounted a campaign against Muslim and Christian targets.
Anyway, I will not waste any more time on you, you're clearly a bigot with zero ability to conduct a rational discussion.
Title: Re: The debate over Islam
Post by: Professor Polonsky on January 18, 2015, 05:51:08 pm
Islam is far from the only religion whose adherents do the most terrible things in its name. Islamic fundamentalism is, however, probably of the highest concern to us, and so that necessitates some sort of coherent policy response.
Quote
Man Haron Monis sent letters to the family's of deceased soldiers from Afganistan, equating them as murders and calling from the removal of troops from Afghanistan. If he ever did get through to Tones on the day of the siege I'm sure he'd have lots to say about that. One of Osama Bin Laden's reasons behind attacking the US and the West was the occupation of US bases in Saudi Arabia, amongst other hatreds including US support of Isreal.
As your post foreshadows, the War in Afghanistan was a necessary act in collective self-defence, invoked under the UN Charter.
As for 9/11 itself, it was a response to perfectly legitimate foreign and domestic policy decisions by a host of actors in the Middle East. al-Qaeda didn't get things as it wanted them, so it decided to engage in one of the most reprehensible acts in the history of modern conflict, if not the most.
To suggest that Western countries 'brought it on themselves' is nothing more than victim blaming.