When will we recognise that Islam is the root cause of these acts of terrorism?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/opinion/nicholas-kristof-lessons-from-the-charlie-hebdo-shooting-in-paris.html?_r=0
Coming across this article in the New York Times today made me realise just how many intellectual acrobatics people will still take in order to avoid the uncomfortable realisation that there is a poisonous ideology behind most acts of terrorism in the world today, and not simply a handful of crackpots.
Like Kristof in the article above, most commentators will go as far as paying lip service to Islam's stone age attitudes towards women, but no journalist even dares to entertain the possibility that there are countless instructions towards genocide, slaughter and violence in Islamic scripture. And because that is too uncomfortable a consideration for them, they have never bothered to investigate the source material of this religion, not even out of curiosity. It's an incredible arrogance on their part.
The pathetic performance of Ben Affleck, wimpering his excuses and apologies for this barbaric ideology on American TV a few months ago, was symptomatic of the problem of complacence. It is even more egregious when journalists, who should be far more literate and fair-minded than Affleck, commit the same errors in covering the topic in the media.
Fortunately we live in a world in which the majority of Muslims have the moral fortitude to quietly repudiate the more savage elements of the Quran and the Hadiths, and select the positive elements in order to inform an ethical life. But that does not mean that the more sinister preachments were not right there in the first place. When we realise that extremists are not simply crackpots acting 'in the name of Islam', but are in fact acting precisely upon Quranic instruction, then we will have taken our first step to tackling the problem.
Until we all take a grown-up approach to understanding Islam, deal with the uncomfortable possibility that there is something within it that has the real capacity to induce violence and barbarism and intolerance, then we will continue to miss the point.
Coming across this article in the New York Times today made me realise just how many intellectual acrobatics people will still take in order to avoid the uncomfortable realisation that there is a poisonous ideology behind most acts of terrorism in the world today, and not simply a handful of crackpots.
Like Kristof in the article above, most commentators will go as far as paying lip service to Islam's stone age attitudes towards women, but no journalist even dares to entertain the possibility that there are countless instructions towards genocide, slaughter and violence in Islamic scripture. And because that is too uncomfortable a consideration for them, they have never bothered to investigate the source material of this religion, not even out of curiosity. It's an incredible arrogance on their part.
The pathetic performance of Ben Affleck, wimpering his excuses and apologies for this barbaric ideology on American TV a few months ago, was symptomatic of the problem of complacence. It is even more egregious when journalists, who should be far more literate and fair-minded than Affleck, commit the same errors in covering the topic in the media.
Fortunately we live in a world in which the majority of Muslims have the moral fortitude to quietly repudiate the more savage elements of the Quran and the Hadiths, and select the positive elements in order to inform an ethical life. But that does not mean that the more sinister preachments were not right there in the first place. When we realise that extremists are not simply crackpots acting 'in the name of Islam', but are in fact acting precisely upon Quranic instruction, then we will have taken our first step to tackling the problem.
Until we all take a grown-up approach to understanding Islam, deal with the uncomfortable possibility that there is something within it that has the real capacity to induce violence and barbarism and intolerance, then we will continue to miss the point.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by MC armani
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/opinion/nicholas-kristof-lessons-from-the-charlie-hebdo-shooting-in-paris.html?_r=0
Coming across this article in the New York Times today made me realise just how many intellectual acrobatics people will still take in order to avoid the uncomfortable realisation that there is a poisonous ideology behind most acts of terrorism in the world today, and not simply a handful of crackpots.
Like Kristof in the article above, most commentators will go as far as paying lip service to Islam's stone age attitudes towards women, but no journalist even dares to entertain the possibility that there are countless instructions towards genocide, slaughter and violence in Islamic scripture. And because that is too uncomfortable a consideration for them, they have never bothered to investigate the source material of this religion, not even out of curiosity. It's an incredible arrogance on their part.
The pathetic performance of Ben Affleck, wimpering his excuses and apologies for this barbaric ideology on American TV a few months ago, was symptomatic of the problem of complacence. It is even more egregious when journalists, who should be far more literate and fair-minded than Affleck, commit the same errors in covering the topic in the media.
Fortunately we live in a world in which the majority of Muslims have the moral fortitude to quietly repudiate the more savage elements of the Quran and the Hadiths, and select the positive elements in order to inform an ethical life. But that does not mean that the more sinister preachments were not right there in the first place. When we realise that extremists are not simply crackpots acting 'in the name of Islam', but are in fact acting precisely upon Quranic instruction, then we will have taken our first step to tackling the problem.
Until we all take a grown-up approach to understanding Islam, deal with the uncomfortable possibility that there is something within it that has the real capacity to induce violence and barbarism and intolerance, then we will continue to miss the point.
Coming across this article in the New York Times today made me realise just how many intellectual acrobatics people will still take in order to avoid the uncomfortable realisation that there is a poisonous ideology behind most acts of terrorism in the world today, and not simply a handful of crackpots.
Like Kristof in the article above, most commentators will go as far as paying lip service to Islam's stone age attitudes towards women, but no journalist even dares to entertain the possibility that there are countless instructions towards genocide, slaughter and violence in Islamic scripture. And because that is too uncomfortable a consideration for them, they have never bothered to investigate the source material of this religion, not even out of curiosity. It's an incredible arrogance on their part.
The pathetic performance of Ben Affleck, wimpering his excuses and apologies for this barbaric ideology on American TV a few months ago, was symptomatic of the problem of complacence. It is even more egregious when journalists, who should be far more literate and fair-minded than Affleck, commit the same errors in covering the topic in the media.
Fortunately we live in a world in which the majority of Muslims have the moral fortitude to quietly repudiate the more savage elements of the Quran and the Hadiths, and select the positive elements in order to inform an ethical life. But that does not mean that the more sinister preachments were not right there in the first place. When we realise that extremists are not simply crackpots acting 'in the name of Islam', but are in fact acting precisely upon Quranic instruction, then we will have taken our first step to tackling the problem.
Until we all take a grown-up approach to understanding Islam, deal with the uncomfortable possibility that there is something within it that has the real capacity to induce violence and barbarism and intolerance, then we will continue to miss the point.
A) You seem to have a fetish for long sentinces and large words.
B) The Bible is filled with violent versus. ( Ie it glorifies Samson the first religious suicide killer)
(edited 9 years ago)
This actually made me laugh. the definition of terrorism is the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. This happens all over the world, e.g. the assassination of JFK. Any murder that a Muslim does is known as an act of terrorism, is that really fair? what about American's barging into Afghanistan claiming to be looking or Usama Bin Ladin (who was actually in Pakistan) while killing tens thousands of innocent people? What about the Jews in Israel killing all the Palestinians, for a tiny strip of land? when Muslim bloodshed is happening nobody cares, but when a Muslim is a murderer, the news goes crazy by calling them terrorists and islamists,
Original post by Nostr
B) The Bible is filled with violent versus. ( Ie it glorifies Samson the first religious suicide killer)
Yes, both Christianity and Islam codify human violence and suffering and support it. So what? Did you think coming in here crying 'but but the bible1!' adds anything?
Bad post would not read again -1/10
Original post by SamKeene
Yes, both Christianity and Islam codify human violence and suffering and support it. So what? Did you think coming in here crying 'but but the bible1!' adds anything?
Bad post would not read again -1/10
Bad post would not read again -1/10
No not really. I have absolutely no problem with Christianity. Simply pointing out that if the guy wants to be objective about Islam, he might as well judge all other religions. No need to be butt hurt man
Original post by mkap
This actually made me laugh. the definition of terrorism is the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. This happens all over the world, e.g. the assassination of JFK. Any murder that a Muslim does is known as an act of terrorism, is that really fair? what about American's barging into Afghanistan claiming to be looking or Usama Bin Ladin (who was actually in Pakistan) while killing tens thousands of innocent people? What about the Jews in Israel killing all the Palestinians, for a tiny strip of land? when Muslim bloodshed is happening nobody cares, but when a Muslim is a murderer, the news goes crazy by calling them terrorists and islamists,
Kinda dumb post. But I'll explain.
There is a difference between a Muslim terrorist gunning down civilians in Paris, a city which has been in a state of piece for decades. Compared to a Shia Muslim gunning down a Shiite in Bagdad... a city which has been in a state of war for decades and is a normal occurrence.
The key difference between Americas actions in the middle east (which are terrible) and Islams actions in the west is the these Muslims are purposely targeting civilians in the name of their religion. There was a tremendous amount of dead civilians by american hands, but it was collateral damage. This does not make it okay - just highlights that killing civilians was not the reason America went to war.
As for Israel. It's amazing they haven't steamrolled the Gaza Strip sooner. For over a decade they have have been firing missiles into Israel land with the intention of killing civilians, anyone. The only reason Israel hasn't flicked Gaza away like the little piece of fluff it is is pressure from America and the world stage in general.
When a religious fanatic guns down civilians in Paris (and yes, it almost always is Islam, I'm sorry but it's true, Islam supports and promotes it). It is an attack on the effectively secular and modernly progressive nation of France - which is so incompatible with the Iron age ramblings of a delusional barbaric warlord and child rapist.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Nostr
No not really. I have absolutely no problem with Christianity. Simply pointing out that if the guy wants to be objective about Islam, he might as well judge all other religions. No need to be butt hurt man
Bringing Christianity into this is immaterial. Unless the poster was saying 'The only religion which does this is Islam' then it serves no purpose.
Why is it that Muslims make up 23.2% of the world's population, but 66% of world terror can be attributed to 4 Extreme Islamic groups?
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/nov/18/religious-extremism-main-cause-of-terrorism-according-to-report?commentpage=1
http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-exec/
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/nov/18/religious-extremism-main-cause-of-terrorism-according-to-report?commentpage=1
Original post by Nostr
No not really. I have absolutely no problem with Christianity. Simply pointing out that if the guy wants to be objective about Islam, he might as well judge all other religions. No need to be butt hurt man
Of course all monotheisms are equally wicked; they're all based on the same principles. Islam is the only one however that explicitly and repeatedly mandates oppression and violence from its followers in scripture.
We all know Christianity has had blood on its hands for millenia as well smartass. Go crawl back under your rock.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by maxnale
you don't know what is islaam. you are on the wrong way. first learn it than give your suggestions.
I've learnt it. You've been indoctrinated with it. Two different things buddy.
Original post by Mackay
Didn't think I'd see Ben Affleck brought into this debate tbh.
[video="youtube;vln9D81eO60"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60[/video]
Original post by MC armani
[video="youtube;vln9D81eO60"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60[/video]
Yeah, I saw that. Just never thought I'd ever see his name mentioned in a debate regarding Islam.
Original post by MC armani
[video="youtube;vln9D81eO60"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60[/video]
rather reminds me of russel brand on question time, yes they have empathy for the idea to protect innocent and oppressed people, but do not fully grasp the facts. ie that the islamist ideology is what puts muslims in danger on a daily basis, so dealing with that is not directly critising muslim people, only the bad influences that they have become conditioned to follow and also fear to challenge
Original post by MC armani
[video="youtube;vln9D81eO60"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60[/video]
I don't agree with everything that Bill Maher says, but when it comes to Islam, he's absolutely spot on.
Original post by SamKeene
Kinda dumb post. But I'll explain.
There is a difference between a Muslim terrorist gunning down civilians in Paris, a city which has been in a state of piece for decades. Compared to a Shia Muslim gunning down a Shiite in Bagdad... a city which has been in a state of war for decades and is a normal occurrence.
The key difference between Americas actions in the middle east (which are terrible) and Islams actions in the west is the these Muslims are purposely targeting civilians in the name of their religion. There was a tremendous amount of dead civilians by american hands, but it was collateral damage. This does not make it okay - just highlights that killing civilians was not the reason America went to war.
There is a difference between a Muslim terrorist gunning down civilians in Paris, a city which has been in a state of piece for decades. Compared to a Shia Muslim gunning down a Shiite in Bagdad... a city which has been in a state of war for decades and is a normal occurrence.
The key difference between Americas actions in the middle east (which are terrible) and Islams actions in the west is the these Muslims are purposely targeting civilians in the name of their religion. There was a tremendous amount of dead civilians by american hands, but it was collateral damage. This does not make it okay - just highlights that killing civilians was not the reason America went to war.
In many ways, it doesn't matter why America killed thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan - it only matters that they died publicly, tragically, and obviously. Many Iraqis and Afghans were left with the impression that killing civilians was the reason America went to war. In their eyes, not much more was accomplished.
Original post by Nostr
A) You seem to have a fetish for long sentinces and large words.
B) The Bible is filled with violent versus. ( Ie it glorifies Samson the first religious suicide killer)
B) The Bible is filled with violent versus. ( Ie it glorifies Samson the first religious suicide killer)
When's the last time you heard that a Christian man/woman had ran about gunning down randoms shouting "This is the word of the Lord"?!?
Original post by RobMc
Islam is like a cancer in the world now.
No because cancer kills .... oh, right.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- the reign of terror france 1790s
- LNAT Essay
- I'm an atheist but I like the idea of having a god to believe in
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Bad dreams in Islam during ramadhan 2024
- Do Muslims go to therapy and get eating disorder treatment?
- University of Leeds Terrorism Module International Relations
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Shooting in Brussels. Shooter still at large.
- muslim sister's doing aalimah course..
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Why do some soldiers rape?
- english letter marking please
- A Level Maths : Common Mistakes/misconceptions
- gay/bi muslims
- How to deal with a strictly religious friend?
- Michaela School: Muslim student loses prayer ban challenge
- the problem of evil
- AQA GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 (8062/ 11-17) - 15th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Right of marrying as non virgin ISLAM
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
