At least 35 people have lost their lives in an attack on a nightclub in Istanbul, the city's governor has said.
Among the dead is one police officer, Vasip Sahin stated, adding that it was a terror attack.
At least another 40 were injured in the attack which took place in the Reina nightclub, in the Ortakoy area, at about 01:30 local time (23:30 GMT).
One attacker was involved, the governor said, while CNN Turk reported he was dressed in a Santa Claus costume.
"A terrorist with a long-range weapon ... brutally and savagely carried out this incident by firing bullets on innocent people who were there solely to celebrate the New Year and have fun," Mr Sahin told reporters at the scene of the upmarket Reina nightclub, which sits on the banks of Bosphorus in the city's European side.
There were reportedly as many as 700 people in the nightclub at the time of the attack, some of whom are believed to have jumped into the river to escape.
Dogan news agency reported that some witnesses claimed the attackers were "speaking Arabic" while Turkish television channel NTV said special force police officers were searching the nightclub.
Istanbul was already on high alert with some 17,000 police officers on duty in the city, following a string of terror attacks in recent months.
Many were carried out by so-called Islamic State (IS) or Kurdish rebels.
Medics and security officials work at the scene after an attack at a popular nightclub in IstanbulImage copyrightAP
Image caption
Ambulances queue up outside the nightclub
Less than a fortnight ago, the Russian ambassador, Andrei Karlov, was shot dead by off-duty Turkish policeman Mevlut Mert Altintas as he gave a speech in the capital Ankara in December.
After the shooting, the killer shouted the murder was in revenge for Russian involvement in the conflict in the Syrian city of Aleppo.
There have been plenty of Christian and Buddhist attacks in both South East Asia and in Africa over the past decade; they just don't make mainstream headlines as much as the Islamic ones do. Google it and have a look.
Frankly, Religion has nothing to do with Terrorism - it's just an excuse for both the attackers and the media to point fingers at other people for all the problems in the world. Terrorists lose any backing from their respective religions after they make the decision that killing people is the right answer; no religion I know of flat out says that you should kill other human beings who don't follow whatever rules they lay down.
General Annoyance wrote: There have been plenty of Christian and Buddhist attacks in both South East Asia and in Africa over the past decade; they just don't make mainstream headlines as much as the Islamic ones do. Google it and have a look.
Frankly, Religion has nothing to do with Terrorism - it's just an excuse for both the attackers and the media to point fingers at other people for all the problems in the world. Terrorists lose any backing from their respective religions after they make the decision that killing people is the right answer; no religion I know of flat out says that you should kill other human beings who don't follow whatever rules they lay down.
Exactly. And attacking the entire religion will only make it worse. They point of these terrorist attacks is to make people fear Muslims, and thus cast them out. And when people get cast out, some get angry and join radical groups. When you look and the "lone-wolf" attacks, it's almost always the same thing. Usually young men who feel persecuted or hated being radicalized and lashing out.
General Annoyance wrote: There have been plenty of Christian and Buddhist attacks in both South East Asia and in Africa over the past decade; they just don't make mainstream headlines as much as the Islamic ones do. Google it and have a look.
Frankly, Religion has nothing to do with Terrorism - it's just an excuse for both the attackers and the media to point fingers at other people for all the problems in the world. Terrorists lose any backing from their respective religions after they make the decision that killing people is the right answer; no religion I know of flat out says that you should kill other human beings who don't follow whatever rules they lay down.
Exactly. And attacking the entire religion will only make it worse. They point of these terrorist attacks is to make people fear Muslims, and thus cast them out. And when people get cast out, some get angry and join radical groups. When you look and the "lone-wolf" attacks, it's almost always the same thing. Usually young men who feel persecuted or hated being radicalized and lashing out.
Thats a very circular argument...
Muslims kill people. People become afraid of Muslims and 'persecute' them. So Muslims kill more people.
And frankly it doesn't explain the huge number of attacks by Muslims against other Muslims in Islamic countries.
General Annoyance wrote: There have been plenty of Christian and Buddhist attacks in both South East Asia and in Africa over the past decade; they just don't make mainstream headlines as much as the Islamic ones do. Google it and have a look.
Frankly, Religion has nothing to do with Terrorism - it's just an excuse for both the attackers and the media to point fingers at other people for all the problems in the world. Terrorists lose any backing from their respective religions after they make the decision that killing people is the right answer; no religion I know of flat out says that you should kill other human beings who don't follow whatever rules they lay down.
Exactly. And attacking the entire religion will only make it worse. They point of these terrorist attacks is to make people fear Muslims, and thus cast them out. And when people get cast out, some get angry and join radical groups. When you look and the "lone-wolf" attacks, it's almost always the same thing. Usually young men who feel persecuted or hated being radicalized and lashing out.
How is the Turkey attack that? Its in Turkey.
It was an attack on a Christian bar.
Muslims kill people. People become afraid of Muslims and 'persecute' them. So Muslims kill more people.
The Terrorists who call themselves Muslims/Christians/whatever are no longer really part of that religion; they are either carrying out the attacks due to misguidance from extremist groups, or because they wish to spite the group they claim to be under in order to motivate more violence and discrimination, either against them, from them, or both.
Muslims kill people. People become afraid of Muslims and 'persecute' them. So Muslims kill more people.
The Terrorists who call themselves Muslims/Christians/whatever are no longer really part of that religion; they are either carrying out the attacks due to misguidance from extremist groups, or because they wish to spite the group they claim to be under in order to motivate more violence and discrimination, either against them, from them, or both.
I didn't say that. Anyone who thinks it's justified in their religion to murder other humans is not someone who should be considered within that group; they're terrorists or extremists, that's all - no amount of religious practice can change that in my eyes.
General Annoyance wrote: There have been plenty of Christian and Buddhist attacks in both South East Asia and in Africa over the past decade; they just don't make mainstream headlines as much as the Islamic ones do. Google it and have a look.
Frankly, Religion has nothing to do with Terrorism - it's just an excuse for both the attackers and the media to point fingers at other people for all the problems in the world. Terrorists lose any backing from their respective religions after they make the decision that killing people is the right answer; no religion I know of flat out says that you should kill other human beings who don't follow whatever rules they lay down.
Exactly. And attacking the entire religion will only make it worse. They point of these terrorist attacks is to make people fear Muslims, and thus cast them out. And when people get cast out, some get angry and join radical groups. When you look and the "lone-wolf" attacks, it's almost always the same thing. Usually young men who feel persecuted or hated being radicalized and lashing out.
Thats a very circular argument...
Muslims kill people. People become afraid of Muslims and 'persecute' them. So Muslims kill more people.
And frankly it doesn't explain the huge number of attacks by Muslims against other Muslims in Islamic countries.
It's only circular if you equate the word 'Muslim' with the word 'terrorist'.
And, frankly, sectarian violence isn't limited to one religion either. I'm sure LordofHats or someone could give us a play-by-play of different brands of Christianity going nuts on each other down the centuries.
General Annoyance wrote: There have been plenty of Christian and Buddhist attacks in both South East Asia and in Africa over the past decade; they just don't make mainstream headlines as much as the Islamic ones do. Google it and have a look.
Frankly, Religion has nothing to do with Terrorism - it's just an excuse for both the attackers and the media to point fingers at other people for all the problems in the world. Terrorists lose any backing from their respective religions after they make the decision that killing people is the right answer; no religion I know of flat out says that you should kill other human beings who don't follow whatever rules they lay down.
Exactly. And attacking the entire religion will only make it worse. They point of these terrorist attacks is to make people fear Muslims, and thus cast them out. And when people get cast out, some get angry and join radical groups. When you look and the "lone-wolf" attacks, it's almost always the same thing. Usually young men who feel persecuted or hated being radicalized and lashing out.
That not their only purpose... and really it's a minor one.
Don't forget that regular muslims are far more likely to be victimized by radical Islamism. The current iteration of ISIS wants a Caliphate and has to subjugate the muslims and persecute the non-muslims in their territories.
General Annoyance wrote: There have been plenty of Christian and Buddhist attacks in both South East Asia and in Africa over the past decade; they just don't make mainstream headlines as much as the Islamic ones do. Google it and have a look.
Frankly, Religion has nothing to do with Terrorism - it's just an excuse for both the attackers and the media to point fingers at other people for all the problems in the world. Terrorists lose any backing from their respective religions after they make the decision that killing people is the right answer; no religion I know of flat out says that you should kill other human beings who don't follow whatever rules they lay down.
Exactly. And attacking the entire religion will only make it worse. They point of these terrorist attacks is to make people fear Muslims, and thus cast them out. And when people get cast out, some get angry and join radical groups. When you look and the "lone-wolf" attacks, it's almost always the same thing. Usually young men who feel persecuted or hated being radicalized and lashing out.
Thats a very circular argument...
Muslims kill people. People become afraid of Muslims and 'persecute' them. So Muslims kill more people.
That's the point it's a cycle. And we stop it by not casting people out or attacking them because of their religion
Radicalism, prejudice, and racism exist. Notice how I never said "no Muslims are bad people". Same how I didn't say "no Christians are bad people". Their are extremists who will their beliefs to those most willing to accept them. And Islam is not unique in this. Look at White-supremacist stuff, like Dylan Roof. Or literaly any other attack like this ever. Hell, look at school shootings, it's the same gak, but with no ideology attached to it.
General Annoyance wrote: There have been plenty of Christian and Buddhist attacks in both South East Asia and in Africa over the past decade; they just don't make mainstream headlines as much as the Islamic ones do. Google it and have a look.
Frankly, Religion has nothing to do with Terrorism - it's just an excuse for both the attackers and the media to point fingers at other people for all the problems in the world. Terrorists lose any backing from their respective religions after they make the decision that killing people is the right answer; no religion I know of flat out says that you should kill other human beings who don't follow whatever rules they lay down.
Exactly. And attacking the entire religion will only make it worse. They point of these terrorist attacks is to make people fear Muslims, and thus cast them out. And when people get cast out, some get angry and join radical groups. When you look and the "lone-wolf" attacks, it's almost always the same thing. Usually young men who feel persecuted or hated being radicalized and lashing out.
How is the Turkey attack that? Its in Turkey.
It was an attack on a Christian bar.
I didn't say that. Anyone who thinks it's justified in their religion to murder other humans is not someone who should be considered within that group; they're terrorists or extremists, that's all - no amount of religious practice can change that in my eyes.
You're saying if a Christian or Muslim commits violence, they're no longer a Christian or Muslim?
This is literally the No True Scotsman fallacy. They might not represent the majority of their group, but they don't stop being Christian or Muslim just because they've committed a violent act.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And frankly it doesn't explain the huge number of attacks by Muslims against other Muslims in Islamic countries.
This is more down to extremist Sects causing conflicts with the more reasonable Sects of Islam. It's also always happening in the states where there is political strife, which motivates violence between them as they start to become political factions; in the two Islamic states that I've lived in, both have the Sects that do disagree with each other openly, but keep unnecessary acts out of the mix.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You're saying if a Christian or Muslim commits violence, they're no longer a Christian or Muslim?
This is literally the No True Scotsman fallacy. They might not represent the majority of their group, but they don't stop being Christian or Muslim just because they've committed a violent act.
Murder? Yes. They could still be considered part of their religion, but really they shouldn't be - the act they have committed in the name of their practice is not condoned anywhere, nor is it acceptable behaviour.
General Annoyance wrote: Murder? Yes. They could still be considered part of their religion, but really they shouldn't be - the act they have committed in the name of their practice is not condoned anywhere, nor is it acceptable behaviour.
Thats a very bold statement. Are you suggesting the likes of Hamas, and Hezbollah, and Iran, don't condone acts of war or terrorism against countries like Israel and America?
Nope. I meant not condoned anywhere within the ideals of Islam. If it wasn't condoned anywhere, we wouldn't have any extremist groups.
War is a different matter compared to terrorism - one is (typically) an honourable way of settling differences between armed forces, the other is a deliberate attack against often unarmed civilians/innocents. Islam condones the former, and not the latter.
General Annoyance wrote: Nope. I meant not condoned anywhere within the ideals of Islam. If it wasn't condoned anywhere, we wouldn't have any extremist groups.
Thats debatable. There are plenty of Islamic scholars and Imams etc advocating violence on Arab tv.
General Annoyance wrote: War is a different matter compared to terrorism - one is (typically) an honourable way of settling differences between armed forces, the other is a deliberate attack against often unarmed civilians/innocents.
I haven't, but such groups of "Muslims" are extremists and/or terrorists. It's still pushing a misguided agenda, worsened by the fact that they have a way of feeding it into Arab media streams.
General Annoyance wrote: War is a different matter compared to terrorism - one is (typically) an honourable way of settling differences between armed forces, the other is a deliberate attack against often unarmed civilians/innocents.
Again, I cite Hamas and Hezbollah.
Both paramilitaries of those organisations have been deemed as terrorist organisations by the UK and America, while the EU, New Zealand and Britain have recognised Hezbollah's political wing. Neither can be considered to be legitimate militaries after the acts that they have committed in the past.
Muslims kill people. People become afraid of Muslims and 'persecute' them. So Muslims kill more people.
The Terrorists who call themselves Muslims/Christians/whatever are no longer really part of that religion; they are either carrying out the attacks due to misguidance from extremist groups, or because they wish to spite the group they claim to be under in order to motivate more violence and discrimination, either against them, from them, or both.
Muslims kill people. People become afraid of Muslims and 'persecute' them. So Muslims kill more people.
The Terrorists who call themselves Muslims/Christians/whatever are no longer really part of that religion; they are either carrying out the attacks due to misguidance from extremist groups, or because they wish to spite the group they claim to be under in order to motivate more violence and discrimination, either against them, from them, or both.
Evidently what you're really saying is, don't piss off the Mormons....
Well, who knows what things they have prepared in the land called U-tah, no one goes to live in a wasteland voluntarily, what kind of doom base are they hiding
Again with the fething Muslims who commit violence are not Muslims crap.
Cute, but its not what I meant . Terror attacks in Turkey and Iraq. We generally only talk about it if its in the 'West'. Its a crazy violent part of the world problem, not a Muslim problem. Unless we discuss it as a Muslims problem as in most of the victims are Muslim? People always find their reasoning for violence, that does not mean that the reasoning used also condones it.
Committed by a Muslim, motivated by an extreme interpretation of Islam.
Lets keep in mind that, while lots of things are done in the name of religion, their real drivers are usually more mundane political and economic issues. Even the Crusades really were more about trade routes, diverting excess population and bored soldiers, and political power games, etc. religious zealotry was mainly the cover story to sell the idea.
Are we going to pretend that without Islam or religion that Turkey would not have suffered such an attack, or does the fact that Turkey is next door to a failed state with multiple competing factions, some of which are hostile to Turkey and have limited means of attack and little inherent aggression control have more to do with it? The secular PKK has been bombing Turks for decades.
Nationalism is generally the underlying element in much of terrorism. From the American Christian right to the Muslim right, nationalism binds them. You would be surprised on how often a Muslim terrorist is actually a terrorist that is Muslim. Even for all the الله أكبر, it is just as much a cultural phrase as a religious one. In fact some one yelling that out could be a Christian, Muslim, Jew or Pagan. In Palestine amongst their terrorists, outside of Pagans you can find the big three fighting for nationalist ideology. Which isn't to say there are not plenty of religious terrorists in Palestine but a good deal are just nationalists.
Rape, child abuse, horrible misogyny, all covered up by community leaders to keep up the good PR image and tourism money. Beneath the superficial appearance of "the good old days" is a rather nasty cult.
(Now, granted, not every Amish person is guilty of those offenses but the community as a whole has some very serious problems.)
I'm tired of the Amish PR thing where we have to pretend they're all happy peaceful people living a simpler life that we should all envy. The myth needs to be corrected.
Okay... imma step back from that since this isn't the thread.
It really is, given previous conversation here. People seem to have the idea that Islam is a uniquely horrible religion and Muslims are somehow worse than members of other religions at doing horrible things. The reality is that most religions have their own horrible beliefs and horrible people associated with them, and the only real difference is how much we allocate the blame between the religion and things like war/poverty levels/etc, and how much we believe cultural stereotypes about "good" religions vs. "bad" religions.
I'm tired of the Amish PR thing where we have to pretend they're all happy peaceful people living a simpler life that we should all envy. The myth needs to be corrected.
Okay... imma step back from that since this isn't the thread.
It really is, given previous conversation here. People seem to have the idea that Islam is a uniquely horrible religion and Muslims are somehow worse than members of other religions at doing horrible things. The reality is that most religions have their own horrible beliefs and horrible people associated with them, and the only real difference is how much we allocate the blame between the religion and things like war/poverty levels/etc, and how much we believe cultural stereotypes about "good" religions vs. "bad" religions.
I don't think anyone is discounting that there isn't bad apples in all religions...
There are extremists in all walks of life and in history.
I just think it's lunacy to ignore that Islam has a problem with Islamisms (the radical extremists) and that most of their victims (90+%) are other muslims.
There are plenty of great muslims groups and individuals doing all they can to denounce the extremisms that we read/hear/see in the media.
We should stop engaging in the whattaboutism game and start working with the moderate/peaceful muslims. I know we are, but more need to be done. One, to education the rest of us that hopefully reduce bigotry... and two, make it known to the likes of ISIS that they're in the wrong.
whembly wrote: I just think it's lunacy to ignore that Islam has a problem with Islamisms (the radical extremists) and that most of their victims (90+%) are other muslims.
See, this is exactly my point. When Muslims do something awful it's Islam at fault. When Christians do something like supporting the military targeting civilians (AKA "state sponsored terrorism") at a far higher rate than Muslims we don't blame Christianity for it. If we apply the same standard to Islam that we use for Christianity we find all kinds of explanations for things like ISIS that have far more to do with the general economic/government situation of the region than the particular religion involved.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And frankly it doesn't explain the huge number of attacks by Muslims against other Muslims in Islamic countries.
´Not like islam doesn't have different factions like christianity has oh no! Not like christians haven't been fighting with other christians over disagreements with beliefs oh no!
Good job at grouping huge number of people into same mold thus making problem worse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: In comparison though Islamic Extremism has resulted in 300,000 dead in Syria, in half that time frame. A country the size of Florida, with roughly the same population.
So how many people in Syria died in total? Because other parties including USA have resulted in deaths in Syria as well so if 300,000 is islamist extremists how many hundred thousands have died in total?
I'd think the Duterte thread would be enough to demonstrate that you don't have to be a particular religion to consider the use and threat of violence as a political tool.
I'm not trying to - it just seems odd how people would still consider such inhumane people as part of a group that guides them to be a better person in the world. A lot of Muslims I know and have seen agree with that idea too.
In technicality they still are, but to still consider them as legitimate would be doing the religion a disservice; it's the reason we have Islamophobia in the first place. These people aren't truly driven by religion - it's a mixture of politics, hatred, and irrationality.
General Annoyance wrote: I'm not trying to - it just seems odd how people would still consider such inhumane people as part of a group that guides them to be a better person in the world.
Presenting religion as "a group that guides them to be a better person in the world" is whitewashing religion. Religion doesn't necessarily guide people to be better. Sometimes it guides them to be better, sometimes it guides them to horrifying evil, sometimes it just guides them to obedience to a god in a way that is morally neutral to the rest of the world. When you assume that people can't be a "true" member of a religion just because they do awful things you're whitewashing away all the bad things religion has been responsible for and insisting we only care about the good parts.
Peregrine wrote: Presenting religion as "a group that guides them to be a better person in the world" is whitewashing religion. Religion doesn't necessarily guide people to be better. Sometimes it guides them to be better, sometimes it guides them to horrifying evil, sometimes it just guides them to obedience to a god in a way that is morally neutral to the rest of the world. When you assume that people can't be a "true" member of a religion just because they do awful things you're whitewashing away all the bad things religion has been responsible for and insisting we only care about the good parts.
The Muslims that I have known over the past 9 years have mostly told me that they use Islam to guide them to improve, and that without it, they'd have no idea what they'd end up as. Obviously evil people use religion as a means of justifying their actions, but at that point, is it the religion to blame, or the person who most likely misinterpreted it?
Consider one of Christianity's 10 Commandments - "Thou Shalt Not Kill" - does disobedience of this still make you a Christian, and if so, why?
General Annoyance wrote: The Muslims that I have known over the past 9 years have mostly told me that they use Islam to guide them to improve, and that without it, they'd have no idea what they'd end up as. Obviously evil people use religion as a means of justifying their actions, but at that point, is it the religion to blame, or the person who most likely misinterpreted it?
Given that Islam (like other religions) explicitly says "do horrible things" alongside those commands to "do good things", yes, the religion does get blame. Not in all cases of course, and we can't ignore the other factors involved in things like war, but pretending that religion only does positive things is blatant whitewashing.
Consider one of Christianity's 10 Commandments - "Thou Shalt Not Kill" - does disobedience of this still make you a Christian, and if so, why?
Many Christians would argue that the actual commandment is "thou shalt not murder", and "kill" is too literal a translation of the word. IOW, killing for acceptable reasons is ok, killing for the wrong reasons is not. In fact, the bible even explicitly commands Christians to kill in certain cases. And recall the poll results from earlier in this thread: solid majorities of both Protestants and Catholics in the US believe that it's ok for the military to deliberately target civilians (AKA "state sponsored terrorism"). When your definition means that the majority of self-identified Christians in the US are not "true" Christians because they believe a bad thing it's a pretty clear sign you're whitewashing religion.
Peregrine wrote: Given that Islam (like other religions) explicitly says "do horrible things" alongside those commands to "do good things", yes, the religion does get blame. Not in all cases of course, and we can't ignore the other factors involved in things like war, but pretending that religion only does positive things is blatant whitewashing.
I would have thought that the bad things that came out of religion were more down to groups of followers misinterpreting the text that they believe says that the violence they are committing is justifiable. It has been a while since I read the Quran, and admittedly I did skim read it at times, but I didn't note anything that explicitly says that murdering innocents would ever be justified; the Quran does not shy away from war, but justifying terrorism, I did not see.
I'd be foolish to think that religion only does positive things and creates positive people - I've experienced first hand Muslims who are not good people, and Muslims who have said some really irrational things. Even so, I like to think that it's more the responsibility of the individual who has those beliefs rather than the religion they follow.
Many Christians would argue that the actual commandment is "thou shalt not murder", and "kill" is too literal a translation of the word. IOW, killing for acceptable reasons is ok, killing for the wrong reasons is not. In fact, the bible even explicitly commands Christians to kill in certain cases. And recall the poll results from earlier in this thread: solid majorities of both Protestants and Catholics in the US believe that it's ok for the military to deliberately target civilians (AKA "state sponsored terrorism"). When your definition means that the majority of self-identified Christians in the US are not "true" Christians because they believe a bad thing it's a pretty clear sign you're whitewashing religion.
That poll certainly is disturbing, but the problem with it is that the data does not have the qualitative evidence we need to conclude that religion is the primary factor in their belief; why do they think it's justified, and when? Does religion play any part in their belief in this, or is it more down to another variable, such as politics?
I'm tired of the Amish PR thing where we have to pretend they're all happy peaceful people living a simpler life that we should all envy. The myth needs to be corrected.
They are the enviro's wet dream and ultimate goal for the global warming crowd, but whatevs.
I'm tired of the Amish PR thing where we have to pretend they're all happy peaceful people living a simpler life that we should all envy. The myth needs to be corrected.
They are the enviro's wet dream and ultimate goal for the global warming crowd, but whatevs.
Painting with a broad brush I see. That would be like me saying "All pro-gun users want to walk around like its the wild west with guns strapped to them and ready to challenge people to duels."
whembly wrote: I just think it's lunacy to ignore that Islam has a problem with Islamisms (the radical extremists) and that most of their victims (90+%) are other muslims.
See, this is exactly my point. When Muslims do something awful it's Islam at fault. When Christians do something like supporting the military targeting civilians (AKA "state sponsored terrorism") at a far higher rate than Muslims we don't blame Christianity for it. If we apply the same standard to Islam that we use for Christianity we find all kinds of explanations for things like ISIS that have far more to do with the general economic/government situation of the region than the particular religion involved.
That's not what I said... but, go ahead and mischaracterize what I said.
I'm tired of the Amish PR thing where we have to pretend they're all happy peaceful people living a simpler life that we should all envy. The myth needs to be corrected.
They are the enviro's wet dream and ultimate goal for the global warming crowd, but whatevs.
Painting with a broad brush I see. That would be like me saying "All pro-gun users want to walk around like its the wild west with guns strapped to them and ready to challenge people to duels."
Wait we don't? (scratches head). I've had 37 whippy stick and plastic ruler duels this century alone.
I noticed you didn't actually disagree.
-nearly hydrocarbon free
-no energy
-no evilz chemicals.
-no GMO crops.
I'm tired of the Amish PR thing where we have to pretend they're all happy peaceful people living a simpler life that we should all envy. The myth needs to be corrected.
They are the enviro's wet dream and ultimate goal for the global warming crowd, but whatevs.
Painting with a broad brush I see. That would be like me saying "All pro-gun users want to walk around like its the wild west with guns strapped to them and ready to challenge people to duels."
Wait we don't? (scratches head). I've had 37 whippy stick and plastic ruler duels this century alone.
I noticed you didn't actually disagree.
-nearly hydrocarbon free
-no energy
-no evilz chemicals.
-no GMO crops.
This is your dream.
Yes that is totally what I want. To be back in the middle ages. Sorry, I am a cornucopian that wants clean renewable energy.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And frankly it doesn't explain the huge number of attacks by Muslims against other Muslims in Islamic countries.
´Not like islam doesn't have different factions like christianity has oh no! Not like christians haven't been fighting with other christians over disagreements with beliefs oh no!
Good job at grouping huge number of people into same mold thus making problem worse.
Thats a straw man. I don't have a high opinion of Christianity either, and I certainly don't pretend it doesn't have it's own problems with extremism. But Christianity isn't the topic of debate here. Christians did not bomb a nightclub in Turkey.
Like I said earlier, everytime a Muslim commits an act of terror in the name of Islam, or his own interpretation of Islam, people just shrug their shoulders and say "but Christianity". What-about-ism does nothing to address the fact that we've seen a several year long wave of Islamist terror attacks across Europe.
We've had somebody slagging off the Amish in this thread, saying things about them that are described as bigotry when they are said about Muslims. And yet nobody is calling him a bigot. Why? Because he's attacking Christians, not Muslims?
Rape, child abuse, horrible misogyny, all covered up by community leaders to keep up the good PR image and tourism money. Beneath the superficial appearance of "the good old days" is a rather nasty cult.
(Now, granted, not every Amish person is guilty of those offenses but the community as a whole has some very serious problems.)
Thats a straw man. I don't have a high opinion of Christianity either, and I certainly don't pretend it doesn't have it's own problems with extremism. But Christianity isn't the topic of debate here. Christians did not bomb a nightclub in Turkey.
They just bomb abortion clinics and get away with child rape.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And frankly it doesn't explain the huge number of attacks by Muslims against other Muslims in Islamic countries.
´Not like islam doesn't have different factions like christianity has oh no! Not like christians haven't been fighting with other christians over disagreements with beliefs oh no!
Good job at grouping huge number of people into same mold thus making problem worse.
Thats a straw man. I don't have a high opinion of Christianity either, and I certainly don't pretend it doesn't have it's own problems with extremism. But Christianity isn't the topic of debate here. Christians did not bomb a nightclub in Turkey.
Like I said earlier, everytime a Muslim commits an act of terror in the name of Islam, or his own interpretation of Islam, people just shrug their shoulders and say "but Christianity". What-about-ism does nothing to address the fact that we've seen a several year long wave of Islamist terror attacks across Europe.
It happens everytime because there's always, without fail, someone blaming "immigrants" in general, people from the "wrong culture", or "them Arabs" etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. There's never going to be a constructive debate on the issue as long as people keep blaming "Islam" as opposed to Jihadism or Wahhabism.
Thats a straw man. I don't have a high opinion of Christianity either, and I certainly don't pretend it doesn't have it's own problems with extremism. But Christianity isn't the topic of debate here. Christians did not bomb a nightclub in Turkey.
They just bomb abortion clinics and get away with child rape.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And frankly it doesn't explain the huge number of attacks by Muslims against other Muslims in Islamic countries.
´Not like islam doesn't have different factions like christianity has oh no! Not like christians haven't been fighting with other christians over disagreements with beliefs oh no!
Good job at grouping huge number of people into same mold thus making problem worse.
Thats a straw man. I don't have a high opinion of Christianity either, and I certainly don't pretend it doesn't have it's own problems with extremism. But Christianity isn't the topic of debate here. Christians did not bomb a nightclub in Turkey.
Not really. Christianity not too long ago shot up a Planned Parenthood in the town I live in. (You could argue the guy was mentally unstable, but you could argue that for any terrorist/religious attacking).
Like I said earlier, everytime a Muslim commits an act of terror in the name of Islam, or his own interpretation of Islam, people just shrug their shoulders and say "but Christianity". What-about-ism does nothing to address the fact that we've seen a several year long wave of Islamist terror attacks across Europe.
Something something IRA.The IRA had a years long terror attacks in Ireland, mainly boiling down to Protestants versus Catholics and British rule versus Irish independence. But sure, Islam is the only terror game in town.
We've had somebody slagging off the Amish in this thread, saying things about them that are described as bigotry when they are said about Muslims. And yet nobody is calling him a bigot. Why? Because he's attacking Christians, not Muslims?
Rape, child abuse, horrible misogyny, all covered up by community leaders to keep up the good PR image and tourism money. Beneath the superficial appearance of "the good old days" is a rather nasty cult.
(Now, granted, not every Amish person is guilty of those offenses but the community as a whole has some very serious problems.)
Same reason it's okay to insult the Mormons. Tightly knit cult-like groups are often the subject of scorn and insult. Look at how Europe views the Gypsies.
Like I said earlier, everytime a Muslim commits an act of terror in the name of Islam, or his own interpretation of Islam, people just shrug their shoulders and say "but Christianity". What-about-ism does nothing to address the fact that we've seen a several year long wave of Islamist terror attacks across Europe.
Something something IRA.The IRA had a years long terror attacks in Ireland, mainly boiling down to Protestants versus Catholics and British rule versus Irish independence. But sure, Islam is the only terror game in town.
To be fair, that's not what Shadow Captain is saying, and he's got a point that the thread's about the attack in Istanbul, not about Christianity.
Thats a straw man. I don't have a high opinion of Christianity either, and I certainly don't pretend it doesn't have it's own problems with extremism. But Christianity isn't the topic of debate here. Christians did not bomb a nightclub in Turkey.
They just bomb abortion clinics and get away with child rape.
#Whataboutism.
You spoke about christians, I replied.
I am not saying muslims are any better in that regard, because they are not.
IMHO all religions are poison and equally wrong.
jreilly89 wrote: Not really. Christianity not too long ago shot up a Planned Parenthood in the town I live in. (You could argue the guy was mentally unstable, but you could argue that for any terrorist/religious attacking).
Still missing the point. The Christian extremists in your town are not the topic of debate in this thread. Constantly bringing Christianity up is a deflection.
Something something IRA.The IRA had a years long terror attacks in Ireland, mainly boiling down to Protestants versus Catholics and British rule versus Irish independence. But sure, Islam is the only terror game in town.
Another straw man. When have I ever said "Islam is the only terror game in town"?
Same reason it's okay to insult the Mormons. Tightly knit cult-like groups are often the subject of scorn and insult. Look at how Europe views the Gypsies.
So thats OK? How about if I replace Amish with Muslim?
Rape, child abuse, horrible misogyny, all covered up by community leaders to keep up the good PR image[snip].
(Now, granted, not every Muslim person is guilty of those offenses but the community as a whole has some very serious problems.)
What? It is. You can argue it's not available on a large scale, but saying it's not happening is just daft. Solar, Nuclear, Wind, Hydro, etc.
Nuclear is declining and the tree huggers hate it.
Hydro is generally maxed unless you think wave action will work and the tree huggers hate it.
Solar has high mfg costs and cannot provide sufficient power levels.
Wind needs a secondary backup and the treehuggers hate it.
jreilly89 wrote: Not really. Christianity not too long ago shot up a Planned Parenthood in the town I live in. (You could argue the guy was mentally unstable, but you could argue that for any terrorist/religious attacking).
Still missing the point. The Christian extremists in your town are not the topic of debate in this thread. Constantly bringing Christianity up is a deflection.
So "Terror attacks by one religion" =/= "Terror attacks by another religion"? Yeah, okay.
Something something IRA.The IRA had a years long terror attacks in Ireland, mainly boiling down to Protestants versus Catholics and British rule versus Irish independence. But sure, Islam is the only terror game in town.
Another fething straw man. When have I ever said "Islam is the only terror game in town"?
You argued Europe had been under a wave of terror attacks from Islam. I brought up another example of Europe being under a wave of religious terror attacks. I'm addressing the fact Europe has long been a place of strife. How is that a straw man?
Same reason it's okay to insult the Mormons. Tightly knit cult-like groups are often the subject of scorn and insult. Look at how Europe views the Gypsies.
So thats OK? How about if I replace Amish with Muslim?
Rape, child abuse, horrible misogyny, all covered up by community leaders to keep up the good PR image[snip].
(Now, granted, not every Muslim person is guilty of those offenses but the community as a whole has some very serious problems.)
I'm not saying it's okay, I'm saying that's why it's justified by society at large. That's why there's a comedic play about "The Book of Mormon" and not "The Quran".
What? It is. You can argue it's not available on a large scale, but saying it's not happening is just daft. Solar, Nuclear, Wind, Hydro, etc.
Nuclear is declining and the tree huggers hate it. Hydro is generally maxed unless you think wave action will work and the tree huggers hate it. Solar has high mfg costs and cannot provide sufficient power levels. Wind needs a secondary backup and the treehuggers hate it.
Anecdotal evidence. Bravo. Except data shows our use of it in the US is only going up.
jreilly89 wrote: So "Terror attacks by one religion" =/= "Terror attacks by another religion"? Yeah, okay.
No. How many times do I need to state this to get it through your skull? Christian extremism is not the discussion here, Islamism is. Stop deflecting with straw man arguments and whataboutism.
You argued Europe had been under a wave of terror attacks from Islam. I brought up another example of Europe being under a wave of religious terror attacks. I'm addressing the fact Europe has long been a place of strife. How is that a straw man?
Because you're accusing me of claiming Islam is the only terror threat. I've never said that. This is the very definition of a Straw Man. Please withdraw it.
I'm not saying it's okay, I'm saying that's why it's justified by society at large. That's why there's a comedic play about "The Book of Mormon" and not "The Quran".
Then that means there are a lot of hypocrites in this thread.
It'd be easier for threads like these to be a place of respect for the dead if the very first response wasn't a self-congratulatory meme two steps away from 'wake up, sheeple'.
But this is OT, so the logical response is for everyone to start arguing in the same circles they always do. At least the religion argument is vaguely on topic, I'm still not sure why Fraz found it necessary to take a swipe at people who care about the environment.
Let's argue about guns now! That one got defused pretty quickly, I think we should give it another try!
Spinner wrote: It'd be easier for threads like these to be a place of respect for the dead if the very first response wasn't a self-congratulatory meme two steps away from 'wake up, sheeple'.
But this is OT, so the logical response is for everyone to start arguing in the same circles they always do. At least the religion argument is vaguely on topic, I'm still not sure why Fraz found it necessary to take a swipe at people who care about the environment.
Let's argue about guns now! That one got defused pretty quickly, I think we should give it another try!
Spinner wrote: It'd be easier for threads like these to be a place of respect for the dead if the very first response wasn't a self-congratulatory meme two steps away from 'wake up, sheeple'.
But this is OT, so the logical response is for everyone to start arguing in the same circles they always do. At least the religion argument is vaguely on topic, I'm still not sure why Fraz found it necessary to take a swipe at people who care about the environment.
Let's argue about guns now! That one got defused pretty quickly, I think we should give it another try!
General Annoyance wrote: There have been plenty of Christian and Buddhist attacks in both South East Asia and in Africa over the past decade; they just don't make mainstream headlines as much as the Islamic ones do. Google it and have a look.
Frankly, Religion has nothing to do with Terrorism - it's just an excuse for both the attackers and the media to point fingers at other people for all the problems in the world. Terrorists lose any backing from their respective religions after they make the decision that killing people is the right answer; no religion I know of flat out says that you should kill other human beings who don't follow whatever rules they lay down.[/quote
Out of context it does; in context, it is talking about the Mushrikeen - the Meccan pagans who had declared war against the prophet Muhammad and his community, and who had attacked and tortured his followers before.
I've said this before and I will say it again. Religion is just a mechanism to get people on board for violence, but it is not the underlying reason. The reason is always power. You think IS just commits these attacks out of religious conviction? These attacks are PR stunts by a losing power to try and regain their glory days of income and recruitment when they first established their 'state'. Ever since they started losing the war they have been more interested in committing attacks in the West. The reason is that people don't want to send money or themselves to a war zone when its obvious your side will lose. It is a bit more easy to regain these two things if you can convince these people that "dem ebil Westernurs" are coming to bomb the gak out of everyone there just because they live in the region in which IS operates. Its all about the propaganda value. Religion just makes it easier to convince the dumb foot soldiers to fight in a losing war. If looking at the sectarian violence in Iraq during the Coalition occupation the primary reason was still political power, the same reason why the same people in Northern Iraq started supporting IS against Baghdad again.
We have had plenty of sectarian violence in the history of Europe. The Netherlands and Germany have had extensive conflicts between Catholics and Protestants using the religion excuse, but it was still about power. Then we had that great phase about murdering each other because we happened to worship different flags. Then we again murdered people over their religion or political affiliation. In the 70's and 80's Europe has a large scale socialist inspired violence/terrorist problem and South America had the same issue up until now. Yet however much we like to pretend that it is an Islamic problem, we in Europe never pretended that socialism was inherently driving people to violence/terrorism when it was ongoing (of course we went through that phase in the 19th and early 20th century) and are now mostly a version of Social Democrat inspired states.
The fact is that the Middle East did not yet have the kind of historic religion>nationalism>other stuff evolution. The nascent nationalism was combined with religion in the 19th and early 20th century under the Ottoman Empire. Having been ruled by the Ottomans for centuries many of these peoples considered being Muslim was the defining bond in the Empire, something that was promoted by the Ottomans/Turks (the idea that all Muslims should try and live in the same state or caliphate). It was a convenient device for holding it together. The problems in the early 20th century of course shattered the empire and the idea of it serving as a semi-caliphate (already tenuous with the consecutive Persian/Iranian Muslim empires also existing next door). In places with stronger defined national identities and nationalism such as Turkey we see ethnic cleansing come up after the Ottoman collapse. Yet this nationalism wasn't that developed in the states created by Sykes-Picot. Here we still see religion as being a dividing line (I'm oversimplifying this for brevity) as it was in Europe before the proper development of states and constructed national identities. Of course regimes such as those of the Assads and Hussein tried to construct this national identity based on their new borders. Yet this failed as these regimes fell back on old tribal/religious divides for political support. Assad had the Alawites and Hussein the Sunni Muslims as their support base and put those disproportionately in power. Of course you won't unite a country when you simply discriminate against a significant part of the population to keep them away from power. This was used by extremists, taking advantage of these religious and political divides created by these regimes to rekindle sectarian violence.
That is the important part to note for IS. When the US surge in 2007 also started bringing in the Sunni tribes into the Iraqi political process you see a decline starting in the fortunes of these extremists being able to exploit religion but mainly disguised political unrest. This is where the previous incarnation went into decline in Iraq, the powerbase disappeared because the political reasons behind this powerbase started to crumble. This is where the political struggle in Syria steps in, giving IS a way out of Iraq (going against the Al Qaeda religious and political leadership I might add) to regain its power in the Syrian vacuum. This whole thing has been about power disguised in a cloak of religion. Religion serves as a tool to recruit those that are to be used by power hungry leaders such as those of IS. The form of a caliphate is a much easier manner to unite the different groups to fight under one banner than a regular state such as Iraq or Syria to which few people in those regions feel any allegiance to, its all about framing.
This is a very quick and general explanation of course, neglecting a ton of socioeconomic and historical trends leading up to the current day. There have been tons of books written about the region and political terrorism. Enough to show that religion is used by those in power as a reason to mobilize people to fight for a cause. Religion doesn't have to condone it, you just need people to speak from a position of "religious authority" (just look into the "theological" debates of Al Qaeda against IS, cause IS damages funding and authority of Al Qaeda so they condemn them on religious grounds) to convince them that it does. Like the pope and the First Crusade.
Peregrine wrote: When Muslims do something awful it's Islam at fault.
I know a lot of people go way too far and do this, but still I think most people do this only when said Muslim explicitly say they do what they do because of their faith…
General Annoyance wrote: I would have thought that the bad things that came out of religion were more down to groups of followers misinterpreting the text that they believe says that the violence they are committing is justifiable.
By using “misinterpreting” here, you are implying that you do know what Islam, or any other religion for that matter, says better than actual followers (and sometime scholars) of Islam (or other said religion).
Frazzled wrote: You never hear about Pastafarian extremism (or Rastafarian extremism either).
Frazzled wrote: Nuclear is declining and the tree huggers hate it.
Hydro is generally maxed unless you think wave action will work and the tree huggers hate it.
Solar has high mfg costs and cannot provide sufficient power levels.
Wind needs a secondary backup and the treehuggers hate it.
Belittling, scornful expressions like “treehuggers” don't make your point stronger and are against rule 1. That would be like me calling religious people the “imaginary-friend(s)-adults” over and over.
Also you should hate that too, unless you are happy about reliance on oil for some reason.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I've said this before and I will say it again. Religion is just a mechanism to get people on board for violence, but it is not the underlying reason.
So, you are saying that religion is just the tool power-hungry people use to manipulate gullible people into committing atrocities, as opposed to the reason motivating both the leaders and the rank-and-file members of various organizations to commit said atrocities?
In short, your argument is “The one actually committing the atrocities are indeed motivated by religious reasons, but the leaders are not”? That case seems quite flimsy at best. And doesn't really matter that much imho.
In the words of the immortal bard: lighten up Francis (alternatively you need to stop and pull the corn cob out of your ). Anyone citing Pastafarians clearly is not intending to be serious.
Belittling, scornful expressions like “treehuggers” don't make your point stronger and are against rule 1. That would be like me calling religious people the “imaginary-friend(s)-adults” over and over.
I see that a lot actually. Do you need a hug? I have crepe murtle that can help, or maybe a nice pine tree. ;P
Disciple of Fate wrote: I've said this before and I will say it again. Religion is just a mechanism to get people on board for violence, but it is not the underlying reason.
So, you are saying that religion is just the tool power-hungry people use to manipulate gullible people into committing atrocities, as opposed to the reason motivating both the leaders and the rank-and-file members of various organizations to commit said atrocities? In short, your argument is “The one actually committing the atrocities are indeed motivated by religious reasons, but the leaders are not”? That case seems quite flimsy at best. And doesn't really matter that much imho.
Close, but then you miss the entire point of the power idea by a little. Science for example isn't inherently evil, I think we can all agree on that on this site (pretty please ). Yet some horrible things have been done in the name of science, examples we can all think of. The same can be said of nationalism in for example the Yugoslavian civil war. Its all about religion serving as a framing device to convince people to go along with a goal a leader wants to achieve. Of course when I said I was oversimplifying it I didn't intend it to be read as that all of them do it for the power, some leaders might just be religious crazies. And the reason does matter much, everything can become evil if the right(wrong) mind is put to it. The risk we run in just declaring religion evil (for the record I'm not religious at all, born and raised atheist) is that we alienate people in the end providing fertile grounds for people twisting religion for their purposes. Just look at the US and the idea against abortion and promoting the 'right' religious values by the Republicans. Do they all believe the party line, doubtful, do they all use it to get elected, you betcha The purpose is to create the idea something people care for such as the nation, religion or ethnicity being under threat or needing to expand it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The risk we run in just declaring religion evil (for the record I'm not religious at all, born and raised atheist) is that we alienate people in the end providing fertile grounds for people twisting religion for their purposes.
I'll stick to call religion false, and specifically call out the bad part of it as noxious to society and morally repugnant while acknowledging the rest as morally neutral or even positive preposterous claims with no basis in reality, then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Anyone citing Pastafarians clearly is not intending to be serious.
Nice try, but I am quoting those Rastafarian you were talking about.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The risk we run in just declaring religion evil (for the record I'm not religious at all, born and raised atheist) is that we alienate people in the end providing fertile grounds for people twisting religion for their purposes.
I'll stick to call religion false, and specifically call out the bad part of it as noxious to society and morally repugnant while acknowledging the rest as morally neutral or even positive preposterous claims with no basis in reality, then.
As is your right of course. I think it just helps to remind people that almost anything can be used by people to incite violence. Religion just gives the bad part of society one more idea to misuse and abuse to commit violence on each other. People always find a way to justify their violence.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: By using “misinterpreting” here, you are implying that you do know what Islam, or any other religion for that matter, says better than actual followers (and sometime scholars) of Islam (or other said religion).
Well of course - the religion isn't really to blame, it's the people following it who have problems far beyond something they practice, which really should be a harmless practice to anyone with two feet on the ground. Religion is simply the easiest thing to correlate with when someone does something dreadful compared to other psychological complexities that they may have.
You say this like it's obvious. How can you pretend to know basically any possible religion better than it's very own practitioners? Would you even contradict the founder/prophet of a religion on what his or her religion actually preach?
It's important to realize that some religions being at least partly responsible for horrors committed in its name doesn't mean the practitioners are innocents, and neither does the practitioners being guilty means the religion is innocent. For instance, I wouldn't give a religion that openly order it's practitioners to do ritual murders, like the Thug religion, a pass because it's the practitioners “misinterpreting” it. Ritual murder is part of the Thug religion, and that religion is morally wrong because of it.
To go back at Islam, while the case for terror attack is definitely not clear cut, I, especially as a non-Muslim, would never argue against terror apologists based on religious arguments, only on moral grounds, and I wouldn't comment on whether or not they are “Islamic-compliant”. If someone believe that terror attacks are something he or she should do because of his or her religion, I'll argue about why those things are actually morally bad. Whether or not it's approved by Islam is theirs to decide. As long as I convince them not to do it I don't care about their conclusion on the Islamic-compliance of terror attacks.
I would definitely argue, though, that Islam is inherently sexist because of, for instance, the very clear inheritance rules in the Quran. I would make a case about why sexism is bad in a way that is entirely separate to religion, and then argue that this means there are obvious problem with Islam that should lead one to apostatize. I would also do the same with Christianity, though sadly the fact the Bible is the equivalent of the Hadith rather than the Quran (i.e. not one unique text that was directly sent by god, but rather a collection of texts related by human narrators, that can be considered canon or apocryphal) makes it harder to have such a clear-cut case.
You say this like it's obvious. How can you pretend to know basically any possible religion better than it's very own practitioners? Would you even contradict the founder/prophet of a religion on what his or her religion actually preach?
You asked a question regarding Islam (or at least using Islam as an example of your point) - I happen to know a fair amount about it, having lived in two Islamic states for half my life, and living with one of my brothers pledging to be a Muslim. You don't need to be a practitioner to have a valid point, or to point out invalidity.
Would I contradict the prophet Muhammad if he was still alive? No I wouldn't - his teachings are immortalised in the Quran. Would I contradict a so called scholar based on a misinterpretation of that text? Yes I would.
It's important to realize that some religions being at least partly responsible for horrors committed in its name doesn't mean the practitioners are innocents, and neither does the practitioners being guilty means the religion is innocent. For instance, I wouldn't give a religion that openly order it's practitioners to do ritual murders, like the Thug religion, a pass because it's the practitioners “misinterpreting” it. Ritual murder is part of the Thug religion, and that religion is morally wrong because of it.
So the religions you know enough about set such things in stone? I know Islam doesn't. Responsibility for your actions is always entirely with you, unless you suffer from a mental illness, or you were otherwise lead by circumstance.
To go back at Islam, while the case for terror attack is definitely not clear cut, I, especially as a non-Muslim, would never argue against terror apologists based on religious arguments, only on moral grounds, and I wouldn't comment on whether or not they are “Islamic-compliant”. If someone believe that terror attacks are something he or she should do because of his or her religion, I'll argue about why those things are actually morally bad. Whether or not it's approved by Islam is theirs to decide. As long as I convince them not to do it I don't care about their conclusion on the Islamic-compliance of terror attacks.
I am not religious either, and I agree that terrorism is morally wrong. I also know that the Quran does not condone acts of terrorism, unless you pull verses from it enough out of context to justify it. To call someone an Islamic terrorist would be the same as calling them a terrorist who plays tabletop wargames; correlation does not equal causation, and to narrow it down to one single motive is being ignorant to everything that actually would have motivated that person to kill - their physical and mental health, their political standpoints, their education, their previous empathy towards other people.
I would definitely argue, though, that Islam is inherently sexist because of, for instance, the very clear inheritance rules in the Quran. I would make a case about why sexism is bad in a way that is entirely separate to religion, and then argue that this means there are obvious problem with Islam that should lead one to apostatize. I would also do the same with Christianity, though sadly the fact the Bible is the equivalent of the Hadith rather than the Quran (i.e. not one unique text that was directly sent by god, but rather a collection of texts related by human narrators, that can be considered canon or apocryphal) makes it harder to have such a clear-cut case.
That is true - the Quran does not favour the female when it comes to equal rights and inheritance. However, we should keep in mind that the Quran is an ancient text written in a time where sexism was the accepted norm in practically every human community in the world. That doesn't make it really excusable, but consider the ramifications of changing a holy text to reflect more modern society, and how that would be treated. Besides that, Muslim families are typically becoming less conservative; I know a collection of Muslim families who are both conservative and more modern - big names like the Al Thanis like to remain as conservative as possible, but even so I know a decent handful of their children who have been allowed more free reign than generations before might have been used to.
All that said, I will stress again that the Quran does not condone or recommend acts of terrorism in any way. There are questionable beliefs in that text to the modern society, but nothing that would go as far as physically harming innocent human beings.
General Annoyance wrote: I also know that the Quran does not condone acts of terrorism, unless you pull verses from it enough out of context to justify it.
So, yeah, white-washing Islam in full force.
General Annoyance wrote: To call someone an Islamic terrorist would be the same as calling them a terrorist who plays tabletop wargames; correlation does not equal causation, and to narrow it down to one single motive is being ignorant to everything that actually would have motivated that person to kill - their physical and mental health, their political standpoints, their education, their previous empathy towards other people.
Oh, so I guess I can't call Brigitte Mohnhaupt a communist terrorist either, then. I will do it nonetheless, and I'll talk about Islamic terrorists too, and anarchist terrorists, and far-right terrorists, etc. It isn't something exclusive to Islamism but neither should Islamism be exempted.
General Annoyance wrote: That is true - the Quran does not favour the female when it comes to equal rights and inheritance. However, we should keep in mind that the Quran is an ancient text written in a time where sexism was the accepted norm in practically every human community in the world. That doesn't make it really excusable, but consider the ramifications of changing a holy text to reflect more modern society, and how that would be treated. Besides that, Muslim families are typically becoming less conservative; I know a collection of Muslim families who are both conservative and more modern - big names like the Al Thanis like to remain as conservative as possible, but even so I know a decent handful of their children who have been allowed more free reign than generations before might have been used to.
Okay, most of the discussion is off-topic but this is becoming extra off-topic (and yeah, I am partly responsible). If we want to continue this discussion I guess it's either for another thread or for MP. And given the risks of, hum, very heated debate I'd favor PM so we can stay among, I hope, responsible people ^^.
General Annoyance wrote: All that said, I will stress again that the Quran does not condone or recommend acts of terrorism in any way. There are questionable beliefs in that text to the modern society, but nothing that would go as far as physically harming innocent human beings.
I don't think anyone would dispute this, but I am sure people would disagree on what is considered an “innocent human being” though. Afaik that is how the Islamists that call for violent Jihad (i.e. not all Islamists) justify their deeds: they are only striking back in a just war. And I could totally see some verses justifying killing for instance any vocal apostate that would encourage people to leave Islam, without the need for too much interpretation…
(For Christian dakkanauts that would agree with me, it's okay, but remember that maxim about rocks and glass houses )
How? If taking it out of context is the only way to justify what you want to do, then that's a misinterpretation.
And again:
General Annoyance wrote: I'd be foolish to think that religion only does positive things and creates positive people - I've experienced first hand Muslims who are not good people, and Muslims who have said some really irrational things. Even so, I like to think that it's more the responsibility of the individual who has those beliefs rather than the religion they follow.
Oh, so I guess I can't call Brigitte Mohnhaupt a communist terrorist either, then. I will do it nonetheless, and I'll talk about Islamic terrorists too, and anarchist terrorists, and far-right terrorists, etc. It isn't something exclusive to Islamism but neither should Islamism be exempted.
Ahh, but now you are correlating to political views - a factor that could easily and clearly justify hatred from a party of people. Not that that's right of course, but the justification is... well I wouldn't say reasoned. Objectively clear(?)
Islam doesn't correlate as well since none of its teachings in context justify acts of terrorism. Acts of war/violence yes, but even then it is very strict in saying that no harm may be done to innocent bystanders, and that damage to their property is also not acceptable.
Okay, most of the discussion is off-topic but this is becoming extra off-topic (and yeah, I am partly responsible). If we want to continue this discussion I guess it's either for another thread or for MP. And given the risks of, hum, very heated debate I'd favor PM so we can stay among, I hope, responsible people ^^.
Heated? I doubt it - I only come here to discuss, not to incite flame. Pity others can't do the same...
But yes, a PM for this point, and in fact any point I've raised (since really it's all OT now) is welcome
I don't think anyone would dispute this, but I am sure people would disagree on what is considered an “innocent human being” though. Afaik that is how the Islamists that call for violent Jihad (i.e. not all Islamists) justify their deeds: they are only striking back in a just war. And I could totally see some verses justifying killing for instance any vocal apostate that would encourage people to leave Islam, without the need for too much interpretation…
(For Christian dakkanauts that would agree with me, it's okay, but remember that maxim about rocks and glass houses )
It should be anyone who has committed acts of violence against you, or who bears arms against you; it doesn't cross over into being opposed to Islam, which is where the radicals twist it to serve their ideals.
The Quran does not shy away from war, but it is pretty clear on what is acceptable during wartime and what isn't. I'll find the relevant verses for you if you haven't already, and PM them over
General Annoyance wrote: To call someone an Islamic terrorist would be the same as calling them a terrorist who plays tabletop wargames; correlation does not equal causation,
It doesn't automatically equal it, but it certainly doesn't disprove it either. Correlation is often present when there is causation.
Speaking about 'religion' though is the wrong way, it's too broad. Religions have practiced human sacrifice, have openly condoned wars of aggression as well as called for peace and practiced non violence to the point of self sacrifice. The fact is the content of a given religions doctrines matter. Those are what are interpreted and those are what forms people's beliefs, which inform and direct their actions.
A religion which states it's highest, most sacred, highest tenet is 'It is better to suffer and die than ever spill blood of another person' is going to be extremely difficult to interpret into a call to violence. Conversely:
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
What's the meaning of this? Who should you fight? When to fight? That's certainly debatable all I'm not going to speculate exactly, but it is clear that fighting is something to be done, at least in some context, in the way/name of Allah. That in infinitely easier to interpret into fighting than the previous tenet of non violence.
The difference in content matters so much and Islam has it's fair share not only of dangerous ideas but a good number of people who support them.
Kojiro wrote: It doesn't automatically equal it, but it certainly doesn't disprove it either. Correlation is often present when there is causation.
Well of course there is always a reason for something happening, but linking religion to violence because there are passages in its holy text that talk about war, and how war can be acceptable, is no different to linking violence to violent video games; it's such a flimsy theory of explanation compared to more scientifically valid psychological explanations, such as social identification and integration.
Speaking about 'religion' though is the wrong way, it's too broad. Religions have practiced human sacrifice, have openly condoned wars of aggression as well as called for peace and practiced non violence to the point of self sacrifice. The fact is the content of a given religions doctrines matter. Those are what are interpreted and those are what forms people's beliefs, which inform and direct their actions.
I'm not sure which ones practised human sacrifice, but Islam certainly has condoned war and continues to do so. The point is it never has condoned acts of terrorism, which are very different to waging war.
A religion which states it's highest, most sacred, highest tenet is 'It is better to suffer and die than ever spill blood of another person' is going to be extremely difficult to interpret into a call to violence. Conversely:
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
What's the meaning of this? Who should you fight? When to fight? That's certainly debatable all I'm not going to speculate exactly, but it is clear that fighting is something to be done, at least in some context, in the way/name of Allah. That in infinitely easier to interpret into fighting than the previous tenet of non violence.
Here's that verse in context with the verses following it:
4:74 So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory – We will bestow upon him a great reward. 4:75 And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of God and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, “Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?” (this is the important one - the verse before is now saying to take up arms against those who oppress you and your families, not simply to wage war as and when it suits) 4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak. (this one could also be taken out of context to say "fight the disbelievers of Islam, as they are all allies of Satan". But again, the point of this is to fight those who use violence against you and your followers in an attempt to oppress you, not to initiate violence against non believers) 4:77 Have you not seen those who were told, “Restrain your hands [from fighting] and establish prayer and give zakah”? But then when fighting was ordained for them, at once a party of them feared men as they fear God or with [even] greater fear. They said, “Our Lord, why have You decreed upon us fighting? If only You had postponed [it for] us for a short time.” Say, The enjoyment of this world is little, and the Hereafter is better for he who fears God. And injustice will not be done to you, [even] as much as a thread [inside a date seed].
The difference in content matters so much and Islam has it's fair share not only of dangerous ideas but a good number of people who support them.
Questionable? Yes. Dangerous? No. The danger is coming from the individuals who, for whatever reason, lack the moral restraint to realise that what they're doing is inhumane.
Even in context, those passages can still be used to justify acts of terrorism.
A common narrative of Islamists is that Muslims everywhere are being persecuted and oppressed by the West..(something which, sadly, has some degree of credibility given our disastrous military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria and our interference in many other places). And therefore, the Islamists claim, these passages apply and condone acts of terror as a response to this "oppression" of Muslims by the West.
To Islamists, this is a Holy War, and all Muslims have a duty to fight the West.
The difference in content matters so much and Islam has it's fair share not only of dangerous ideas but a good number of people who support them.
Questionable? Yes. Dangerous? No. The danger is coming from the individuals who, for whatever reason, lack the moral restraint to realise that what they're doing is inhumane.
They lack moral restraint? Oh gee, I wonder why...
Disciple of Fate wrote: The risk we run in just declaring religion evil (for the record I'm not religious at all, born and raised atheist) is that we alienate people in the end providing fertile grounds for people twisting religion for their purposes.
I'll stick to call religion false, and specifically call out the bad part of it as noxious to society and morally repugnant while acknowledging the rest as morally neutral or even positive preposterous claims with no basis in reality, then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Anyone citing Pastafarians clearly is not intending to be serious.
Nice try, but I am quoting those Rastafarian you were talking about.
A common narrative of Islamists is that Muslims everywhere are being persecuted and oppressed by the West..(something which, sadly, has some degree of credibility given our disastrous military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria and our interference in many other places). And therefore, the Islamists claim, these passages apply and condone acts of terror as a response to this "oppression" of Muslims by the West.
To Islamists, this is a Holy War, and all Muslims have a duty to fight the West.
They're still wrong, since Islam does not condone the harming of innocents or bystanders during war, or the destruction of their property, deliberate or not; since terrorism is all about doing those two things, it makes no sense in terms of justification from the Quran.
In addition, Muslims should be forgiving of any opponent who seeks peace with them after war, as in verses 2:192 and 8:61 - But if they stop, God is most forgiving, most merciful; Now if they incline toward peace, then incline to it, and place your trust in God, for God is the all-hearing, the all-knowing
Obviously it's up for debate whether the major Western powers are really at peace with some Islamic states like Iraq and Afghanistan when there are still troops stationed there (a fraction of what was there before, but still a presence that indicates conflict is continuing), but even so, it doesn't justify Islamists to attack civilian structures and kill innocents to make a point.
They lack moral restraint? Oh gee, I wonder why...
Education, perhaps? Having studied psychology myself it is difficult to tell exactly what makes a person's moral compass, but evidence does seem to correlate to political and economic strife, as well as a lack of a full education.
General Annoyance wrote: They're still wrong, since Islam does not condone the harming of innocents or bystanders during war, or the destruction of their property, deliberate or not; since terrorism is all about doing those two things, it makes no sense in terms of justification from the Quran.
In addition, Muslims should be forgiving of any opponent who seeks peace with them after war, as in verses 2:192 and 8:61 - But if they stop, God is most forgiving, most merciful; Now if they incline toward peace, then incline to it, and place your trust in God, for God is the all-hearing, the all-knowing
Well, how do you reconcile that with Islam explicitly allowing to take the wives of infidels who have fought you as slave, and with events from the life of Muhammad like when he executed all the male members of the Banu Qurayza tribe and reduced the women and children to slavery, even after they had surrendered, and all this despite the fact the Banu Qurayza never even attacked Muslims in the first place.
I sure see how some Imam can make a good case for terror attacks if the treatment of the Banu Qurayza is considered A-ok.
A bit more context about the verse you are quoting.
That is the grace from Allah, and sufficeth Allah as Knower! (70) O Ye who believe! take your precaution then sally forth in detachment or sally forth all together. (71) And verily there Is among you he who laggeth behind, and if an ill befalleth you, he saith: surely Allah hath bestowed favour on me in that I was not Present with them. (72) And if there betideth you grace from Allah, then, as though there had been no tenderness between you and him, he saith: would that I had been with them! then I would have achieved a mighty achievement. (73) Let them wherefore fight in the way of Allah those who have purchased the life of this world for the Hereafter: And whosoever fighteth in the way of Allah, and is then slain or overcometh, We shall vouchsafe unto him a mighty hire. (74) And what aileth you that ye fight not in the way of Allah and for the oppressed among men and women and Children who say: our Lord! take US forth from this town whereof the people are Wrong-doing, and appoint us from before Thee a patron, and appoint us from before Thee a helper! (75) These who believe fight in the way of Allah and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan; verily the craft of Satan is ever feeble. (76) Hast thou not observed those unto whom it was said; withhold your hands, and establish prayer and give the poor-rate; but when thereafter fighting was prescribed unto them, lo! there is a party of them dreading men as with the dread of Allah, or with greater dread; and they say: our Lord! why hast Thou prescribed unto us fighting! Wouldst that Thou hadst let us tarry a term nearby! Say thou: the enjoyment of the world is little, and the Hereafter is better for him who feareth God; and ye shall not be wronged a whit. (77)
That's one translation from http://quranexplorer.com/quran/ (great website to compare translation, for those that can't read Arabic). The message is very clear, it's about telling people that they should go to war when asked to go to war, much more so than describing when to go to war. They'll get candy and stuff after they die, it's a great deal! Totally worth it.
Well of course there is always a reason for something happening, but linking religion to violence because there are passages in its holy text that talk about war, and how war can be acceptable, is no different to linking violence to violent video games; it's such a flimsy theory of explanation compared to more scientifically valid psychological explanations, such as social identification and integration.
That's disingenuous argument at best. Video games are not, nor do they claim to be, moral proscriptions for how to live your life- religions do. A mentally incompetent, confused or damaged person may transpose the games goals with real life goals but that is their failing. Conversely a religious commandment or law is explicitly to be followed in real life.
Now religion may not be the only factor in leading someone to violence. But just like it being night time, and there's a storm might help me get lost while driving, a bad road map is going to be a large part of it. Eliminate the bad map or better yet replace it with a good one, and I might just find my way despite the conditions.
I'm not sure which ones practised human sacrifice, but Islam certainly has condoned war and continues to do so. The point is it never has condoned acts of terrorism, which are very different to waging war.
Christianity has the ultimate human sacrifice- Jesus, but I was thinking more of the Aztecs and others.
But see, if you condone war, you have to define war. My grandfather flew 44 missions for the RAF during WW2 in a lancaster, and I have his Distinguished Flying Cross in a vault. He also died when he was just 66 years old from heart failure. He stressed himself into an early grave we were told and I believe it. He carried around immense guilt for his actions during the war, specifically the bombing of civilians. That's a war, in living memory, where the 'good guys' bombed cities. Not arms factories or munition dumps. And for that, my grandfather was awarded very highly. What is absolutely indisputable though is that at that time, that's how we defined war.
So you see the line between 'war' and 'terrorism' starts to blur rapidly. Certainly if a group got a hold of a transport plane, loaded it with bombs and flew over Berlin dropping them we'd label that terrorism. 70 years ago it was war though. And that's where the extremist position lies- how you define war. Because even you have admitted the Koran calls for war, you're already one step down the path.
Here's that verse in context with the verses following it:
You seem to have missed the point, which was not to debate a specific verse but to show that the texts can be interpreted several ways, and some of those ways are more at odds with western civilisation than others. There's a reason we see Palestinian Islamic suicide bombers but no Palestinian Christian ones, despite them living in the same environment with the same grievances.
Questionable? Yes. Dangerous? No. The danger is coming from the individuals who, for whatever reason, lack the moral restraint to realise that what they're doing is inhumane.
And you believe it was with sociopolitical and economic arguments and ideas they were convinced to commit atrocities?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Well, how do you reconcile that with Islam explicitly allowing to take the wives of infidels who have fought you as slave, and with events from the life of Muhammad like when he executed all the male members of the Banu Qurayza tribe and reduced the women and children to slavery, even after they had surrendered, and all this despite the fact the Banu Qurayza never even attacked Muslims in the first place. I sure see how some Imam can make a good case for terror attacks if the treatment of the Banu Qurayza is considered A-ok.
This is a contradiction that has always confused me; why would Muhammad condone violence after war when he had previously preached that such an act is wrong? Unfortunately I've never been able to extract a clear answer from the Muslims I know when I've asked them, so I can't really argue this point. But should we really judge the whole teaching of Islam based on one action of Muhammad?
A bit more context about the verse you are quoting.
Spoiler:
That is the grace from Allah, and sufficeth Allah as Knower! (70) O Ye who believe! take your precaution then sally forth in detachment or sally forth all together. (71) And verily there Is among you he who laggeth behind, and if an ill befalleth you, he saith: surely Allah hath bestowed favour on me in that I was not Present with them. (72) And if there betideth you grace from Allah, then, as though there had been no tenderness between you and him, he saith: would that I had been with them! then I would have achieved a mighty achievement. (73) Let them wherefore fight in the way of Allah those who have purchased the life of this world for the Hereafter: And whosoever fighteth in the way of Allah, and is then slain or overcometh, We shall vouchsafe unto him a mighty hire. (74) And what aileth you that ye fight not in the way of Allah and for the oppressed among men and women and Children who say: our Lord! take US forth from this town whereof the people are Wrong-doing, and appoint us from before Thee a patron, and appoint us from before Thee a helper! (75) These who believe fight in the way of Allah and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan; verily the craft of Satan is ever feeble. (76) Hast thou not observed those unto whom it was said; withhold your hands, and establish prayer and give the poor-rate; but when thereafter fighting was prescribed unto them, lo! there is a party of them dreading men as with the dread of Allah, or with greater dread; and they say: our Lord! why hast Thou prescribed unto us fighting! Wouldst that Thou hadst let us tarry a term nearby! Say thou: the enjoyment of the world is little, and the Hereafter is better for him who feareth God; and ye shall not be wronged a whit. (77)
That's one translation from http://quranexplorer.com/quran/ (great website to compare translation, for those that can't read Arabic). The message is very clear, it's about telling people that they should go to war when asked to go to war, much more so than describing when to go to war. They'll get candy and stuff after they die, it's a great deal! Totally worth it.
Which part are you citing that from? It's a little confusing for me to read. In the Quran, the permission to fight is described in this verse:
"Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged... Those who have been driven out from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is God’ — And if God did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been pulled down temples and churches and synagogues and mosques... (22:40-41)."
This would suggest that Muslims should only go to war when the freedom of their religion is being threatened by people trying to oppress it. And I can hear the counter to that now - "exactly G.A, that's exactly what the radicals think is happening in the world!". Doesn't make them right in thinking on such a narrow spectrum of international affairs, especially when the Western world is permissive of Islam existing in our societies.
Kojiro wrote:That's disingenuous argument at best. Video games are not, nor do they claim to be, moral proscriptions for how to live your life- religions do. A mentally incompetent, confused or damaged person may transpose the games goals with real life goals but that is their failing. Conversely a religious commandment or law is explicitly to be followed in real life.
Now religion may not be the only factor in leading someone to violence. But just like it being night time, and there's a storm might help me get lost while driving, a bad road map is going to be a large part of it. Eliminate the bad map or better yet replace it with a good one, and I might just find my way despite the conditions.
Indeed it does, but it's still within the bounds of being grossly misinterpreted, just like radicals do. And is the Quran really a bad map when it says such acts of terrorism are not excusable?
Christianity has the ultimate human sacrifice- Jesus, but I was thinking more of the Aztecs and others.
Silly me, how did I not even think of Jesus although to be fair, the context of his sacrifice is different to perhaps a practice that may have been undertaken by the Aztecs.
But see, if you condone war, you have to define war. My grandfather flew 44 missions for the RAF during WW2 in a lancaster, and I have his Distinguished Flying Cross in a vault. He also died when he was just 66 years old from heart failure. He stressed himself into an early grave we were told and I believe it. He carried around immense guilt for his actions during the war, specifically the bombing of civilians. That's a war, in living memory, where the 'good guys' bombed cities. Not arms factories or munition dumps. And for that, my grandfather was awarded very highly. What is absolutely indisputable though is that at that time, that's how we defined war.
So you see the line between 'war' and 'terrorism' starts to blur rapidly. Certainly if a group got a hold of a transport plane, loaded it with bombs and flew over Berlin dropping them we'd label that terrorism. 70 years ago it was war though. And that's where the extremist position lies- how you define war. Because even you have admitted the Koran calls for war, you're already one step down the path.
I'm sorry to hear that your Grandfather passed earlier than expected. That kind of story is very similar to what I've studied with Second Vietnam war veterans, who carried the burden of the civilian casualties they inflicted long after the war was over. Vietnam was quite different to the Second World War though; whereas carpet bombing was intentional in Vietnam, there simply wasn't any way to guide the bomblets that WW2 era bombers used to military targets, nor was there any IR or Thermal Imaging to see through the darkness that the air raids were conducted in. Civilian causalities were therefore inevitable with that bombing policy.
Even so, the Quran does not justify such an action - if collateral damage is a potential through a certain action, then you should not carry it out; "O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well... for your guidance in the battlefield! Do not commit treachery, or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone"
It is no secret that Islam calls to its followers to fight whenever the freedom of religion is threatened, of any form. However, it has never allowed collateral damage to be an acceptable parameter.
You seem to have missed the point, which was not to debate a specific verse but to show that the texts can be interpreted several ways, and some of those ways are more at odds with western civilisation than others. There's a reason we see Palestinian Islamic suicide bombers but no Palestinian Christian ones, despite them living in the same environment with the same grievances.
If you interpret it without context, sure, which is exactly what terrorists like to do; take the words literally and the Quran is a book of hate, but read it fully and you realise that it really isn't (although, as Hybrid noted, it does contradict itself from time to time).
And you believe it was with sociopolitical and economic arguments and ideas they were convinced to commit atrocities?
It's always the root of the problem - the people who are convincing the young and the angry that Islam says it's okay to murder are typically people who are fed up with both domestic and international happenings. Islam's just the easiest form of defence when someone questions why they are doing it, since being Muslim is typically what the radicals will have in common.
I think from here this will be easier if we continue the debate via PM; I feel like this sidetrack is taking away from the tragedy of what's happened in favour of something that really isn't important over paying respects, and it's probably a debate that could go on for another 2 or 3 pages at least. Let's just hope that attacks such as these become less frequent in the future, whatever the cause of them may be.
General Annoyance wrote: This is a contradiction that has always confused me; why would Muhammad condone violence after war when he had previously preached that such an act is wrong? Unfortunately I've never been able to extract a clear answer from the Muslims I know when I've asked them, so I can't really argue this point.
Because in his early years his cult was small and weak, so he preached peace and tolerance. But by the end of his life, he was a powerful Warlord with many followers and so could afford to preach and condone violence. Haven't you heard of the Islamic doctrine of Abrogation? The earlier, more peaceful passages of the Quran are often superseded by the later, more violent passages.
However, preaching peace whilst weak, then acting more violently when strong is, of course, not unique to Islam. The early Christians were largely peace loving hippies too, until Christianity gained power across Europe. Which of course led to the Crusades (many of which were a response to Muslim aggression btw. The Holy Land was largely Jewish and Christian until the Muslims conquered it, and continued pushing West attempting to conquer Constantinople too).
But should we really judge the whole teaching of Islam based on one action of Muhammad?
Considering that his teachings and actions form the entire core and foundation of Islam, yes.
Muhammad is Islam. That's the whole point of it. It's the final unaltered word of God delivered to the world through him and him only as the final messenger of God. So yes, we can judge Islam on Muhammad. In fact we pretty much have to.
Future War Cultist wrote: Muhammad is Islam. That's the whole point of it. It's the final unaltered word of God delivered to the world through him and him only as the final messenger of God. So yes, we can judge Islam on Muhammad. In fact we pretty much have to.
Indeed, not judging Islam on Muhammad is probably tantamount to blasphemy or something.
General Annoyance wrote: But should we really judge the whole teaching of Islam based on one action of Muhammad?
I'd say we should not say the terrorists are going against Islam's teaching. And I don't mean that we should say they do follow those teachings. I am saying we should just STFU about whether or not they do follow Islam's teaching, and focus on showing why they are wrong regardless of whether they follow Islam's teaching.
General Annoyance wrote: Even so, the Quran does not justify such an action - if collateral damage is a potential through a certain action, then you should not carry it out; "O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well... for your guidance in the battlefield! Do not commit treachery, or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone"
What's the Surah and verse number here? I always like to check both context and alternative translation. Alternative translation can make a world of difference, see 4:34.
General Annoyance wrote: If you interpret it without context, sure, which is exactly what terrorists like to do; take the words literally and the Quran is a book of hate, but read it fully and you realise that it really isn't (although, as Hybrid noted, it does contradict itself from time to time).
I don't understand. I can read it fully, and still take the words literally and whitout context. I can also consider context, but the context is, well, Muhammad's life, and as you agreed yourself, it basically just make it worse...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The early Christians were largely peace loving hippies too, until Christianity gained power across Europe. Which of course led to the Crusades [i]
Nah, that came WAY latter. What happened was the forced conversion of people all around Europe and North Africa, and the mindless destruction of previous religions, and stuff. Basically repeating the persecution they suffered, tenfold.
Peregrine wrote: When Muslims do something awful it's Islam at fault. When Christians do something like supporting the military targeting civilians (AKA "state sponsored terrorism") at a far higher rate than Muslims we don't blame Christianity for it. If we apply the same standard to Islam that we use for Christianity we find all kinds of explanations for things like ISIS that have far more to do with the general economic/government situation of the region than the particular religion involved.
I'm pretty sure Christianity has had its share of blame during the past 2000 years. To my knowldedge at least this has mostly stopped in the last centuries however, christians are no longer the fanatics they used to be. I can argue this is due to higher education, but that's my personal point of view and by no means do I say this to insult the Muslim populations that don't get the same chances as we westerners do (i.e. less fortunate than us in the Middle East, Africa, etc, just take a look at what's happening over at Nigeria, affecting its 170,000,000(!) inhabitants)
Rosebuddy wrote: Violence in the Middle East is better explained by political and economic factors than religious.
).
). Anyone citing Pastafarians clearly is not intending to be serious. 
The purpose is to create the idea something people care for such as the nation, religion or ethnicity being under threat or needing to expand it.
although to be fair, the context of his sacrifice is different to perhaps a practice that may have been undertaken by the Aztecs.