Anti Islam rant goes wrong

[Nicholas Weeks]

Hm, my reading of your previous posts were that it was the responsibility of Muslims to actively condemn and destroy extremism, or else accept association with it.

Which is obviously a silly brush to tar people with.

Hence the reply as to whether you accept that you should be tarred with the same brush in terms of US aggression.

You are wielding the tar brush now Brian. Grab a few feathers and go to it.

I will not say your reasoning is "silly" just wrong.

Put it on an individual basis and see if it is clearer. Chester is a serial killer - of frogs. He is convinced that frogs are the fount of evil in the universe, so he will exterminate them. Only his wife Lulubelle knows of Chester's murderous habit.

Is it silly to expect only Chester & Lulubelle to stop his killing of frogs? Not at all; only the killer and those closest to the killer have the best chance to stop such murder. If Lulubelle does nothing, she is tarred with complicity in frog-murder; as both legal & moral laws say.

To spell it out: Chester = Jihadists -- Lulubelle = peace-loving Muslim majority.

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

just to add that in islam religion and culture are all very closely bound together, i would say that most muslims that i know, dont know where one begins and the other ends,

also because those born into muslim communities identify so strongly with being muslim and therefore violant racist gangs also identify with being muslim in a strong way maybe thats why it is hard to seperate acts of terrorism from the religion of islam, if you get what I mean because those to do the acts often have a very strong islamic identity. please dont mis-understand what i am saying this is not an attack on islam but an observation.

 

[iBrian]

You are wielding the tar brush now Brian. Grab a few feathers and go to it.

I will not say your reasoning is "silly" just wrong.

Put it on an individual basis and see if it is clearer. Chester is a serial killer - of frogs. He is convinced that frogs are the fount of evil in the universe, so he will exterminate them. Only his wife Lulubelle knows of Chester's murderous habit.

Is it silly to expect only Chester & Lulubelle to stop his killing of frogs? Not at all; only the killer and those closest to the killer have the best chance to stop such murder. If Lulubelle does nothing, she is tarred with complicity in frog-murder; as both legal & moral laws say.

To spell it out: Chester = Jihadists -- Lulubelle = peace-loving Muslim majority.

So as a US citizen, what are you doing to stop US aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, and as a Buddhist, what are you doing to stop the Burma junta?

Of course, it would be completely unfair to demand you hold responsibility for these issues, let alone your personally challenge two world governments - but no less unfair than claiming Muslims in general are clearly connected with extremism in just one world religion.

 

[Nicholas Weeks]

No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.

John Donne, Meditation XVII
English clergyman & poet (1572 - 1631)

 

[Quahom1]

OMG--the "translation" is hillarious. But you know, those people who are fed these propaganda lies against the Noble Qur'an are so dumb that they will never do objective research themselves. They would accept what is offered to them by the islam-haters because their religions (i.e. Catholic) forbids them to investigate other religion.

Amica, that is erroneous, and only contributes to the misunderstanding and mistrust. Your assumption that Catholics are forbidden to investigate other religions, just adds to the fire. I am catholic, and have a Qu'ran (given me by a childhood and best friend living in my neighborhood), and have read it over and over again. And not just Islam, but other faiths as well.

Knee jerk assumption and reactions are what get us all in a pickle...

(oh, and it is e.g. - not i.e.) i.e. means all inclusive...e.g. means "for example"

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

What do we know about 'Jihadists'? We know that they are typically only casually involved with religion, never having previously taken much interest. They are secretly radicalised by a small number of political extremists. They take advantage of their subject's ignorance of the Quran and the Islamic faith, persuading them that their culture and their faith are under attack from the USA and the West. It then seems to make sense to strike out in defence of all they hold dear. This is all kept secret until an attack is carried out.

What can be done to counteract this? First a programme of education in the religion so that it is not so easily subverted. This is being done, but runs against the tradition of discipleship, where instruction is passed down through the religious hierarchy rather than being available to open enquiry. (To the best of my knowledge, please correct me if I am mistaken).

Second, non-Muslims must make it abundantly clear that they are not threatening the Islamic faith, traditions or culture. We will have to go out of our way to make this obvious. This will remove the main weapon of the radicalisers. It will require a steely determination when some outrage provokes the public wrath, but it is the only way to turn the situation round.

 

[Quahom1]

What do we know about 'Jihadists'? We know that they are typically only casually involved with religion, never having previously taken much interest. They are secretly radicalised by a small number of political extremists. They take advantage of their subject's ignorance of the Quran and the Islamic faith, persuading them that their culture and their faith are under attack from the USA and the West. It then seems to make sense to strike out in defence of all they hold dear. This is all kept secret until an attack is carried out.

What can be done to counteract this? First a programme of education in the religion so that it is not so easily subverted. This is being done, but runs against the tradition of discipleship, where instruction is passed down through the religious hierarchy rather than being available to open enquiry. (To the best of my knowledge, please correct me if I am mistaken).

Second, non-Muslims must make it abundantly clear that they are not threatening the Islamic faith, traditions or culture. We will have to go out of our way to make this obvious. This will remove the main weapon of the radicalisers. It will require a steely determination when some outrage provokes the public wrath, but it is the only way to turn the situation round.

Jihad has two meanings. One is external (the fight, the defense of, protection of home), and the other is internal (the struggle, the betterment of one's self, coming to terms with self).

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Jihad has two meanings. One is external (the fight, the defense of, protection of home), and the other is internal (the struggle, the betterment of one's self, coming to terms with self).

Hence the inverted commas. I was referring to those lost souls who get talked into a camapign of violence. Can you suggest a better term?

 

[Quahom1]

Hence the inverted commas. I was referring to those lost souls who get talked into a camapign of violence. Can you suggest a better term?

Terrorists, bullies, duped, ignorant, with ulterior motives...comes to mind.

 

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Skull
"Why bother" suggests peaceful Muslims would rather see innocents slaughtered than defend true Islam and risk danger for themselves.
I was and am being serious and you banter & on the other thread profess boredom.

I am not bantering on, I am treating your comments with the contempt they deserve when you choose to malign rather than discuss.

Perhaps the religion of complacency, rather than peace, is your cuppa tea.

Excellent example ... yawn.

Of course I reject the equating of US combat and Jihadist terrorism.

Hmmm so when your country invaded Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, over WMD which your government had been told by the worlds appointed authority on the subject did NOT exist, this invasion wasn't state terrorism to control more oil?

When your country tortured suspects, ran illegal prisons, kidnapped people and flew them around the world and your soldiers raped young girls, killing their families to avoid witnesses .. this is not a form of terrorism?

We have to be free to pick and choose which causes we will actively support, rather than having people tell us which causes we must and must not support. There are just too many causes.

Salam Nick

I agree with you completely and I don't expect anyone to get involved unless it is a subject they feel they want to support/protest. At the moment we have two camps in the active non-Muslim sphere .. those who spend their time mking the situation worse by their bigotry and lack of understanding and those who try to understand and be supportive of getting the peaceful Muslim message heard over the din of the radicals and non-Muslim bigots.

My comment was really aimed at the OP, this person is spending their time and passion posting hate filled nonsense, making themselves look rather foolish and then expecting peaceful Muslims to do something about the radicals. If they are genuinely concerned, as I'm sure we all are, about the Islamic radicals then surely their time would be better spent supporting the message of the peaceful Muslims.

They were worried that I was there to convert them, and they thought an alien would jump out of my chest at any given moment.

Exactly.

The world in some small measure wants to see things work out for Muslims but has its own ideas about how that should happen.

I think that is very true and very scary too. We shouldn't be trying to fit square pegs into round holes but accept they are round pegs and work with them to find a round hole acceptable to everyone.

You seem to hate yourselves when you drink or when you sin in general. I hope you do not hate yourselves, because that is the thing that would undo you.

Self hatred is not something I have experienced in relation to sin and I am not aware of it in other Muslims. What I see, when I or someone I know sins, is fear of the day we will have to answer for each sin.

They had become experts, and I was the one who was uneducated.

Oh dear, it's actually quite hard not to do that sometimes. I will argue with my husband at times about religion because "I read it in a book" or worse still "on the internet" Luckily my husband is a patient man lol

also because those born into muslim communities identify so strongly with being muslim and therefore violant racist gangs also identify with being muslim in a strong way maybe thats why it is hard to seperate acts of terrorism from the religion of islam

I have met very few Muslims who cannot identify an act of terrorism. We can see from Skull's post above that he/she appears to be having the same problem.

It goes back to the old "who is a terrorist and who is a freedom fighter/combat soldier" discussion. Some of the acts which are now being carried out by Muslims (I am thinking of Palestine here) are identical to the ones carried out by the IRA and yet a majority of Americans would call the IRA freedom fighters and the Palestinians terrorists. The IRA had massive support in America during their decades long "terror campaign" against Britain and yet the American culture is virtually identical to the British culture.

We then saw the reaction in many parts of the Middle East to 9/11. I have spoken to Muslims who were delighted ... not at the civilian death toll but at the fact that America, who they believe are committing state terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, getting a taste of it's own medicine. To counter this we also saw massive demonstrations in ME capital cities against 9/11 and also dozens of scholars statement stating this was an act of terrorism, not jihad.

So yes there are Muslims who identify with the "Muslim terrorists" but not because Islam teaches them to support terrorism but because they see the treatment of others in their faith or culture as oppressive. The fact that the western view simply labels it terrorism doesn't detract from people's right to see things differently.

Second, non-Muslims must make it abundantly clear that they are not threatening the Islamic faith, traditions or culture. We will have to go out of our way to make this obvious. This will remove the main weapon of the radicalisers. It will require a steely determination when some outrage provokes the public wrath, but it is the only way to turn the situation round.

Excellently said and agree completely. I know plenty of "peaceful" Muslims who also feel Islam is under attack, so imagine how strongly the radicals feel. It's why I am so troubled by the minaret and niqab bans, it simply gives credence to the fears already held.

 

[Amica]

Skull, hi--

Here is the deal. Western media has such huge censorship about what gets on the news, that those peaceful Muslims have not gotten deserved attention by them. Not all Muslims support evil, and not all Muslims are evil people. In fact, since 9/11 attrocity, it was the Muslims who got killed by terror groups more than any other people. On a daily basis we watch how a suicide bomber blew up bunch of Muslim civilians. Do you think that Muslims approve of such? NO. But, do Western media look at the people who reject such acts of violence? NO. Do a bit more research. Meet a Muslim, go visit a mosque, talk to activists (Muslims) etc. Arab Muslims are attacked in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, it is reasonable to see them be angry with the West. The rest of the Muslim world are quiet, thinking "it's not us. We stay out, don't mettle." So... I think those are the reasons.
Western people were always more pro active about voicing their opinions and feelings. I think Muslims have a lot to learn about it from Westerners.

 

[Dragonseer]

OMG--the "translation" is hillarious. But you know, those people who are fed these propaganda lies against the Noble Qur'an are so dumb that they will never do objective research themselves. They would accept what is offered to them by the islam-haters because their religions (i.e. Catholic) forbids them to investigate other religion.

I never made a "good" Catholic--a major reason why I no longer wear the label. In fact, I now wear none at all.

Just yesterday--yes, one day before the anniversary of 9/11--I ordered a copy of the Qur'an because I've been telling myself that I should really take the time to read/study it. So I've put my money where my thought is. Of course, my husband's theory that my name is now on some form of watch list is probably correct. Ah, well...

 

[c0de]

I imagine us islam free and always will

In this world of yours, what place do you imagine for yourself?

Someone special?

 

[bob x]

Some of the acts which are now being carried out by Muslims (I am thinking of Palestine here) are identical to the ones carried out by the IRA and yet a majority of Americans would call the IRA freedom fighters

I'm sorry, that is just insane. You might be able to find a few thousand in America who would call the IRA "freedom fighters", but nowhere near 1% of the population, let alone a "majority".

 

[iBrian]

I'm sorry, that is just insane. You might be able to find a few thousand in America who would call the IRA "freedom fighters", but nowhere near 1% of the population, let alone a "majority".

The IRA was free to carry out fund-raising in the USA until 9/11 though through NORAID, and from UK media reports, certainly seemed able to draw in crowds and funds from Americans when required.

And yet, a dozen Muslims attack the WTC and Pentagon, and suddenly all Islam is held accountable.

It really is a double-standard at play: the US was happy to create, fund, and organise own interest terrorist organisations overseas, and even support terrorism against a close military ally such as the UK.

Until itself was directly attacked by organised terrorism.

 

[bob x]

The IRA was free to carry out fund-raising in the USA until 9/11 though through NORAID

From what I understand, NORAID told sob stories about how the evil British had thrown people into prison who had not done anything and had nothing to do with the IRA, and they were just raising money to help the poor families-- similarly to the song and dance that the "Holy Land Foundation" went through when they were raising funds for Hamas, but saying they were just helping victims of the Israelis; neither of those groups would have gotten takers if they had openly been saying they were raising money for "armed struggle".

As for Americans who would "call the IRA freedom fighters", I know the number is not zero, since I met one, thirty years ago, but I've never met a second one. They are not exactly thick on the ground.

 

[juantoo3]

We then saw the reaction in many parts of the Middle East to 9/11. I have spoken to Muslims who were delighted ... not at the civilian death toll but at the fact that America, who they believe are committing state terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, getting a taste of it's own medicine. To counter this we also saw massive demonstrations in ME capital cities against 9/11 and also dozens of scholars statement stating this was an act of terrorism, not jihad.

Greetings Muslimwoman, it is so seldom we speak together anymore. I have read this thread, at least to this point, and I can see very much of what you are saying. I must make a correction here though, please.

You do realize that 9/11 occurred prior to overt American involvement in Afghanistan, right? While we did go into Iraq previously, it was in defense of Kuwait. So if this is what Muslims are thinking...hurray! America got their comeuppance!...their clocks are backwards. America was struck first, 9/11 was the instigation for going (back) into Iraq and for going into Afghanistan for the first time.

I have heard of many, very many, Muslims who were saddened by the attack on the twin towers. But I also heard a few reports of Muslims in America that cheered the day it happened. Such reports don't do much to help the cause.

 

[juantoo3]

And yet, a dozen Muslims attack the WTC and Pentagon, and suddenly all Islam is held accountable.

I think I see what you're getting at, and I don't disagree. What gets me...if the media reports I read are accurate...is that we knew the nationalities of the perps quite soon after the incident...by far the majority were Saudi. We have yet to address Saudi over it.

As soon as OBL was implicated, his family members here in the states were quietly ushered out of the country with our government's approval.

So "all of Islam" isn't quite correct...but we do seem to have put the focus on places that don't necessarily merit it while ignoring places that deserve serious attention.

I suspect that if America were not so oil dependent this would be handled much, much differently. As a motorhead, that pains me to say.

 

[Sam Albion]

...I grew up a poor Catholic with Irish ancestry, living in the UK. Underneath my school uniform I wore a fine cloak of green and gold. I liked the IRA, supported it and all it stood for, mainly because... a) I was exposed to it, b) supporting the IRA gave me an opportunity to "stick it to the man", the man who was to blame for my poverty of opportunity and lack of food and heating, the same man who's starved my Irish great-grandmother's children, and the same man who "oppressed" Eire, and c) there is something... romantic in being a freedom-fighter, something divine in that struggle. We hated the police, and we hated the army. When the Orange Lodge marched in the streets, we were encouraged to go outside and throw stones at them. Just kids, under 10 years old, full of hate and throwing stones at strangers, cheering when bombs went off on TV and people lay twisted and broken beneath the weight of propaganda and half-truths.

"Our day will come"...

When I was growing up, being a bomber and blowing up military targets seems like top notch fun. A good career beckoned, for me. I liked science. Making semtex was remarkably easy. Terrorism seemed... acceptable. If someone had come along and radicalised me, I would have embraced it wholeheartedly. I would've loved it, too. The secret cells, the balaclavas, the rhetoric. I was made for terrorism. I would have been very good at it, too.

For me, it isn't such a great leap to see those little stone-throwing Catholic kids as Muslims, being brought up to hate "The West", and "The infidels" just like we hated Proddies, and, just like us, they probably haven't got a clue what half of it is about either. The problem is...

...violent rhetoric is insidious, it seeps into the deepest recesses of the psyche and it lies there, festering...

... while most of the juvenile wannabe terrorists grow up, some of them don't. Even now, with my fine education, I can still drive past a Lodge building and seeth, and think of how much I resent them effing Proddie b'stards. The rational part of me lets it go, but, underneath, under the surface, that old hatred still burns bright, even though I can identify it as falsity...

Being an important cog in the machine that brings down "the state" is preferable to being nothing. Being involved in fringe groups is appealing to many people, average Joes who find the mundanity of modern life oppressive. Lots of people desire a suitable vehicle for their hatred. Fans the flames, and watch them burn.

Catch idealists early, and they make great terrorists... Give them a figure to hate, to blame, they'll go for it. People is people.

 

[c0de]

.


@ S. Albion

Excellent post my man. Especially this part:

Catch idealists early, and they make great terrorists... Give them a figure to hate, to blame, they'll go for it. People is people.

I would just like to add that hate can subside as well. There are people who were once filled with hate and eventually intellectualized it to a point where it vanished.