ChatterBank0 min ago
Isis: The Origins Of Violence
32 Answers
Did anyone see this on Channel 4 last night? I recorded it and will hopefully watch it sometime today, but this from the London Evening Standard and makes interesting reading.
http://
Tom Holland finishes by saying , “Ever since Rushdie, people have a sense that if you say anything negative about Islam, angry Muslims will protest. But there’s a further anxiety that if you insult Muslims, you’re a racist. There’s a conflation. Both of those anxieties have a chilling effect on questioning a fundamental issue: to what extent is there an ideological dimension to what is being done in Islam’s name? It seems there is a considerable ideological dimension.”
Holland believes it is better that we discuss this openly. “People acknowledge it but are afraid to say it. That played a substantial part in the Dutch and French elections — a feeling of resentment that people aren’t allowed to express it. It’s better that we open the windows — for Muslims too. Because all the time, this is metastasising away. This is like refusing to go to the dentist when you have a toothache. Sooner or later, it will fall out and your jaw will go rotten.”
Needless to say perhaps, I think he’s absolutely right.
http://
Tom Holland finishes by saying , “Ever since Rushdie, people have a sense that if you say anything negative about Islam, angry Muslims will protest. But there’s a further anxiety that if you insult Muslims, you’re a racist. There’s a conflation. Both of those anxieties have a chilling effect on questioning a fundamental issue: to what extent is there an ideological dimension to what is being done in Islam’s name? It seems there is a considerable ideological dimension.”
Holland believes it is better that we discuss this openly. “People acknowledge it but are afraid to say it. That played a substantial part in the Dutch and French elections — a feeling of resentment that people aren’t allowed to express it. It’s better that we open the windows — for Muslims too. Because all the time, this is metastasising away. This is like refusing to go to the dentist when you have a toothache. Sooner or later, it will fall out and your jaw will go rotten.”
Needless to say perhaps, I think he’s absolutely right.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//So what you're saying is that Islamic scriptures and teachings preceded Islamic terrorism? OK. I agree. Now having established that, what does it demonstrate as far as you're concerned?//
It demonstrates that it probably isn’t the reason behind the attacks, rather the justification being used for the attacks. If it was the reason behind the attacks it wouldn’t have taken so long for the attacks to start, and probably a lot more followers of the scriptures would be attacking us.
I am not sure why you have asked because I am pretty sure that you don’t want to know what I think.
It demonstrates that it probably isn’t the reason behind the attacks, rather the justification being used for the attacks. If it was the reason behind the attacks it wouldn’t have taken so long for the attacks to start, and probably a lot more followers of the scriptures would be attacking us.
I am not sure why you have asked because I am pretty sure that you don’t want to know what I think.
Garaman, methods have change, but Jihad is not new. Since Mohammed’s time Islam’s ambition has been to conquer.
//From an early date Muslim law laid down" jihad in the military sense as "one of the principal obligations" of both "the head of the Muslim state", who declared the jihad, and the Muslim community//
https:/
//From an early date Muslim law laid down" jihad in the military sense as "one of the principal obligations" of both "the head of the Muslim state", who declared the jihad, and the Muslim community//
https:/
I am not suggesting for a minute that Jihad is a new concept, Naomi. I am though questioning what makes a Muslim take to Jihad. Is it simply because that is what is written in scriptures, or are there other factors? I think there are other factors, and the worry for me is that we could drive more to Jihad if we are not careful how we handle the situation, which of course is what Isis wants.
Garaman, you did say you don’t believe that Islamic scripture is fundamental to the attacks – but it is. The rest simply serves to assist Islam’s cause. Additionally many people fail to recognise that Islam attacks in more ways than one. All we see is the carnage and the mayhem, but if you look you will find Muslims who are not murdering Jihadists, being encouraged to seek high office in the west – and, in our ignorance, and with our penchant for mistakenly assuming that all human beings possess a similar moral code and think pretty much alike, they’re succeeding. A case of softly, softly, catchee monkey. Islam is a creeping cancer that is polluting the whole world and one for which there is no cure. Regardless of what we do it will not be appeased. Islam doesn’t compromise. When people think nothing of the passage of time and welcome death as an honour, they have nothing whatsoever to lose.
//Garaman, you did say you don’t believe that Islamic scripture is fundamental to the attacks – but it is. The rest simply serves to assist Islam’s cause. //
Yes, I think that pretty much sums up our different views. I believe that world events, social exclusion etc. are fundamental to the attacks on the UK and the scripture serves to assist their cause.
Yes, I think that pretty much sums up our different views. I believe that world events, social exclusion etc. are fundamental to the attacks on the UK and the scripture serves to assist their cause.
Garaman - “... I believe that world events, social exclusion etc. are fundamental to the attacks on the UK and the scripture serves to assist their cause.”
We agree that scripture assists the cause of the Jihadi. However, that is where we part company.
Right from the inception of Islam, Jihadis have waged a war against all those who do not share their views. If you haven't already, I urge you to read the Koran and other Islamic scriptures (as I have) because you clearly do not understand what is really doing on. You're buying into the Islamic victim mentality nonsense that tries to explain away Islamic inspired violence as being a symptom of the west's “oppression” of Islam. What you're doing is blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator. Islamic terrorism with its expansionist, enslavement mentality has been going on for over a thousand years and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what you term “social exclusion”.
If the recent attacks in the UK, France, Germany, etc. are all rooted in these country's socio-political interference in 'muslim' lands, how does that explain Islam's massive attacks on the classical civilizations of Italy and Greece from around 620 AD onwards?
What you're doing is trying to pin the blame of Islamic terrorism on those who simply do not roll over and accept the dominance of Islam. This is victim blaming; and it's absolutely shameful of you. Please watch this video for a bit of perspective:
We agree that scripture assists the cause of the Jihadi. However, that is where we part company.
Right from the inception of Islam, Jihadis have waged a war against all those who do not share their views. If you haven't already, I urge you to read the Koran and other Islamic scriptures (as I have) because you clearly do not understand what is really doing on. You're buying into the Islamic victim mentality nonsense that tries to explain away Islamic inspired violence as being a symptom of the west's “oppression” of Islam. What you're doing is blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator. Islamic terrorism with its expansionist, enslavement mentality has been going on for over a thousand years and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what you term “social exclusion”.
If the recent attacks in the UK, France, Germany, etc. are all rooted in these country's socio-political interference in 'muslim' lands, how does that explain Islam's massive attacks on the classical civilizations of Italy and Greece from around 620 AD onwards?
What you're doing is trying to pin the blame of Islamic terrorism on those who simply do not roll over and accept the dominance of Islam. This is victim blaming; and it's absolutely shameful of you. Please watch this video for a bit of perspective:
//What you're doing is trying to pin the blame of Islamic terrorism on those who simply do not roll over and accept the dominance of Islam. This is victim blaming; and it's absolutely shameful of you.//
That isn't what I said, but if you are suggesting that I should be ashamed for saying that turning on all Muslims because some of them want to harm us, Is what Isis wants, and will likely make more want to harm us, well I am not in the slightest ashamed for saying that.
That isn't what I said, but if you are suggesting that I should be ashamed for saying that turning on all Muslims because some of them want to harm us, Is what Isis wants, and will likely make more want to harm us, well I am not in the slightest ashamed for saying that.
Garaman - “/What you're doing is trying to pin the blame of Islamic terrorism on those who simply do not roll over and accept the dominance of Islam. This is victim blaming; and it's absolutely shameful of you.// That isn't what I said...”
I know that isn't what you 'said'. I'm not sure anyone would be quite so silly as to actually overtly blame the victims of terrorists attacks. But that is precisely what you are implying. And I think that you know it.
I know that isn't what you 'said'. I'm not sure anyone would be quite so silly as to actually overtly blame the victims of terrorists attacks. But that is precisely what you are implying. And I think that you know it.
Garaman - “... if you are suggesting that I should be ashamed for saying that turning on all Muslims because some of them want to harm us, Is what Isis wants, and will likely make more want to harm us, well I am not in the slightest ashamed for saying that.”
To be clear, I also do not say that *all* muslims want to do harm to non-mislims. What I am saying is that there is an existential threat coming from the muslim faith by some adherent’s literal interpretation of the Islamic scriptures. Not all muslims take the Koranic verses literally and not all muslims buy into the insanity of Jihad. But many do (and a great many more support their actions) and it is these people who are literally murdering others for the 'crime' of not being Islamic or not being Islamic enough.
Just the other day, a massive bomb was detonated outside an ice cream parlour in Baghdad, killing 13 and wounding 24. The perpetrators were IS supporters and the victims were muslims breaking their fast at sundown during Ramadan. How does that atrocity fit into your narrative of “... Isis is trying to turn all Muslims against non-Muslims, and how Isis aims to do that is by first turning non-Muslims against all Muslims...”?
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'west' meddling in Islamic affairs nor of ISIS trying to turn non-muslims against muslims as you claim. That is apologist nonsense. Islamic literalists have been murdering people since the 7th century because Mohammed specifically instructed them to kill non-believers and take their possessions and lands. Islam has been waging war on all civilizations since the early 600s. To now claim that the reason the UK, USA, France, etc. are being attacked by Islamic Jihadis is because these western countries have commercial and/or military interests in supposedly Islamic countries or that ISIS is playing the 'divide and rule' game is stupidity writ large.
What did you make of the above video by the way? Did it open your eyes in any way, shape or form? Or are your eyes still firmly shut to the idea that Islam is an expansionist, cruel and barbaric religion?
To be clear, I also do not say that *all* muslims want to do harm to non-mislims. What I am saying is that there is an existential threat coming from the muslim faith by some adherent’s literal interpretation of the Islamic scriptures. Not all muslims take the Koranic verses literally and not all muslims buy into the insanity of Jihad. But many do (and a great many more support their actions) and it is these people who are literally murdering others for the 'crime' of not being Islamic or not being Islamic enough.
Just the other day, a massive bomb was detonated outside an ice cream parlour in Baghdad, killing 13 and wounding 24. The perpetrators were IS supporters and the victims were muslims breaking their fast at sundown during Ramadan. How does that atrocity fit into your narrative of “... Isis is trying to turn all Muslims against non-Muslims, and how Isis aims to do that is by first turning non-Muslims against all Muslims...”?
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the 'west' meddling in Islamic affairs nor of ISIS trying to turn non-muslims against muslims as you claim. That is apologist nonsense. Islamic literalists have been murdering people since the 7th century because Mohammed specifically instructed them to kill non-believers and take their possessions and lands. Islam has been waging war on all civilizations since the early 600s. To now claim that the reason the UK, USA, France, etc. are being attacked by Islamic Jihadis is because these western countries have commercial and/or military interests in supposedly Islamic countries or that ISIS is playing the 'divide and rule' game is stupidity writ large.
What did you make of the above video by the way? Did it open your eyes in any way, shape or form? Or are your eyes still firmly shut to the idea that Islam is an expansionist, cruel and barbaric religion?
//I know that isn't what you 'said'. I'm not sure anyone would be quite so silly as to actually overtly blame the victims of terrorists attacks. But that is precisely what you are implying. And I think that you know it.//
I am not, for example, blaming those poor people of Manchester for anything, and please don't assume to tell me that is what I am implying.
I will leave it there.
I am not, for example, blaming those poor people of Manchester for anything, and please don't assume to tell me that is what I am implying.
I will leave it there.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Wokery Comes To Tourism Agency...
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
News19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.