Why Blame Islam? Individuals, Not Religions, Carry Out Violent Acts

[wilberhum]

Did anyone else notice that www.jihadunspun.com is just another pro Al-Qaeda propaganda rage that supports terrorism in the name of Jihad?

 

[KAding]

The problem here of course is: "What is Islam?"

There is no one opinion on this. So how can we non-Muslims determine what 'Islam' is? To us I suppose, Islam is what Muslims believe it is. Islam is what Muslims make of it in this world. That includes all the fringe groups. That includes Shiite's, that includes Sufi Islam. That includes Osama Bin Laden, the Turkish PM Erdogan, some guy in Indonesia and people from this forum such as, say, Woodrow and islamirama. If there is a group of Muslims who think Islam allows them to blow up kaffirs/munafiqs in name of Islam during war then that is one of the representations of Islam. Considering all the terrorism in the Muslim world in the name of Islam, I will put that under the header "Islam-related terrorism".

Sure, I could go form my own opinion on what Islam says about terrorism, and I try to. But in the end, how valuable would my opinion as a non-Muslim casual observer be? Is it more valid than the opinion of a suicide bomber in Iraq? I don't think so.

IMHO anyway.

 

[جوري]

That's why we voted for Ronald Reagan twice.

He was a good actor.. that is really all you need to run a country- who knows maybe Clint Eastwood will run for office next? if we can get him to speak beyond an audible whisper and administer proper treatment regimen to protract his life on weekly basis....:coolious:

 

[aamirsaab]

People blame ideologies and/or religion whenever it suits them. I personally think it is very ignorant to say that because certain followers of a certain idea (or religion) commit a crime, that that particular idea/religion is put on trial.

People have commited a lot of racial crimes in the name of their religion throughout history. However, by condeming the religion for leading those members to commit said crimes would assume that the fault lies within the religion as opposed to an individuals' understanding, which is in most cases far from the truth.

If a person reads a violent book and goes out and demonically mauls someone to death as a result, I would point my finger at the dude (or dudette for all you militant feminists out there who may want to physically harm me because I was born with a Y chromosome and not an X and therefore assume that men are superior to women....) who commited the crime, not the author or the book he/she/it (what?!) read it from.

In the real world, religions do not go to court, the followers who commit crimes in the name of their religion, do. It puzzles me that there are 5 billion people on this planet and only a handfull (you can actually count them on both your hands) of them realise this. Actually, having said that, it doesn't.

 

[wilberhum]

In the real world, religions do not go to court,

Lets see, if the religion was found guilty, how do you send it to prision? :-\

 

[Keltoi]

People blame ideologies and/or religion whenever it suits them. I personally think it is very ignorant to say that because certain followers of a certain idea (or religion) commit a crime, that that particular idea/religion is put on trial.

People have commited a lot of racial crimes in the name of their religion throughout history. However, by condeming the religion for leading those members to commit said crimes would assume that the fault lies within the religion as opposed to an individuals' understanding, which is in most cases far from the truth.

If a person reads a violent book and goes out and demonically mauls someone to death as a result, I would point my finger at the dude (or dudette for all you militant feminists out there who may want to physically harm me because I was born with a Y chromosome and not an X and therefore assume that men are superior to women....) who commited the crime, not the author or the book he/she/it (what?!) read it from.

In the real world, religions do not go to court, the followers who commit crimes in the name of their religion, do. It puzzles me that there are 5 billion people on this planet and only a handfull (you can actually count them on both your hands) of them realise this. Actually, having said that, it doesn't.

I think most people who have commented have pointed out that a religion itself isn't to blame for the actions of its followers. This is more about perception. As the Crusades were brought up, do you suppose the Muslim survivors of the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem were saying.."Darn those misguided followers of an unnamed religion," or do you suppose they were saying "Darn those Christians?" It is about perception, as the actions of a religions' followers directly impact how others view that particular faith. It isn't fair but it is reality.

I don't blame Islam, I blame a certain population of Muslims. Perhaps I wouldn't even call them Muslims if they didn't actively and aggressively promote their brand of Islam. It also must be pointed out that many of the same people who criticize non-Muslims for mixing Islam with terrorism are some of the same people who repeatedly come to the defense of these same people as Muslims.

 

[Cognescenti]

Religions don't kill people, people do.:smile:

Take the case of of the the Kmer Rouge Killing Fields or the Cultural Revolution or Auswitz. None of these were religiously motivated, of course, but they are examples where ideologies (secular religions) promoted terrible crimes. That doesn't excuse the actions of individuals but neither can the proponents of the ideology itself be excused.

My point is meant in the abstraction only to illustrate that bad things can happen when people uncritically accept what they are told.

 

[Uthman]

Greetings,

And if religious figures held in esteem by believers advocate violence?

Then these religious figures would also be at fault.

Don’t you see your own contradiction? Individuals take verses out of context yet you say It is not written so that it can be easily interpreted to suit anybody's line of thinking.
I think your argument fully supports our statements.

No contradiction, Wilber.

Taking a verse out of context is completely different from interpreting a verse. Perhaps an example would be appropriate.

Misquoted Verse #6 ​

And slay them wherever ye catch them.." (2:191)​

A classic and popular example of what Muslim scholars, like Dr. Jamal Badawi, call a ‘cut and paste’ approach. Everything becomes so much easier for the Anti-Islamists when they remove the context. The solution for the Muslim is to simply replace the verse in its context:

2:190-194 Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there;but if they fight you, kill them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith. But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. The prohibited month, for the prohibited month, and so for all things prohibited, there is the law of equality. If then any one transgresses the prohibition against you, transgress ye likewise against him. But fear (the punishment of) God, and know that God is with those who restrain themselves.



​

http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=414&section=wel_islam&subsection=Misconceptions#7


Regards
​

 

[wilberhum]

No contradiction, Wilber

Yes contradiction, Osman. :giggling:

If I can take it "Out of Context" to justify something, I see no difference between that and misinterpreted.

But then maybe that's just me. Or is it? One Muslim says in means AAA and another Muslim says it means ZZZ. Who am I to say who is right and who is wrong? :hiding: :hiding:

 

[aamirsaab]

Lets see, if the religion was found guilty, how do you send it to prision? :-\

That is exactly my point; you can blame religion all you want but that is not the thing that goes on trial. Hence, blaming religion for the crime is pointless. I do hope you can see this.

I think most people who have commented have pointed out that a religion itself isn't to blame for the actions of its followers. This is more about perception. As the Crusades were brought up, do you suppose the Muslim survivors of the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem were saying.."Darn those misguided followers of an unnamed religion," or do you suppose they were saying "Darn those Christians?"

Of course they blamed the religion. My point is, doing so is wrong and ignorant; telling people it is effectively the opposite is just as bad - which is what several members are doing so now, hence the reason for my post.

It is about perception, as the actions of a religions' followers directly impact how others view that particular faith. It isn't fair but it is reality.

Indeed, it is completely about perception. Something that I know all too well of.

I don't blame Islam, I blame a certain population of Muslims. Perhaps I wouldn't even call them Muslims if they didn't actively and aggressively promote their brand of Islam.

I am completely fine with that form of thought.

It also must be pointed out that many of the same people who criticize non-Muslims for mixing Islam with terrorism are some of the same people who repeatedly come to the defense of these same people as Muslims.

I too have seen this occur, many times.

Religions don't kill people, people do.

''I seen it in a documentary on BBC2''

Take the case of of the the Kmer Rouge Killing Fields or the Cultural Revolution or Auswitz. None of these were religiously motivated, of course, but they are examples where ideologies (secular religions) promoted terrible crimes. That doesn't excuse the actions of individuals but neither can the proponents of the ideology itself be excused.

Of course. However religion and the Auszwitz are two different fruits.

My point is meant in the abstraction only to illustrate that bad things can happen when people uncritically accept what they are told.

Indeed. But, not everything we are told to do leads to bad things. Sometimes we do get crazy human beings who either misinterpret or completely disregard rules of ideologies or religions and thus end up carrying out hate or other forms of crime. All I am saying is that it is not always the religion or ideology's fault. In certain cases, they do provide a considerably large contributing factor - which I readily admit. But, to generalize an already greyish area to such an extent is surely an act of irrational behaviour.

 

[Amadeus85]

In history we saw ideologies that were evil, like for example communism or nazism.

 

[wilberhum]

That is exactly my point; you can blame religion all you want but that is not the thing that goes on trial. Hence, blaming religion for the crime is pointless. I do hope you can see this.

Sorry, I don't. The fact that it can not be put on trial does not make it inocent. I do hope you can see this.

 

[Keltoi]

In history we saw ideologies that were evil, like for example communism or nazism.

Yes, but you aren't calling Islam evil right? I would agree that there is an ideology within the "terrorist" brand of Islam(for lack of a better term) that is quite evil. Sawing a non-combatant's head off on a video recording yelling about God is pure evil, I think most of us would agree. Just as there are ideologies contained within Christianity, mainly in the past, that could be considered evil. There can be no negotiation with these ideologies.

 

[wilberhum]

In history we saw ideologies that were evil, like for example communism or nazism.

I don't think "The concept of Communism" is evil. The evil comes in on how it is implemented and ran.

 

[Chechnya]

"Beslan incident"????

Are you kidding me? You make it sound like a couple of guys arguing about a traffic accident. There was nothing "incidental" about the Beslan mass murders. It was absolutely bestial, morally indefensible act of terror that set new standards of "communal" socioapthy.

you obviously havent read up on what russia had done in chechnya and continues to do so - THAT would put Beslan into perspective

Thats not to justify what happened in Beslan - it was wrong

12 years before beslan - in another mass hostage-taking , a groups of young, desperate chechen fighters were able to stop the slow genocide of their nation, to stop the rape and slaughter of women and children in a brutal war (incidentally america supported russia in this mass slaughter of a war - to the point of providing the technology to kill chechen leader Jokhar Dudayev - bloody yanks )

so 12 years later - here we are again - another brutal war - tens of thousands of more dead women and children, more rape camps and torture camps, more destruction - more world silence and tacit approval of russian actions by calling it a "war on terror"

so once again a bunch of young desperate fighters decide that they will again take hostages to stop the slow genocide of their nation - they will take a school since Putin will never give the order to storm a school and force the russians to stop killing them.

at least that was the plan...

whats the moral of this little story?

if you dont want beslans , stop creating situations for beslan to be the only option out for desperate people- stop the slaughter, the rape, the destruction of a whole country



Any justification you offer is just going to make you look bad. Best to condemn it unreservedly and move on.

 

[Darkseid]

Islam is not evil, but most muslims are evil. Scratch that, most humans are evil. If Islam was practiced by an extraterrestrial race of a non-aggressive history then we would see a better picture of how Islam would truly play out.

But honestly, Islam is not evil.

It wasn't Islam that force thousands of barbarians to transverse into the Beber and European lands massacres hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. It wasn't Islam that had led to mass terrorism throughout the known world. It wasn't Islam that led to the enslavement of women for nearly a thousand years and still continuing in much of the muslims world (primarily in Saudi Arabia). And it isn't Islam who is at fault for creating all of these cultural/religious wars.

The ones who are at fault are those barbarians that took Islam against its own name as something that could excuse them of their own crimes.

The only true muslim is Muhammad himself. Everyone else that isn't a prophet should be thrown into hell for an eternity.

 

[Keltoi]

Islam is not evil, but most muslims are evil. Scratch that, most humans are evil. If Islam was practiced by an extraterrestrial race of a non-aggressive history then we would see a better picture of how Islam would truly play out.

But honestly, Islam is not evil.

It wasn't Islam that force thousands of barbarians to transverse into the Beber and European lands massacres hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children. It wasn't Islam that had led to mass terrorism throughout the known world. It wasn't Islam that led to the enslavement of women for nearly a thousand years and still continuing in much of the muslims world (primarily in Saudi Arabia). And it isn't Islam who is at fault for creating all of these cultural/religious wars.

The ones who are at fault are those barbarians that took Islam against its own name as something that could excuse them of their own crimes.

The only true muslim is Muhammad himself. Everyone else that isn't a prophet should be thrown into hell for an eternity.

I can see you're a very optimistic individual...

 

[silkworm]

What is a terrorist??? What makes a perfectly sane person to act in a violent way??? But, before going any further, we should also discuss that every “action” bears a “reaction”, and every reaction is based on some ‘”Rationale”, so lets discuss this juicy subject, and see what kind of terrorists lived in the past and are calling “juniors” as terrorists???

Can we call Americans terrorists for capturing the country previously occupied by Native Americans by massacring them in millions and finally this land their own???

Can Americans be labeled as terrorists for kicking out the British of the land previously governed by them with the help of guns???

Can we call Americans terrorists for killing millions in Vietnam which was 10,000 miles away from American soil and while Vietnamese people never fired a bullet at American soil???

Can we call Jews terrorists for using bombs, rifles and TNT against British who used to govern Palestine and who back in 1917 declared them the owners of Palestine, even when they were not more than 5% in Population???

Or can we still call Palestinians terrorists for doing the same what the above nations did???

 

[Keltoi]

What is a terrorist??? What makes a perfectly sane person to act in a violent way??? But, before going any further, we should also discuss that every “action” bears a “reaction”, and every reaction is based on some ‘”Rationale”, so lets discuss this juicy subject, and see what kind of terrorists lived in the past and are calling “juniors” as terrorists???

Can we call Americans terrorists for capturing the country previously occupied by Native Americans by massacring them in millions and finally this land their own???

Can Americans be labeled as terrorists for kicking out the British of the land previously governed by them with the help of guns???

Can we call Americans terrorists for killing millions in Vietnam which was 10,000 miles away from American soil and while Vietnamese people never fired a bullet at American soil???

Can we call Jews terrorists for using bombs, rifles and TNT against British who used to govern Palestine and who back in 1917 declared them the owners of Palestine, even when they were not more than 5% in Population???

Or can we still call Palestinians terrorists for doing the same what the above nations did???

Seems you have a strange definition of "terrorist". Terrorism is the intentional murder of civilians to achieve some political goal. Terrorists usually aren't sanctioned by a nation state, but work as an independent group with their own political ideology.

 

[AhlaamBella]

Seems you have a strange definition of "terrorist". Terrorism is the intentional murder of civilians to achieve some political goal. Terrorists usually aren't sanctioned by a nation state, but work as an independent group with their own political ideology.

You could also say terrorism is simply causin terror