Muslims Must Do More Than Distance Themselves From Terrorism

First topic message reminder :

Immediately after the November Paris attacks, my mother who lives in a small village in Morocco called me. She called to tell how sad she was for what happened in Paris, and asked me to pass on her condolences to my French friends. My mother is a Muslimah who prays five times a day. She did not call to justify what happened, or claim that the terror attacks had nothing to do with Islam. She just wanted to declare her solidarity with the victims.

At the end of our call, she told me about an imam in the village who incited young people to go fight with IS in Syria. I asked her what she thought of him. She answered, "I have called the police to investigate. This is how I fight terrorism." My mother's call illustrates a key point for me. What I notice here in the west is a paradox: after each attack waged by militant Islamists, Muslims are asked to distance themselves from terrorism, and Muslim organizations do exactly that by sheer reflex. The mantra is repeated everywhere that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.

Notice the difference between saying "This is how I fight terrorism" versus saying "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism." The first is an act of defiance and resistance. The second is a way of distancing yourself. Muslims can learn from mother. They must be proactive in the fight against Islamist movements that lead to terrorism. Because self-distancing alone cannot fight terror. On the contrary, merely denying personal responsibility for an act tends to lead very quickly to the abrogation of the responsibility to act.

Furthermore, the mere act of distancing oneself from something doesn't exclude the possibility that you might inadvertently (or even intentionally and secretly) be supporting it. It's as if I would say: "I distance myself from racism..." but I do not act, and deep down in my soul maybe there's a reason I do not act!

This is not to say that any given Muslim necessarily endorses terrorist ideologies, of course. But many are in fact too ashamed to admit that there is a problem with their religion. And having distanced themselves from the problem, they distance themselves from the solution.
To distance your religion from terror is easy, it just takes few words to say. But to go against the ruling fundamentalist interpretation of the Qu'ran that is taught in schools and spread via fatwas and clerics is a completely different fight. Muslims need to fight the manifestations of extremism thriving in their societies, be it in their local communities in Europe or in their countries of origin.

In Islamic schools, they still teach the old "us vs. them," believer/infidel dichotomy. In mosques, imams incite hatred against infidels and apostates. Books and fatwas preaching the same intolerant concepts are distributed to millions worldwide via Saudi petrodollars. These are the factories of terrorism and intolerance. And if we want to fight those phenomena, we should strike them at their sources.

Five years ago I fled from my country, Morocco, to Switzerland. My life was in danger because I am an atheist and I dared to blog about it. Here in the west, when I criticize Sharia or the situation of women and apostates in the Islamic world, if I insist we must understand Islam in its historical context and argue for an Islamic enlightenment, I am often accused of being Islamophobic. And I wonder: Why do so many Europeans take any and all criticism of Islam as bigotry?

Islamophobia as a killer argument
People who attempt to silence criticism of Islam are curbing all efforts to induce positive change and enlightenment in the Islamic world, and instead of siding with the secular Muslims and ex-Muslims they are supporting the Islamic far-right."Islamophobia" functions as a censorship device and is much favoured by Muslim fundamentalists who aim to suffocate open discussion and criticism, so they can comfortably spew their ideological poison in Islamic communities. I wonder, would my European friends adopt the same position towards criticism of, say, Catholicism? Would they label any and all criticism of Catholicism as Christianophobia or Catholicophobia? Why should Islam then be singled out and considered above criticism?

This "Islamophobia" reaction, which is commonplace among many Western non-Muslim academics and young people who embrace tolerance and multiculturalism, stems from an implicit cultural relativism. The assumption seems to be that the behaviour and mindset of an individual are relative to her or his culture of origin, and should be judged only within that context, implying that principles like human rights may not be universal or should not be considered as such.

Additionally, those who deploy the charge of "Islamophobia" are often quick to blame all the ills of the Islamic world on colonialism, refusing to accept their multidimensional nature, and yet again in effect abrogating the responsibility to act against extremism. My generation is being systematically denied the right to criticize the foundations of Islamic societies, especially Islam and Sharia law. True "Islamophobes" are those who defend fundamentalist interpretations from criticism, knowing fully well that Muslims themselves are the first victims of these interpretations. They are on the wrong side of history, as they are against the secularization and modernization of Islamic societies, because they know that their values are incompatible with the principles of equality, with human rights, and with the spirit of our modern age.
Once a religion is codified in laws, it loses its claim to divinity. This is the problem of Islam today. If the majority of Muslims do not regard religion as a private matter between themselves and God, but as a set of rules for their lives and for the whole of society, insisting on taking Islam as a literal manual for life, then faith and civil laws will inevitably conflict. The aversion to any criticism of beliefs and practices associated with Islam will persist as well.

This is why I and many other ex-Muslims and secular Muslims cannot and will not give up on our right to criticize. That does not make us "Islamophobes." We are not bigoted against Muslims (who in many cases are our own families and closest friends). Criticism of ideas is a necessary feature of free societies and one of the reasons they have become and remain open and competitive on an intellectual cultural and economic level.


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/kacem-el-ghazzali/fight-terrorism_b_10356954.html




Excellent article and needed saying and points out what I continually keep saying, that we need to speak openly and honestly about these problems. More to to seperatr the many good Muslims be lumbered with the bad, but that requires Muslims to not hide behind a victimhood, when islam is criticized. The narative of hate that is so widespread around Muslim world, needs to be tackled by Muslims. By allowing many lies and hateful views to fuel fear and hate of the west is largely going unchecked. There are some great Muslims out there trying to combat these problems, but it is these people that Muslims and Non-Muslims alike should be standing behind supporting.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

You know that's not Ben Affleck's voice, according the uploader of the video:

https://youtu.be/DcmbRPSEbw4

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

You know that's not Ben Affleck's voice, according the uploader of the video:

https://youtu.be/DcmbRPSEbw4

Yes, its just a picture of Ben Affleck






The left motto, deflect, divert and cover up

Ben_Reilly wrote:Here's what nobody has been able to answer:

1) If Islam is responsible for terrorism, and

2) The world has 1.6 billion Muslims, then

3) Why aren't there 1.6 billion terrorists?

What exactly are we saying here -- that terrorists are the "real" Muslims and the rest are milquetoast Muslims?

That the teachings of Islam contain some sort of trigger that can turn happy healthy people into killers?

Exactly.

Didge didn't even know the difference between metophorical, literal and contextual interpretations of text. That's why he can't answer you.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You know that's not Ben Affleck's voice, according the uploader of the video:

https://youtu.be/DcmbRPSEbw4

Yes, its just a picture of Ben Affleck






The left motto, deflect, divert and cover up

I caught you lying. You would have never admitted that unless I called you on it. You're very deceptive to pass off SAM HARRIS as Ben Afleck.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Here's what nobody has been able to answer:

1) If Islam is responsible for terrorism, and

2) The world has 1.6 billion Muslims, then

3) Why aren't there 1.6 billion terrorists?

What exactly are we saying here -- that terrorists are the "real" Muslims and the rest are milquetoast Muslims?

That the teachings of Islam contain some sort of trigger that can turn happy healthy people into killers?

Exactly.

Didge didn't even know the difference between metophorical, literal and contextual interpretations of text. That's why he can't answer you.

And didge answered this and proved ben wrong again

Look, if all you can do is talk around me and deflect, divert and cover up and I know you are so much on the back foot, its ow buried your legs half way into the ground

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Yes, its just a picture of Ben Affleck






The left motto, deflect, divert and cover up

I caught you lying. You would have never admitted that unless I called you on it.  You're very deceptive to pass off SAM HARRIS as Ben Afleck.

How am I lying when the picture is deliberate by the fact he had a ding dong with sam on TV
The reason why it has been posted up




I never made the video, I suggest you go to ther link and see for yoursekf

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Long ago, the only terrorism was that of the KKK.  It was originally a Christian sect, but hardly anymore.  Religion is neither the control nor the justification, yet KKK terrorism still persists.

Incorrect.
The forerunner of modern terrorism was formed by the Old Man of the Mountain, who formed the Assassins.
Funnily enough this is an islamic sect.
It was started by the Grand Master Hassan Ibn al-Sabbah.
He indoctrinated fanatical men to muder his enemies, which were basically suicide missions. Its is from these suicide squads  that the word  Fedayeen was derived, which is funnely enough still used by the Palestinians terrorists today. Never even denied there is not political or sectarian terrorism either, so your point is moot. There has been other since also not islamic, but through religions as well, like the Lord's ressistance Army and the Army of God, both Christian. We see also with the birth ofd Wahhabism, terrorism against the Ottomans, centuries ago, before any colonialism to the Middle East, proving that this left wing apologism claim, blaiming colonialism, is sheer nonsese. They  butchered and destroyed people and historical places, of which we are seeing the exact same thing today.

Posted up for Quill after zacks attempts toi derail the thread and we are now onto page two, incase he misses my reply.

https://youtu.be/N46mIHEGHN0

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


Incorrect.
The forerunner of modern terrorism was formed by the Old Man of the Mountain, who formed the Assassins.
Funnily enough this is an islamic sect.
It was started by the Grand Master Hassan Ibn al-Sabbah.
He indoctrinated fanatical men to muder his enemies, which were basically suicide missions. Its is from these suicide squads  that the word  Fedayeen was derived, which is funnely enough still used by the Palestinians terrorists today. Never even denied there is not political or sectarian terrorism either, so your point is moot. There has been other since also not islamic, but through religions as well, like the Lord's ressistance Army and the Army of God, both Christian. We see also with the birth ofd Wahhabism, terrorism against the Ottomans, centuries ago, before any colonialism to the Middle East, proving that this left wing apologism claim, blaiming colonialism, is sheer nonsese. They  butchered and destroyed people and historical places, of which we are seeing the exact same thing today.

Posted up for Quill after zacks attempts toi derail the thread and we are now onto page two, incase he misses my reply.

Not for America.  We've been living with the KKK non-stop since December 24, 1865.  And we've had the Mafia, Anarchists, the SLA, Hell's Angels and Outlaws, not to mention AIM and the Charles Manson gang.

The only thing new about jihadists is improved technology, which has improved their methods.  If Al Capone had 747's to bring down, the St. Valentines massacre would have seemed like a cat fight.

Original Quill wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:



Posted up for Quill after zacks attempts toi derail the thread and we are now onto page two, incase he misses my reply.

Not for America.  We've been living with the KKK non-stop since December 24, 1865.  And we've had the Mafia, Anarchists, the SLA, Hell's Angels and Outlaws, not to mention AIM and the Charles Manson gang.

The only thing new about jihadists is improved technology, which has improved their methods.  If Al Capone had 747's to bring down, the St. Valentines massacre would have seemed like a cat fight.

Well America at this time had no Europeans, maybe the odd Viking settlement which had died out by then, as this was 11th century AD.
Quite a few hundred years before the Klu Klux Klan.


Also you are still incorrect even with the USA

• November 7, 1837: A pro-slavery mob killed abolitionist Elijah P. Lovejoy, editor of the Alton Observer.^[3]
  
• August 6-November 1, 1838: 1838 Mormon War — As Mormons began to pour into Missouri (which Mormons considered their "promised land"), their distinct theology and abolitionist tendencies were met with friction by the locals, which soon escalated into accusations, recriminations, and ultimately armed violence. After some skirmishing, the Mormon Extermination Order was passed, and the murder of Mormons was legalized in the state of Missouri until 1976. Eventually, Mormons were almost completely driven from the state of Missouri.
  
• May 21, 1856: Sacking of Lawrence – Pro-Slavery forces enter Lawrence, Kansas to disarm residents and destroy the town's presses and the Free State Hotel.
  
• September 11, 1857: Mountain Meadows Massacre — During the Utah War, Mormon militias, fueled by paranoia, attack the Baker–Fancher Party wagon train, killing everyone older than 7. The party's 17 very young children were kidnapped into Mormon families, and the party's property was auctioned off to the Mormon community. Mormons attempt unsuccessfully to blame the slaughter on Indians. Some 120 people were murdered in cold blood, making this attack the single deadliest act of terrorism on US soil until the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.
  
• October 16, 1859: Anti-slavery Pottawatomie massacre – In response to the sacking of Lawrence, John Brown led a group of abolitionists to murder five Kansas settlers from Tennessee, whom he presumed to be pro-slavery.
  

Regards the OP.

Doesn't NOT being an actual terrorist, qualify you as distancing yourself?

eddie wrote:Regards the OP.

Doesn't NOT being an actual terrorist, qualify you as distancing yourself?

If you follow the same beliefs, is that distancing yourself from their beliefs?

The terrorist acts on their beliefs, the non-terrorist does not believe you should act on beliefs.


Would it then not be important to show and condemn such views and not distance yourself but seperate yourself from them completely


I think what more than anything should be condemned is the naratives of hate that is prevalent around the Muslim world against the west, Jews, Christians, etcs. Just as we condemn far right hate naratives against Muslims themselves.
That is where the voice is most greatest needed in opposition in the Muslim world, to rightly challenge these lies made about the west

I think though Didge, that most people know that the extremists have diverted from the point and left the moral path.

eddie wrote:I think though Didge, that most people know that the extremists have diverted from the point and left the moral path.

But the extremists will claim they are on the moral path as they are emulating Muhammad more than any other Muslims.
Which is why Islam is so problematic, because there is countless claims to deeds Muhammad with his biography and the hadiths.
This is why I keep saying the problem stems more form the supposed deeds that Muhammad did than anything from the Quran itself.
When we look at islamic history its always based off claims to what Muhammad did, that Muslims have justify their actions off.
So the perception will then be on who is following the right moral path and if that is th moral path, then we should be doing nothing but talking about why some Muslims would view this as a moral path, a literal view of Islam

Paul Ettinger wrote:

eddie wrote:I think though Didge, that most people know that the extremists have diverted from the point and left the moral path.

But the extremists will claim they are on the moral path as they are emulating Muhammad more than any other Muslims.
Which is why Islam is so problematic, because there is countless claims to deeds Muhammad with his biography and the hadiths.
This is why I keep saying the problem stems more form the supposed deeds that Muhammad did than anything from the Quran itself.
When we look at islamic history its always based off claims to what Muhammad did, that Muslims have justify their actions off.
So the perception will then be on who is following the right moral path and if that is th moral path, then we should be doing nothing but talking about why some Muslims would view this as a moral path, a literal view of Islam

why do you take the opinion of extremists over normal people?

they can claim whatever they want, it is only if fools believe them that it adds and credibility to their claims.
why do you make extremist opinions credible?

face it ISIS is only the Islamic version of people like you, wanting to blame some other homogeneous group for all the wrongs of the world.

veya_victaous wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

But the extremists will claim they are on the moral path as they are emulating Muhammad more than any other Muslims.
Which is why Islam is so problematic, because there is countless claims to deeds Muhammad with his biography and the hadiths.
This is why I keep saying the problem stems more form the supposed deeds that Muhammad did than anything from the Quran itself.
When we look at islamic history its always based off claims to what Muhammad did, that Muslims have justify their actions off.
So the perception will then be on who is following the right moral path and if that is th moral path, then we should be doing nothing but talking about why some Muslims would view this as a moral path, a literal view of Islam

why do you take the opinion of extremists over normal people?

they can claim whatever they want, it is only if fools believe them that it adds and credibility to their claims.
why do you make extremist opinions credible?

face it ISIS is only the Islamic version of people like you, wanting to blame some other homogeneous group for all the wrongs of the world.

And this is why you are on ignore, as where did I say I believe any opinion here?

What did I actually say?

I never stated who is on the right moral path but that they state that they are, because they of all Islamic groups follow the supposed acts and deeds of muhammad the most literally.

I am not blaming any people also but a religious ideology, that uses absolute morals, and teaches a belief that death is vaued more over life,as easily seen by the use of so many people in suicide attacks. This is not small numbers either, two hundred thousand ISIS fighters, millions who support and fund them, let alone all the other Islamic terrorist groups world over.

I see as well after saying to ben, i want nothing to do with you after you abused your position by changing my password, like the pathetic child you are, you continue to spout bullshit above, when its cretins like you that have not got a clue about religion.

Now understand you are on ignore and I will never correspond with you again, as you simply are incapable of being impartial and your previous antics proved that.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

But the extremists will claim they are on the moral path as they are emulating Muhammad more than any other Muslims.
Which is why Islam is so problematic, because there is countless claims to deeds Muhammad with his biography and the hadiths.
This is why I keep saying the problem stems more form the supposed deeds that Muhammad did than anything from the Quran itself.
When we look at islamic history its always based off claims to what Muhammad did, that Muslims have justify their actions off.
So the perception will then be on who is following the right moral path and if that is th moral path, then we should be doing nothing but talking about why some Muslims would view this as a moral path, a literal view of Islam

why do you take the opinion of extremists over normal people?

they can claim whatever they want, it is only if fools believe them that it adds and credibility to their claims.
why do you make extremist opinions credible?

face it ISIS is only the Islamic version of people like you, wanting to blame some other homogeneous group for all the wrongs of the world.

And this is why you are on ignore, as where did I say I believe any opinion here?

What did I actually say?

I never stated who is on the right moral path but that they state that they are, because they of all Islamic groups follow the supposed acts and deeds of muhammad the most literally.

I am not blaming any people also but a religious ideology, that uses absolute morals, and teaches a belief that death is vaued more over life,as easily seen by the use of so many people in suicide attacks. This is not small numbers either, two hundred thousand ISIS fighters, millions who support and fund them, let alone all the other Islamic terrorist groups world over.

I see as well after saying to ben, i want nothing to do with you after you abused your position by changing my password, like the pathetic child you are, you continue to spout bullshit above, when its cretins like you that have not got a clue about religion.

Now understand you are on ignore and I will never correspond with you again, as you simply are incapable of being impartial and your previous antics proved that.

And understand I will keep responding as long as you post shitty two bit mental diarrhea that pretty much all other posters are smart enough to see is just you vain attempts to Demonise Islam

And if you don’t like it FUCK OFF! stop coming back! go away!
I will ban you for good next time. sick of your repetitive crap posts.

veya_victaous wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:


And this is why you are on ignore, as where did I say I believe any opinion here?

What did I actually say?

I never stated who is on the right moral path but that they state that they are, because they of all Islamic groups follow the supposed acts and deeds of muhammad the most literally.

I am not blaming any people also but a religious ideology, that uses absolute morals, and teaches a belief that death is vaued more over life,as easily seen by the use of so many people in suicide attacks. This is not small numbers either, two hundred thousand ISIS fighters, millions who support and fund them, let alone all the other Islamic terrorist groups world over.

I see as well after saying to ben, i want nothing to do with you after you abused your position by changing my password, like the pathetic child you are, you continue to spout bullshit above, when its cretins like you that have not got a clue about religion.

Now understand you are on ignore and I will never correspond with you again, as you simply are incapable of being impartial and your previous antics proved that.

And understand I will keep responding as long as you post shitty two bit mental diarrhea that pretty much all other posters are smart enough to see is just you vain attempts to Demonise Islam

And if you don’t like it FUCK OFF! stop coming back! go away!
I will ban you for good next time. sick of your repetitive crap posts.

Post now reported for threatening a poster which is against the rules andf clear proof of abusing powers to the rest of the admin team.

I am critical of all religioons, as by far teach bad absolute prejudiced morals, of which 2000 years of history is proof of the persecution suffered at the hands of religious people, so its not just Islam, i am critical of, and we have seen you critical ofd Christianity, showing the worst double standards by you, making you a hypocrite

That was all I need to show Ben, you are in no position to moderate as you have shown clear bias