August 5, 2016 at 2:35 pm #46945
From The Daily Bell, free Libertarian newsletter.
Note:I’ve spent a LOT of time in the Middle East as a journalist and photographer. Like every religion, Islam has its fundamentalists. But 99 percent of the muslims I’ve met are peace-loving and allah-fearing. I’m posting the article below to show what happens when outside forces manipulate local political and religious tensions. The wars in the Middle East are created to serve outsiders in the West and their banksters. Don’t allow the media to manipulate your beliefs. – Michael
New York Times Whips Up Anti-Islam Hatred with Extensive Article
By Daily Bell Staff – August 05, 2016
How a Secretive Branch of ISIS Built a Global Network of Killers A jailhouse interview with a German man who joined the Islamic State reveals the workings of a unit whose lieutenants are empowered to plan attacks around the world. The New York Times
People are being whipped up against Islam and this New York Times article is a good example.
The article goes on and on about the network that ISIS has built to deliver terror to the West.
You can read the article for yourself HERE. We wont bother to summarize it further. Its not worth the paper its printed on.
Bottom line implication: Islamic terror cannot be stopped without the forthright action of the US federal government.
Of course, since this is an endless Times article, we never learn that those behind US and European governments funded first Al Qaeda and then ISIS.
We never learn the growing war between radical fundamental Islam and the West is a bankers war.
The result of such a war will move the world toward the globalism deeply desired by certain banking factions.
The idea is to create significant tension between Islam and the West. This tension provides justification for government action at the highest levels.
Right now, even in the alternative media it is not fashionable to make such statements.
If one is clear-eyed, one is supposed to explain that Islam is a religion of violence and that Muslims have been at war with Christians for more than a thousand years.
In fact, to be properly anti-PC one is supposed to acknowledge that the conflict between East and West goes back many thousands of years.
Such acknowledgements are fashionably tough-minded.
Dont you want to have a tough mind?
Humans, you see, are inevitably violent and one ought to express his or her understanding of this bedrock fact.
Try to explain that large wars are inevitably the consequence of authoritarian manipulation and you may be seen as an Islamic apologist.
But the world is not so simple.
Those who consider themselves as anti-PC realists may not be as sensible as they believe.
In fact, they too may be manipulated.
Top Western elites fortified by banking money created first Al Qaeda and now ISIS, HERE.
Globalists created Wahhabi Terrorism to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global State
You Cant Understand ISIS If You Dont Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia
America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terrorism
CIA Agent Admits Obama Created ISIS To Invade Syria
Top Western elites created the current wars in the Middle East and then imported hundreds of thousands of Muslims into Europe.
Though people dont want to contemplate it, much of the terror now taking place in Europe and the US shows signs of Western intel manipulation.
Islam versus the West is a recipe for authoritarianism and banker control.
The idea is to move the world toward accepting further globalism. Violence provides the manipulation necessary to achieve this goal.
We wrote recently about New Gingrich, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and his determination that Muslims in the US be interrogated as to their beliefs and support of Sharia law.
No doubt Gringrich had in mind the idea that the federal government should administer his interrogations.
As Homeland Security has already declared that those who believe in the US Constitution may have terrorist inclinations, it is quite likely that constitutionalists would find themselves next in line for Gingrich-style interrogations.
To deal with Islamic distrust at the federal level empowers the same large authoritarian entities that created the tension in the first place.
Deal with issues locally if at all possible. We just wrote about that HERE.
The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people, see HERE. The modern world has not been continually convulsed by crusader-style East versus West military campaigns.
HERE is a debunking of the endless Islamic violence meme (The Myth of the Murderous Muslim). You may choose to disbelieve it, but it makes some good points.
In fact, plenty of people live together around the world without trying to slit each others throats.
What ought to be confronted first? The neo-Gladio intelligence operations in the US and Europe that have funded Islamic terrorism ought to be called to account. The immigration policies initiated by Brussels, DC and Londons City ought to be challenged as well.
These larger manipulations should cease. Unfortunately, more and more people are turning to central government for protection and action.
This is how a religious war is built. This is how federal governments maintain control.
Conclusion: Electronic information has revealed how such control works. Chaos and war are always the work of a powerful handful. People need to confront the real agents of terror and war if at all possible, not just their foot-soldiers.August 5, 2016 at 7:53 pm #46946
Clearly, a minority of Muslims are violent. But that violence finds ample justification in the core texts of Islam and from the classical jurisprudence based upon those texts. Clearly, the texts are not a sufficient cause of jihadi violence but they are certainly a necessary cause.
As Bernard Lewis, described by the New York Times as the doyen of Middle Eastern Studies, puts it
One of the basic tasks bequeathed to Muslims by the Prophet was jihad. This word, which literally means striving, was usually cited in the Koranic phrase striving in the path of God and was interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defense or advancement of Muslim power. In principle, the world was divided into two houses: the House of Islam, in which a Muslim government ruled and Muslim law prevailed, and the House of War, the rest of the world, still inhabited and, more important, ruled by infidels. Between the two, there was to be a perpetual state of war until the entire world either embraced Islam or submitted to the rule of the Muslim state.
And as Graeme Wood notes in his Atlantic article What ISIS Really Wants
Many mainstream Muslim organizations have gone so far as to say the Islamic State is, in fact, un-Islamic. It is, of course, reassuring to know that the vast majority of Muslims have zero interest in replacing Hollywood movies with public executions as evening entertainment. But Muslims who call the Islamic State un-Islamic are typically, as the Princeton scholar Bernard Haykel, the leading expert on the groups theology, told me, embarrassed and politically correct, with a cotton-candy view of their own religion that neglects what their religion has historically and legally required. Many denials of the Islamic States religious nature, he said, are rooted in an interfaith-Christian-nonsense tradition.August 6, 2016 at 8:02 am #46948
In the context of US politics, I think we can say 1) for the average person, the threat from Islamic terrorism is virtually nil 2) the media and politicians play up that threat as if it were perhaps the major issue facing the country 3) this fearmongering is used to support a policy agenda that is astonishingly costly and destructive and has little rational relationship to the stated goal of keeping people safe – trillions of dollars have been spent, a huge and intrusive surveillance system implemented, civil rights infringed, the rule of law compromised, hundreds of thousands or millions of people killed, entire countries reduced to chaos, tens of millions displaced, all while actual terrorism increased dramatically. It is difficult to comprehend the scope and horror of it, and our politicians and media are not up to the task of coming to grips with it. Eventually there will have to be war crimes trials, or some kind of truth and reconciliation process. And the lesson for Americans is that almost the entirety of our politics is based on lies and the agendas of small groups of sociopathic elites. (end of rant)August 6, 2016 at 8:52 am #46950
The article that Michael posts states
If one is clear-eyed, one is supposed to explain that Islam is a religion of violence and that Muslims have been at war with Christians for more than a thousand years.
In fact, to be properly anti-PC one is supposed to acknowledge that the conflict between East and West goes back many thousands of years…
Those who consider themselves as anti-PC realists may not be as sensible as they believe.
In fact, they too may be manipulated.
In other words, the article seems to be suggesting that it’s wrong to claim that Islam is a religion of violence. I disagree in the sense that, historically within Islam, the mainstream scholarly interpretation of the core texts has been one of violence. In my view, far too many folk have a cotton-candy view of Islamic doctrine.
However, I also agree with your comments re American foreign policy. And thus I would argue that, for example, the rise of the Taliban, al Quaeda and ISIS can neither be explained solely by reference to the core texts of Islam nor solely by Western foreign policy intervention. Both are necessary but neither are sufficient causes.
Trouble is the debate too often becomes polarized into those aiming all their firepower at Islam. Or, alternatively, those aiming all their firepower at Western foreign policy.August 17, 2016 at 7:26 am #46952
In the peripheral nervous system, an efferent nerve fiber is the nerve fiber (axon) of an efferent neuron (motor neuron). It is a long process (projection) extending far from the nerve cell body that carries nerve impulses away from the central nervous system toward the peripheral effector organs (mainly muscles and glands). The opposite direction of neural activity is afferent conduction.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Abdel-Samad, Germany is currently a divided country because of the controversial author Thilo Sarrazin, whose new book “Germany Does Itself In” has triggered a heated debate on immigration and the willingness of Muslims to integrate into German society. Are you part of the pro- or anti-Sarrazin faction?
Hamed Abdel-Samad: Neither.
SPIEGEL: Have you discovered the happy medium in the integration debate? Or are you trying to avoid offending both your German friends and your fellow Muslims?
Abdel-Samad: I don’t like the nature of this debate at all. Some are standing in judgment over Sarrazin while others are cheering him on without further reflection. Sarrazin has become a lightning rod for everything. Whether he is seen a hero or a scapegoat, Sarrazin has unintentionally become the friend of the idle and the clueless. All failings and accusations can now be addressed to one person: Superman Sarrazin.
SPIEGEL: Are you saying that Sarrazin and his theories are overrated?
Abdel-Samad: I’m against Sarrazin’s expulsion from the SPD (the center-left Social Democratic Party, which has started proceedings to expel Sarrazin), and I believe that an open debate over integration in Germany is desperately needed. But his conclusions don’t do us any good, because they’re outdated. Germany isn’t doing itself in, but it is changing through immigration, and that’s a good thing. We should talk about the problems of living side by side, the failings of immigrants and what needs to be done for them.
SPIEGEL: And Sarrazin, the provocateur, is preventing this from happening with his theories on biology and race?
Abdel-Samad: He certainly isn’t promoting it. It doesn’t help us resolve the impasse of integration. You can see what’s happening at the moment, the way people are becoming entrenched. A CDU (the center-right Christian Democratic Union) politician keeps emphasizing, again and again, that foreigners should learn how to speak German properly. An SPD politician, after having condemned Sarrazin’s statements, is listing examples of successful integration. A Turkish idealist will sing the Green Party’s multicultural hymn. Meanwhile, a furious critic of Islam tries to pin the blame for all Germany’s problems on the Turks.
SPIEGEL: You’re referring to Turkish-German sociologist Necla Kelek, who enthusiastically introduced Sarrazin’s book at its official launch.
Abdel-Samad: Thilo Sarrazin is merely the proof that we have a problem. He is the messenger, and his message is that a tense culture of controversy prevails here. We have scaremongering, apologetics and hypersensitivity.
SPIEGEL: Should we have pretended that Sarrazin’s book didn’t exist?
Abdel-Samad: My modest Arab intelligence tells me that Sarrazin is more harmless than what the media are trying to turn him into. He can neither divide the country nor solve its problems.
SPIEGEL: Perhaps you could enlighten us. You are a fierce critic of Islam, which suggests that you ought to be in the same boat with Sarrazin, who thoroughly demonizes this religion. Why isn’t that the case?
Abdel-Samad: He believes that Islam is gaining ground everywhere. I too am critical of many aspects of Islam. But I also see that it’s on its way out. Islam doesn’t have to be demonized, but it does need to be modernized from the ground up.
SPIEGEL: You predict the “downfall of the Islamic world,” to quote the title of your new book. But Islam is the fastest growing of all religions, and Europe, in particular, is worried about being overwhelmed by Muslims.
Abdel-Samad: The numbers don’t tell us very much. There are 1.4 billion Muslims. So what? The important thing is that in almost all countries with a Muslim majority, we see the decline of civilization and a stagnation of all forms of life. Islam has no convincing answers to the challenges of the 21st century. It is in intellectual, moral and cultural decline — a doomed religion, without self-awareness and without any options to act.
SPIEGEL: Aren’t you making the mistake of many radical critics of Islam, by lumping together the entire religion, in all of its many forms?
Abdel-Samad: Of course our religion has many directions. The differences may be of interest to theologians and anthropologists, but they are quite irrelevant from a political standpoint. The decisive element is the general lack of direction and backwardness, which often lead to an aggressive fundamentalism. That sets the general tone.
SPIEGEL: But Dubai is worlds away from Somalia, and the relatively liberal Indonesia is very different from Iran’s rigorous theocracy. Turkey is a democracy and currently has higher economic growth than any other European country. Are these all exceptions to the rule?
Abdel-Samad: There are differences, of course. But whenever Muslims seek to introduce Islamic studies into European schools or try to obtain nonprofit status for an Islamic organization, there is always talk of one Islam. The minute someone attacks the faith, they resort to a trick to stifle the criticism and disingenuously ask: Which Islam are you talking about?
SPIEGEL: Perhaps you could help us understand.
Abdel-Samad: In a sense, Islam is like a drug, like alcohol. A small amount can have a healing and inspiring effect, but when the believer reaches for the bottle of dogmatic faith in every situation, it gets dangerous. This high-proof form of Islam is what I’m talking about. It harms the individual and damages society. It inhibits integration, because this Islam divides the world into friends and enemies, into the faithful and the infidels.
SPIEGEL: It sounds as if you’re not all that far away from Sarrazin in your views.
Abdel-Samad: The only thing Mr. Sarrazin and I have in common is that we both come from an immigrant background. He is afraid of the Islamic world, and I’m afraid for it. Germany offers both of us a forum, and for that reason alone the country cannot be done away with.
SPIEGEL: You advocate a milder form of Islam. What remains of the core of the religion?
Abdel-Samad: My dream, in fact, is an enlightened Islam, without Sharia law and without jihad, without gender apartheid, proselytizing and the mentality of entitlement. A religion that is open to criticism and questions. As far as I’m concerned, I converted from faith to knowledge some time ago.
SPIEGEL: You became an atheist.
SPIEGEL: You might as well admit it. Being an atheist is nothing to be ashamed of.
Abdel-Samad: But it isn’t true.
SPIEGEL: Not a single imam, Catholic priest or rabbi would believe you. Believing in God means accepting that something exists beyond knowledge. If you don’t share this belief, why do you insist on calling yourself a Muslim?
Abdel-Samad: Believing in God can also mean being at odds with him. I don’t pray regularly, and I don’t fast during Ramadan. In that sense, I’m not religious. But I perceive myself as a Muslim. It’s my cultural community. For me, Islam is also my homeland and my language, and my Arabic can’t be separated from all of that. You can distance yourself from Islam but remain within the heart of Islam. I don’t want to yield to the fundamentalists who preach violence. They are on the rise.
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2010
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH
Hamed Abdel-Samad grew up in Egypt as the son of an imam. He came to Germany at the age of 23, and he has lived here for most of the last 15 years. He worked as an academic in Erfurt and Braunschweig and conducted research at the Institute for Jewish History and Culture at the University of Munich before deciding to devote himself entirely to his writing. Though highly critical of Islam, Abdel-Samad has never turned away from the faith completely. His new book “Der Untergang der islamischen Welt” (“The Downfall of the Islamic World”) is published by Munich’s Droemer Verlag.August 17, 2016 at 7:37 am #46954
Black metal is an extreme subgenre and subculture of heavy metal music. Common traits include fast tempos, a shrieking vocal style, heavily distorted guitars played with tremolo picking, raw (lo-fi) recording, unconventional song structures, and an emphasis on atmosphere. Artists often appear in corpse paint and adopt pseudonyms…initially a synonym for “Satanic metal…
The Meads of Asphodel are a British black metal band with pronounced medieval, Eastern, Punk, and Progressive Metal influences from Hertfordshire in the United Kingdom.
I feel death is upon me
When these gods collide
This holy war of faith my key to paradise
In the flaming glint of a sword of fate
In iron birds sent by gods of hate
The flames of hate
Dance in the sky
Made red by genocide
East and west
Are chained by faith
But one in suicide
You’re a multi racial satanic idol
Of empty promises and empty lies
A false redeemer leading sheep to slaughter
Under blazing moons and burning skies.
This grisly din of killing steel
But what god is to blame?
The flames of hate rise ever high
The end is always the same
The towers of Babel fell as one
Flesh and stone explode
The debris of Eden for all to gloat
God’s paradise unveiled
Thou shalt not kill or maim
Unless god doth decree
Thou shalt then do the same
And kill humanity.August 17, 2016 at 8:02 am #46956
Afferent (from Latin, ad meaning “to” and ferre meaning “to carry”) is an anatomical term with the following meanings:
-Conveying towards a center, for example the afferent arterioles conveying blood toward the Bowman’s capsule in the kidney (opposite to efferent)
-Something that so conducts, see Afferent nerve fiber
Theodor Nöldeke’s chronology is based on the assumption that the style of the Qur’an changes in one direction without reversals. Nöldeke studied the style and content of the chapters and assumed that (1) later (Madinan) chapters and verses and are generally shorter than earlier (Meccan) ones (2) Earlier Meccan verses have a distinct rhyming style while later verses are more prosaic (prose-like). According to Nöldeke earlier chapters have common features: many of them open with oaths in which God swears by cosmic phenomena, they have common themes (including eschatology, creation, piety, authentication of Muhammad’s mission and refutation of the charges against Muhammad), and some Meccan chapters have a clear ‘tripartite’ structure (for example chapters 45, 37, 26, 15, 21). Tripartite chapters open with a short warning, followed by one or more narratives about unbelievers, and finally address contemporaries of Muhammad and invite them to Islam. On the other hand, Madinan verses are longer and have a distinct style of rhyming and concern to provide legislation and guidance for the Muslim community.
…historically within Islam, the mainstream scholarly interpretation of the core texts has been one of violence…
Historically later surahs (Arabic: سورة) are more and more fanatical and violent.
HOWDYAugust 24, 2016 at 11:43 pm #46958
Link to is the movie scene.
Balance of polarities goes on.
Excessive naivety can be an obstacle on the path. In the same movie the character of the sweetie-pie yoga girl is illustrative too. Clever movie.September 8, 2016 at 4:52 am #46960
Islam, by its very texts, promotes violence.
It also encourages subjugation of women, as easily seen through Islam-in-practice, with burqas covering women (to prevent men from finding them sexually desirable), prohibition of rights of women, etc, which is pervasive amongst all followers.
The fact that most Muslims are not fanatics about committing acts of violence, speaks nothing about the religion, and only speaks to our sheer luck as a people that most are lazy and don’t follow their religion devoutly, and/or cherry-pick away the garbage.
However, the same can be also be said for Christianity or Judaism, for example.
All of these promote violence in some way–maybe not as overtly–vis-a-vis its encouragement of judgment (this and/or that is a sin) and its subordinate mandate of women to men. And, as to actual violence, there are certainly several pieces in the Old Testament that can be construed to encourage violence vis-a-vis the victory of God’s chosen people against the non-believers or the sinful. This says nothing of the imposition of punishments via perceived crimes. Again, thank goodness that 99% of followers are lazy, don’t follow devoutly, and cherry-pick away the stuff that is despicable.
Extending further, by its very nature, (Western) religion itself is violent. Because it involves placing demands on its followers, along with the subtle implication that people who don’t believe, are not “part of us”. It sets up an “us vs. them” scenario. There is some of this to a lesser degree in the Eastern religions of Hinduism and Buddhism, especially if one interprets the imposition of “rules that control you” as violent.
Of course, I’m clearly biased due to my beliefs, but Daoism is likely the least violent, by its liberty-based, “make-your-own-way”, non-interference approach . . . both with others and with the followers themselves.
SSeptember 8, 2016 at 10:52 am #46962
THE WITCH !
Yes we have all been brainwashed to hate Islam, that’s why we bomb them – for good reasons.
( nothing to do with oil money and the military industrial complex and the 1% siphoning the money out or the petrodollar, oh no )
No it’s because they are B-A-D.
Just look at the Burquas, that’s a good enough reason to murder 4 countries if you asked me.
She’s a witch !!!
500,000 CHILDREN killed in the Iraq wars. Those wars that the freedom liberty progress loving USA did.
Nice. And to kill just for money ? That is not even at the human level.
It’s just about money and power and subconscious murdering.
BUT SHE’S A WITCH LOOK AT THE BURQUA !!!
Yeah … okay, calm down, she is a witch … just take a chill pill my friend.
REGULATING SOCIETY / ENTROPY
The fact is it is not easy to control the murdering crazy monkeys that we are, and Islam as well as the other religions were quite successful for some time and deserve credit. From what I understand, Christianity was an attempt to restore Judaism, and Islam restore Christianity at a lower level.
And all this simply reflects the nature of the universe.
Entropy, the continual decay programmed in the universe, the endless fighting.
World peace will only happen when you leave this universe, transcend so that you are not here any more !!!
In fact it would extremely foolish for any man of the path to allow himself to be weak. The weak are ****ed in this world. Fact.
And do not judge the world, just accept the rules, and get with the program.
Strength courage violence form part of a complete integration from the higher to lower is necessary.
Even Buddha had 3 attempts on his life. And other great teachers too, Mogallana was killed by a marauding gang. Mahavira was set upon by a gang who destroyed his hearing by smashing branches of wood into his ears.
Daoism … is different because it does not seek to regulate society. It rode on the back of traditional Chinese society. Correct me if I am wrong.
That is much easier.
Islam seeks to regulate a society which is an extremely courageous and difficult thing to do.
Daoism is something else.September 8, 2016 at 5:41 pm #46964
In total, your whole reply is a straw man argument attacking a perceived implication of my words, rather than the actual words I spoke. I said nothing about why countries go to war, or why countries argue we should attack Muslim nations. Frankly I have no interest in war against any country or group; it is not my business what kind of foolishness others believe in or what kind of nonsense others are doing. An assessment of the violence of religions (especially Abrahamic religions) has zero to do with violent actions taken by governments and war-mongers.
Please see Straw Man
SSeptember 9, 2016 at 2:57 am #46966
All must be assessed together.
America dropping bombs and killing millions of people in a whole geographically region of the Earth has created huge violence on the powerless people there.
Now they are indeed violent.
This has nothing to do with “Islam”, it has to do with bombs being dropped on their head, their culture and countries parents and children destroyed.
And all the time the “free world” is on TV saying how terrible the muslims are and how right we are to bomb them for peace.
Yes, this world is enough to make anyone go mad.
And how many people in the West know of Islam at all ?
On what is your assessment made ? To turn up after the bombs have been dropped and point at them and say “look they are angry, look look”.
No **** they are angry.September 9, 2016 at 3:46 am #46968
Mozi (Chinese: Ä«×Ó; pinyin: M¨°z¨«; Wade¨CGiles: Mo Tzu, Lat. as Micius, ca. 470 ¨C ca. 391 BC), original name Mo Di (Ä«µÔ), was a Chinese philosopher during the Hundred Schools of Thought period (early Warring States period). Born in what is now Tengzhou, Shandong Province, he founded the school of Mohism that argued strongly against Confucianism and Daoism. His philosophy emphasized self-restraint, self-reflection and authenticity rather than obedience to ritual. During the Warring States period, Mohism was actively developed and practiced in many states but fell out of favour when the legalist Qin dynasty came to power. During that period, many Mohist classics are by many believed to have been ruined when the emperor Qin Shi Huang supposedly carried out the burning of books and burying of scholars. The importance of Mohism further declined when Confucianism became the dominant school of thought during the Han Dynasty, until mostly disappearing by the middle of the Western Han dynasty.
In the past a Chinese Master never taught his apprentices 100 percent of his knowledge. Instead he retained, say, the foremost 10 percent for himself alone. Perhaps he would write down the rest in adocument for his favovorite student, to be opened after his death. The result of this approach was that the sum of each clan’s learning decreased By 10 percent with each generation, until some charismatic student was able to decipher the mystery and return to the status of the original teacher, at which point cycle went on with his students, and so forth.
To make matters worse, the Masters almost never worked together. The concept of Western university, where knowledge is shared and experiences are compared, was an alien one for them. Power was meant to be used for profit, material and spiritual. More often than not martial Masters challenged each other; much knowledge was forfeited in this manner because the bested Master frequently lost his life as well.
-KOSTA DANAOS, The Magus of Java
…but Daoism is likely the least violent…
Sorry, but are violent encounters to test one’s spiritual stamina encouraged among Healing Tao practitioners?
-http://forum.healingtaousa.com/practice/message/27027/September 9, 2016 at 3:55 am #46970
But anyway Steven, sorry if you feel I have misunderstood or misrepresented your words, that’s not my intention.
My comments are not aimed at you, they are aimed at the thing itself.September 9, 2016 at 5:36 am #46972
>>>America dropping bombs and killing millions
>>>of people in a whole geographically region
>>>of the Earth has created huge violence
>>>on the powerless people there.
I agree with this, but this is entirely SEPARATE issue. Entirely.
*My* point I was addressing, was a different topic. My point–in concurrence with RichieRich–if I can go back to the topic I was actually discussing, is that the core texts of the belief system, namely the Koran, give clear instructions to eradicate non-believers and spread Islam. These are violent instructions. Period. It doesn’t matter than 99% of actual believers don’t follow this. The point is that they are codified in that actual texts. Similar instructions, perhaps less direct, are also given in the Bible. It’s a problem that all the Abrahamic religions have, and almost everybody wants to ignore and just say “oh, but the religion is peaceful” out of some bullshit desire to be politically correct and not piss off millions of people who are actually not violent because they are ignoring that aspect of their religion.
Furthermore, is a religion “peaceful” if the practice of it encourages subjugation of women? As second-class citizens that need to be shrouded to avoid stimulating sexual desire in men? E.G. Islam I would argue not. I would argue this is violent behavior. Is not the application of restrictions on women in all Abrahamic religions (male-driven) a control, which could considered a violent act in itself by almost demanding subservience to males?
Just address these issues. Don’t go off into tangents about war behavior you see coming from either side.
Because these issues I’m discussing are COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY SEPARATE from any wars and conflict between Middle Eastern nations and Western nations, which occur for entirely separate reasons. What you are discussing is something different.
I agree that having one’s home (if you were a Middle Eastern Muslim say) would induce a feeling a violent retribution. I have no doubts of this. And violent attacks spawned from that region are undoubtedly 1000 times what they would be without that.
But that was not what RichieRich was addressing, nor what I was addressing.
You’ve spun off into a completely separate issue that in truth has nothing to do with what is being discussed.
This argument that people promote that “Oh Islam is peaceful, so you shouldn’t attack Muslims” is fallacious. It is a non-sequitur. You shouldn’t attack Muslims, because such attacks are malicious and violent in their own right, and provoke reasonably angry responses. But this has zero to do with what the religion itself stands for. Moreover–in the completely contrary way–the fact that the religion has violence in it, in no way provides justification for the atrocities of attack either. This is another non-sequitur.
See the discussion of “Affirming the Consequent” and “Denying the Antecedent” in the Non-sequitur discussion, as these are the two non-sequiturs at play in the above paragraph.
This is my point.
People are taking an argument–valid in its own right–and taking it completely out of context, perceiving it as justification for something else entirely–a non-sequitur–and then arguing against this as a straw-man argument.
Whether Islam is or is not violent has ZERO to do with whether Middle Eastern countries should be attacked (hint: they shouldn’t). This is the point, and big problem that I feel people are having here.
As per your second post, I don’t have any emotional response to someone posting against my words, nor am taking things personally. But I don’t really have much interest in replying to straw man arguments based on non-sequiturs. It confuses the point being made with other issues entirely. And it is important to me that people actually understand the point I’m making and not try to twist it into something that it is not, not out of any emotional need on my part so much as a general desire to not spread more confusion if possible.
Both your posts, as well as the original post by Michael, as well as the article writer that wrote the article that Michael posted, as well as most of the media when they talk about wars against ISIS etc. are filled with non-sequiturs and straw man arguments.
Most of the arguments in the media boil down to:
1. “Islam is peaceful, you shouldn’t attack Muslims” (fallacious liberal argument)
Islam–the religion–is not peaceful by its very code, so the hypothesis is false. The conclusion of “you shouldn’t attack Muslims” is true despite it not following as a non-sequitur from the hypothesis. I agree with the liberal conclusion of no war, but disagree it follows from the premise. The premise is false. It doesn’t mean you should have war, and in fact, you shouldn’t.
2. “Terrorists are Islamic from the Middle East, so believers of the faith in the region are the problem” (fallacious conservative argument, e.g. Donald Trump)
No. They are terrorists because they had their homes destroyed and they feel their sovereignty is being interfered with. Except for a rare few, most don’t ignorantly follow the violent mandates of their religious text out of a religious mandate. They perform violence due to violence perpetrated on them. They are operating out of their own ignorance and stupidity, and they use attacks on themselves as validation for their anger–either beforehand or afterward.
The only thing I will agree with you on here is the fact that all are acting out of ignorance. Ignorance of what their own religion stands for (both the good and the bad), ignorance of the actual reasons people are fighting other people, ignorance of people in power and how they are manipulating both sides for their own gain, ignorance of their own true nature and how they shouldn’t be led by “religious texts” or by “priests/clerics” or by “government leaders” or by “media”. People would best be served if they abandoned this form of programming and starting focusing on their own development.
This is undercurrent of the Daoist mantra, when you take it to the limit.
Basically the idea is that whatever others are doing, it is totally irrelevant to you and your own development. Because other people don’t even know what they hell they are doing, so why pay any attention to any of it? It’s a distraction to spend your attention and time on what is essentially . . . confusion.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.