Malaysia PM makes impassioned appeal for moderate Islam

27

UNITED NATIONS: Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak pleaded Saturday for Muslims to unite against extremism, warning that sectarian violence risked tearing the Islamic world apart.

“I believe the greatest threat to Muslims today comes not from the outside world, but from within,” he told the UN General Assembly.

Najib voiced outrage at violence between the Sunni and Shia sects in Syria, Iraq and Pakistan, noting that nearly 5,000 Muslims died in conflict in the three countries in the holy month of Ramzan.

“It is time to end the killing and concentrate instead on building a common agenda for peace and prosperity,” he said.

Written By: AFP
continue to source article at dawn.com

27 COMMENTS

  1. Who cares about the greatest threat to muslims. This is exactly the problem – muslims just focus on muslims and to hell with everybody else. What he should be saying is the greatest threat the humanity is how badly muslims treat everybody. muslims need to think about that because if they don’t start thinking about their hateful divisive bullying criminal murderous global behaviour then frankly us kaffirs will consider every sunni on shite atrocity and tit for tat response as proof that islam is incompatible with civilised behaviour. islam is dismissive of everything except islam. Now that’s something that should be explained to Dato whatshisface and every other muslim who steps through the doors of the UNITED NATIONS.

    • In reply to #6 by CH1954:

      Who cares about the greatest threat to muslims.

      Those of us not blinded by fear and loathing?

      This is exactly the problem – muslims just focus on muslims and to hell with everybody else.

      That’s quite a generalisation. I’m sure you, Godsbuster, Fouad Boussetta, old toyboy, Pedro Carvalho, labman, memetical, anglo-saxon, Generic Moniker, Maria4freethinking, Steve Hill, Christiana Magdalene Moodley, CdnMacAtheist and the others who liked your comment anonymously care about all the peoples of the world, and do so without a hint of prejudice.

      What he should be saying is the greatest threat the humanity is how badly muslims treat everybody. muslims need to think about that because if they don’t start thinking about their hateful divisive bullying criminal murderous global behaviour then frankly us kaffirs will consider every sunni on shite atrocity and tit for tat response as proof that islam is incompatible with civilised behaviour.

      Not every kafir is so small-minded. Many of us for example don’t consider all Christians to be terrorists, despite the many years of atrocity and tit-for-tat recriminations between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

      islam is dismissive of everything except islam. Now that’s something that should be explained to Dato whatshisface and every other muslim who steps through the doors of the UNITED NATIONS.

      Dato Sri Mohd Najib Bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak, not Dato whatshisface. It’s right there at the top of the thread.

      [Slightly edited by moderator to bring within Terms of Use]

      • In reply to #22 by Katy Cordeth:

        Yes, I do “care about all the peoples of the world, and do so without a hint of prejudice.”

        And because I care, I feel bound to say I consider Islam is a threat to world peace, and to millions upon millions of people. There is no such thing as moderate Islam, any more than there is moderate evil.

        Either Islam has some sort of thoroughgoing reformation and decides to behave in a civilized manner (not least to its own co-religionists), or it is – frankly – spoiling for a fight.

        I have no wish to see World War Three start over something as anachronistic and meaningless as mere religion, but it is at least a possibility, and the tragedy is, if that happens, Islam will lose overwhelmingly and many Islamic countries will be reduced to the stone age. And I suppose Western countries with native Muslim populations will have a problem for decades, involving internment and suchlike to contain the risks of terrorism.

        Najib Razak’s speech is fine, but he can’t deliver on it.

        Islam is playing poker with the rest of the world, and is perilously close to overplaying its hand and getting its bluff called, with appalling consequences.

      • In reply to #22 by Katy Cordeth:

        What he should be saying is the greatest threat the humanity is how badly muslims treat everybody. muslims need to think about that because if they don’t start thinking about their hateful divisive bullying criminal murderous global behaviour then frankly us kaffirs will consider every sunni on shite atrocity and tit for tat response as proof that islam is incompatible with civilised behaviour.

        Many of us for example don’t consider all Christians to be terrorists, despite the many years of atrocity and tit-for-tat recriminations between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

        That is a ridiculous false equivalence. Where in the New Testament does it say to destroy the members of other beliefs (infidel)? Is the tit-for-tat recriminations by Catholics and Protestants a worldwide phenomena?

        In any event, the many years of atrocity and tit-for-tat recriminations between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland is incompatible with civilized behavior and should be condemned as such. Religiously sectarian terrorism should be condemned unilaterally. That a particular religions holy texts advocates such terrorism makes that religion extremely more dangerous and compounds the problem.

        The Northern Irish problem with religiously motivated sectarian bigotry is a parochial one, it is not a universal issue within Christianity. That ordinary working class next door neighbor types got drawn into the troubles is in no way analogous to the Islamic jihad.

        I thought I made that observation clear to you at, 8-year-old Yemeni child dies at hands of 40-year-old husband on wedding night. Obviously not.

      • In reply to #8 by disillusioned hippy:

        In reply to #7 by Agrajag:

        “…the holy month of Ramzan.”

        WTF?

        in some countries (Turkey for example), this is what ramadan is called.

        So why do they call that hotel chain Ramada? I don’t think I choose Christma or Hanukka for my global chain of anything. Is this where they got it from or just a terrible terrible coincidence?

  2. Only ten years late. But I guess that was all right, back then.

    “Our task is to reclaim our faith by articulating clearly the true nature of Islam – the religion of peace, of moderation, of tolerance,”

    And blasphemy, and apostasy, and gender equality… Is that also the true nature of Islam? Quite a few might disagree with you there, buddy.

    • And blasphemy, and apostasy, and gender equality… Is that also the true nature of Islam? Quite a few might disagree with you there, buddy.

      I presume you meant gender inequality. It’s always good to hear moderate muslims speaking out against the nasty violent Islamic extremists. But as you note, there is a lot in Islam that should be unacceptable in a civilised society. The prime minister is going to find difficulty with his policy of “articulating clearly the true nature of Islam”.

      I expect the federal government is very concerned that the sort of violent conflict happening in other countries could spread to some Malaysian states. The government is taking the appeasement route and giving in more and more to the Islamic fundamentalists:

      http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/in-crackdown-on-religion-activists-see-a-nation-in-fear

      In reply to #9 by obzen:

      Only ten years late. But I guess that was all right, back then.

      “Our task is to reclaim our faith by articulating clearly the true nature of Islam – the religion of peace, of moderation, of tolerance,”

      And blasphemy, and apostasy, and gender equality… Is that also the true nature of Islam? Quite…

  3. Islamic extremism is getting so crazy, that it is probably wisest for governments to try to destroy the seed bed. Islamic extremists have gone off the deep end killing children, and civilians and students. The “crimes” they are punishing are simply not subscribing to their backward brands of religion. For me hurting people who did you no harm of any kind is a much more evil level of warfare.

    Governments would have to stop subsidising religious schools of any form. Stop subsiding churches of any kind. Debunk all religions as part of school curriculum.

    Americans went after the wrong people. The Taliban were the government of Afghanistan — more extreme than we would like. However, they had every moral right to attack the invading Americans. The most disgusting extremists are the Boko Haram in Nigeria and the Al-Shabaab in Somalia.

    I think western governments should help fund bringing Islamic extremists to justice in the third world.

    • In reply to #10 by Roedy:

      Islamic extremism is getting so crazy, that it is probably wisest for governments to try to destroy the seed bed. Islamic extremists have gone off the deep end killing children, and civilians and students. The “crimes” they are punishing are simply not subscribing to their backward brands of religi…

      ‘Debunk all religions as part of the school curriculum’.

      I can’t see that happening in the near future even though I would like to. I think it would result in a coup d’état by angry believers of all stripes. A softly,softly approach has a far better chance of success. As it has been articulated many times on this site, a comprehensive knowledge of all religions is the best way to inoculate students against the ‘one true religion’.

  4. I have met a lot of “moderate” muslims. The thing they all had in common is that they were educated and really didn’t believe in all the 6th Century “philosophy”. At best many are cultural muslims just like many on here are cultural christians.

    What these people are very afraid of is the personal treat posed by uneducated fanatics with nothing to loose controlled by self-centred, power hungry, hypocritical and powerful mullahs. These mullahs have nothing on the worst of the Nazis or Communists, or Big Brother (1984 type) when it comes to mobilizing and controlling the masses. “If you are not with us, you are against us” and with no rational fear of death, their flock will actively go after critics who don’t toe the line.

    Change isn’t going to come overnight, but at least from an educated muslim perspective, what the prime minister is saying is a start. Personally, if the rabble of uneducated muslims want to blow each other up for inconsequential and trivial disagreements, by all means do so, but do it in your own back yard and leave the civilized world out of it. jcw

  5. Sunni-Shia relations have been marred by sectarian violence for hundreds of years. In some places life is cheap and death more expedient than discussion. Nice try Dato but a forlorn hope, fighting and killing over the Rules of Quidditch is a long tradition.

  6. Barbaric fear based myths such as the bible & the koran are the number one threat to the survival of humanity today. What horrible things they teach people, those fear based cults. How badly they destroy us is just never mentioned. How sad for them to hurt people so badly. It’s horrible to watch helplessly as most people do. I am glad that someone at least told the truth. Please let us live, please leave your myths in the past where they belong.

  7. In reply to #24 by Ignorant Amos:

    In reply to #22 by Katy Cordeth:

    That is a ridiculous false equivalence. Where in the New Testament does it say to destroy the members of other beliefs (infidel)?

    I’ve no idea; I’m not a biblical scholar. The fact that you specify the New Testament in your question though leads me to think there may be some passages in the OT which give precisely such instructions. Of course if Christians only subscribed to the second part of God’s autobiography, it wouldn’t matter. But that’s not the case, is it Igbert?

    Is the tit-for-tat recriminations by Catholics and Protestants a worldwide phenomena?

    No. For the past several centuries the relationship between Protestants and Catholics has been one of mutual respect and admiration. I read history books and in my head I’m all like “Oh, just get a room you guys, this is as cloying as a Robin Williams movie.”

    That a particular religions holy texts advocates such terrorism makes that religion extremely more dangerous and compounds the problem.

    To put it into context, this assertion depends on the notion of there being nothing in Christianity which mandates global domination and the subjugation of non-Christians.

    The Northern Irish problem with religiously motivated sectarian bigotry is a parochial one, it is not a universal issue within Christianity.

    Oh, you Christian apologists. I’ve commented before about the strange phenomenon on websites such as this of holding up Christianity as a paragon when discussing Islam or Muslims.

    A thread detailing historical child abuse in the Catholic Church or homophobic rants from American hate preachers will result in a slew of posts about the wretchedness of Christianity. But then an article on Islam appears and it’s all, “Ah well, at least our own Christian culture has never stooped to such horridness…”

    That ordinary working class next door neighbor types got drawn into the troubles is in no way analogous to the Islamic jihad.

    I completely agree that ordinary working class next door neighbor types’ being drawn into political conflict has very little – in most cases perhaps even nothing at all – to do with these individuals’ religious affiliations.

    The only difference is I extend this to include terrorists from other religions, or other branches of the same religion; because if we’re being honest, there’s very little practical difference between Islam and Christianity, and the only thing separating them from Judaism is recruitment policy.

    Do you not realise that when you talk about your countrymen who commit acts of terror in terms of their being ‘ordinary working class next door neighbor types’, what you’re essentially doing is humanising them? That’s not a criticism, by the way.

    But you seem unwilling to extend this courtesy to non-Christians who commit monstrous acts. They’ve been corrupted by Islam; they’re mindless zombies programmed to hate; were it not for the pernicious influence of the Qur’an all would be sweetness and light in ‘Islamic’ countries. You make the mistake so many on this site do of ignoring all other factors and focusing on the single common denominator of religious faith.

    It’s understandable: the actual sociopolitical reasons for conflicts of this nature are thrown into sharp relief when they’re occurring on your own doorstep. One has a vested interest in finding out as much as possible about them. Scientia potentia est, as they say.

    Only a fool would claim the history of conflict in Ireland can be attributed to religious differences; that factors such as British colonialism played no part in all the bloodshed. Well, I have news for you: the same is true for Islam. Religion, as that Scott Atran chap put it, is a neutral vessel. If some Muslims hate the West it isn’t because that’s what their holy books tell them to do, anymore than Westboro Baptist types hate homosexuals because of a couple lines in the Old Testament.

    This is not to excuse Islamic extremism; nor is it to blame the West for Islam’s current status as boogieman of the world. It’s about recognising the complexity of the situation, and dispensing with the silly notion that 9/11 and 7/7 would not have occurred if only that pesky Muhammad had kept his thoughts to himself; that in spite of what far-right idiots would have you believe, most ordinary Muslims don’t want their religion to dominate the planet, don’t care about the establishment of a worldwide caliphate and don’t seek the annihilation of Israel and America.

    Pointing out passages in the Qur’an and saying, “Ah, but look Katy, this bit clearly states, ‘You must crush the infidel like a wasp under a sandal for it so pleasethes Allah,’ so this is what they want and is the true reason for Islamist hatred,” is an example of the affirming the consequent fallacy.

    I just thought I’d mention that before you go sprinting to your bookshelves or click on http://www.they‘recomingtogetus.com.

    …That ordinary working class next door neighbor types got drawn into the troubles is in no way analogous to the Islamic jihad.

    I thought I made that observation clear to you at, 8-year-old Yemeni child dies at hands of 40-year-old husband on wedding night. Obviously not.

    It’s a pedantic point, but making an observation and making something clear are not correlative, even if one subscribes to the view that once you’ve put forward an opinion, that opinion then constitutes a fact. [Slightly edited by moderator to bring within Terms of Use.]

    • In reply to #25 by Katy Cordeth:

      In reply to #24 by Ignorant Amos:

      In reply to #22 by Katy Cordeth:

      Have you learned nothing? You’ve been informed frequently by some of the good folks at the clear thinking oasis of the bottom line: Muslims are some sort of unique breed of savage and they are whipped up into a violent, uncontrollable rage because of certain magical, spooky properties of their holy book. So, we should hound them, pursue them, profile them, restrict them, torture them, bomb the hell out of them at every opportunity because this will bring us peace. Oh, and don’t accuse me of hating Muslims because I’ve got a Muslim friend.

      • In reply to #26 by The Grapes of Roth:

        In reply to #25 by Katy Cordeth:

        In reply to #24 by Ignorant Amos:

        In reply to #22 by Katy Cordeth:

        Have you learned nothing? You’ve been informed frequently by some of the good folks at the clear thinking oasis of the bottom line: Muslims are some sort of unique breed of savage and they are whip…

        In reply to #26 by The Grapes of Roth:

        Don’t tell anyone, Grapey, but I’ve only been pretending not to hate Muslims all this time. Mum’s the word, m’kay?

        Even the Musloids though, who I agree should be rounded up and, what’s the word… concentrated, perhaps in specially constructed camps, are not as despicable as the… whurp… sorry, a little bit of sick came up when I thought about them… the accommodationists, or as I prefer to call them, the collaborators.

        When the inevitable happens and the call goes out to Muslims worldwide to take up arms; when the sleepers, those who have taken advantage of the innate kindness all white people possess in order to infiltrate our schools, hospitals and, may God forgive us, even our political institutions; when the Manchurian Muslims, the ones who don’t even know they’re evil until they answer the telefon and hear the words ‘Cleopatra says there will be snow from the West’ and the chip implanted in their brain activates; when all of this comes to pass, then will arrive the Time of Great Darkness.

        This has been prophesied by He Who Posts Moronic Video Diatribes To Websites Which Ought To Know Better Than To Promote His Hatred And Even Sell His Effing DVDs In Their Online Store.

        When the Time of Great Darkness is over, the evil has been vanquished forever, goodness reigns in the world once more, and the last Muhammaden has been sucked into the deepest pit of Hell, then and only then will the accommodationist quislings be dealt with.

        And our wrath will be great.


        Edit: Sorry your comment got all removed. I don’t think the mods realised you were being facetious.

    • In reply to #25 by Katy Cordeth:

      Oh dear…what a train wreck of fallacies that your comment displays.

      I’ve no idea; I’m not a biblical scholar. The fact that you specify the New Testament in your question though leads me to think there may be some passages in the OT which give precisely such instructions.

      Believing that the OT is Gods word and having to follow the instructions within are two different things. The NT and Christianity is the get out clause for the bad OT stuff.

      Of course if Christians only subscribed to the second part of God’s autobiography, it wouldn’t matter. But that’s not the case, is it …?

      Well unfortunately for this discourse it is the case. Christianity, as we know it today, is based on the teachings of Paul to the Gentiles, see Galatians and Romans.

      The early Christian father Marcion dropped the Hebrew OT from his teachings altogether because he seen the OT God as…”a jealous tribal deity of the Jews, whose law represented legalistic reciprocal justice and who punishes mankind for its sins by suffering and death”…he also called that God a…””uncultured, jealous, wild, belligerent, angry and violent God, who has nothing in common with the God of the New Testament…” Marcion and Marcionite Christianity was deemed later heretical, but that’s not the point.

      It is not a requirement of Christianity to recognize and follow the rules of the OT regardless of what Jesus is alleged to have said , although many Christians do, at least wee bits of it anyway.

      But this goes to the questions I repeatedly pose…what is a Christian? What is a Muslim? What is a Hindu? …bring on the “no true Scotsman” routine. With over 38,000+ versions of Christianity, not including those that have gone to the wall, who gets to define?

      Jesus was allegedly the fulfillment of the Law.

      “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” ~ (Mt. 5:17-18).

      But of course the Christ was an apocalyptic preacher who prophesied “…till all things be accomplished” will be within a generation. The story was revised later when that didn’t pan out.

      “We may confidently affirm that Christ did not here suggest that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain perpetually obligatory. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament record.”

      Now you and I know that the whole lot is all a bunch of tosh. Some Christians cite “Leviticus 20:13″ for their bigoted attitudes on why homosexuals are an abomination, not sure they’d go the whole hog and condemn homosexuals to death and be it on their own heads although I’m sure those fuckwits exist. At the same time the world is replete with pierced and tattoo’d Christians that don’t even know that “Leviticus 19:28″ proscribes same.

      But, for the sake of debate and Christians were obliged to take the OT on board complete with the plethora of shitty bits and nonsense… could you then label those that don’t, Christian? I call myself a Ferrari driver, even though I haven’t driven one and don’t own a car.

      …Igbert?

      Really Katy? Ad Hom? Name calling? I thought much better of you.

      To put it into context, this assertion depends on the notion of there being nothing in Christianity which mandates global domination and the subjugation of non-Christians.

      You forgot an important caveat…”by force”. Taking the mission to the world in order to proselytize is one thing, murdering those that do not wish to be proselytized is another thing entirely.

      “You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” ~ (Matthew 5:38–39)

      Now there are Christians that advocate Divine Command Theory, like that lying prick WLC, but he uses the OT to defend his theology, not from the NT. Not to be confused with Catholic “Just War Theory”.

      Oh, you Christian apologists. I’ve commented before about the strange phenomenon on websites such as this of holding up Christianity as a paragon when discussing Islam or Muslims.

      Oh Jesus wept…no one is holding Christianity as a paragon of anything. These pages are chock full of heated debates with those of other religious persuasions and the evil carried out in those religions name…the difference is, at present those other religions are not as bad, or even near as bad, as the one causing most of the problems today. But never mind the whattaboutery, you are the one defending Muslims, yet you can’t, or won’t, define what you deem is a Musilim.

      “A Muslim, is an adherent of Islam. The Qur’an is the holy book of Islam and Muslims believe that it is the verbatim word of God as revealed to the prophet Muhammad. Muslims also follow the teachings and practices of Muhammad as recorded in traditional accounts called hadith. “Muslim” is an Arabic word meaning “one who submits to God”.”

      Now, let’s look at apostasy. Ask any believer outside Islam should apostates die for their apostasy and you will get a resounding “NO”. The odd kook that says yes is vilified and rightly so. Now ask Muslims if apostates should die and the reply is less resounding, in fact it is the fringe that say “NO”.

      Maryam Namazie, a spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain says, “Intimidation is very widespread and pretty effective,” she also says . she believes that many of the deaths classified as “honour killings” are actually murders of people who have renounced Islam.

      These are ordinary Muslims…very westernized in many cases.

      *”And yet a significant portion of British Muslims think that such behaviour is not merely right, but a religious obligation: a survey by the think-tank Policy Exchange, for instance, revealed that 36 per cent of young Muslims believe that those who leave Islam should be killed.

      “There is considerable support, from the Koran and other sacred Islamic texts, for that position – which may explain why, out of the 57 Islamic states in the world today, seven have a legal code that punishes Muslims who leave the religion with death.”

      From the Hadith.

      “2171. Narrated ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that Lâ ilâha ill-Allâh (there is no god but Allâh), cannot be shed except in three cases: 1. Life for life (in cases of intentional murders without right i.e., in Al-Qis̩âs̩ – Law of Equality in punishment); 2. A married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse; and 3. The one who turns renegade from Islâm (apostate) and leaves the group of Muslims. [9:17-O.B]“

      A thread detailing historical child abuse in the Catholic Church or homophobic rants from American hate preachers will result in a slew of posts about the wretchedness of Christianity.

      But then an article on Islam appears and it’s all, “Ah well, at least our own Christian culture has never stooped to such horridness…”

      Why tell lies to further your point Katy? Strawmen all over the place. Where has anyone here said that Christianity has never stooped to such horridness? I stated on the other thread my personal knowledge of just such horridness in a Christian culture…perhaps you missed it…

      “Annecdote for you, I lived a few doors from one of the most notorious mass murdering bastards that Ulster terrorism produced, Lenny Murphy, Brookmount Street, off the Shankill Road, better known as one of the Shankill Butchers. Granted I was only a wee boy when he was chopping up people who he either thought, or who actually were Catholics…and get this, he was part of a group…all ordinary people during daylight hours, sectarian psychopaths by night.”

      So quit with the “you are just picking on all Muslims because of the actions of some” routine. I am not. The criticisms here are against those Muslims that would be deemed those following the rules of Islam, those that don’t, aren’t, so do not apply and any accussation of calling them because of the actions of some, is moot.

      That ordinary working class next door neighbor types got drawn into the troubles is in no way analogous to the Islamic jihad.

      I completely agree that ordinary working class next door neighbor types’ being drawn into political conflict has very little – in most cases perhaps even nothing at all – to do with these individuals’ religious affiliations.

      That is not what I said…another strawman. If you believe the troubles in Northern Ireland were a political conflict and nothing to do with these individuals religious affiliations, you are ignorant of Irish history.

      “Political separation of Northern Ireland from the rest of Ireland did not come until the early 20th century, when Protestants and Catholics divided into two warring camps over the issue of Irish home rule. Most Irish Catholics desired complete independence from Britain, but Irish Protestants feared living in a country ruled by a Catholic majority.”

      “In an attempt to pacify both factions, the British passed in 1920 the Government of Ireland Act, which divided Ireland into two separate political entities, each with some powers of self-government. The Act was accepted by Ulster Protestants and rejected by southern Catholics, who continued to demand total independence for a unified Ireland.”

      An Irish civil war ensued splitting families.

      Here’s a wiki timeline for a Protestant paramilitary organisation, the Ulster Defence Association and their later military wing. tell me how many times you read Catholic after “shot dead”? The UDA /UFF were just two of the many paramilitary organisations that did a lot of murdering of both Catholics and Protetants because they were Catholics or Protestants.

      But let’s not kid ourselves here. In 40 years of murdering and maiming on the streets of Ulster, and as horrendous and dastardly that it was, less civilian people died than in the Twin Towers in a few hours. Everything in context I say.

      The only difference is I extend this to include terrorists from other religions, or other branches of the same religion; because if we’re being honest, there’s very little practical difference between Islam and Christianity, and the only thing separating them from Judaism is recruitment policy.

      The naivety, it stings.

      Do you not realise that when you talk about your countrymen who commit acts of terror in terms of their being ‘ordinary working class next door neighbor types’, what you’re essentially doing is humanising them? That’s not a criticism, by the way.

      No I wasn’t humanizing them and if I had been, you should have been criticizing me for it. My point was to enlighten you that those nice people next door are not always as nice as you like to think they are and you have no way of knowing until it is too late. Child molesters, murders, geriatric pedophiles, and yes, terrorist too…you or I don’t know who our neighbours really are, some women don’t even know the monsters they are married too and sleeping with..

      Now I don’t live my life in the thought that everyone around me is a terrorist or whatever, but I’m not naive enough to think I know they are not. Hence my example. My partners brother-in-law was molesting his own daughter…no one could believe it, no one. It nearly killed the wee girls grandfather and he was never the same again after hearing about it. We can all be incredulous. The bastard was convicted and got 14 years.

      But you seem unwilling to extend this courtesy to non-Christians who commit monstrous acts.

      Anyone committing monstrous acts are monsters. My point was to point out that those monsters are the nice man or woman living next door. Something you have a difficulty accepting.

      Show me proof where I have not been as damning to Christian atrocities highlighted on this site, heck I’ve witnessed the results of such Christian atrocities up close and personal, something I’m nearly sure you have not .I was nearly 10 when I was shopping in Belfast with my granny and we got caught up in Bloody Friday. I’m an equal damning religious atrocities person, my posting history here over the years is my testimony to that.

      They’ve been corrupted by Islam; they’re mindless zombies programmed to hate; were it not for the pernicious influence of the Qur’an…

      Yes they have. Are you living in the attic without access to any outside source other than RDFRS? Brainwashed zombies may account for the majority of the ignorant and those with little or no education. But those with an education, especially, those in the west, what’s their excuse? Oh yeah, they’ve been corrupted by Islam; they’re mindless zombies programmed to hate; by the pernicious influence of the Qur’an…and the fuckwit clerics of course, let’s not forget about those.

      …all would be sweetness and light in ‘Islamic’ countries.

      No it might not be sweetness and light, but it would be a hell of a lot better for multitudes living there…especially the half the population unfortunate enough in those places to be born a female.

      You make the mistake so many on this site do of ignoring all other factors and focusing on the single common denominator of religious faith.

      This is getting tedious. Fuck the other factors you are imagining. Murdering bastard terrorists and ANYONE who supports them in anyway are shit.

      BTW, what other factors are you applying to Samantha Lethwaite and Germaine Lyndsay? Just as I suspected, other factors are a red herring.

      It’s understandable: the actual sociopolitical reasons for conflicts of this nature are thrown into sharp relief when they’re occurring on your own doorstep.

      Well if anything, I’d say religio-political. Al.Qaida as a Muslim (Religio-Political) Movement.

      One has a vested interest in finding out as much as possible about them. Scientia potentia est, as they say.

      Hmmm you’d thing so wouldn’t you? I prefer Albert Einstein over Biblical inspired Bacon…“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot.”

      Or even “sapientia est potentia” seems better.

      Only a fool would claim the history of conflict in Ireland can be attributed to religious differences; that factors such as British colonialism played no part in all the bloodshed.

      Your ignorance of the conflict in Ireland is astounding for someone wishing to use it as an example. Guess you better start calling yourself a fool.

      The trouble in Ireland started 800 years ago before there was any Kingdom of Great Britain (1707) to colonize. It was England that colonized Ireland (1536–1691) and guess what, it was religiously driven…Catholic/Protestant.

      “The period is bounded by the dates 1536, when Henry VIII of England deposed the Fitzgerald dynasty as Lords Deputies of Ireland (the new Kingdom of Ireland was declared by Henry VIII in 1541) and 1691, when the Irish Catholic Jacobites surrendered at Limerick, thus confirming British Protestant dominance in Ireland. This is sometimes called the early modern period.”

      Wiki will help with a rough outline…History of Ireland (1536-1691) and it is littered with Catholic v Protestant references.

      But let’s go way back to the beginning since we are this far. It was a 12th century Norman invasion that began the whole foray. Power hungry Irish King Diarmait Mac Murchada of Leinster requested the assistance of Henry II to help usurp the other Irish kings and gain leadership of Ireland. Norman knight, Richard de Clare, known as Strongbow, with his Normans and a load of Cumbrian’s invaded and gained the upper hand. King Diarmait Mac Murchada married off his daughter to Richard de Clare, making him his son-in-law and heir to the Kingdom of Ireland. Henry II wasn’t too chuffed at this so with papal authority, yep, papal authority, he landed in Ireland and took control from Strongbow. Henry gave his son John the title of Lord of Ireland and when Henry died, John became King of England and the “Lordship of Ireland” fell directly under the English Crown. The rest is as they say, history. But I’ll not be told it had nothing to do with religion.

      Well, I have news for you: the same is true for Islam.

      No, it really isn’t Katy and I’m going to quote that same Scott Atran you quote mined below.

      Religion, as that Scott Atran chap put it, is a neutral vessel.

      In a “Point of Inquiry” debate Chris Mooney cites Sam Harris as pointing out that ‘there’s something about Islam today that is more violent’. Atran’s immediate response is that ‘this is such a complex and confused issue’, then he says that ‘religions are fairly neutral vessels’.

      He goes on to say…

      “So now, the propositions, these things themselves can be interpreted, however, depending on the political and social climate of the age. Islam has been interpreted in ways that were extremely progressive at one time, and at least parts of it are extremely retrogressive, especially as concerns science for example, the position of women in the world, especially parts of it in many countries it’s extremely retrograde. But, Islam itself, I mean does it have some essence that encourages this kind of crazy violence? No, not at all – that truly is absurd, and just false.”

      Well I disagree with him, so does Sam Harris, and so does Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who should know better than Sam, you, or I.

      “Hirsi Ali, in calling for an enlightenment in the Muslim world, is backing a non-essentialist view. It’s the culture that has to change, but of course religion, with its transcendentalist, eternalist underpinnings, acts as a strong brake against cultural transformation. To engage in the battle for moderation is to battle for this-wordly, evidence-based thinking on human flourishing, against transcendentalist ideas of all kinds.”

      I’ll not be holding my breath.

      Scott Atran also said…

      “”When you look at young people like the ones who grew up to blow up trains in Madrid in 2004, carried out the slaughter on the London underground in 2005, hoped to blast airliners out of the sky en route to the United States in 2006 and 2009, and journeyed far to die killing infidels in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia; when you look at whom they idolize, how they organize, what bonds them and what drives them; then you see that what inspires the most lethal terrorists in the world today is not so much the Koran or religious teachings as a thrilling cause and call to action that promises glory and esteem in the eyes of friends, and through friends, eternal respect and remembrance in the wider world that they will never live to enjoy…. Jihad is an egalitarian, equal-opportunity employer: …fraternal, fast-breaking, thrilling, glorious, and cool.”

      So those other factors like colonialism you espouse don’t appear in Atran’s analysis of what he thinks makes a terrorist.

      If some Muslims hate the West it isn’t because that’s what their holy books tell them to do, anymore than Westboro Baptist types hate homosexuals because of a couple lines in the Old Testament.

      Well, it is as a matter of fact.

      Because if it’s in the holy books, and the holy books are the inerrant word of gods, then they must be true, and must be followed…this is the crux of the matter here. To not subscribe to the scriptures is to disregard Gods/Allahs word. If an individual has been brainwashed that if by not believing it is Gods word is a folly and is a one way ticket to damnation, then anything goes. Those that don’t believe such shite is a reality are just playing at Doctors and Nurses.

      This is not to excuse Islamic extremism; nor is it to blame the West for Islam’s current status as boogieman of the world. It’s about recognising the complexity of the situation, and dispensing with the silly notion that 9/11 and 7/7 would not have occurred if only that pesky Muhammad had kept his thoughts to himself;…

      I don’t think anyone here thinks that though Katy. I am well aware that without the hate mongering and the vile indoctrination of Muslims by those wicked people in positions of authority, we would have a religion as inert as Judaism. But it is what it is I’m afraid. Apparently Mohammad said the things in the book and they came straight from Allah. Bad people are using those words to influence otherwise probably good people to do bad stuff.

      …that in spite of what far-right idiots would have you believe, most ordinary Muslims don’t want their religion to dominate the planet, don’t care about the establishment of a worldwide caliphate and don’t seek the annihilation of Israel and America.

      That’s a big balls statement Katy…got evidence?

      I like the caveat I’ve highlighted that you put into that comment. It’s those that are not part of the “most ordinary” Muslims and those that are not “ordinary” Muslims, whatever that even means, that concern me.

      “In many countries, Muslims who pray several times a day are more likely to support making sharia official law than are Muslims who pray less frequently. In Russia, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Tunisia, for example, Muslims who pray several times a day are at least 25 percentage points more supportive of enshrining sharia than are less observant Muslims. Generally, however, there is little difference in support for sharia by age, gender or education.”

      The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society

      Less observant Muslims…I like that better than “ordinary Muslims”.

      Pointing out passages in the Qur’an and saying, “Ah, but look Katy, this bit clearly states, ‘You must crush the infidel like a wasp under a sandal for it so pleasethes Allah,’ so this is what they want and is the true reason for Islamist hatred,” is an example of the affirming the consequent fallacy.

      Well it would be if I was claiming it for all those that claim to be Muslim, which I’m not. I’m claiming that it is the indoctrination of Muslims by these teachings and subsequently using that radicalization to coherce adherents to follow those instruction, thus giving non-Muslims reason to fear Islam as a rational consequence. I’m also including all those Muslims that do not unconditionally condemn such immoral teachings. Just like I’ve condemned those Catholics that will not unconditionally condemn the RCC for its complicity in the ongoing sexual abuse scandals.

      Those Muslims that do condemn such scriptures as not from god are de facto heretics and apostates.

      I just thought I’d mention that before you go sprinting to your bookshelves or click on http://www.they‘recomingtogetus.com.

      You mean citing sources for my assertions?

      It’s a pedantic point, but making an observation and making something clear are not correlative, even if one subscribes to the view that once you’ve put forward an opinion, that opinion then constitutes a fact.

      Correct, but is incumbent upon you to ask for clarification or refute it, not repeat the same erroneous nonsense.

Leave a Reply