Support NeoGAF

[Marauder Shields]

What makes a muslim a muslim? Because IS are claiming they are muslims, and do so by citing the Qu'ran, and Al-Quaida are claiming they are muslim and doing so by citing the Qu'ran, and pacifist and moderate muslims are claiming they are muslims and do so by citing the Qu'ran.
IMHO they're all muslims, they just handle the literature differently. Just like there are all kinds of Christians over the world who each interpret the Bible differently.

Duh the real Muslims are the ones that don't commit violence, because reasons.

 

[waypoetic]

It's not a thing of "is religion the driving force for a lot of the wars and mass murders throughout the years" but a discussion about we not blaming religion and excusing violents acts that often lead to death; by calling the attackers terrorists and separating them from their religion, which they clearly champion and fight for.

The no-true-scotsmen has been on rapid fire since the 8th of January this year.

 

[ChristianTW]

What makes a muslim a muslim? Because IS are claiming they are muslims, and do so by citing the Qu'ran, and Al-Quaida are claiming they are muslim and doing so by citing the Qu'ran, and pacifist and moderate muslims are claiming they are muslims and do so by citing the Qu'ran.
IMHO they're all muslims, they just handle the literature differently. Just like there are all kinds of Christians over the world who each interpret the Bible differently.

I guess I agree that it all comes down to interpretation. I guess what I meant by my comment is, a majority of the Muslim population disagrees with the acts carried out by these extremist groups and claim that they are not a part of their religion. They say they are and they quote their book so we take them at their word and a huge amount of people now believe that this is what being a Muslim is about and the people that don't do what these groups do are not true followers of their religion because of what certain parts of their texts say.

A lot of these same people, when I talk about people that kill in the name of Christianity, claim that, "those people weren't true Christians." Or, "well they were just misled." And it really bothers me. I think that if we are going to say that we need to call them Muslims rather than Terrorists, we need to address other groups as Christian rather than Terrorist as well.

 

[Drifters]

Youre failing to grasp the fact that ISIS works through propaganda.

Publicly denouncing parts of the quran a terrorist group is using as an excuse for murder will create more propaganda sources for ISIS. It EMPOWERS ISIS when you link them with a billion other people who have nothing to do with them.

Powerful world figures publicly denouncing ISIS as a religious movement seperates them from the billion innocent people. Telling the muslim world you refuse to fight,single out and persecute the religion and only wish to deal with the murderers is an effort to assure whos side you are on.


Regardless of the effectiveness of Obamas statement, its 100x better than getting religion involved at all.

I get that ISIS works and feeds off Christians, Jews and Muslims alike however if ISIS is calling themselves a sect of Islam and other people (in this case, world leaders) are NOT calling them Islamic in nature, then who is more right? My point is that in any other part of the world (especially the ME), who a person is and their religion are one; they by definition are not separate things like Obama is trying to single out in his statements. This goes back to my comment on how Obama's world view is narrow in focus and understanding; In other parts of the world (outside the US) a persons religion is truly a characteristic of their identity and not just a "add-on" that the Western world thinks it is. As to trying to separate the good from bad by completely changing the paradigm of there not being religious extremism flies in the face of Earth's historical context no matter how hard anyone tries.

 

[neorej]

I guess I agree that it all comes down to interpretation. I guess what I meant by my comment is, a majority of the Muslim population disagrees with the acts carried out by these extremist groups and claim that they are not a part of their religion. They say they are and they quote their book so we take them at their word and a huge amount of people now believe that this is what being a Muslim is about and the people that don't do what these groups do are not true followers of their religion because of what certain parts of their texts say.

A lot of these same people, when I talk about people that kill in the name of Christianity, claim that, "those people weren't true Christians." Or, "well they were just misled." And it really bothers me. I think that if we are going to say that we need to call them Muslims rather than Terrorists, we need to address other groups as Christian rather than Terrorist as well.

Why not both? They are terrorists, and if they are driven by an ideology, there's no reason not to add that ideology to their designation. Muslim terrorist, Christian terrorist, Eco terrorist, Fifty Shades Of Grey terrorist, Minimalist terrorist, etc. It helps identify their primary drive and makes you understand where they're coming from. If you lump them all together, you cannot and will not find adequate means to put them to a halt.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

I guess I agree that it all comes down to interpretation. I guess what I meant by my comment is, a majority of the Muslim population disagrees with the acts carried out by these extremist groups and claim that they are not a part of their religion. They say they are and they quote their book so we take them at their word and a huge amount of people now believe that this is what being a Muslim is about and the people that don't do what these groups do are not true followers of their religion because of what certain parts of their texts say.

A lot of these same people, when I talk about people that kill in the name of Christianity, claim that, "those people weren't true Christians." Or, "well they were just misled." And it really bothers me. I think that if we are going to say that we need to call them Muslims rather than Terrorists, we need to address other groups as Christian rather than Terrorist as well.

Indeed.

Bringing up religion or the merits of a religion wont stop people wanting to murder for position, power and any other reason.

What needs to be done is to stop a group of people committing murders. Their religion hardly matters...... especially when they are killing people of the same faith........

 

[soul creator]

To all of you saying these are Muslims and we need to recognize that they are by saying we are fighting Muslims: I can say I am a republican. My views are almost completely Democratic, but I can still run for office and say I am a republican. Republicans will almost always say, "He isn't truly a republican!" And people would agree. It is the same thing in this case. They claim to be Muslim. Doesn't mean they really are.

Also, this is a quote from Hitler: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Yet we never said we were at war with Christianity.

at least in my case, I'm not saying that Obama should say "we are at war with Islam". Because we aren't. This isn't a "holy war" in the sense that some people are thinking of (or at how some people want it to be). I'm an atheist, why the fuck would I want a holy war? I'd be the first one to go, lol. There definitely are some extremist Muslims though. "all members of ISIS are Muslims" is not the same thing as saying "all Muslims are members of ISIS". Just because some crazy right-wingers can't tell the difference doesn't mean we need to tiptoe around that and never speak of it and go to the opposite extreme and pretend like religious beliefs suddenly don't have any influence at all.

Of course, as a political thing, it may very well make sense for Obama to explain those things in that way, and he has to frame things in a way to not piss off allies. Which is fine. Just like how as a political goal he may not talk about single-payer health care. That doesn't make what he says accurate though.

I think the issue is that people are defensive (and often rightfully so) at someone associating the horrible members of a religion with the peaceful members of a religion, because of the actions of the right-wing/fox news/etc. And that goal can be an appropriate one in lots of situations. But not every situation. It's like me trying to pretend that every black person is automatically innocent of a crime just because of the history of institutionalized racism in the US. It is actually possible for Muslims to be treated unfairly and victims of American interference, foreign policy, poverty, racism, etc., and also for some Muslims to be absolutely terrible people that are able to easily take the more violent parts of ancient texts and convincing other people to join their cause by using the powerful psychological appeal of divine truth and moral superiority. Those two facts are not mutually exclusive.

I think that if we are going to say that we need to call them Muslims rather than Terrorists, we need to address other groups as Christian rather than Terrorist as well.

I'm not saying that we need to call them just "Muslims". They are both terrorists and Muslims. And yes, there have been plenty of Christian terrorists. As mentioned, I'm an atheist, and also a black atheist living in America so it's not like I have any special love for Christianity or its history either, lol.

 

[ChristianTW]

Why not both? They are terrorists, and if they are driven by an ideology, there's no reason not to add that ideology to their designation. Muslim terrorist, Christian terrorist, Eco terrorist, Fifty Shades Of Grey terrorist, Minimalist terrorist, etc. It helps identify their primary drive and makes you understand where they're coming from. If you lump them all together, you cannot and will not find adequate means to put them to a halt.

I lost it at Fifty Shades Of Grey terrorist. But I agree with you. There needs to be that distinction though. The problem is, a lot of the people that are FOR calling them Muslim Terrorists are AGAINST saying Christian terrorist and would be fine just calling them Muslim. Most of my Christian friends do just call them Muslim. And I think that right there is what will isolate us from our Muslim allies. Look at the KKK for example. They don't terrorize people nearly as much as ISIS does, but they do terrorize people. Yet a lot of Christians I know that want to call them Muslim Terrorists say that we shouldn't call the KKK Christian Terrorists because they are either misguided by old time beliefs, or they are just not truly Christian.

Edit: I feel I should put this disclaimer here: I went to a Christian school so the Christians that I know, are somewhat, "hardcore."

 

[eso76]

Religions have always been used to control weaker minds.

You have to scare people using the figure of some supreme being judging you, telling them to abstain from pork and alcohol (the reasons are obviously practical in hot countries rather than religious) or to consume fish on certain days (actually a way to control the economy).

It's just speaking through a figure people venerate to have them follow orders, telling them what they're doing is the Great Someone's will.

You can't say religion itself is responsible, it's someone's will to do anything in the name of their *god that can be used in dangerous ways, when the message is twisted.


* god as in any charismatic of frightening figure people venerate for whatever reason.

 

[Walshicus]

Bad but better, certainly quite preferrable to doctrines of violent and murderous Jihad.

Exactly. Islam is wrong, just like Christianity and Hinduism and all the rest. That we tolerate and do not oppose those sects of those cults which preach love over hatred and violence is just Human nature.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Duh the real Muslims are the ones that don't commit violence, because reasons.

Why would the violent Muslims be more Muslim than non violent Muslims?

Or more real? As you sarcastically put it?

Isn't it ultimately a natter of interpretation of religious text in context to the csociety we currently live in and the one we, as non members of that religion, give validity to?

 

[GrizzleBoy]

I get that ISIS works and feeds off Christians, Jews and Muslims alike however if ISIS is calling themselves a sect of Islam and other people (in this case, world leaders) are NOT calling them Islamic in nature, then who is more right? My point is that in any other part of the world (especially the ME), who a person is and their religion are one; they by definition are not separate things like Obama is trying to single out in his statements. This goes back to my comment on how Obama's world view is narrow in focus and understanding; In other parts of the world (outside the US) a persons religion is truly a characteristic of their identity and not just a "add-on" that the Western world thinks it is. As to trying to separate the good from bad by completely changing the paradigm of there not being religious extremism flies in the face of Earth's historical context no matter how hard anyone tries.

You're Sill completely ignoring the actual reasoning of why Obama said what he said.

Its not about being right, its about projecting his view on the situation while also attempting to get others to do the same, fo the good of the fight against the terrorists.

ISIS WANTS both their recruitment pool AND their enemies to think that their actions are a symbiotic link to Islam that cannot be denied.

If a devout islamic person agrees their actions are just part of islam, ISIS wins and they get support.

If a moderately Islamic person agrees their actions are just part of Islam, ISIS wins and the person either supports them or rejects them, giving ISIS an excuse to persecute them and their "westernized" mindset and blah blah blah.

If a non Muslim person agrees their actions re just part of islam, ISIS wins and gets to make a propaganda video of you denouncing parts or all of Islam instead of just the terrorists. Which then provides more fuel for them to persuade devout and moderate Muslims to fight against YOUR war on Islam.


Obamas SOLE purpose of what he said was to make a worldwide statement that he does not see Muslims in the same way he sees terrorists. He refuses to link terrorism to Islam. He refuses to agree with ISIS that what they are doing is part of Islam. He wants people of Islam to know that he refuses to link their religion to terrorism.

ISIS is telling Muslims, we are like you. The west thinks we are all the same. Obama is telling and acknowledging with Muslims , they are nothing to do with terrorist organizations.

Turning the debate into some kind of pseudo "we need to DEAL WITH Islam in order to DEAL WITH ISIS" as if the two are in the same category helps absolutely nobody. Not a single person.

Right or wrong doesn't matter. If the outcome of being right means more ISIS support then wtf is the point of being "right"?

A fire needs fuel, oxygen and heat to sustain itself. If you want that fire to go out, you only need to remove one of those elements. Instead it seems people would rather spray gasoline all over the fire just to further their own agenda of criticizing Islam or religion as a whole.

 

[Ushay]

guns don't kill people

Took the words straight out of my mouth.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

You're Sill completely ignoring the actual reasoning of why Obama said what he said.

Its not about being right, its about projecting his view on the situation while also attempting to get others to do the same, fo the good of the fight against the terrorists.

ISIS WANTS both their recruitment pool AND their enemies to think that their actions are a symbiotic link to Islam that cannot be denied.

If a devout islamic person agrees their actions are just part of islam, ISIS wins and they get support.

If a moderately Islamic person agrees their actions are just part of Islam, ISIS wins and the person either supports them or rejects them, giving ISIS an excuse to persecute them and their "westernized" mindset and blah blah blah.

If a non Muslim person agrees their actions re just part of islam, ISIS wins and gets to make a propaganda video of you denouncing parts or all of Islam instead of just the terrorists. Which then provides more fuel for them to persuade devout and moderate Muslims to fight against YOUR war on Islam.


Obamas SOLE purpose of what he said was to make a worldwide statement that he does not see Muslims in the same way he sees terrorists. He refuses to link terrorism to Islam. He refuses to agree with ISIS that what they are doing is part of Islam. He wants people of Islam to know that he refuses to link their religion to terrorism.

ISIS is telling Muslims, we are like you. The west thinks we are all the same. Obama is telling and acknowledging with Muslims , they are nothing to do with terrorist organizations.

Turning the debate into some kind of pseudo "we need to DEAL WITH Islam in order to DEAL WITH ISIS" as if the two are in the same category helps absolutely nobody. Not a single person.

Right or wrong doesn't matter. If the outcome of being right means more ISIS support then wtf is the point of being "right"?

A fire needs fuel, oxygen and heat to sustain itself. If you want that fire to go out, you only need to remove one of those elements. Instead it seems people would rather spray gasoline all over the fire just to further their own agenda of criticizing Islam or religion as a whole.

This guy gets it. Obama is trying to alienate ISIS from communities that might be sources of recruitment.

 

[Drifters]

You're Sill completely ignoring the actual reasoning of why Obama said what he said.

Ok, I disagree but I'll continue.

Its not about being right, its about projecting his view on the situation while also attempting to get others to do the same, fo the good of the fight against the terrorists.

Which my gist of my point is for the terrorists, (to your point below) you cannot remove religion from the identity of the person which again, to my point, even if Obama and every other world leader said the exact same statement doesn't change who the people are nor really does it impact what people believe either, it is just a statement of belief.

ISIS WANTS both their recruitment pool AND their enemies to think that their actions are a symbiotic link to Islam that cannot be denied.

If a devout islamic person agrees their actions are just part of islam, ISIS wins and they get support.

If a moderately Islamic person agrees their actions are just part of Islam, ISIS wins and the person either supports them or rejects them, giving ISIS an excuse to persecute them and their "westernized" mindset and blah blah blah.

If a non Muslim person agrees their actions re just part of islam, ISIS wins and gets to make a propaganda video of you denouncing parts or all of Islam instead of just the terrorists. Which then provides more fuel for them to persuade devout and moderate Muslims to fight against YOUR war on Islam.

Again, to your point of propaganda and who chooses to believe who on what merit.

Obamas SOLE purpose of what he said was to make a worldwide statement that he does not see Muslims in the same way he sees terrorists. He refuses to link terrorism to Islam. He refuses to agree with ISIS that what they are doing is part of Islam. He wants people of Islam to know that he refuses to link their religion to terrorism.

Alright so the issue I have with this is while ISIS (which is what we're talking about here) may not represent Islam (lets say for the sake of this conversation), are other terrorists who claim to be Islamic in nature (Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, et al) not in fact Islamic terrorists? By the word definition of being terrorists and Muslim creates the grouping of Islamic terrorists. Now, if Obama is making a statement that includes those groups as not linking terrorism to Islam then he is as wacky as Bush was in trying to push a revisionist history agenda.

ISIS is telling Muslims, we are like you. The west thinks we are all the same. Obama is telling and acknowledging with Muslims , they are nothing to do with terrorist organizations.

And I think this is where the rub lies in the argument; I would agree that not all Muslims are terrorists, a lot of my close friends are Muslim but as I stated above, even Muslims call the terrorists a perversion of Islam. Again, that goes to your point on who they believe.

Turning the debate into some kind of pseudo "we need to DEAL WITH Islam in order to DEAL WITH ISIS" as if the two are in the same category helps absolutely nobody. Not a single person.

Right or wrong doesn't matter. If the outcome of being right means more ISIS support then wtf is the point of being "right"?

A fire needs fuel, oxygen and heat to sustain itself. If you want that fire to go out, you only need to remove one of those elements. Instead it seems people would rather spray gasoline all over the fire just to further their own agenda of criticizing Islam or religion as a whole.

Islam as with Christianity and Judaism is of course bathed in the blood of history and that history is a brutal past. Again, my stance is Obama's statement is somewhat of a false equivalence in rehashing the mantra of "Not all Muslims are terrorists..." campaign as the world has been aware of that for centuries. That said, the only way we win against groups like ISIS to understand that our humanity as humans is to love and build up and not to tear down. All people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds can partake in that, then ISIS will have no foothold of fear they are parading around with now.

 

[Kenshin001]

I think he is wrong. Religion is responsible for terrorism and it should be called for what it is, Islamic extremism. Terrorism will be defeated once Muslim countries stop propagating a culture of ignorance, intolerance and bigotry and basing their societies on 7th century teachings.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

Took the words straight out of my mouth.

And religion isn't a tool specifically designed to pierce, tear, disfigure and/or explode mortal flesh. Conceptualized, designed, manufactured and sold for the sole purpose of ending a life so I'm thinking maybe the comparison should stop there no?

Ironically, there are many big wigs who can't stand that Obama wont accelerate a huge war by talking about Muslims all the time that have stocks in weapons manufacturing and would profit hugely from an all out confrontation.

 

[Stereogatari]

What makes a muslim a muslim? Because IS are claiming they are muslims, and do so by citing the Qu'ran, and Al-Quaida are claiming they are muslim and doing so by citing the Qu'ran, and pacifist and moderate muslims are claiming they are muslims and do so by citing the Qu'ran.
IMHO they're all muslims, they just handle the literature differently. Just like there are all kinds of Christians over the world who each interpret the Bible differently.

The consensus of Muslims is that the peaceful/moderate interpretations are the correct ones. Because the worldwide norm for Muslims is the peaceful/moderate/slightly conservative at worst interpretation and downright fully liberal at best interpretations (as it is in my ethnic group/country), the argument by the average Muslim is that ISIS and such shouldn't be called Muslim or recognised as such because they are in direct contradiction with what the majority of the world believes Islamic morals are.

It's like Gandhi's quote. "I do not like your Christians, but I like your Christ". That's how the overwhelming majority of Muslims see their religion. To draw an analogy with Gandhi's quote the "I don't like your Muslims" part means ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc. and the "But I like your Christ" part represents the true morals of their religion.

Muslims think their religion promotes Humanistic morals with slight conservative elements at worst. This is why we end up with Muslims claiming ISIS are not Islamic. It's not because they are trying to deflect the blame from their religion, it's because ISIS are genuinely at odds with everything they've been taught about their religion since their births.

 

[Marauder Shields]

Why would the violent Muslims be more Muslim than non violent Muslims?

Or more real? As you sarcastically put it?

Isn't it ultimately a natter of interpretation of religious text in context to the csociety we currently live in and the one we, as non members of that religion, give validity to?

Yeah I was being sarcastic. I hate the whole "real muslim" rhetoric. The only one who knows what a real muslim is is their god, and he ain't showing up anytime soon.

 

[neorej]

The consensus of Muslims is that the peaceful/moderate interpretations are the correct ones. Because the worldwide norm for Muslims is the peaceful/moderate/slightly conservative at worst interpretation and downright fully liberal at best interpretations (as it is in my ethnic group/country), the argument by the average Muslim is that ISIS and such shouldn't be called Muslim or recognised as such because they are in direct contradiction with what the majority of the world believes Islamic morals are.

It's like Gandhi's quote. "I do not like your Christians, but I like your Christ". That's how the overwhelming majority of Muslims see their religion. To draw an analogy with Gandhi's quote the "I don't like your Muslims" part means ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc. and the "But I like your Christ" part represents the true morals of their religion.

Muslims think their religion promotes Humanistic morals with slight conservative elements at worst. This is why we end up with Muslims claiming ISIS are not Islamic. It's not because they are trying to deflect the blame from their religion, it's because ISIS are genuinely at odds with everything they've been taught about their religion since their births.

If that were the consensus, ISIS would be isolated, but there are more than enough muslims outside of ISIS, who feel the same way. Boko Haram for instance, or the imams that travel the world to spread a word of hate, misogyny, bigotry all backed by what's written in the Qu'ran. Like it or not, these people are every inch as much muslim as any other, because they have subscribed to that religion; they worship Allah, they read the Qu'ran, pray 5 times a day, practice ramadan, celebrate sugarfest, etc etc.

The problem with a set of rules described in any holy book, is that they leave a lot of space open for interpretation, and no interpretation is correct, unless we can consult the writer and ask him, which is pretty hard at this point in time.

 

[TheZink]

http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/obama-refuses-to-acknowledge-muslim-terrorists-at-summit/


This is quite the headline.

 

[Feep]

The consensus of Muslims is that the peaceful/moderate interpretations are the correct ones. Because the worldwide norm for Muslims is the peaceful/moderate/slightly conservative at worst interpretation and downright fully liberal at best interpretations (as it is in my ethnic group/country), the argument by the average Muslim is that ISIS and such shouldn't be called Muslim or recognised as such because they are in direct contradiction with what the majority of the world believes Islamic morals are.

It's like Gandhi's quote. "I do not like your Christians, but I like your Christ". That's how the overwhelming majority of Muslims see their religion. To draw an analogy with Gandhi's quote the "I don't like your Muslims" part means ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc. and the "But I like your Christ" part represents the true morals of their religion.

Muslims think their religion promotes Humanistic morals with slight conservative elements at worst. This is why we end up with Muslims claiming ISIS are not Islamic. It's not because they are trying to deflect the blame from their religion, it's because ISIS are genuinely at odds with everything they've been taught about their religion since their births.

In the end, "Muslim" is just a label. To some people, it means belief in Allah, to others, it means following the Quran literally. You can play around all day with what constitutes a "proper Muslim", messing around with No True Scotsman, "taking responsibility", blah blah blah.

At the end of the day, the only question worth considering is whether or not the religion of Islam (or, really, any religion) is a causal factor in people committing atrocities, to which I would say, partially. Obviously, if socioeconomic factors are decent, very very few people will go down that extremist route, but in poor areas, is religion the thing that drives them over the edge? When the world around someone is so painful and devastating, do those people cling onto the truth of their holy book, and become so psychologically dependent on that book that they're willing to espouse the harmful, literal words therein with no regard for common human morality?

I would never advocate that a religious person stop believing, but I also don't think everyone should follow the "everyone is fine just let them believe what they want to" thing, because I think that letting ideas go unchallenged can do genuine harm to our society. It's worth having the conversation.

 

[Stereogatari]

If that were the consensus, ISIS would be isolated, but there are more than enough muslims outside of ISIS, who feel the same way. Boko Haram for instance, or the imams that travel the world to spread a word of hate, misogyny, bigotry all backed by what's written in the Qu'ran. Like it or not, these people are every inch as much muslim as any other, because they have subscribed to that religion; they worship Allah, they read the Qu'ran, pray 5 times a day, practice ramadan, celebrate sugarfest, etc etc.

The problem with a set of rules described in any holy book, is that they leave a lot of space open for interpretation, and no interpretation is correct, unless we can consult the writer and ask him, which is pretty hard at this point in time.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, my post was just trying to enlighten people as to the way Muslims see the situation.

Regarding whether ISIS are Muslim or not and interpretations, there are actually Islamic authorities and institutions that do exist similar to the Christian Church institutions in the West. At least according to the Turkish Religious Affairs Institute (which funnily enough is the direct successor to the last true Caliphate) ISIS have been categorically called un-Islamic. This would be the same as if a Catholic equivalent of ISIS cropped up and the Vatican called them un-Christian. If a Sunni Islamic authority for a major Muslim majority country is calling ISIS un-Islamic then surely that holds some weight in the debate of who is and isn't Muslim and who is or isn't following Islamic morals correctly?

In the end, "Muslim" is just a label. To some people, it means belief in Allah, to others, it means following the Quran literally. You can play around all day with what constitutes a "proper Muslim", messing around with No True Scotsman, "taking responsibility", blah blah blah.

At the end of the day, the only question worth considering is whether or not the religion of Islam (or, really, any religion) is a causal factor in people committing atrocities, to which I would say, partially. Obviously, if socioeconomic factors are decent, very very few people will go down that extremist route, but in poor areas, is religion the thing that drives them over the edge? When the world around someone is so painful and devastating, do those people cling onto the truth of their holy book, and become so psychologically dependent on that book that they're willing to espouse the harmful, literal words therein with no regard for common human morality?

I would never advocate that a religious person stop believing, but I also don't think everyone should follow the "everyone is fine just let them believe what they want to" thing, because I think that letting ideas go unchallenged can do genuine harm to our society. It's worth having the conversation.

I absolutely agree, if these people in the Middle East or Europe that join ISIS had become Atheists as they grew up then the chances they would go on to join ISIS is pretty slim to none.

 

[G.ZZZ]

I disagree. While in principle it's true that it's not about a particular religion, the force religion itself can exert on populations is undoubtely real.

I'd argue that without islam we wouldn't have had the dar-al islam going from Iran to Spain. The middle eastern tribes and empires would've probably remained more local. Divine "ispiration" gave them a reason to go on wars to conquer and convert. The crusades, while mostly political in nature (keeping the political status power of the Pope over the warring northern europe), had a large religious influence that drived europe to reconquer Gerusalem for a while.

While saying "terrorism is islamic" is a obvious lie and simplifcation, saying "religion isn't driving terrorism at all" is false too. Religion play an important part of man psyche, giving an apparent easy way out for all the contradictions that define life.

Also that wording is terrible. Responsibility is something that imply the ability to make choices. An object can't be responsible of anything. It can be only a cause. So in that sense obviously yeah, islam can't be responsible of anything because it's not like it made a choice, it's a cultural artifact. The correct statement should've been "Religion is not the cause of terrorism", which i'd argue yeah that's true, it is not the prime cause, but it's a good inflamer of wills that give people mental strenght to do things they wouldn't normally be able to. The illusion of having authority given by higher powers make people more easily able of evil, like the famous experiment with fake guards and prisoners nicely showed us. Religion is a strong manipulator of human psyche and give us a context, a frame of reference where our actions can always be justified because we're just acting on an higher power's behalf.

 

[Joni]

This would be the same as if a Catholic equivalent of ISIS cropped up and the Vatican called them un-Christian. If a Sunni Islamic authority for a major Muslim majority country is calling ISIS un-Islamic then surely that holds some weight in the debate of who is and isn't Muslim?

It is more closely related to a Christian Baptist saying an Eastern Orthodox Church isn't official Christianity. The acceptance of the Holy Seat is paramount to be Catholic. It is also a representative of 50% of the Christian population. Islam doesn't have any authority on that level.

The consensus of Muslims is that the peaceful/moderate interpretations are the correct ones. Because the worldwide norm for Muslims is the peaceful/moderate/slightly conservative at worst interpretation and downright fully liberal at best interpretations, the argument by the average Muslim is that ISIS and such shouldn't be called Muslim or recognised as such because they are in direct contradiction with what the majority of the world believes Islamic morals are.

The worldwide norm isn't liberal or slightly conservative. It is schockingly conservative with a huge support for Sharia and almost anonymous disapproval of homosexuality for instance. If you go by majority makes the Islam, than that is the Islam you represent too. Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria and Iran can achieve that. They form almost the majority of Islam just on themselves. The lack of a real centralized religious head means that is what you get if you call on the majority to determine what a Muslim is.

 

[dark10x]

The consensus of Muslims is that the peaceful/moderate interpretations are the correct ones. Because the worldwide norm for Muslims is the peaceful/moderate/slightly conservative at worst interpretation and downright fully liberal at best interpretations, the argument by the average Muslim is that ISIS and such shouldn't be called Muslim or recognised as such because they are in direct contradiction with what the majority of the world believes Islamic morals are.

It does seem to me, however, that Islam is far too open to interpretation and people are far too willing to blindly follow religious leaders with their own interpretations. It all seems very manipulative.

 

[Stereogatari]

It is more closely related to a Christian Baptist saying an Eastern Orthodox Church isn't official Christianity. The acceptance of the Holy Seat is paramount to be Catholic. It is also a representative of 50% of the Christian population. Islam doesn't have any authority on that level.


The worldwide norm isn't liberal or slightly conservative. It is schockingly conservative with a huge support for Sharia and almost anonymous disapproval of homosexuality for instance. If you go by majority makes the Islam, than that is the Islam you represent too. Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Egypt, Nigeria and Iran can achieve that. They form almost the majority of Islam just on themselves.

It depends on you look at it. The Turkish Presidency of Religious Affairs (I got its name wrong before) is literally the direct successor of the last Caliphate, so it can be argued that it is the Holy Seat equivalent in Islam, since that's what the Turkish Caliphate represented beforehand.

Let's not twist things here. The conservative nature of the majority of the Muslim world with regards to homosexuality and other such issues is a different ball game compared to the morals of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and such. Let's establish exactly what we're talking about. We're asking "is murderous Islamic extremism the norm in the Muslim world?" It isn't. Bringing morals about homosexuality and support for Sharia and twisting that in with the question of ISIS/Al-Qaeda morals is mixing up two different (similar sure, but still different) subjects.

It does seem to me, however, that Islam is far too open to interpretation and people are far too willing to blindly follow religious leaders with their own interpretations. It all seems very manipulative.

Can't deny that. Will the majority of Muslims think for themselves or follow what scholar X says? It's usually the latter unfortunately.

 

[Zingerale]

Kenyanism

 

[Souldestroyer Reborn]

What makes a muslim a muslim? Because IS are claiming they are muslims, and do so by citing the Qu'ran, and Al-Quaida are claiming they are muslim and doing so by citing the Qu'ran, and pacifist and moderate muslims are claiming they are muslims and do so by citing the Qu'ran.
IMHO they're all muslims, they just handle the literature differently. Just like there are all kinds of Christians over the world who each interpret the Bible differently.

Came in to say this.

 

[Joni]

Let's not twist things here. The conservative nature of the majority of the Muslim world with regards to homosexuality and other such issues is a different ball game compared to the morals of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and such. Let's establish exactly what we're talking about. We're asking "is murderous Islamic extremism the norm in the Muslim world?" It isn't. Bringing morals about homosexuality and support for Sharia and twisting that in with the question of ISIS/Al-Qaeda morals is mixing up two different (similar sure, but still different) subjects.

I'm mainly saying that by your own arguments you yourself are no true Muslim. You consider yourself a true Muslim but your views - if aren't for Sharia and against gays of course - aren't accepted by a majority of Muslims. By your argument that most Muslims don't accept the extremist views of ISIS, you need to accept that you aren't one either. I consider myself a Catholic, I'm registered as a Catholic. I'm a terrible Catholic as I support abortion, euthanasia and condoms. Still a Catholic though, no matter what the majority of the Christians might think. They are Muslims, just like you are. Both different interpretations of the same source.

 

[Stereogatari]

I'm mainly saying that by your own arguments you yourself are no true Muslim. You consider yourself a true Muslim but your views - if aren't for Sharia and against gays of course - aren't accepted by a majority of Muslims. By your argument that most Muslims don't accept the extremist views of ISIS, you need to accept that you aren't one either. I consider myself a Catholic, I'm registered as a Catholic. I'm a terrible Catholic as I support abortion, euthanasia and condoms. Still a Catholic though, no matter what the majority of the Christians might think. They are Muslims, just like you are. Both different interpretations of the same source.

I'm an Atheist .

But admittedly I'm arguing the position of Turkish Islam, which is on average much more like European/American Christianity than it is to the Middle East/South Asian Islamic norm. Though we are admittedly a big, big exception and anomaly to the norms of the rest of the Muslim World.

 

[ChristianTW]

I'm an Atheist .

So then he was not wrong. You are not a true Muslim.

 

[Stereogatari]

So then he was not wrong. You are not a true Muslim.

I never claimed to be anyway. I just think it's easy to view things a certain way and be extra harsh when you're not from that sphere of the world or culture, that's why I like to kind of defend the average Muslims position (despite being an Atheist and critical of oraganised religion myself). Because I'm defending the religion of my parents, my grandparents and my family, friends and relatives.

 

[Joni]

I'm an Atheist .

But admittedly I'm arguing the position of Turkish Islam, which is on average much more like European/American Christianity than it is to the Middle East/South Asian Islamic norm. Though we are admittedly a big, big exception and anomaly to the norms of the rest of the Muslim World.

In that case: your mom, dad, family members and friends for which it is applicable.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

It does seem to me, however, that Islam is far too open to interpretation and people are far too willing to blindly follow religious leaders with their own interpretations. It all seems very manipulative.

This is really why the religion and its text are in dire need of some reformation and a new testament equivalent of the Quran.

It being the exclusive word of God is a tired excuse that has no merit. Change it, if God objects, I'm sure God will come down and let everyone know how bad and wrong decision that was.

Until that happens, there's no reason not to bring the religion and its text into line with a modern society.

Continuing to claim it can't be changed is engaging in wilful ignorance, almost verging on being dangerous.

 

[Kenshin001]

This is really why the religion and its text are in dire need of some reformation and a new testament equivalent of the Quran.

It being the exclusive word of God is a tired excuse that has no merit. Change it, if God objects, I'm sure God will come down and let everyone know how bad and wrong decision that was.

Until that happens, there's no reason not to bring the religion and its text into line with a modern society.

Continuing to claim it can't be changed is engaging in wilful ignorance, almost verging on being dangerous.

You can't just change the text. You can only ignore the extreme parts which is what most Muslims do. I think they need to ignore even more of it though and certainly not base the laws of their countries on it.

 

[jchap]

Denial is cute

 

[Stereogatari]

You can't just change the text. You can only ignore the extreme parts which is what most Muslims do. I think they need to ignore even more of it though and certainly not base the laws of their countries on it.

It's not that they ignore it, they are just fucking literally ignorant about it.

The majority of Muslims can't even speak/understand Arabic and don't even bother to seek out translated versions of the Quran to read.

The majority of Muslims literally have no idea what their religious texts are about, like if I argued with the Muslims I know IRL they wouldn't start quoting Quran verses off the top of their head since they don't fucking know them (I know it better than them lol).

 

[Air]

Well since most terrorist attacks are done by non Muslims I'd have to agree.

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609796/islamist-terrorism-europe/

It's the only logical conclusion really.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

Disagreed. Religion is part of the problem.

Disagreed. Communism is part of the problem.
Disagreed. soccer is part of the problem.
Disagreed. hockey is part of the problem.
Disagreed. capitalism is part of the problem.

See what I did there?

 

[ShemhazaiX]

Ask yourself: If religion didn't exist or stopped existing, would terrorism still exist?

I think at the maximum, religion would be partially responsible or at least used by zealots to try and rationalize what they are doing.

Ask the IRA.

 

[neorej]

Disagreed. Communism is part of the problem.
Disagreed. soccer is part of the problem.
Disagreed. hockey is part of the problem.
Disagreed. capitalism is part of the problem.

See what I did there?

So, what you're saying is that muslim communist hockey-playing footballers from capitalist countries are the problem?

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

Can anyone say what we would get out of calling it Islamic Terror instead of just Terror? I've never heard any proposals for what would come as a result of that.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

So, what you're saying is that muslim communist hockey-playing footballers from capitalist countries are the problem?

Yep. Everything is a problem once getting on the extreme side.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Ask the IRA.

The IRA is not considered a religiously motivated group by Europol.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'm not sure the definition matters. Are they Islamic terrorists? Sure. But I fail to see how not calling them that=endangering the US, not leading, not admitting to a problem, etc. This right wing struggle over definitions strikes me as semantics.

 

[David Incorporated Esq.]

I'm not sure the definition matters. Are they Islamic terrorists? Sure. But I fail to see how not calling them that=endangering the US, not leading, not admitting to a problem, etc. This right wing struggle over definitions strikes me as semantics.

Worse, it legitimizes ISIS and aides their recruiting because it reinforces the idea of the West being at war with Islam. It's not even that hard to understand.

 

[Maninthemirror]

You can't just change the text. You can only ignore the extreme parts which is what most Muslims do. I think they need to ignore even more of it though and certainly not base the laws of their countries on it.

Majority moderate muslim ignores no part of the text. People who aren't even muslim should stop lying and spreading misinformation when muslims on GAF are right here telling them they don't.

I know it's the only definition that works for you but unfortunately for you that doesn't make it true

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

To all of you saying these are Muslims and we need to recognize that they are by saying we are fighting Muslims: I can say I am a republican. My views are almost completely Democratic, but I can still run for office and say I am a republican. Republicans will almost always say, "He isn't truly a republican!" And people would agree. It is the same thing in this case. They claim to be Muslim. Doesn't mean they really are.

Also, this is a quote from Hitler: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Yet we never said we were at war with Christianity.

And we aren't at war with Islam, who is saying that we are? All I have said and stuff that others have said is that they disagree with POTUS. Terrorism can be to blame for terrorism.

 

[ShemhazaiX]

The IRA is not considered a religiously motivated group by Europol.

Yes. That was exact point I was making. :|
Dude said if religion didn't exist would there still be terrorism. I pointed out that yes, terrorism exists without a religious catalyst.

Majority moderate muslim ignores no part of the text. People who aren't even muslim should stop lying and spreading misinformation when muslims on GAF are right here telling them they don't.

I know it's the only definition that works for you but unfortunately for you that doesn't make it true

As someone who has spent the last six years dating a "Moderate" Muslim, you're actually incorrect. It really depends on where they come from. If it's Saudi Arabia, then they're probably going to say "YES WE AGREE WITH THE QURAN 100% PLEASE DON'T CALL THE RELIGIOUS POLICE ON US". If they're moderate Muslims in the UK, they'll probably ignore the parts about beheading and stuff.