Why is Islam the only violent religion in the 21st century? I can understand crusades and other religious initiatives in a time as superstitious as the Dark Ages, but come now, haven't we progressed beyond that? Don't you think that if the Pope declared a holy war even the most devout Catholics would say "wtf old man? go suck a shaved one!"
I don't think it's because Christians are less religious or lesser zealots (Jews certainly aren't, and I think their response would be the same), it's just that they've become peaceful religions somehow. How?
It's because Muslims are the only ones threatened at this time? The holocaust wasn't that long ago, and I never read about any Hebrew suicide bombers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is my counter:
15 comments:
Good question. I don't see the Pope blowing up all the homosexuals in Sydney etc
There is a lot of stuff in the Koran that condones and glorifies violence that Muslim leaders refuse to believe is anything but infallible because it came straight from the lips of Muhammad. Well, the Bible is supposed to be the word of God as well but Christian leaders have recognised sins of scripture and attempted to remedy them
Here is a really good article about that by Irshad Manji: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16034307%5E7583,00.html
That's just one of many thoughts on the whole thing
a peaceful religion indeed....
anyone can use religion for terrorism, and there's no denial that Christian terrorists exist, yet there is no doubt more Islamic terrorists exist than Christian ones... and how many Christian leaders condone that guy?
The FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list contains no Christians as far as I can tell. They are mostly Egyptians, Lebanese, and Saudis.
Arai, your blanket characterization of Islam as a violent religion is not accurate. "Islamic terrorist" is about as bizzare a term as "Christian terrorist." Neither religion condones violence, and it's extremely misguided whackos like Rudolph and bin Laden who use certain religions to fulfill their sadistic, murderous fantasies.
Also, I think most Muslims would tell Osama/any terrorist leader to "go suck a shaved one." You're likening extremist maniacs to the Pope. It's not the Islamic equivalent of the Pope who's declaring a holy war...
Nevertheless, I have heard about far fewer terrorist acts commited in the name of Christianity than Islamism.
I agree with you wholeheartedly Dariau, except with your last statement. If you made list of the atrocities committed in Christ's name it would probably surpass anything terrorists have done, slavery and colonialism being two that immediately spring to mind.
I certainly don't believe Eric Rudolph is a Christian, and that's entirely my point Arai and Rachel. People are only too willing to use their faith to justify unspeakable horrors that they perpertrate on others, but that doesn't make the religion in any way complicit.
I wholeheartedly agree that the religion in itself is not complicit, but there are certain passages in the Koran various Muslim leaders use to condone violence. I can't think of many Christians in today's age who throw stones at those who commit adultery, I can, however, think of a few Muslims who use passages from the Koran or a selective smorgasbord of ahadith to justify the killing of infidels, homosexuals and adulterers. Hence the religion is not as such responsible, but is being selectively used by minority to condone violence and murder.
really dariau...so that whole thing about dying violently in a jihad and going straight to heaven, that's not true?
and on this maybe my perception is old fashioned, i really don't know: they no longer cut off your hands for stealing/your tongue for lying?
and all of you, what about that woman who got sentenced to gang rape by a local islamic council in pakistan last year? surely you remember this. as i recall, the entire town participated in the proceedings, yet nobody helped the woman avoid "justice."
and dariau, most importantly, i think muslims, as jews, technically, are barred from shaving. they have to suck hairy ones.
Sarunai, I said that I have heard about far less Christian terrorist acts, not atrocities. I imagine that Christian atrocities far outnumber Muslim ones.
arai, yeah, i wasn't so secure about writing "shaved one." that should probably be reserved for Buddhist monks.
also, arai, i don't know enough about the Koran to dispute everything you wrote, but i imagine that the Koran does not promote violence as foundation of Islam. The whole thing about going to heaven after dying in a violent jihad, I believe is a misinterpretation (72 Virginians!) and the cutting off of hands/tongues or lex talionis is not originally a Muslim phenomenon, but comes from Hammurabi's Babylonian law code. I don't deny that this happens in Muslim countries as an application of Sharia law, but I doubt that such punishments are taken from the Koran.
I do not recall a woman being sentenced to gang rape. I do recall a woman being sentenced to death by stoning for adultery: Safiya Hussaini Tungar-Tudu in Northern Nigeria.
Do any of you know anything more definitive about Sharia law and the Koran?
i decided recently to try to get my hands on a copy of the koran in english, as well as the old and new testaments. that'd be really awesome if it wasn't in old english, though, and even if it was i don't know where to find copies of them in klaipeda.
i've heard (mostely from rachel's site, but not only there), dariau, that in fact there is plenty of stuff in the koran about how non muslims are not considered people and that they're to be exterminated via open warfare as well as infiltration, as is the case in switzerland. however, i'm afraid this might be propagana, which is why i want my own copies of the books.
also dude, buddhist monks shave everything; i think the pope just shaves his face, armpits, and johnson.
Don't bother with the Qur'an, Arabic is untranslatable into English. It'll just sound stupid.
Most of the really crazy crap in the Bible is found in the first 5 Books, including commands to destroy cities (and their inhabitants) if they refuse surrender, punihments for prostitution, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and adultery (death for all of them), under which circumstances you can sell your children into slavery, etc. etc.
There's the book of Ezekiel (or maybe elijah) that relates how Israelites who followed another god where slaughtered on the prophet's command.
It must be said that there's much less stuff like that in the NT.
But it's all crap anyways. Terrorists aren't violent because they're Muslims any more than the reason American jails are filled with Africans is because they have some genetic disposition towards crime. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think you'll find the answers to terrorism in the Qur'an; after all, a thousand years ago, the situations were reversed: the Muslims were enlightened and peaceful and the Christians were barbaric and violent. The scripture didn't changed, so what happened...?
i'm glad this entry has led to fruitful discussion, i actually feel like i'm learning something. one question remains unaddressed.
if scripture isn't what causes suicide bombings, what does? I can't imagine ever blowing my self up on purpose except for two reasons: it was an absolute last resort means to save my family's lives, or because i believed it was a jihad style get into heavan free card.
are they being brainwashed by another source maybe?
now i feel like we're the scooby bunch and we're getting to the bottom of something...
The NY Times had an interesting article a few weeks ago about the men who perpetrated the London bombing in July, and it explored the same question you just posed Arai: why the hell young men (and in some cases women) are blowing themselves up. The answer came out pretty inconclusive. Some of the guys were young, poor, and disillusioned, but not all of them were. Some were professionals, slightly older, people with no basic qualms with their life in Britain.
In other cases, the reasons for terrorism are obvious. The Chechens are fighting against what basically amounts to genocide, and strike back whichever way they can. Ditto for the Palestinians, imho.
The Times also spoke to some Isreali security experts after that unfortunate incident where a Brazilian man was gunned down on the Tube by trigger-happy police. The Israelis, who've got more experience than anyone on this issue, said that ethnic-profiling won't work (and especially not in the ME). What you have to do is behaviour-profiling; see who is acting funny or out of place; a pregnant woman flying on a plane was an example they gave.
But why these people are doing it? No one really knows.
Interesting: Why Do Suicide Bombers Do It?
The article ties together a lot of what's gone back and forth in these comments and sheds some light on the statistics of the whole thing:
''Dying to Win" draws on a thorough database of all suicide attacks recorded since the contemporary practice was born during the Lebanese civil war in the early 1980s: a total of 315 incidents through 2003, involving 462 suicidal attackers. Of the 384 attackers for whom Pape has data, who committed their deeds in such danger zones as Sri Lanka (where the decidedly non-fundamentalist, quasi-Marxist Tamil Tigers have used suicide attacks since 1987 in their fight for a Tamil homeland), Israel, Chechnya, Iraq, and New York, only 43 percent came from religiously affiliated groups. The balance, 57 percent, came from secular groups. Strikingly, during the Lebanese civil war, he says, some 70 percent of suicide attackers were Christians (though members of secular groups).
I don't get why New York is lumped together with Iraq and Sri Lanka as a "danger zone," but OK...
The end of the article is especially fair in mentioning that there is a lack of data, and that suicide bombings are quite rare despite the coverage they receive. Also, how come kamikaze pilots aren't considered the first suicide bombers? Is it because they didn't attack civilians?
i think you're right, and i thought of that too, incidentally: kamikazes didn't attack civilians. just like somebody doused in gasoline setting himself on fire; that's certainly suicide, and it's rather bomb-like, or at least molotov coktail-like...but he's not called a suiced bomber unless he's a terrorist. even in guerilla warfare i don't think the term "suiced momber" applies. oops, i meant "suicide bomber."
exactly. if you're attacking military targets then it's not terrorism. although sometimes terrorists attack military targets as well. but then they're terrorists engaging in military acts. i think you have to look at the individual act, the players involved, and the overarching goal to really get a good picture of what to call someone or their attack.
Post a Comment