NSR Netherlands: Current events (in the world).

Source?

 

I forgot to touch on this. There are some important differences. It is possible to say that the old testament is more violent than the Quran, however and this is important, Jesus was a hippy and Mo was certainly not. We are talking about a man that has used the sword time and again. Medina Mo (his second period) was not a hippy. Moreover the verses of that time are generally seen as abrogating the verses of his Mekka time. Also success is tied by using force. In his first period he only converted like 150 people I think, only when he started to use the sword he became big and powerful. Islam then spread over the years all the way to Spain. The prophets are different and this really matters as Muslims in general see him as this person to live up to. He is the example.

There is also another important thing. This:

Matthew 22:21English Standard Version (ESV)

21 They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.”

Such an opening allows us to have secularism. Where is this in Islam? This is what Erdogan had to say some time ago about secularism:



And this is how societies fall. This is how theocracies and backwardness is born. This is what we now will see happening in Turkey. We have lost the one country that could have been to theocracy. Just watch that creep undressing Turkey bit by bit and installing a theocracy.

It is no coincidence that no Muslim country is free and no Muslim country exists that does not discriminate minorities.

 

Alright, but then you acknowledge my point. I also see yours. I disagree with your conclusion from what I wrote. I clearly stated that the old testament can be seen as more violent than the Quran. I formulate differences as solutions to problems need to be tailor made. You can not treat all problems as if they are the same. Mo is an important person in Islam and not to mention what kind of man that was vs a Jesus would be a mistake. A huge question to Christians is: What would Jesus do? You hear that all the time. Is it smart to say: What would Mo do? So we have to map things the correct way and I on my turn can not understand people who treat such differences with such casualty. Especially the people we actually talk about that take the text literal and read about their prophet and his behavior are effected by the details of things. It is quite a central thing and this matters.

Keep in mind that today, more people are killed in the name of Islam every year than in 350 years of Inquisitions. Most of this happens in 5 countries. Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Most are carried out by ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, the Taliban.

Also this:




To get a picture. Watch a site like this where they just track 1 month (november 2014):

Link

Another important difference is that Islam is not central. The Catholics have a pope, while Muslims do not know such a top down structure. This matters.

If you look at solutions, it makes no sense to say all things are equal, let's move on. You need to look at what the best strategy is to go about to change things for the better. Maybe a weird analogy, but since we just talked about it. There were the Americans, invading Iraq. They might have wanted to create something to the image of Japan and Germany, but had no clue of the hate between shia and sunni's and on top of that they fired Sadam's army leaders that then out of resentment started a group we call ISIS. You can have great intentions, but that is not enough. You need to understand what you are dealing with.

 

​

 

Al Zaidi (open) Al Zaidi (close)

In the wake of the attack on Paris, there has been an exceptional amount of rhetoric floating around online against Muslims, Middle-easterners, and refugees. Deflecting this indiscriminate blame and targeting away from Muslims and refugees as a whole is both the reasonable and the right thing to do; it is childish as it is dangerous for people to blame such a large, diverse group of people for the actions of a relative, radical few.

That being said, as a member of this group of people who is likely to face the most scrutiny and discrimination in the wake of these attacks, I feel that the rising tide of xenophobia and (anti-Muslim//Refugee/”Brown people”) rhetoric emanating from right-wingers such as the the Tea Party, French National Front, UKIP, PEGIDA, and other reactionary groups - both in Europe and America - is ENABLED by many self-proclaimed LIBERALS and leftists in ways they simply do not understand.

Let me explain. Take a closer look at the people responsible for many of the high-profile acts of terrorism in France in the last year:
- We know - for a fact - that the perpetrators of the Charlie Hebdo shooting and the Saint-Quentin Fallavier beheading were native, FRENCH-BORN nationals who adopted jihadist ideology later in life. Reports of yesterday’s attacks from eye-witnesses and victims state the the Bataclan shooter yelled and raved about Syria and Iraq in French, making it extremely-likely that these attackers were also french nationals-turned-jihadists.
- It is estimated that at least 1,400 french citizens have gone to fight for ISIS, with officials estimating that hundreds may have managed to come back undetected.
- This phenomenon surpasses borders: In the UK, we saw the same thing: the 7/7 bombings were perpetrated almost entirely by native Brit-turned-jihadists. The UK also is a source of Europeans going abroad to fight with ISIS.

This phenomenon is so much different than at the start of the century, where in attacks like 9/11, the perpetrators were almost entirely composed of Saudi nationals - foreigners.

So the question to ask is this: What is it that is causing native European citizens to turn into radicals and jihadists, to go bomb and kill the very communities they have grown up around, and to go off and fight in the Middle East? To someone like me, who has grown up among a variety of communities of conservative and traditional Muslims, the answer is pretty obvious:

It starts with the advocation of (relatively) new phenomenon of face-value, literalist, “back-to-fundamentals” reading/interpretation of Islamic scriptures, one designed to lead
a susceptible believer to various radical schools of thought, such as Islamism, Salafism, and Wahabism, all which have contributed to the modern Jihadist-terrorist movement.

Here is the thing to note: Islamic Scripture, just like many other religious scriptures - including the Old and New Testaments - is filled with charitable, progressive, pacifist, and otherwise ‘peaceful’ content. Likewise, it is holds content that we would today find to be intolerant, radical, and even violent. This content does not reflect on the Muslim population as a whole anymore than Old Testament verses advocating for stoning those who ‘break the sabbath’ or wear ‘clothes of mixed-fibers’ reflect on Jewish or Christian people as a whole.

What does matter is the lens through which these scriptures are viewed and acted upon, and right now, there is a VAST amount of money and intellectual capital being spent by entities like Saudi Arabia (who finance mosques and “Madrassas” - religious schools - all over the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and now expands to Europe as well). to propagate their Wahhabi-Islamist ways of interpreting and acting on scripture.

Ask Pakistani’s. Our country did not face widespread issues of religious terrorism until Saudi money and human capital started to flow into the region during the Mujahideen movement at the end of the last century.

If we wish to truly and effectively stop this cycle of violence, it starts with dealing with the fountainhead of radical Islamic ideology - the Wahabi and Islamist institutions responsible for sowing the seeds of Jihadism, and more importantly, their state sponsors - before they can indoctrinate people who are susceptible to this sort of religious propaganda.

Unfortunately, the right-wing in both Europe and America constantly derail the focus and dialogue regarding these vile institutions by introducing blame upon the entire Muslim population for violence such as that committed in Paris.

The reason that the right-wing is able to so effectively and pervasively derail the conversation is VERY MUCH because they are enabled by a new strain of American and European liberals. You will find many, MANY reformist, liberal, or secular Muslims and middle-easterners (such as Raif Badawi, Maajid Nawaz, Irshad Manji, Asra Nomani, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, and Ali A. Rizvi,) attempt to identify and speak out against Islamism, the various destructive strains of conservative Islam, or the role fundamentalist interpretations of scripture contribute to radical Islamic violence.

The problem is, there is a “coalition” of the politically-correct: many conservative, semi-moderate, and reactionary Muslims in conjunction with a very large group of well-intentioned, yet utterly reactionary liberals. This coalition utterly stifles conversation and dialogue with various tactics such as illogical fallacies like “Not True Muslims (a variation of the No True Scotsman fallacy),” or stamping labels such as “Islamophobia” on any dialogue in which they conflate CRITICISMS of Islamic doctrine as being verbal ATTACKS on Muslims as a whole, usually motivated by this new, incessant need to be politically hyper-correct.

Consequently, if this ‘Coalition of the Politically-correct’ keeps trying to move the goalpost and consistently denying that the acts and ideals of groups like ISIS have any basis - even a warped basis - in Islamic scripture, we can never identify and ideologically target the institutions who sow the seeds for Jihadism by propagating these radical interpretations of Islamic scripture (such as Islam's closest version to the Vatican - Al-Azhar - whose leaders label various groups such as reformist, liberal, and Shia Muslims as heretics, but REFUSE to do the same for ISIS). Nor we can never identify and target the sponsors and financial backers of this ideological strain

If we cannot be brave enough to to call a spade a spade, to identify the problem WITHIN, the root of the ideology that drives and sustains groups like ISIS, then we can NEVER effectively counter them, with words or with weapons. As a consequence the right wing will continue to convince people that ” ALL muslims “ are at fault.

Solving this problem entails identifying it first, and as a lifelong liberal, and as someone who was born and raised a Muslim, I sincerely believe that many liberals actively make it more difficult for the rest of us to address the problem when they insist to stifle this tough but necessary dialogue with their insistence of political correctness. This only continues to let the right-wing draw in frustrated people and define the conversation in a very ugly manner.

 

“They corralled the wheelchair spectators on the first floor balcony and shot them each individually.” https://t.co/Rsc1UCnzVx

— Laura Nahmias (@nahmias) November 15, 2015

 

665641605618139136 is not a valid tweet id

 

On the contrary. The point is to move to the opposite direction where we enter a sincere debate and maybe also go into a process of Socratic questioning to understand each other better and as such have more respect for each other. Humanize each other more. This is what I mean:



Now contrast that with this yelling match:

Link

So the way forward is not to resort to lower forms emotions or even states, but to go for higher ones than we currently are. We as a society have to bring each other in a state of wonder almost. Where we question our believes and convictions and inspect the logic of them. All forms of force, threat and compulsion are huge spoilers in such a process. A process that really can bring about change in people.


So your idea can not be more wrong imo.

 

https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/still-sleepwalking-01

 

You are killing a thread with this stuff, you know that? I really want this garbage out of here. It is disgusting and repulsive. This belongs on some ultra right wing loonies site. I have no idea what makes you think you can post this here.

Besides you do the exact thing you say you hate. Make victims that have nothing to do with this all. Only in way bigger numbers. So that puts you in the same basket as these guys you say you condemn, actually worse.

 

Then read the text in your own picture. It does not say ISIS, but Muslim world. They are running away from those butchers and need support, not nukes. And there is a huge difference between nukes and precision airstrikes. They get intel and then go after a specific target. Yes mistakes are made, but the intention is target those who are involved in these despicable acts. If the collateral damage of this method already seems to be a a source for recruiting and people joining, then what would a nuke do? It would be the ultimate recruiting tool. Also there is already way too much destruction:



And you think destroying it even more would make that place ever livable again? You want to put the refugees in camps until they can return and you think they can return after we have nuked the place. I mean even in your own logic this does not make much sense, does it?

Also, the main problem remains and would feed upon such actions. Wahhabism. It has spread through all kinds of madrasas and is programming young children with toxic ideas and mentality. This has also gone to Pakistan and they are a border line crazy. What if a nuke would trigger certain forces there to go give one to ISIS? Ever thought of that? Such huge actions would have huge reactions and it would destabilize the world to levels we have not seen it yet. Now countries who want nukes can be held back, once you start to use them they will all want them their selves. It would make the world a far less safer place and potentially dwarf anything we have seen in Paris.

Again, the long term solution is now go after the spread of Wahhabism and to start a process of Socratic questioning with the moderates among us. We need to make things more mellow and calm. I heard that France is going after mosques now that spread hate. That is more or less wahhabism, a hateful branch. However it is not enough. They need to heal relationships with the people in those banlieue neighborhoods and humanize each other more. Not just drinking thee, no, make the steps with people in their logic and then question them about it. Challenge them. All while also creating perspective there and pointing to own responsibility. The blame and entitlement culture needs to go as well.

 

No I don't need to read up on nuclear weapons, you need to stop reading about them. Radiation considerations did not even enter the equation with what I wrote. I talk about the total destruction it leaves behind and posted a video so you can see it is already horrible. If you have the opinion that refugees must go back the moment they can, then going for far bigger destruction makes no sense. These are people we are talking about. They have the same needs as we do, breath the same air and have the same hopes. They have to return to something worth going back to. Otherwise you get what? More recruits. Then you will come in some years from now and demand more nukes and then what? You see the spiral?

What needs to be done is hard work. Any nuke thinking is, apart from utterly morally wrong and despicable, also lazy. There are no quick fixes and the work that needs to be done is deprogramming large groups in your society. Not just the tip, the real terrorists, but below them there is a group with sympathies and overlapping ideas that kind of gives those terrorists a feeling of justification and semi support. I read the other day of a Muslim apostate who heard his mom express compassion for the people who died in this terror attack. Not for the killed ones, but the terrorists. It made him angry and he went looking for an apartment to leave the household. There is a lot of work to do and it involves communicating. I would say, higher level communication even mixed with a flavor of activism. A counter narrative needs to created vs that of what Wahhabism and everything around it offers.

 

And to add to that, if the French right after the attack can differentiate perfectly, then who is anybody else to not do so:


Iraqi and Lebanese people being hit in a coordinated attack with Paris, facing the exact same problem. Iraq even warned us for an attack going by the post of Suren. We must not do any nuking, we must listen and communicate better and counter the people spreading hate.