I really don't understand how people can claim these attacks are "nothing to do with Islam", thus absolving this barbaric religion of any responsibility when these bombers are shouting "Allah Akbar" before murdering tens of people.
Allahu Ackbar actually. If Islam didn't exist you would probably find a band of die hard Christians, they'd do the same whilst screaming 'in the name of the father' or something similar.
RIP to those who lost their innocent lives because some parasites hate those who aren't like them.
Social media obviously at this time can be a platform for absolute idiots. Take a look at any comments section regarding a terrorist attack and it is full of people on some sort of mission to ignore the disaster and have an outcry that not everywhere gets the same coverage, like it's some sort of competition and point scoring.
So before we go on a witch hunt, let's not quite yet go after these two as if they're ALREADY guilty.
Doubt the police would leak their pictures unless they were sure.
Don't know anything about the Belgian police, but I do know that we had a picture of two young men who turned out to have nothing to do with events splashed around after the Boston bombing.
The one consistent thing in cases like this is that the immediate aftermath is chaos. Sorry I'm so Ameri-centric today but in the immediate aftermath of Columbine and Oklahoma City there were all sorts of claims made that turned out to be untrue.
So before we go on a witch hunt, let's not quite yet go after these two as if they're ALREADY guilty.
Doubt the police would leak their pictures unless they were sure.
Don't know anything about the Belgian police, but I do know that we had a picture of two young men who turned out to have nothing to do with events splashed around after the Boston bombing.
The one consistent thing in cases like this is that the immediate aftermath is chaos. Sorry I'm so Ameri-centric today but in the immediate aftermath of Columbine and Oklahoma City there were all sorts of claims made that turned out to be untrue.
I really don't understand how people can claim these attacks are "nothing to do with Islam", thus absolving this barbaric religion of any responsibility when these bombers are shouting "Allah Akbar" before murdering tens of people.
Allahu Ackbar actually. If Islam didn't exist you would probably find a band of die hard Christians, they'd do the same whilst screaming 'in the name of the father' or something similar.
I really don't understand how people can claim these attacks are "nothing to do with Islam", thus absolving this barbaric religion of any responsibility when these bombers are shouting "Allah Akbar" before murdering tens of people.
Allahu Ackbar actually. If Islam didn't exist you would probably find a band of die hard Christians, they'd do the same whilst screaming 'in the name of the father' or something similar.
So leme get this straight, there's christian terrorist waiting in the wings somewhere they're just not plotting anything yet because it's the Islamist's turn, jesus wept.
I really don't understand how people can claim these attacks are "nothing to do with Islam", thus absolving this barbaric religion of any responsibility when these bombers are shouting "Allah Akbar" before murdering tens of people.
Allahu Ackbar actually. If Islam didn't exist you would probably find a band of die hard Christians, they'd do the same whilst screaming 'in the name of the father' or something similar.
But they don't though do they
Well they started the KKK, so i'm not sure you're right there.
Here's some other examples of Christian Terrorism... to say they don't do it is inaccurate. They're just not at this moment of history.
I really don't understand how people can claim these attacks are "nothing to do with Islam", thus absolving this barbaric religion of any responsibility when these bombers are shouting "Allah Akbar" before murdering tens of people.
Allahu Ackbar actually. If Islam didn't exist you would probably find a band of die hard Christians, they'd do the same whilst screaming 'in the name of the father' or something similar.
So leme get this straight, there's christian terrorist waiting in the wings somewhere they're just not plotting anything yet because it's the Islamist's turn, jesus wept.
I really wish they'd go back to "waiting in the wings"
I really don't understand how people can claim these attacks are "nothing to do with Islam", thus absolving this barbaric religion of any responsibility when these bombers are shouting "Allah Akbar" before murdering tens of people.
Allahu Ackbar actually. If Islam didn't exist you would probably find a band of die hard Christians, they'd do the same whilst screaming 'in the name of the father' or something similar.
But they don't though do they
Well they started the KKK, so i'm not sure you're right there.
Here's some other examples of Christian Terrorism... to say they don't do it is inaccurate. They're just not at this moment of history.
I really don't understand how people can claim these attacks are "nothing to do with Islam", thus absolving this barbaric religion of any responsibility when these bombers are shouting "Allah Akbar" before murdering tens of people.
Allahu Ackbar actually. If Islam didn't exist you would probably find a band of die hard Christians, they'd do the same whilst screaming 'in the name of the father' or something similar.
So leme get this straight, there's christian terrorist waiting in the wings somewhere they're just not plotting anything yet because it's the Islamist's turn, jesus wept.
Can't say for certain, however I wouldn't be surprised if Christian or any other extremist groups were plotting retaliation or attacks on any other religion.
Sadly this is because these attacks aren't surprising anymore...
That's not to say they're not terrifying as they genuinely are, but I'm no longer surprised to hear things like this happening, which is a really depressing thought.
I really don't understand how people can claim these attacks are "nothing to do with Islam", thus absolving this barbaric religion of any responsibility when these bombers are shouting "Allah Akbar" before murdering tens of people.
Allahu Ackbar actually. If Islam didn't exist you would probably find a band of die hard Christians, they'd do the same whilst screaming 'in the name of the father' or something similar.
So leme get this straight, there's christian terrorist waiting in the wings somewhere they're just not plotting anything yet because it's the Islamist's turn, jesus wept.
I really wish they'd go back to "waiting in the wings"
I really don't understand how people can claim these attacks are "nothing to do with Islam", thus absolving this barbaric religion of any responsibility when these bombers are shouting "Allah Akbar" before murdering tens of people.
Allahu Ackbar actually. If Islam didn't exist you would probably find a band of die hard Christians, they'd do the same whilst screaming 'in the name of the father' or something similar.
But they don't though do they
Well they started the KKK, so i'm not sure you're right there.
Here's some other examples of Christian Terrorism... to say they don't do it is inaccurate. They're just not at this moment of history.
I really don't understand how people can claim these attacks are "nothing to do with Islam", thus absolving this barbaric religion of any responsibility when these bombers are shouting "Allah Akbar" before murdering tens of people.
Allahu Ackbar actually. If Islam didn't exist you would probably find a band of die hard Christians, they'd do the same whilst screaming 'in the name of the father' or something similar.
There is no current strand of Christian ideology at all comparable with modern Jihadism though.
Jihadism of course does not represent or have anything to do with VAST MAJORITY of peaceful Muslims, but it's a globe-spanning ideology with numerous groups nonetheless. Equating it with modern Christianity is absurd.
I study Islam academically and I think I can answer this for you. As a preface, I'm one of the people who is disgusted at the anti-Muslim rhetoric out there. I can't go on /r/worldnews anymore because it's full of idiots who know nothing about the religion and nothing about Islamic politics. I could talk all day about why they're wrong, but this is not the place.
It is wrong to say "ISIS are not Muslims" and it is extremely unhelpful to separate them from the religion. My tutor actually has spoken on national TV and written articles about this exact topic. He is a Shi'a Muslim and an academic, and he argues - quite correctly I think - that if you ignore the religious roots of the group then you cannot possible grasp the problem. Because their ideology, their beliefs and their objectives, are entirely religious. They fit within a framework that is Islamic (albeit a distinct brand of fundamental Islam) and their justifications are entirely theological.
If you disassociate them from Islam, then you have to explain their motives and actions by completely different terms. This is something you hear a lot: 'They just don't know how great Western culture is'. 'They are poor and marginalised so turn to violence.' 'They are responding to the US occupation of Iraq.' 'They are responding to European colonialism.' 'It is all about oil'. So on and so forth.
Some of those things have elements of truth - marginalisation, poverty and retribution certainly are causes as well. Yet the biggest cause, above anything else, is their religious belief. If you are an atheist like me, you can only truly understand this by imagining how you would see the world if you were a fundamentalist Muslim.
Once you do that, (and it requires a basic understanding of fundamental Islam that I don't have time to write here), then it all makes sense. It works the same for if you imagine you were a fundamental Christian - this might be easier to imagine.
If I believed that the world was going to end and I had to obey the law of the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity in order to reach eternal paradise, I'd do whatever the hell was needed to get on his good side. If that means killing people, why wouldn't I? This world is just a temporary, physical one. It's worth it for infinity in paradise. And they are non-believers anyway, they know nothing.
If that is how you see the world and that is how you understand it, then these acts of violence make sense. The whole Islamic State makes sense.
Where it gets extremely tricky and sensitive is how non-fundamentalist Muslims fit into the picture. The same for non-fundamentalist Christians, or Jews. Because the fundamentalists would argue, and in a way I agree with them, that the beliefs of these people are so far removed from the original message and meaning of the religion that they are not truly Muslims, or Christians or Jews. In order to achieve a form of Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism that is acceptable to 'Western society', you have to reshape and twist the doctrine of that religion SO MUCH that it can start to not make sense at all.
Christianity is the perfect example. I live in Britain, which is a former Christian, now secular country. The majority of people are atheist - the Church has lost most of its power and influence. I think that this happened because the Church in this country was forced to adapt to the new ideals that came out of the Enlightenment. By doing so, over a long period of time, the doctrine of Christianity became so divorced from its scripture that it stopped making sense. As a schoolchild, I was made to go to church twice a week. The priest would tell us that Christianity preaches equality, freedom and love for everybody, including people from other faiths. But then we would go and read the Bible, and it didn't have that message at all. It told us to commit genocide on people of other faiths. It was violent, and brutal, and had so many historical problems with it that it was hard to believe. The religion didn't make logical sense any more. The result of this was a generation of people turning away from Christianity, and now you have a secular Britain.
To a much more limited extent, the same is happening to Muslims in Western countries. Many of my friends are Muslim. Yet they don't pray 5 times a day. They don't have multiple wives. They follow our legal system, not shari'a (there are a lot of misconceptions about shari'a, but that's another story). Why? Because this is how they had to adapt their religion in order for it to fit within a Western framework.
So many of them would read the Qur'an and the Hadith collections and realise how far removed they were from the fundamentals of the religion. Western Islam has to reinterpret and abstract the scripture so much in order to remodel the religion as acceptable to post-Enlightenment ideals, that it no longer makes sense to a lot of Muslims. Many turn away from religion entirely and become atheist. But many go the other way, and begin to follow the scripture fundamentally. These are the ones who, in the west, turn to groups like ISIS. are more likely to turn to extremism and violence (although this not always the case).
That is why it is unhelpful to say these terrorists are not Muslim. If you do so, you cannot discover any of what I have just said. You limit your understanding, and you actually make it easier for the discourse to become 'us vs. them', rather than peaceful and loving as it should be.
I hope that helps, I don't normally write these sorts of things on Reddit because nobody on /r/worldnews is intelligent enough to grasp concepts beyond "us and them", "Muslims r bad". I would truly suggest learning about Islam - we in the West are disgustingly under-educated. I don't know everything, but having learned the theological and political history of Islam and the Middle East, I am constantly frustrated at how little people know and how uneducated their opinions are. It has a beautiful and rich history, and there are misunderstandings and misconceptions around every corner.
TL;DR: Those who disassociate ISIS from Islam and say they are not Muslims are wrong, and this argument makes it impossible to truly understand their motives and objectives. However, the other side, which argues that all Muslims share these motives and objectives, are also wrong. The real answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Fundamental Islam IS incompatible with Western-style liberal democratic society. But so is fundamental Christianity - that is why much of Europe has turned away from the Church and towards secularism. It is not just Islam. It is all of these religions, with severely outdated doctrines and dogmas, that are incompatible.
--------------------------------
A fantastic post from Reddit, and one that to be fair has somewhat changed my outlook on disassociating these sorts of terrorists from the religion they claim to represent.
That being said, I still think it's important to stress that they aren't representative of Islam.
How in the name of Security can Salah Abdeslam the most wanted man in the western world be living in Molonbeek, his home town, and be captured 16 Weeks after the Paris attacks, Just 200 Meters from his home ? He had grown a beard and was reported to have daily walks around the neighbourhood. No stop and search ?
Is the fear of upsetting the local muslim community taking precedence over nation security ?
- Collation of evidence - Ensuring he's definitely the right person - Police bureaucracy (most likely) - Ensuring they're able to charge him with the full whack of everything, presumably - Secret service detail on him? I.e. possibly knowing his whereabouts and therefore monitoring his communications or whatever (that might be illegal but in this instance I'm not sure if the authorities would care overmuch) - Proper collaboration with all parties - French police, EU, Belgian police, intelligence, governments etc etc
I've probably missed a few things. While 16 weeks is a fair amount of time, I don't think it's overly unreasonable.
Unless in the meantime he decides to independently commit another atrocity!!
If identified he should have been pulled in straight away. If they can do it with a football fan (for no other reason than suspicion of intent) then I'm sure they could pull a terrorist.
I really don't understand how people can claim these attacks are "nothing to do with Islam", thus absolving this barbaric religion of any responsibility when these bombers are shouting "Allah Akbar" before murdering tens of people.
Allahu Ackbar actually. If Islam didn't exist you would probably find a band of die hard Christians, they'd do the same whilst screaming 'in the name of the father' or something similar.
There is no current strand of Christian ideology at all comparable with modern Jihadism though.
Jihadism of course does not represent or have anything to do with VAST MAJORITY of peaceful Muslims, but it's a globe-spanning ideology with numerous groups nonetheless. Equating it with modern Christianity is absurd.
I compared it to another dimension entirely... One where Muslims didn't exist, hence the bolded text above.
It was NOT equating it with 'modern' Christianity as for the most part, like Islam that is a peaceful religion just with a number of arse holes corrupting young or fragile minds into joining them with books written hundreds of years ago where most have moved their understanding of the books into a modern world, whereas some still don't even wear clothes with two separate fibres.
I really don't understand how people can claim these attacks are "nothing to do with Islam", thus absolving this barbaric religion of any responsibility when these bombers are shouting "Allah Akbar" before murdering tens of people.
Allahu Ackbar actually. If Islam didn't exist you would probably find a band of die hard Christians, they'd do the same whilst screaming 'in the name of the father' or something similar.
So leme get this straight, there's christian terrorist waiting in the wings somewhere they're just not plotting anything yet because it's the Islamist's turn, jesus wept.
I really wish they'd go back to "waiting in the wings"
There's more I just can't be bothered, you get the point.
I'll be sure to be vigilant for those assailants as well as islamist's then cheers mate..
Assuming you drink, there are about 8,500 alcohol related deaths in Britain per year (as of 2013). So assuming that statistic continues, that's roughly 8,500-0 per year over the last decade.
I would love to find more statistics on violent attacks in the UK but for some reason the people in your country just don't seem to kill each other very much. Ridiculous.
So before we go on a witch hunt, let's not quite yet go after these two as if they're ALREADY guilty.
Doubt the police would leak their pictures unless they were sure.
I'm thinking that those images are shots taken from footage. I would expect that the rest of the footage rightly unseen actually shows these men as perpetrating the deeds or perhaps even in the act of suicide.
Whenever anyone mentions the LKK again can you please put "the so-called" before please so we don't offend any good Christians, BBC seem so insistent on doing it every time they say Islamic state through fear of hurting feelings, so least make this PC nonsense equal.
@PaddyP17 I read your long post above carefully and have great respect for it. However I think it does not take account of the reality of the backstory of terrorists. Below is the personal background of the captured terrorist Salah Abdeslam. It does not read like the life of someone for whom the Muslim faith was anything important in his life, until someone got hold of him. I would say that the description 'low -life scumbag' fits him perfectly. I don't think this relatively mundane reality can be dismissed, as you seemed to me to do in that otherwise impressive post.
Salah Abdeslam born on 15 September 1989 in Brussels, Belgium. His parents are immigrants who were living in Bouyafar, a small village in northern Morocco, prior to emigration.[4] Though the Abdeslams lived in Belgium from the 1960s, they were all French nationals, having acquired French nationality from the time the parents lived in Algeria.[1]
Abdeslam and Abdelhamid Abaaoud were friends as children, when both were living in Sint-Jans-Molenbeek.[5] Another childhood friend stated that Abdeslam liked football and motorbikes.[6] According to a woman to whom Abdeslam was briefly engaged in 2011, he and Abaaoud continued to be close friends into adulthood.[7]
He was known to frequent gay bars where he associated with circles of male homosexual prostitutes and their clients, and was regarded as a rent boy by patrons and staff.[8][9][10]
Abdeslam was employed by STIB-MIVB as a mechanic from September 2009 to 2011.[5][11] One source states his employment was terminated due to his repeated absences,[12][13] but another source previously close to Abdeslam stated that his employment was terminated due to some kind of act or acts of crime, for which he was subsequently sentenced to one month in jail.[7]
From December 2013, Abdeslam was the manager of a bar named Les Béguines in Molenbeek, located west of Brussels, after his brother Brahim took over the license. Most of the bar's customers were of Maghrebian origin. The bar was closed when authorities discovered that hallucinogenic substances were being used there.[11] Abdeslam and his brother sold the bar about six weeks before the attacks.[14]
According to one source, Abdeslam was already known to police authorities as a person involved in petty crime.[15][16] Another states that both he and Abaaoud were imprisoned for armed robbery in 2010.[5] According to the lawyer representing Abaaoud, his client and Abdeslam were arrested in December 2010 for attempting to break into a parking garage.[17] In February 2011, Abdeslam was convicted for breaking and entering.[18] In February 2015, he was arrested by Dutch police and charged for possession of cannabis. He was subsequently fined €70.[19]
Bollox, if I shouted haribo is great Before going on a rampage, it wouldn't be haribos fault. All this blaming just makes more hate... Its self perpetuating. This vermin have no faith
So before we go on a witch hunt, let's not quite yet go after these two as if they're ALREADY guilty.
Doubt the police would leak their pictures unless they were sure.
I'm thinking that those images are shots taken from footage. I would expect that the rest of the footage rightly unseen actually shows these men as perpetrating the deeds or perhaps even in the act of suicide.
Of course it's these scumbags. They are even wearing just a single black glove to hide the detonator.
Remember the main concern here is the rise of right wing movements who are against islam extremism, not islam itself
Well that's just not true is it?
Whilst her timing was indeed undeniably crass Allison Pearson seems to have received rather more left leaning vitriol on Twitter and other social media from what I have read than the perpetrators of this atrocity.
Right. It was just typical of that leftie, pinko liberal Kay Burley to be among the first to call her out wasn't it?
@PaddyP17 I read your long post above carefully and have great respect for it. However I think it does not take account of the reality of the backstory of terrorists. Below is the personal background of the captured terrorist Salah Abdeslam. It does not read like the life of someone for whom the Muslim faith was anything important in his life, until someone got hold of him. I would say that the description 'low -life scumbag' fits him perfectly.
If that is all correct, then he would not be a good Muslim at all, this is shown below:
He was known to frequent gay bars where he associated with circles of male homosexual prostitutes and their clients, and was regarded as a rent boy by patrons and staff. - SIN according to Islam
From December 2013, Abdeslam was the manager of a bar named Les Béguines in Molenbeek, located west of Brussels, Drinking = SIN according to Islam (same as drugs)
The bar was closed when authorities discovered that hallucinogenic substances were being used there. SIN according to Islam (same as alcohol)
According to one source, Abdeslam was already known to police authorities as a person involved in petty crime.[15][16] Another states that both he and Abaaoud were imprisoned for armed robbery in 2010. Well known to be a SIN according to Islam - Off with his hands.
Finally terrorism is prohibited in Islam multiple times:
1. Terrorism is above all murder. Murder is strictly forbidden in the Qur’an. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted). 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”
2. If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is impermissible in Islamic law. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). Note that this verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD or after and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Quran. Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it.
3. Islamic law forbids aggressive warfare. The Quran says, “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) The Quran chapter “The Cow,” 2:190, says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”
4. In the Islamic law of war, not just any civil engineer can declare or launch a war. It is the prerogative of the duly constituted leader of the Muslim community that engages in the war. Nowadays that would be the president or prime minister of the state, as advised by the mufti or national jurisconsult.
5. The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, ‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ” (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)
6. Terrorism or hirabah is forbidden in Islamic law, which groups it with brigandage, highway robbery and extortion rackets– any illicit use of fear and coercion in public spaces for money or power. The principle of forbidding the spreading of terror in the land is based on the Qur’an (Surah al-Ma’ida 5:33–34). Prominent [pdf] Muslim legal scholar Sherman Jackson writes, “The Spanish Maliki jurist Ibn `Abd al-Barr (d. 464/ 1070)) defines the agent of hiraba as ‘Anyone who disturbs free passage in the streets and renders them unsafe to travel, striving to spread corruption in the land by taking money, killing people or violating what God has made it unlawful to violate is guilty of hirabah . . .”
7. Sneak attacks are forbidden. Muslim commanders must give the enemy fair warning that war is imminent. The Prophet Muhammad at one point gave 4 months notice.
8. The Prophet Muhammad counselled doing good to those who harm you and is said to have commanded, “Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)
9. The Qur’an demands of believers that they exercise justice toward people even where they have reason to be angry with them: “And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.”[5:8]
10. The Qur’an assures Christians and Jews of paradise if they believe and do good works, and commends Christians as the best friends of Muslims. I wrote elsewhere, “Dangerous falsehoods are being promulgated to the American public. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians.
Quran 5:69 says (Arberry): “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness–their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.”
In other words, the Quran promises Christians and Jews along with Muslims that if they have faith and works, they need have no fear in the afterlife. It is not saying that non-Muslims go to hell– quite the opposite.
When speaking of the 7th-century situation in the Muslim city-state of Medina, which was at war with pagan Mecca, the Quran notes that the polytheists and some Arabian Jewish tribes were opposed to Islam, but then goes on to say: 5:82. ” . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers [Muslims] those who say: ‘We are Christians.’ That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.”
So the Quran not only does not urge Muslims to commit violence against Christians, it calls them “nearest in love” to the Muslims! The reason given is their piety, their ability to produce holy persons dedicated to God, and their lack of overweening pride.
Whenever anyone mentions the LKK again can you please put "the so-called" before please so we don't offend any good Christians, BBC seem so insistent on doing it every time they say Islamic state through fear of hurting feelings, so least make this PC nonsense equal.
Except that the Islamic State are claiming to be an actual sovereign entity, which they're not. Hence the words "so-called", just like it's the "so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" etc etc
Comments
RIP to those who lost their innocent lives because some parasites hate those who aren't like them.
Social media obviously at this time can be a platform for absolute idiots. Take a look at any comments section regarding a terrorist attack and it is full of people on some sort of mission to ignore the disaster and have an outcry that not everywhere gets the same coverage, like it's some sort of competition and point scoring.
REPEAT: SUSPECTS.
So before we go on a witch hunt, let's not quite yet go after these two as if they're ALREADY guilty.
The one consistent thing in cases like this is that the immediate aftermath is chaos. Sorry I'm so Ameri-centric today but in the immediate aftermath of Columbine and Oklahoma City there were all sorts of claims made that turned out to be untrue.
Here's some other examples of Christian Terrorism... to say they don't do it is inaccurate. They're just not at this moment of history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/us/shooting-reported-at-temple-in-wisconsin.html?_r=0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
There's more I just can't be bothered, you get the point.
Sadly this is because these attacks aren't surprising anymore...
That's not to say they're not terrifying as they genuinely are, but I'm no longer surprised to hear things like this happening, which is a really depressing thought.
I think I'll return to staying away a bit from here...
Too much hatred towards an entire religious community, just because of the extremist portion of their religion.
Jihadism of course does not represent or have anything to do with VAST MAJORITY of peaceful Muslims, but it's a globe-spanning ideology with numerous groups nonetheless. Equating it with modern Christianity is absurd.
I study Islam academically and I think I can answer this for you. As a preface, I'm one of the people who is disgusted at the anti-Muslim rhetoric out there. I can't go on /r/worldnews anymore because it's full of idiots who know nothing about the religion and nothing about Islamic politics. I could talk all day about why they're wrong, but this is not the place.
It is wrong to say "ISIS are not Muslims" and it is extremely unhelpful to separate them from the religion. My tutor actually has spoken on national TV and written articles about this exact topic. He is a Shi'a Muslim and an academic, and he argues - quite correctly I think - that if you ignore the religious roots of the group then you cannot possible grasp the problem. Because their ideology, their beliefs and their objectives, are entirely religious. They fit within a framework that is Islamic (albeit a distinct brand of fundamental Islam) and their justifications are entirely theological.
If you disassociate them from Islam, then you have to explain their motives and actions by completely different terms. This is something you hear a lot: 'They just don't know how great Western culture is'. 'They are poor and marginalised so turn to violence.' 'They are responding to the US occupation of Iraq.' 'They are responding to European colonialism.' 'It is all about oil'. So on and so forth.
Some of those things have elements of truth - marginalisation, poverty and retribution certainly are causes as well. Yet the biggest cause, above anything else, is their religious belief. If you are an atheist like me, you can only truly understand this by imagining how you would see the world if you were a fundamentalist Muslim.
Once you do that, (and it requires a basic understanding of fundamental Islam that I don't have time to write here), then it all makes sense. It works the same for if you imagine you were a fundamental Christian - this might be easier to imagine.
If I believed that the world was going to end and I had to obey the law of the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity in order to reach eternal paradise, I'd do whatever the hell was needed to get on his good side. If that means killing people, why wouldn't I? This world is just a temporary, physical one. It's worth it for infinity in paradise. And they are non-believers anyway, they know nothing.
If that is how you see the world and that is how you understand it, then these acts of violence make sense. The whole Islamic State makes sense.
Where it gets extremely tricky and sensitive is how non-fundamentalist Muslims fit into the picture. The same for non-fundamentalist Christians, or Jews. Because the fundamentalists would argue, and in a way I agree with them, that the beliefs of these people are so far removed from the original message and meaning of the religion that they are not truly Muslims, or Christians or Jews. In order to achieve a form of Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism that is acceptable to 'Western society', you have to reshape and twist the doctrine of that religion SO MUCH that it can start to not make sense at all.
Christianity is the perfect example. I live in Britain, which is a former Christian, now secular country. The majority of people are atheist - the Church has lost most of its power and influence. I think that this happened because the Church in this country was forced to adapt to the new ideals that came out of the Enlightenment. By doing so, over a long period of time, the doctrine of Christianity became so divorced from its scripture that it stopped making sense. As a schoolchild, I was made to go to church twice a week. The priest would tell us that Christianity preaches equality, freedom and love for everybody, including people from other faiths. But then we would go and read the Bible, and it didn't have that message at all. It told us to commit genocide on people of other faiths. It was violent, and brutal, and had so many historical problems with it that it was hard to believe. The religion didn't make logical sense any more. The result of this was a generation of people turning away from Christianity, and now you have a secular Britain.
To a much more limited extent, the same is happening to Muslims in Western countries. Many of my friends are Muslim. Yet they don't pray 5 times a day. They don't have multiple wives. They follow our legal system, not shari'a (there are a lot of misconceptions about shari'a, but that's another story). Why? Because this is how they had to adapt their religion in order for it to fit within a Western framework.
So many of them would read the Qur'an and the Hadith collections and realise how far removed they were from the fundamentals of the religion. Western Islam has to reinterpret and abstract the scripture so much in order to remodel the religion as acceptable to post-Enlightenment ideals, that it no longer makes sense to a lot of Muslims. Many turn away from religion entirely and become atheist. But many go the other way, and begin to follow the scripture fundamentally. These are the ones who, in the west, turn to groups like ISIS. are more likely to turn to extremism and violence (although this not always the case).
That is why it is unhelpful to say these terrorists are not Muslim. If you do so, you cannot discover any of what I have just said. You limit your understanding, and you actually make it easier for the discourse to become 'us vs. them', rather than peaceful and loving as it should be.
I hope that helps, I don't normally write these sorts of things on Reddit because nobody on /r/worldnews is intelligent enough to grasp concepts beyond "us and them", "Muslims r bad". I would truly suggest learning about Islam - we in the West are disgustingly under-educated. I don't know everything, but having learned the theological and political history of Islam and the Middle East, I am constantly frustrated at how little people know and how uneducated their opinions are. It has a beautiful and rich history, and there are misunderstandings and misconceptions around every corner.
TL;DR: Those who disassociate ISIS from Islam and say they are not Muslims are wrong, and this argument makes it impossible to truly understand their motives and objectives. However, the other side, which argues that all Muslims share these motives and objectives, are also wrong. The real answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Fundamental Islam IS incompatible with Western-style liberal democratic society. But so is fundamental Christianity - that is why much of Europe has turned away from the Church and towards secularism. It is not just Islam. It is all of these religions, with severely outdated doctrines and dogmas, that are incompatible.
--------------------------------
A fantastic post from Reddit, and one that to be fair has somewhat changed my outlook on disassociating these sorts of terrorists from the religion they claim to represent.
That being said, I still think it's important to stress that they aren't representative of Islam.
If identified he should have been pulled in straight away. If they can do it with a football fan (for no other reason than suspicion of intent) then I'm sure they could pull a terrorist.
It was NOT equating it with 'modern' Christianity as for the most part, like Islam that is a peaceful religion just with a number of arse holes corrupting young or fragile minds into joining them with books written hundreds of years ago where most have moved their understanding of the books into a modern world, whereas some still don't even wear clothes with two separate fibres.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/subnational-health4/alcohol-related-deaths-in-the-united-kingdom/2013/stb---alcohol-related-deaths-in-the-united-kingdom--registered-in-2013.html
I would love to find more statistics on violent attacks in the UK but for some reason the people in your country just don't seem to kill each other very much. Ridiculous.
Salah Abdeslam born on 15 September 1989 in Brussels, Belgium. His parents are immigrants who were living in Bouyafar, a small village in northern Morocco, prior to emigration.[4] Though the Abdeslams lived in Belgium from the 1960s, they were all French nationals, having acquired French nationality from the time the parents lived in Algeria.[1]
Abdeslam and Abdelhamid Abaaoud were friends as children, when both were living in Sint-Jans-Molenbeek.[5] Another childhood friend stated that Abdeslam liked football and motorbikes.[6] According to a woman to whom Abdeslam was briefly engaged in 2011, he and Abaaoud continued to be close friends into adulthood.[7]
He was known to frequent gay bars where he associated with circles of male homosexual prostitutes and their clients, and was regarded as a rent boy by patrons and staff.[8][9][10]
Abdeslam was employed by STIB-MIVB as a mechanic from September 2009 to 2011.[5][11] One source states his employment was terminated due to his repeated absences,[12][13] but another source previously close to Abdeslam stated that his employment was terminated due to some kind of act or acts of crime, for which he was subsequently sentenced to one month in jail.[7]
From December 2013, Abdeslam was the manager of a bar named Les Béguines in Molenbeek, located west of Brussels, after his brother Brahim took over the license. Most of the bar's customers were of Maghrebian origin. The bar was closed when authorities discovered that hallucinogenic substances were being used there.[11] Abdeslam and his brother sold the bar about six weeks before the attacks.[14]
According to one source, Abdeslam was already known to police authorities as a person involved in petty crime.[15][16] Another states that both he and Abaaoud were imprisoned for armed robbery in 2010.[5] According to the lawyer representing Abaaoud, his client and Abdeslam were arrested in December 2010 for attempting to break into a parking garage.[17] In February 2011, Abdeslam was convicted for breaking and entering.[18] In February 2015, he was arrested by Dutch police and charged for possession of cannabis. He was subsequently fined €70.[19]
He was known to frequent gay bars where he associated with circles of male homosexual prostitutes and their clients, and was regarded as a rent boy by patrons and staff. - SIN according to Islam
From December 2013, Abdeslam was the manager of a bar named Les Béguines in Molenbeek, located west of Brussels, Drinking = SIN according to Islam (same as drugs)
The bar was closed when authorities discovered that hallucinogenic substances were being used there. SIN according to Islam (same as alcohol)
According to one source, Abdeslam was already known to police authorities as a person involved in petty crime.[15][16] Another states that both he and Abaaoud were imprisoned for armed robbery in 2010. Well known to be a SIN according to Islam - Off with his hands.
Finally terrorism is prohibited in Islam multiple times:
1. Terrorism is above all murder. Murder is strictly forbidden in the Qur’an. Qur’an 6:151 says, “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.” (i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted). 5:53 says, “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.”
2. If the motive for terrorism is religious, it is impermissible in Islamic law. It is forbidden to attempt to impose Islam on other people. The Qur’an says, “There is no compulsion in religion. The right way has become distinct from error.” (-The Cow, 2:256). Note that this verse was revealed in Medina in 622 AD or after and was never abrogated by any other verse of the Quran. Islam’s holy book forbids coercing people into adopting any religion. They have to willingly choose it.
3. Islamic law forbids aggressive warfare. The Quran says, “But if the enemies incline towards peace, do you also incline towards peace. And trust in God! For He is the one who hears and knows all things.” (8:61) The Quran chapter “The Cow,” 2:190, says, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.”
4. In the Islamic law of war, not just any civil engineer can declare or launch a war. It is the prerogative of the duly constituted leader of the Muslim community that engages in the war. Nowadays that would be the president or prime minister of the state, as advised by the mufti or national jurisconsult.
5. The killing of innocent non-combatants is forbidden. According to Sunni tradition, ‘Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, the first Caliph, gave these instructions to his armies: “I instruct you in ten matters: Do not kill women, children, the old, or the infirm; do not cut down fruit-bearing trees; do not destroy any town . . . ” (Malik’s Muwatta’, “Kitab al-Jihad.”)
6. Terrorism or hirabah is forbidden in Islamic law, which groups it with brigandage, highway robbery and extortion rackets– any illicit use of fear and coercion in public spaces for money or power. The principle of forbidding the spreading of terror in the land is based on the Qur’an (Surah al-Ma’ida 5:33–34). Prominent [pdf] Muslim legal scholar Sherman Jackson writes, “The Spanish Maliki jurist Ibn `Abd al-Barr (d. 464/ 1070)) defines the agent of hiraba as ‘Anyone who disturbs free passage in the streets and renders them unsafe to travel, striving to spread corruption in the land by taking money, killing people or violating what God has made it unlawful to violate is guilty of hirabah . . .”
7. Sneak attacks are forbidden. Muslim commanders must give the enemy fair warning that war is imminent. The Prophet Muhammad at one point gave 4 months notice.
8. The Prophet Muhammad counselled doing good to those who harm you and is said to have commanded, “Do not be people without minds of your own, saying that if others treat you well you will treat them well, and that if they do wrong you will do wrong to them. Instead, accustom yourselves to do good if people do good and not to do wrong (even) if they do evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)
9. The Qur’an demands of believers that they exercise justice toward people even where they have reason to be angry with them: “And do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness.”[5:8]
10. The Qur’an assures Christians and Jews of paradise if they believe and do good works, and commends Christians as the best friends of Muslims. I wrote elsewhere, “Dangerous falsehoods are being promulgated to the American public. The Quran does not preach violence against Christians.
Quran 5:69 says (Arberry): “Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness–their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.”
In other words, the Quran promises Christians and Jews along with Muslims that if they have faith and works, they need have no fear in the afterlife. It is not saying that non-Muslims go to hell– quite the opposite.
When speaking of the 7th-century situation in the Muslim city-state of Medina, which was at war with pagan Mecca, the Quran notes that the polytheists and some Arabian Jewish tribes were opposed to Islam, but then goes on to say:
5:82. ” . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers [Muslims] those who say: ‘We are Christians.’ That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.”
So the Quran not only does not urge Muslims to commit violence against Christians, it calls them “nearest in love” to the Muslims! The reason given is their piety, their ability to produce holy persons dedicated to God, and their lack of overweening pride.