News1 min ago
Those barbaric Muslims, again....
53 Answers
That's just a taste of some of the adjectives used to describe Muslims on this site, and, in truth often in the world at large.
Barbaric, backward, medieval are amongst the others, is this fair?
There's millions of Muslims in the world they're not all burkha clad screaming anti-western polemicists, we wouldn't be able to get away so easily calling Africans these names or west Indians for that matter, so whuy is it reasonable to speak of Muslims in such tones?
There's lots of radical English speakers, some elected, who voice opinions that I find absurd or even abhorrent, do they speak for the nation as a whole?
Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, internment, area bombing, shoot to kill, bombing neutral countries are all policies being carried out in the state sponsored (our state for that matter) "War On Terror" are these policies being carried out with the express approval of all (or even the majority) of the people?
No, of course they don't, the press has an agenda when it produces these stories, and when these stories pander to popular prejudices, the public laps it up.
Look at America's military history, My-Lai (all over Vietnam), the G.Is were notorious for their rapaciousness and theft in Italy, they did it again in Iraq, look at our "friends" abroad Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Noriega, Nicaraguan Contras etc etc.
We in the west are so civilised it must be great, to be able judgement so glibly.
Barbaric, backward, medieval are amongst the others, is this fair?
There's millions of Muslims in the world they're not all burkha clad screaming anti-western polemicists, we wouldn't be able to get away so easily calling Africans these names or west Indians for that matter, so whuy is it reasonable to speak of Muslims in such tones?
There's lots of radical English speakers, some elected, who voice opinions that I find absurd or even abhorrent, do they speak for the nation as a whole?
Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition, internment, area bombing, shoot to kill, bombing neutral countries are all policies being carried out in the state sponsored (our state for that matter) "War On Terror" are these policies being carried out with the express approval of all (or even the majority) of the people?
No, of course they don't, the press has an agenda when it produces these stories, and when these stories pander to popular prejudices, the public laps it up.
Look at America's military history, My-Lai (all over Vietnam), the G.Is were notorious for their rapaciousness and theft in Italy, they did it again in Iraq, look at our "friends" abroad Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Noriega, Nicaraguan Contras etc etc.
We in the west are so civilised it must be great, to be able judgement so glibly.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 123everton. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The West in particular are targeted by Muslim terrorists, our troops are fighting Muslim extremists, other Muslim extremists are preaching hate on the streets of Britain, and some Muslims are secretly plotting terrorist activities.
It is obvious one cannot class all Muslims the same, but in light of the above examples is it little wonder they are not the most popular of people.
Just as the whole of the German, Italian and Japanese people experienced during WW2, the majority have to suffer for the minority.
Or could that be the other way round?
It is obvious one cannot class all Muslims the same, but in light of the above examples is it little wonder they are not the most popular of people.
Just as the whole of the German, Italian and Japanese people experienced during WW2, the majority have to suffer for the minority.
Or could that be the other way round?
The majority of Irish Catholics may well be moderate............
I just fail to see why they will not or can not bring to heel those militant Catholics who, apparently, are doing Catholicism a mis-service...... (IRA)
The majority of Northern Irish Protestants may well be moderate............
I just fail to see why they will not or can not bring to heel those militant Northern Irish Protestants who, apparently, are doing Protestant Christianity a mis-service...... (N.I Troubles)
The majority of American Protestants may well be moderate............
I just fail to see why they will not or can not bring to heel those militant American Protestants who, apparently, are doing American Protestant Christianity a mis-service...... (American Protestant Christians bombing Family Planning Clinics)
I just fail to see why they will not or can not bring to heel those militant Catholics who, apparently, are doing Catholicism a mis-service...... (IRA)
The majority of Northern Irish Protestants may well be moderate............
I just fail to see why they will not or can not bring to heel those militant Northern Irish Protestants who, apparently, are doing Protestant Christianity a mis-service...... (N.I Troubles)
The majority of American Protestants may well be moderate............
I just fail to see why they will not or can not bring to heel those militant American Protestants who, apparently, are doing American Protestant Christianity a mis-service...... (American Protestant Christians bombing Family Planning Clinics)
Are there any 'islam authorities' on AB?
Be interesting to hear from you.
My understanding is that there is a fundamental belief (or at least a prevalent interpretation) in Islam that it is the one-true religion and that it is a duty of all Muslims to not rest until all people are Muslim - at pain of death if necessary.
This was of course also a prevalent aspect of Christianity particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries and until well into the 20th century in the Americas and Australia.
Is this actually the case? and if so, does such a predisposition to try and impose a set of beliefs on others make conflict between Muslims and others inevitable? And will the passage of time produce a greater acceptance of other belief systems within Islam as it did with christianity?
.
Be interesting to hear from you.
My understanding is that there is a fundamental belief (or at least a prevalent interpretation) in Islam that it is the one-true religion and that it is a duty of all Muslims to not rest until all people are Muslim - at pain of death if necessary.
This was of course also a prevalent aspect of Christianity particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries and until well into the 20th century in the Americas and Australia.
Is this actually the case? and if so, does such a predisposition to try and impose a set of beliefs on others make conflict between Muslims and others inevitable? And will the passage of time produce a greater acceptance of other belief systems within Islam as it did with christianity?
.
Could it be that the actions which we deplore in Islam are also backed up by their holy books and Shariah Law. Actions which are preached by their Imams and Mullahs. Islam is a way of life and we judge them by their overall behaviour not just terrorism. The way they treat women and girls as an example.
AOG mentioned the Japanese who were the most barbaric of all nations in WW II but their barbarism was not backed by their religion Buddhism.
In N Ireland the militants were not backed by the Christian churches..
Not all Muslim countries are extremists but barely a day passes without reports of violence somewhere in the Muslim world . So its not surprising ABs use the adjectives referred to by 123everton.
AOG mentioned the Japanese who were the most barbaric of all nations in WW II but their barbarism was not backed by their religion Buddhism.
In N Ireland the militants were not backed by the Christian churches..
Not all Muslim countries are extremists but barely a day passes without reports of violence somewhere in the Muslim world . So its not surprising ABs use the adjectives referred to by 123everton.
modeller
But all religions are supported by some pretty intransigent texts (the Bible for instance has a pretty dim view on what should happen to adulterous women...it involves stones).
Why is it that we never get to hear about what is done to Muslims 'in our name'?
Is it because it would make the situation in the Middle East way too complex for us to understand?
Do we need it in black and white (Muslim = bad, non-Muslim = good)?
Muslims in the UK, from what I can see, are much more in tune with their religious teachings...therefore, why aren't they all terrorists? Why don't ALL Muslim women wear the burqa?
Why is it that when we see a news report about a Christian who refuses to let a room to a gay couple, or perform a civil ceremony, or give relationship advice to a gay couple, they're 'practicing their religious freedoms', but if they were Muslims, they'd automatically be labelled, 'hard line' or 'fundamentalists'?
Do you think that perhaps, our media is a bit biased in their reporting of the Middle East, and Islam?
Or do you think it's fair?
By the way - do you think that we are in any way responsible for the situation in the Middle East?
Or we the knights in shining armour, desperately trying to save the world from the mad mullahs?
But all religions are supported by some pretty intransigent texts (the Bible for instance has a pretty dim view on what should happen to adulterous women...it involves stones).
Why is it that we never get to hear about what is done to Muslims 'in our name'?
Is it because it would make the situation in the Middle East way too complex for us to understand?
Do we need it in black and white (Muslim = bad, non-Muslim = good)?
Muslims in the UK, from what I can see, are much more in tune with their religious teachings...therefore, why aren't they all terrorists? Why don't ALL Muslim women wear the burqa?
Why is it that when we see a news report about a Christian who refuses to let a room to a gay couple, or perform a civil ceremony, or give relationship advice to a gay couple, they're 'practicing their religious freedoms', but if they were Muslims, they'd automatically be labelled, 'hard line' or 'fundamentalists'?
Do you think that perhaps, our media is a bit biased in their reporting of the Middle East, and Islam?
Or do you think it's fair?
By the way - do you think that we are in any way responsible for the situation in the Middle East?
Or we the knights in shining armour, desperately trying to save the world from the mad mullahs?
-- answer removed --
sp1814 You have made my point:!
#But all religions are supported by some pretty intransigent texts (the Bible for instance has a pretty dim view on what should happen to adulterous women...it involves stones). #
In fact it is in the Old Testament 4000 years ago . It was Judaic not Christian and was condemned by Christ 2000 years ago. Mohamad approved of the practice 500 years later and it is happening today . More and more Islamic countries are officially
using Shariah Law and stoning is but one of the barbaric practices being used.
If you go on to Google you will find many sites with pictures and videos of these practices. I stress it is happening today and that is what we are judging . Comparing it with the law of Moses is pathetic.
#But all religions are supported by some pretty intransigent texts (the Bible for instance has a pretty dim view on what should happen to adulterous women...it involves stones). #
In fact it is in the Old Testament 4000 years ago . It was Judaic not Christian and was condemned by Christ 2000 years ago. Mohamad approved of the practice 500 years later and it is happening today . More and more Islamic countries are officially
using Shariah Law and stoning is but one of the barbaric practices being used.
If you go on to Google you will find many sites with pictures and videos of these practices. I stress it is happening today and that is what we are judging . Comparing it with the law of Moses is pathetic.
sp1418 Maybe you would like to quote a 4000 year old Judaic Law to Amnesty International . They have contacted Iran yet again trying to save all those condemned to death by Shariah Law for Unislamic practices.
They would be very impressed by the comparision with a Christain couple refusing to share their house with gays.
http://www.amnesty.or...xecution-stoning-iran
They would be very impressed by the comparision with a Christain couple refusing to share their house with gays.
http://www.amnesty.or...xecution-stoning-iran
I've posted it in news because there are more contributors with anti-Muslim sentment, if I posted it in S&C there'd be the usual five or six of us all talking to ourselves, a good four of whom are often to be found in news.
AOG, for instance would be a rare visitor to S&C, and I thank him for his contribution (as I'm going to cite him), many's the time AOG has posted a link to a story of some vile violent crime, he calls offenders "savages", the perpetrators being black he is often roundly criticised for it.
Quite right too, so why when similar language is used to describe Muslims is there a deafening silence?
Or is it just plain truth that Muslims are a bit backward?
Even when they adopt our systems, these Westernised Oriental Gentlemen are still the subject of scorn and derision, they'll never be quite good enough in the eyes of many.
Steve's hit the nail squarely on the head, if you're going prostetylise civilisation then you should practice civility.
A quick peek at modern western history tells you that we've got little to shout about.
AOG, for instance would be a rare visitor to S&C, and I thank him for his contribution (as I'm going to cite him), many's the time AOG has posted a link to a story of some vile violent crime, he calls offenders "savages", the perpetrators being black he is often roundly criticised for it.
Quite right too, so why when similar language is used to describe Muslims is there a deafening silence?
Or is it just plain truth that Muslims are a bit backward?
Even when they adopt our systems, these Westernised Oriental Gentlemen are still the subject of scorn and derision, they'll never be quite good enough in the eyes of many.
Steve's hit the nail squarely on the head, if you're going prostetylise civilisation then you should practice civility.
A quick peek at modern western history tells you that we've got little to shout about.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Everton, you've demonstrated many times, not least by defending Jehovah's Witness parents' rights to withhold life saving blood transfusions from their children, that you are a religious apologist. How many more threads are you going to start on this subject - and how many more times are you going to justify, or excuse, the uncivilised behaviour of madmen with irrelevant analogies? Birdie is quite right when he says that you fail to see the difference between the individual Muslim and the Islamic faith. People who execute innocent hostages in the most horrendous and bloody fashion, or scream for beheadings because someone has drawn a picture, or allowed children to give a toy a common name, are barbaric - just as those non-Muslim Africans who butchered my Christian friend with machetes in Zimbabwe are barbaric. Call me old fashioned if you like, but the fact is they are savages - and that's why there's a deafening silence when they are branded as such. Their actions are completely unacceptable to any civilised society, and no one in their right mind would defend them.
The acts were/are perpetrated because of a political ideology.
There's no physical difference.
The beheadings were horrendous acts, downloaded onto phones to be replayed ad-nauseum by many of my colleagues for their own peculiar amusement. It developed into a strange fad, there were some apparently unrelated to any specific event doing the rounds.
Funny how rather than defend themselves some choose to attack me.
There is extremism in the world, to deal with this one has to marginilise the extremists by being moderate and working with moderates not by being ever more extreme, reactionary big mouths is one thing we don't need right now.
If you look behind the stories you'll start to see a different sub-text, and, it's behind the events that these problems can be dealt with.
If you call people barbaric and backward, they won't engage with you, they'll become defensive.
You learn a lot about an individual from their habitual use of adjectives, i honestly feel that those that use such adjectives don't want consensus they want a row.
There's no physical difference.
The beheadings were horrendous acts, downloaded onto phones to be replayed ad-nauseum by many of my colleagues for their own peculiar amusement. It developed into a strange fad, there were some apparently unrelated to any specific event doing the rounds.
Funny how rather than defend themselves some choose to attack me.
There is extremism in the world, to deal with this one has to marginilise the extremists by being moderate and working with moderates not by being ever more extreme, reactionary big mouths is one thing we don't need right now.
If you look behind the stories you'll start to see a different sub-text, and, it's behind the events that these problems can be dealt with.
If you call people barbaric and backward, they won't engage with you, they'll become defensive.
You learn a lot about an individual from their habitual use of adjectives, i honestly feel that those that use such adjectives don't want consensus they want a row.
modeller
I find it impossible to condemn Muslims for tracts in the Koran when very similar tracts are in any bible you can still buy today.
You wrote:
"In fact it is in the Old Testament 4000 years ago . It was Judaic not Christian and was condemned by Christ 2000 years ago."
So forgive my ignorance - but whatever the origin of the Old Testament, are you saying that Christians today condemn it?
I find it impossible to condemn Muslims for tracts in the Koran when very similar tracts are in any bible you can still buy today.
You wrote:
"In fact it is in the Old Testament 4000 years ago . It was Judaic not Christian and was condemned by Christ 2000 years ago."
So forgive my ignorance - but whatever the origin of the Old Testament, are you saying that Christians today condemn it?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.