London under attack.

[Glocktogo]

Tristan the last attack in Manchester was done by a British born citizen, so the issue is much deeper !!

The number of attacks committed by children born of immigrants in the new country are as significant if not more so than the immigrants themselves. They never saw the oppression their parents fled and they fall in with radicalized elements because they feel marginalized. The real target should be the ones who are radicalizing the disaffected youth, including so-called "religious leaders".

I usually stay out of this type stuff, but I must state my feelings on this. The average Joe Muslim is a peaceful, family man. Practices his religion in a peaceful way and is very devout with regard to prayer times, holidays, fasting and such. "Radicalized" Muslims are a different case all together and are a virus that developed through hate and loathing towards anything they believe is better off/more well though of then them. As we know, the Muslim faith is the fastest growing faith in the world, the faith is not assimilating society as a whole, and demographics in certain regions allow for the "Radical" element of any group to recruit heavily based on many things, least of all the promise of eternal life for the Martyr. The religion is not the issue, the "Radical" element is the issue. The spread of violence can be attributed to the spread of the Violent culture of the "Radical" sect, the Idolatry of this sect by persons of low esteem and or easily molded minds. Embrace the Muslim religion as true believers of God, reject the "Radical" sect as terrorists.

I disagree to a point, because those two sentences are incongruous. Just as the Old Testament is not compatible with modern Christian society, the Koran is not compatible with the modern Islamic society you describe in the first part of your post. The Koran itself is utilized to radicalize Muslims to commit atrocities. That means the book itself is incompatible with ANY modern society. Until Islam modernizes itself and removes the ability of radicals to masquerade as religious fighters, we will never be rid of the scourge that is radical ISLAMIC terrorism.

LOL bad argument Tristan, please don't take this personally but a lot of people have died by the hands of good Christian folk!!
People have been committing atrocities in the name of "God" since the beginning of time.

Your point simply reinforces mine. The Old Testament was responsible for a lot of that. Actual instances of open warfare and terrorism committed in the name of Christianity has decreased SIGNIFICANTLY over time, to the point it's an anomaly worldwide. Islamic terrorism however is on the rise. Therefore any comparison of Christian violence of yesteryear to Islamic violence today is foolish and a waste of everyone's time.

Agree with this statement.

Disagree with this statement.
Islam is the act of submitting to the will of God whereas a Muslim is person who participates in the act of submission. In the act is the human factor that in turn is manipulated by some who easily influence followers. Jones Town ring any bells.? Through the "Radical" adaptation of islam have Islamists (an advocate or supporter of Islamic militancy or fundamentalism.) become terrorists. Not all muslims that practice Islam are "Radicals"; therefore, it is “cultural racism”.

"Racism is no longer about race (skin color) but culture. People are Othered and discriminated against not (simply) because of the color of their skin (or other phenotypes) but because of their beliefs and practices associated with some “imagined culture.”" - Stuart Hall

Sorry DH, but what you just posted is nonsense. There is no such thing as “cultural racism”. What you're describing is bigotry. Stuart Hall is not part of the solution, he was part of the problem.

Islamophobia is a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure. It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat through the maintenance and extension of existing disparities in economic, political, social and cultural relations, while rationalizing the necessity to deploy violence as a tool to achieve "civilizational rehab" of the target communities (Muslim or otherwise). Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure through which resource distribution disparities are maintained and extended.

• Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities
• Islam does not share common values with other major faiths
• Islam as a religion is inferior to the West.
• It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
• Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
• Islam is a violent political ideology. - UCB

By accepting/adopting/believing any of the aforementioned statements, one associates himself with Islamophobia. Islamophobia by definition is racist. - DJH

By what you just posted, the overwhelming majority of Islam's detractors AREN'T Islamophobic, particularly those in western culture who call for change in Islamic society. What you posted is a specious assault on good people who have a reasonable concern about Islamic society as a whole, and either a lack of effort or a failed effort on Islamic society's part in combatting radicalism. It is the refuge of radical leftist ideologues and radicalized Islamic leaders to dismiss those concerns as irrational, when they're anything but irrational. BTW, most of the language in that statement is socialist/leftist gobbledygook.

Woody - I agree with you. The fact is that culture has decided to include changes in previous definitions to encompass all things of perceived intolerance. This is evolution within society, I have no opinion either way of what is right or wrong with regard to this. Just putting the current thoughts on the topic out there. We can toll it religious intolerance, religious discrimination, religious persecution, Islamophobia or any number of other things. It still is directed at an entire culture versus differentiating between good and bad within the culture.

No, "culture" has not decided anything. A select few ideologically driven radicals have decided to reinvent language and discussions to favor THEIR views, not necessarily those of society as a whole. I'd say the majority of western culture reject these notions out of hand.

I don't have any issues with Muslims as a whole. I recognize that there's a cancerous disease, which has invaded Islamic society, which in turen is causing irreparable harm to the host. Western society is not an Oncologist for Islam. Muslims must treat Islam to rid the host of the disease. If they fail to do so, they cannot in good conscience continue to call quarantine measures to combat the spread of their disease, "Islamophobic".

 

[D. Hargrove]

GTG - concur, I was just spouting to keep the conversation going in a direction that allowed people to see (hopefully) all the different angles of the issue. Islam must fix itself, the various sects, leaders, Imams and so on are responsible for that IMO. The religion cannot even agree on their individual beliefs, hard to see how they will come together any time soon.

 

[D. Hargrove]

I spent almost 6 years in Iraq, Afghanistan and a few other countries that are of Muslim majority. Sunni, Shiite, Salifist and a few others. The difference between all of them is obvious in person. Shoot, ISIS is known to release Sunni prisoners while schwacking Shiite ones. A religion of peace gone to the dogs through radical militants. I thank you all for your discussion. Have a wonderful day.

 

[Glocktogo]

GTG - concur, I was just spouting to keep the conversation going in a direction that allowed people to see (hopefully) all the different angles of the issue. Islam must fix itself, the various sects, leaders, Imams and so on are responsible for that IMO. The religion cannot even agree on their individual beliefs, hard to see how they will come together any time soon.

I didn't mind what you posted, because I understood the premise. The schism between Sunni and Shia sects of Islam would be the biggest obstacle to modernizing the Koran, even if Islam recognized the need for change. It's really not all that different from the schism between Catholic and Protestant sects as exemplified under Mary I and Elisabeth I, to include squabbles over lineage and nation states jockeying for position. Keep in mind, that schism continued for half a millennia, all the way through the terrorism of the IRA, which was ostensibly Catholic vs. Protestant conflict.

That should give some idea about how long radical Islamic terrorism will be around, which is longer than any of us will be alive.

 

[OKC03Cobra]

 

[OKC03Cobra]

 

[Glocktogo]

I spent almost 6 years in Iraq, Afghanistan and a few other countries that are of Muslim majority. Sunni, Shiite, Salifist and a few others. The difference between all of them is obvious in person. Shoot, ISIS is known to release Sunni prisoners while schwacking Shiite ones. A religion of peace gone to the dogs through radical militants. I thank you all for your discussion. Have a wonderful day.

Just a quick aside to my comments on the incongruity of some people's willingness to separate ISIS from Islam, which is utterly impossible.

The quickest way for Islam to completely cut ISIS off from the Muslim world would be for their ulama (high ranking religious leaders) to condemn ISIS for apostasy. After all, if ISIS truly is abhorrent to the very tenets of Islam, they would indeed be apostates. Unfortunately, the Islamic world is silent: http://www.dailywire.com/news/2161/islams-oldest-university-says-isis-are-not-james-barrett Where ISIS is not: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/14/isis-releases-apostasy-hit-list-of-21-western-muslim-leaders/

Yet:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...tates-not-even-worlds-top-sunni-authority-has

(Yes, I agree with John Kerry on something! The horror! LOL)

So why can Kerry get away with calling ISIS apostates but no one in the Islamic hierarchy can or will? Takfirism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri Pay particular attention to this part:

An ill-founded takfir accusation is a major forbidden act.

So the refusal of every major Islamic leader and institution to take this step says a lot more than what they claim in the media. The worst they will do is claim ISIS are "Khawarij", but even Khawarij are "believers", regardless of how misguided. Even if ISIS/Khawarij soldiers committed horrific atrocities, so long as they renounced the ISIS Caliphate before being captured, they would be welcomed back to the fold with open arms. (It should be noted that ISIS vigorously rejects being labeled Khawarij.)

So despite the desperate attempts of major Muslim apologists to brand concerned persons Islamophobes and pretend that ISIS is in no way Islamic or represents Islam, they very much are and to some extent do.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

So until people like London mayor Sadiq Khan can bring themselves to utter the "A word", it's more informative to discuss what they won't say than what they will.

 

[SMS]

Video of armed police showing up and dumping three of the London attackers (one of the first responders prior to the arrival of armed units was an unarmed, off duty cop). Criticize the Brits if you will but their cops got after it with a purpose...

https://www.facebook.com/dean.callis/posts/10158755343735263

 

[Snake]

I spent almost 6 years in Iraq, Afghanistan and a few other countries that are of Muslim majority. Sunni, Shiite, Salifist and a few others. The difference between all of them is obvious in person. Shoot, ISIS is known to release Sunni prisoners while schwacking Shiite ones. A religion of peace gone to the dogs through radical militants. I thank you all for your discussion. Have a wonderful day.

You've got to be kidding. That "religion" was never one of peace. Look at the "founder"...a rapist,pedophile,murderer and lots of other things. Religion of peace...please.

 

[D. Hargrove]

There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, and Islam is the world's fastest-growing religion. If the evil carnage we witnessed on Sept. 11 were typical of the faith, and Islam truly inspired and justified such violence, its growth and the increasing presence of Muslims in both Europe and the U.S. would be a terrifying prospect. Fortunately, this is not the case.

The very word Islam, which means "surrender," is related to the Arabic salam, or peace. When the Prophet Muhammad brought the inspired scripture known as the Koran to the Arabs in the early 7th century A.D., a major part of his mission was devoted precisely to bringing an end to the kind of mass slaughter we witnessed in New York City and Washington. Pre-Islamic Arabia was caught up in a vicious cycle of warfare, in which tribe fought tribe in a pattern of vendetta and countervendetta. Muhammad himself survived several assassination attempts, and the early Muslim community narrowly escaped extermination by the powerful city of Mecca. The Prophet had to fight a deadly war in order to survive, but as soon as he felt his people were probably safe, he devoted his attention to building up a peaceful coalition of tribes and achieved victory by an ingenious and inspiring campaign of nonviolence. When he died in 632, he had almost single-handedly brought peace to war-torn Arabia.

Because the Koran was revealed in the context of an all-out war, several passages deal with the conduct of armed struggle. Warfare was a desperate business on the Arabian Peninsula. A chieftain was not expected to spare survivors after a battle, and some of the Koranic injunctions seem to share this spirit. Muslims are ordered by God to "slay [enemies] wherever you find them!" (4: 89). Extremists such as Osama bin Laden like to quote such verses but do so selectively. They do not include the exhortations to peace, which in almost every case follow these more ferocious passages: "Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4: 90).

In the Koran, therefore, the only permissible war is one of self-defense. Muslims may not begin hostilities (2: 190). Warfare is always evil, but sometimes you have to fight in order to avoid the kind of persecution that Mecca inflicted on the Muslims (2: 191; 2: 217) or to preserve decent values (4: 75; 22: 40). The Koran quotes the Torah, the Jewish scriptures, which permits people to retaliate eye for eye, tooth for tooth, but like the Gospels, the Koran suggests that it is meritorious to forgo revenge in a spirit of charity (5: 45). Hostilities must be brought to an end as quickly as possible and must cease the minute the enemy sues for peace (2: 192-3).

Islam is not addicted to war, and jihad is not one of its "pillars," or essential practices. The primary meaning of the word jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle." It refers to the difficult effort that is needed to put God's will into practice at every level--personal and social as well as political. A very important and much quoted tradition has Muhammad telling his companions as they go home after a battle, "We are returning from the lesser jihad [the battle] to the greater jihad," the far more urgent and momentous task of extirpating wrongdoing from one's own society and one's own heart.

Islam did not impose itself by the sword. In a statement in which the Arabic is extremely emphatic, the Koran insists, "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" (2: 256). Constantly Muslims are enjoined to respect Jews and Christians, the "People of the Book," who worship the same God (29: 46). In words quoted by Muhammad in one of his last public sermons, God tells all human beings, "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another" (49: 13)--not to conquer, convert, subjugate, revile or slaughter but to reach out toward others with intelligence and understanding.

So why the suicide bombing, the hijacking and the massacre of innocent civilians? Far from being endorsed by the Koran, this killing violates some of its most sacred precepts. But during the 20th century, the militant form of piety often known as fundamentalism erupted in every major religion as a rebellion against modernity. Every fundamentalist movement I have studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is convinced that liberal, secular society is determined to wipe out religion. Fighting, as they imagine, a battle for survival, fundamentalists often feel justified in ignoring the more compassionate principles of their faith. But in amplifying the more aggressive passages that exist in all our scriptures, they distort the tradition.

It would be as grave a mistake to see Osama bin Laden as an authentic representative of Islam as to consider James Kopp, the alleged killer of an abortion provider in Buffalo, N.Y., a typical Christian or Baruch Goldstein, who shot 29 worshipers in the Hebron mosque in 1994 and died in the attack, a true martyr of Israel. The vast majority of Muslims, who are horrified by the atrocity of Sept. 11, must reclaim their faith from those who have so violently hijacked it. - Karen Armstrong