Alan Henning killed.

Soldato
Joined
31 May 2009
Posts
21,257
To be fair there has been a lot of public condemnation from Muslim leaders including extremists & appeals made by them for the release this guy (less so the ex RAF chap). Partly a result of lots of campaigning by his fellow convoy members - British Muslims who've only had good things to say about him.

Actually, I will draw a little parallel as I did so earlier in the thread, this although using the same chaps, works in the opposite direction.

There is pretty universal condemnation of Westboro Baptist Church and their methods of picketing funerals etc.
I happy call them Christian fundamentalists myself.
Most of the Christian community does.
What have we done about them?
Basically nothing.
Nothing at all.

So the rest of Muslim community can condemn Isis all they like for these killing, but it won't actually change anything, it won't stop them, it won't make them listen, if anything it will further their resolve knowing that true believers dislike and disagree with them.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
Westboro Baptist Church doesn't even have a small minority of supporters - they're a tiny self funded group... they've got their members and that's about it and they're not doing anything illegal per say - not much you can do about them simply holding vile views and loud protests.

What people can do is campaign against discrimination against/hatred of gay people and that is something that progress is being made on. Established churches are becoming more and more progressive on the issue.

ISIS is reliant on funding, illegal oil trading, new recruits - it needs support of Sunni populations/tribes to make further gains and hold onto land it has gained.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
Not favouring their methods doesn't necessarily mean they disagree with their aims though.

The creation of a Muslim Caliphate might well be a good thing, I don't necessarily disagree with that aim, a bit of rational, moderate and liberal leadership would be welcome in the region. Of course I would disagree with the methods or the form of that Caliphate depending upon the people trying to create it and for what reasons.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,912
Well if it could replace the current corrupt cartels running Saudi, UAE etc.. and remove the influence of Wahhabism it might be a good thing for human rights in the region at least.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,999
Location
Just to the left of my PC
It's always hypocritically claimed. These people who claim people should speak up and out about these sort of things NEVER speak up and out about things that white men ever do, because when it's applied to their racial group they somehow are able to use reasonable thought, and realise it's not down to them as they weren't involved in any way.

You're confusing, possibly deliberately, completely different things.

"white man" is not my identity. I don't describe myself that way. So it's completely different to "Muslim".

I don't choose to be male. I don't choose to be an adult. I don't choose to have relatively pale skin. I don't choose to think that a person's skin colour is a defining feature of who they are. So it's completely different to "Muslim".

When a person who happens to be a "white" man does something bad, they're rarely if ever doing it as a political act and as part of a global idea of whitism mannism (which doesn't even exist) and which I choose every day to identify myself as part of (which I wouldn't do even if it did exist). So it's completely different to "Muslim".

You're confusing things people choose to do with things that are some aspect of the biology they were born with. That's unreasonable. You're confusing things done because of a system of belief and in the name of that system of belief with things done by someone who happens to have a biological characteristic that you consider to be so important. That's unreasonable.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,999
Location
Just to the left of my PC
I sometimes wonder if religion really has anything to do with these kinda nut jobs. [..]

Why wouldn't it? Religion is amoral. That's most of the point of it - to replace morality with obedience backed by claims of ultimate authority. Since religion is all about a claim to ultimate authority and is completely amoral, it "justifies" anything. Things like compassion and empathy are human (and some other animals too, but they probably don't have religion) and are therefore superseded by religion (which claims ultimate authority, remember). In any case, the more power-orientated religions (which, unsurprisingly, includes the religions that have acquired the most power - Islam and Christianity) discourage or forbid compassion and empathy for those who aren't obedient enough to the religion.

Given the amorality, claim of ultimate authority for anything and the strength of the requirement of obedience, it's no surprise that religion in general and power-orientated religion in particular leads to intolerance, hostility, tyranny and sometimes violence, nor is it a surprise that when it does lead to violence the violence is extreme.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,999
Location
Just to the left of my PC
I fail to see why Muslim leaders should be pressured into appealing to terrorists.

The media and government should stop referring to them as Islamic State. It legitimises their affiliation with Islam when no such link should be made. These people are oppressors and murderers and represent no true form of Islamic ideology.

And no doubt members of Islamic State think that other versions of Islam are not true forms of Islamic ideology. To claim that Islamic State has no link with Islam is wrong and silly. Them being oppressors and murderers in no way prevents them being Muslims.
 
Back
Top Bottom