This is true. It puts in perspective that regilious tensions are unavoidable. Good point about reformation as well, I've always said that. The Christian reformation was paid with blood and violence as well, but that was in 16th century.
Newspaper draws piggy bank to show ISIS funding, Muslim groups attack it as pig is “unislamic”
- Thread starter jason73
- Start date
Yeah for me too. I may live in the US, but my family is still in Europe, where people have to fear Muslims and their outrage about piggies and cartoons. Here that shit just doesn't fly. That is why I love the US with all its faults of its own. People there live in fear now, a price for their tolerance. This white outrage and violence is simply people being sick of it all. Multi-culturalism was doing just fine before them. The morals and values of these cultures just clash too much.
I wish there was a peaceful solution for religious folks to get along. Many of my friends were from Turkish, Iranian, and Moroccan descent, awesome people. But definitely deep and fundemental differences that I wish weren't there. I do not hate believing in God, I hate the different systematic methods we choose that drive us apart as human-beings. But the rift between Mulsims and the rest of the world cannot be ignored.
And if I sounded insensitive, from one infidel to another, I apologize
. Angela Merkel: German multiculturalism has 'utterly failed' | World news | The Guardian
I don't accept this as an explanation (and certainly not an excuse, which I know you weren't doing). If I start a new religion today, I shouldn't be expected to act like a savage for 2,000 years to catch up with where Christianity is today. And indeed most Muslims are moderates who do NOT want to kill all infidels, especially in Western developed nations.
If you get angry over someone mocking your religion, put on your big boy pants and suck it up (not you personally, LOL). Let your god deal with it.
Also, what a ridiculous law, making blasphemy illegal.
Yeah mate but I was replying to those who hold more established religions as a yard stick.
oh..Jeezuz Keyrist!
America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776
America Has Been At War 93% of the Time - 222 Out of 239 Years - Since 1776 Washington's Blog
Lets not go there.
The thing is, Christianity took root under very different historical circumstances and exists in a very different economic and political context today. Mohammad forged his religion while literally at war, but after the initial calamitous period, things settled for some time. Early Islamic culture during the heyday of Baghdad was much more progressive than its European counterpart. It was years of Mongol invasions and crusades that set Islam's adherents back. Then there was the rise of imperial European powers carving up many parts of the Arab world in particular. Modern conservative Islam is largely reactionary in that it attempts to preserve many antiquated traditions in some cases and it functions as an active form of resistance to westernization in others. There are salafists who have coopted the minds of many of the young and destitute, but these are denominations within Islam just as Catholicism, Lutheranism or Episcopalianism is within Christianity.
We so often paint broad brush with Islam because we treat muslims like the Buggers in Ender's Game, but there is very little uniformity.
I think in this particular case, a group of conservative imams led a peaceful protest in a politically charged region where they are a minority and availed themselves of India's legal channels to do so. That's as big boy pants as you can get and much bolder than angrily simmering at home. They managed to simultaneously speak out against terror and invoke their rights, which we may disagree with, but are foundational to India's value system.
That's a false dichotomy, the fact that Islam is a younger religion does not preclude it from learning from the past. That is the same argument people make about MMA and fighter pay, that it is a young sport and look how long it too for NFL players to make better wages. That isn't a very good argument as we can learn from the past even if it doesn't effect us directly.
The problem Islam runs up against is that they believe that the Quran is the literal word of God, not the word of God interpreted by man like the Bible and(I think) the Torah. This means that anything which was included in it cannot be changed or removed, like what happened in the Bible. Which creates a unique problem for moderate Muslims as they have to rationalize many outdated concepts within the book, while it also allows extremists specific verse and wording to back up their interpretations of the text, which in many ways Daesh's interpretations are more in line with the original interpretations.
That said, Islam is not going away and the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists and do not ascribe to their views and values. If they did then the warzone would be significantly larger than specific areas of the Middle East. In fact many Muslims are fighting against Daesh, the Kurds for instance. However, many of the reasons that these specific views and values find traction is because of how the West, specifically the US and the old colonial powers - Britain mainly in the middle east, but France too - and their oil companies, have acted there. We've on many occasions acted unilaterally in the Middle East, which has created violence and strife, which leads to people losing loved ones, which in turn causes the hatred in which this ideology can find fertile soil.
Behind these ideologies are grievances that are generations old and fueled by the death and destruction we have caused in the Middle East over the twentieth century. Breaking this cycle of hatred should be our goal if we really want to end the terrorism on our doorsteps, but we also have to be realistic that some force is going to have to be used to stop the people like Daesh, which makes it a difficult problem, and it will likely define much of the twenty first century. I just hope we don't allow the western police state advocates to use this to scare us into accepting their vision of the future.
Last edited:
I don't think the history of Islam is relevant to my post.
Your second part isn't really true. It was reported that the newspaper offices were attacked.
They weren't. Google news sources out of India. No one was attacked. They are using the word in the broadest sense in that they were criticized. I addressed it in my post above.
The history of Islam is relevant as you're saying they are acting like savages. I'm saying there's a context to the so called savagery and it's largely economic, political and historical, particularly in areas where fundamentalism is prevalent.
Thanks for your reply.
You are correct Leigh but if you were to start a new religion in the year 570AD your teachings very well may take a few millennia to fully modernize itself as Christianity did.
Let's try a different approach. One of the main books in Hinduism the mahabartha is based solely on war. The crux if the story is Krishna tells arjuna who was having second thoughts about fighting the Pandavas because they were his cousins. Krishna demands Arjuna kill them because it's his "duty".
This caused a practice called sati, where a widow would throw herself onto her husband's funeral pyre as it was her "duty" to serve him.
Brits tried outlawing it with limited success as did believe it or not the Muhgals before them. It took major cultural and religious reform from within Hinduism for it to end just a few hundred years ago.
This is a 5000 year old religion.
Nom sayin?
I get what you are saying, but it is the cultural values which are the catalyst for those changes within the religion. Cultural values don't change just because time has passed, but have specific instigating factors themselves. I can't speak with certainty about what cultural values changed within Hindu society to allow that that change, but it was more than just a specific amount of time had passed. My guesses would be increases in education amongst women, hence making them more valuable to the community, and exposure to different cultures which did not practice Sati.
Sure but a bigger window of time allows for those catalysts to manifest themselves.
Being in a constant state of war doesn’t help either
That I will agree with, that and poverty.Being in a constant state of war doesn’t help either
They spoke up against terror, as in a piggie bank?
Not only Western police states, but also Russia and China, etc. And is it still fear mongering when actual attacks are happening? Whatever it is, it will be used politically to further agendas and policies.
No, when protesting the imams said "we condemn terror and daesh (and it's important to note they used the term daesh, which many in this thread are using while simultaneously saying Islam is fundamentally flawed which kinda defeats the purpose of using the term daesh in the first place), but don't make a mockery of Islamic symbols."
It is fear mongering when the laws they are instituting are used almost exclusively for purposes other than the ones stated. NSA wiretapping has had very little effect on terrorism cases for example. Or how the Patriot Act is overwhelming used in drug investigations now. Or how anti-terrorism laws are used against journalists to intimidate and silence dissent about government surveillance.
Are you referring to me? If so, what specifically do you take umbrage with?
Actually my bad
@Zeph sorry, I was. I didn't realize the part I was thinking of was from your post.If you believe this to be accurate, there is no reason to use the term daesh. The purpose of the term is to say ISIS is not Islamic, but the belief that their interpretations are Islamic means you may as well call them IS at least.
Last edited:
Without a doubt this happened in the wake of 911. We are a monitored state, not much different than China.
And as I stated, whether it is fear-mongering or not, is open for debate. Fear is the most optimal political tool without a doubt.