Islamofascists bomb an airport in Brussels.

PintoBean said:
It always helps when respected members/leaders of any group make public statements to encourage non-violence on the part of other group members.
Click to expand...

They need also to be able to declare certain interpretations "heretical" and be able to expel certain views. I don't know if this is even possible in islam - excommunication is mostly a Christian concept.
 
I envision a cattle line type setup. Terrorists are marched up it, a piece of bacon is shoved into their mouth right before a steel spike is shot into their head.
Granted its a waste of bacon but sometimes you have to make compromises.
 
Interesting points made in this article (although I don't believe Christianity is the only true religion.)

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/its-time-to-stop-pretending-all-religions-are-equal/

Similarly, racial and cultural diversity does not enrich us if we lose our identity in the process. When you throw a bunch of people with diametrically opposed beliefs and values and priorities into a food processor and hit frappe, you end up with a smoothie that tastes an awful lot like the collapse of western civilization and the rise of barbarians.
Click to expand...
 
Flavus Aquila said:
They need also to be able to declare certain interpretations "heretical" and be able to expel certain views. I don't know if this is even possible in islam - excommunication is mostly a Christian concept.
Click to expand...

How can it be declared heretical? At the foundation, believers are expected to fight for their beliefs in whatever way you want to interpret it. Peaceful law abiding Muslims already condemn terrorism and obvs have a different interpretation.

But you really can't compare Islam and Christianity. Jesus was killed for his message and told his followers they could expect to be killed and persecuted for their beliefs, too. Mohammed preached otherwise.

I definitely do not take issue with law abiding Muslims practicing their faith. But radicals have a different interpretation.
 
Last edited:
brightmoon said:
Jihad means to struggle, to persevere, to apply yourself. There is no generally accepted definition for what the term actually means. Throughout Muslim history it has been applied to justify wars similar to the Christian concept of a "just war". Remember actual Christian pacifists represent a tiny minority of the Christian faithful. Its how jihad is interpreted that is the problem.
Click to expand...

Err... did you mean to say something else here? Pacifists are anti-war and violence. This would mean that the large majority of Christians are pro-war and violence.
 
hush said:
Err... did you mean to say something else here? Pacifists are anti-war and violence. This would mean that the large majority of Christians are pro-war and violence.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that the minority preaches like they're the majority and the authority. Ever watched The 700 Club?
 
[MENTION=4598]hush[/MENTION]

Actual Christian pacifists are Quakers, Mennonites, Christadelphians, Churches of God (7th day), Seventh-day Adventists etc. The majority of Christians are not pacifists. It does not mean the majority of Christians are pro-war and pro-violence, it means they accept war and violence as necessary under some conditions and not incompatible with their faith. This is no different than Muslims.
 
I have to agree that Islam and Christianity are very similar. Just because Christians of today are not dragging nonbelievers into the street and beheading them doesn't mean it did not happen in the past and wont happen again.
 
brightmoon said:
[MENTION=4598]hush[/MENTION]

Actual Christian pacifists are Quakers, Mennonites, Christadelphians, Churches of God (7th day), Seventh-day Adventists etc. The majority of Christians are not pacifists. It does not mean the majority of Christians are pro-war and pro-violence, it means they accept war and violence as necessary under some conditions and not incompatible with their faith. This is no different than Muslims.
Click to expand...

This describes most people in general.
 
sprinkles said:
The problem here is that the minority preaches like they're the majority and the authority. Ever watched The 700 Club?
Click to expand...

The minorities, in-particular the Muslim minorities (Once again from a UK perspective, there are over 3 million here) are currently treated as if they were an impoverished and oppressed group. This is very common practice amongst British leftists; to assume the wishes of a minority group are for the benefit of social justice and the betterment of cohesion, and to look upon the minority groups as an example to set to the oppressing majority....which is total nonsense.

A brief example: Less than 24 hours after the Charlie Hebdo attack last year, members of this 'impoverished' group appeared on television to suggest that anything related to Islam be censored or be given preferential treatment within the scope of the media in order to protect the hurt feelings of all Muslims that found the cartoons insulting. The blood hadn't even gone dry upon the bodies of the victims and this is the response of the spokespeople of this group: CONDEMN the cartoons and SUPPORT censorship. They did the same thing with the Danish Cartoons years earlier, they did the same thing with Paris in November. I can only sit back and watch them do it again now and hope that voices of reason grow in number. This is, in practical terms, a sinister attempt at supporting the efforts of suicide murderers by condemning the principles that holds these societies together. There are two types of warfare being waged here; guerilla-style terror attacks and the less well-known method of deception and manipulation. The people that claim to be offended are insulting the very same Muslims they claim to represent; I am sure many millions of Muslims want to know the real truth behind these attacks and wish to reform their own religion but are being slammed down by almost everyone.

We all must support the efforts of reformers like Maajid Nawaz in combating grass-roots extremism and actually discussing Islam as a grouping of ideas and not some sort of indestructible instruction manual for violence and fascism.
 
Last edited:
^ The individuals who have been the most successful in de-radicalising large numbers of muslims have been the political leaders of majority muslim countries. In the Arabian sphere, the secularising leaders were virtually all thrown out during the so-called "Arab spring." Iraq lost Hussein, and Syria will probably lose their secularising leaders soon. I'm going to bet Indonesia's next president will be more fundamentalist as well.

For the majority of Sensor type muslims in the West, these shifts possibly redefine their operating sense of the "norm" for themselves.

*shudder*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top