Muslims are fed up with being blamed

[struggle4progress]

Kim Sengupta In Nice 17 hours ago

“I knew as soon as it happened that they would blame Muslims, say terrorists are behind it, we are used to that now; we expect nothing else from the authorities here,” declared Rachid, standing at a street corner with a group of young men. “They humiliate us and then they are surprised when there is violence” ...

But surely nothing can justify mass murder? “We are not saying that, what he did was very bad. But the police, the media, everyone is saying he did it because he was a Muslim,” said Rachid throwing his arms up in the air. “No, he did not even go to a mosque, he did it because of whatever problem he had, it wasn’t because he was a Muslim” ...

The young men shrugged about the texts. “They could mean anything, maybe he was showing off, pretending to be something he was not,” muttered one. An older member of the group, Marouen, wanted to point out “ How are we supposed to know? Look at the problem here, it is lack of money, lack of jobs, no hope for young people, that’s the reason why they are so fed up, so angry. Leave religion aside for a minute, unless the government starts doing something about this, the problems will continue” ...

Boubekir Bakri, an imam in north Nice, ... now talks of extremism creating an “open wound” for Muslims. Unemployment reaching 40 per cent has “ lowered the immunity” of the community, allowing “microbes” of violent jihad to spread. The imam and other Muslim leaders have organised blood donations for hospitals in Nice. “We have to organise and speak out more, the world thinks a criminal like this, a murderer, represents Islam. He does not,” he said ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/muslims-in-nice-knew-they-would-be-blamed-by-association-for-the-nice-atrocity-a7141811.html

[jonno99]

1. Well, its kinda the way the world works. If it were Christians, Jews, or those pesky Russians

behind so much of the recent violence, those people groups would probably feel the same way.

[marybourg]

2. No, not if it's a member

of the majority religion (ethnic group, tribe, caste). In France, Christians.

[struggle4progress]

5. Or maybe it's just the way bigotry works

[Cartoonist]

6. see reply #4

Now THAT'S bigotry. Some people learn that lesson well.

[Igel]

3. So are cops.

Now there's an interesting analogy.

[struggle4progress]

7. I don't think I've ever seen blue-bashing in the Religion Grouop

[Cartoonist]

4. There's a difference between blaming Muslms and blaming the Quran

"Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them," Allah instructs the Prophet Muhammad (Quran, 9:5). He continues: "Prophet! Make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites! ... Hell shall be their home, an evil fate."

Same goes for the Bible.

Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: "And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them," God says through the prophet Samuel. "But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

The problem is these hate manuals, and the mental illness it fosters.

link of interest: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

[rug]

9. How is this not blaming Muslimas as well as the Quran"

The problem is these hate manuals, and the mental illness it fosters.

Observant Muslims are mentally ill?

If not, it's not the Quran.

[Cartoonist]

10. Nuts

Some people are allergic to peanuts. Some fatally so. Does this mean peanuts are bad? Depends on the individual. I just had a peanut butter sandwich. I'm doing ok.

Some people can read the Quran and take to heart it's positive message. Some can't. We need to address the hate in the Quran and the Bible instead of apologizing for it.

[rug]

11. So it's not the underlying scriptures; it's an underlying pathology.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. If a person said they shouldn't be prosecuted for inciting murder

because, as well as a documented instance of saying "kill your red-haired neighbour", they could also point to a time they said "love your neighbour", we wouldn't accept that as an excuse and say "the problem here is the pathology of the listener, who would be able to ignore the violent message if well".

[rug]

13. If everyone who read the book did not kill their red-hared neighbor, the defense would be insanity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. You prosecute for inciting murder even if no one attempts a murder

You don't say "let's wait and see how many people are persuaded, and try and kill - if it's only a few, they must be insane".

[rug]

15. You have a broad definition of incitement. No one would be prosecuted under it.

[Cartoonist]

21. The killer or the victim?

[jonno99]

16. You do realize that in one of your passages, the "instructions" were limited

to a particular period of time (closed-ended), while the other is open-ended.

IOW, one refers to an historical event. The other? Well, you tell me...

[Cartoonist]

17. Are you defending genocide

simply because it happened in the past?

[jonno99]

18. Nice dodge. Are you denying that one passage is a (supposedly)

fictitious historical account that has no bearing on present day events, while your other passage is being played out on a regular basis?

[Cartoonist]

19. Hardly

I just linked to an article that shows both the Bible and the Quran are hate manuals. I don't parse one to make it look less evil than the other. The distinction you make is hardly redeeming.

[Promethean]

20. The problem with your argument is many fold.

First is the command to kill unbelievers is the single most commonly stated command in the qu'ran. Last count I did was 8 instances of it.

Second, have you read the qu'ran? I have. Its not a very large book. Nowhere near biblical proportions. So the density of "kill the unbeliever" is rather heavy.

Third, the qu'ran mentioned unbelievers a lot more than just those times it says to kill them. In every single instance of this it is derogatory. The single kindest moment in the book towards unbelievers is the exception to killing them. In this case the exception is narrowly defined (christians and hebrews) and even then it says they must be lesser citizens of the caliphate. They do not get the full protection of the law and they must pay an unbeliever tax which they gave its own word its so important, jizya.

Fourth, which ties into the third. Have you heard the word Kufir or Kafir? Its literally a derogatory term for unbelievers. Equal to nigger in meaning, implication and use. Watch some religion debates. I saw Hamza Tzortis use this word multiple times in under a minute right to his opponent's face. That is how much contempt muslims have for us. They are willing to call us niggers right to our faces.

Finally the qu'ran commands that all muslims must seek to establish a global caliphate. Some say this cannot override the command not not wage wars of aggression. The anti-war of aggression command has an exception to when non-believers occupy muslim land. Guess what is considered muslim land? Hint: all land is created by Allah.

Oh but don't worry. There is nothing dangerous about muslim dogma or culture. If you google search the words "honor killing" you will see nothing but positive stories that you agree with right?

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. If the genocide is 'supposedly fictional' with 'no bearing on present day events'

then they can just get rid of it, can't they? Where are the Christians and Jews clamouring for the expressions of hate, and description of their god as genocidal, to be removed from books they regard, according to you, as fictional?

Or is it possible that since a couple of billion people believe that was written about the same god they still worship, they think it is relevant?

[jonno99]

23. The book stands or falls on it's own merits - do with it what you will. Please note however, that

neither you nor Cartoonist have addressed the essential question:

Do you think there is no difference in relevance between the "fictitious historical account" that has no bearing on the present day, and the other passage which is being played out (followed) on a regular basis?

IOW, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone out there still looking to kill Amalekites - true or false?

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Some Israelis still justify their actions in the Occupied Territories on the grounds that

"God gave us this land". To them, the order by "God" to get rid of that other tribe (in what is now the Negev). Yes, even the current PM of Israel has used 'Amalekite' to refer to his enemies (Iran, in that case).

[jonno99]

25. So, your answer seems to be that they are equally relevant. Got it. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. No, not necessarily "equal", but the Amelekite passages do have a bearing today

though you had said they had none.

[jonno99]

28. Fair enough. I need to take a further look into that point. nt

[Lordquinton]

30. You're being dishonest here

The story of the Amalekites is not about that event, but about God's command not being followed absolutely. He told them to slay them all, not just the men, but the women, and the children, and all the livestock. They didn't and we're punished for not blindly following gods will.

So your whole line of questioning is irrelevant.

[jonno99]

31. You seem to want to argue minutia, when my point

is simply that the text refers to a supposedly fictitious, closed-ended historical event.

If the command in the text were "open-ended" (e.g. "...and for all time, kill any Amalekites that you find.&quot - that would be a different matter. But that is not the case - the matter is done.

Do you not agree that the Quranic texts have a problem in that they are "open-ended"?

[Lordquinton]

33. It's a moral tale

Like everything else in the Bible, maybe it's set as historic fiction, but it is a story with a lesson, which is to obey without question.

You're framing it in a way to support your point while ignoring the history of use of that passage.

[jonno99]

34. "Obey without question" - yes, no one is arguing the point of the story. But how

is this story relevant to the issue at hand?

My point has simply been that there is no standing decree to keep on killing those pesky Amalekites. But perhaps you can point to some (other) texts that give authority to Jews (or Christians) to continue killing woman & children indiscriminately?

It's seems obvious, but I guess I have to say it: the OT texts that you're clinging to are not the problem today.

However, there are religious texts that are causing big trouble. Why then pull in some other religious texts that are not relevant to the problem?

Unless you goal is to not actually address the problem...

[6chars]

27. Modern religious law says this those ancient words do not apply now.

Jesus basically says New Testament supersedes Mosaic law.

As for Jews, From Wikipedia:

Greenberg, Moshe, "On the Political User of the Bible in Modern Israel: An Engaged Critique", in Pomegranates and golden bells: studies in biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern ritual, law, and literature, EISENBRAUNS, 1995, p 467-469: "No 'national' commandment such as that of 'conquest and settling the land' occurs in any of these [Judaic] summaries [of the Torah]… [arguments for applying herem to modern Israel] introduces a distinction that Scripture does not recognize; nowhere are the obligations referred to in the summaries contingent on the achievement of the land-taking or the destruction of Israel's enemies. To suppose that they may be set aside or suspended for the accomplishment of national ends is a leap far beyond scripture…. The [biblical] injunctions to take the land are embedded in narrative and give the appearance of being addressed to a specific generation, like the commandment to annihilate or expel the natives of Canaan, which refers specifically to the seven Canaanite nations… Now, had there ben any inclination to generalize the law [of extermination], it would have been easy for the talmudic sages to [do so]. But in fact the sages left the ancient herem law as they found it: applying to seven extinct nations."

----
So it wasn't just a casual, cultural modernizing. It is really part of the recognized religious doctrines. The "hate manuals" have been formally declared obsolete.

[Cartoonist]

29. Not obsolete

As long as they continue to print it, it is still recognized as the word of God by many believers Look at that nut Ken Hamm and his Ark. IMHO I consider the whole book obsolete.