全 119 件のコメント

[–]wuts 119ポイント120ポイント  (51子コメント)

The night after the Charlie Hebdo atrocities I was pre-recording a Radio 4 programme. My fellow discussant was a very nice Muslim man who works to ‘de-radicalise’ extremists. We agreed on nearly everything. But at some point he said that one reason Muslims shouldn’t react to such cartoons is that Mohammed never objected to critics.

There may be some positive things to be said about Mohammed, but I thought this was pushing things too far and mentioned just one occasion when Mohammed didn’t welcome a critic. Asma bint Marwan was a female poetess who mocked the ‘Prophet’ and who, as a result, Mohammed had killed. It is in the texts. It is not a problem for me. But I can understand why it is a problem for decent Muslims. The moment I said this, my Muslim colleague went berserk. How dare I say this? I replied that it was in the Hadith and had a respectable chain of transmission (an important debate). He said it was a fabrication which he would not allow to stand. The upshot was that he refused to continue unless all mention of this was wiped from the recording. The BBC team agreed and I was left trying to find another way to express the same point. The broadcast had this ‘offensive’ fact left out.

This is the cancer.

[–]FranceJacksambuck 71ポイント72ポイント  (37子コメント)

In a way I empathize with the guy. He tries his hardest to convince himself that his prophet was good so that he doesn't have to choose between being a good muslim and being a good person. Unfortunately for everyone, his prophet wasn't good and muslims need to choose fast.

[–]Swedenpreciousdoggy 13ポイント14ポイント  (32子コメント)

his prophet wasn't good

Are there any good prophets? All religion has outlived usefulness. Now we have fundamentalists and crazy extremists who are criminals that use religion as an excuse to form Mafia like terrorist groups and recruit aimless youths who will believe anything if you promise to feed them and give them a brotherhood. That is the reason why terrorism is so big in third world countries, it is easy to recruit an army of child soldiers into a Muslim jihad terrorist group because they have no food, no education, no future. There are many aimless youths in Europe now because of immigration from Muslim countries and shitty integration. That is the cancer.

[–]Fuck the EUArathian 38ポイント39ポイント  (8子コメント)

Jesus, Budha and confucious off the top of my head. Not necessarily perfect (no human ever is hurhur) but, especially in the context of their times, they were fairly entrenched in the "good guy" side of things.

[–]FranceJacksambuck 13ポイント14ポイント  (22子コメント)

All religions are false and useless, true. But their prophets are just men, and like men, some are good, some are bad. And Muhammad is without question a bad man. A mass murderer, a warlord who wiped out entire tribes out of pure greed and bloodlust. He was worse than an overwhelming majority of humans, even in his time. Certainly worse than you and me, and worse than Jesus.

That is the reason why terrorism is so big in third world countries

Really? I don't see indians and chinese kill and terrorize as many people as muslims, yet according to your economical justifications, they should kill more. Same for their immigrants.

[–]Indiaperseus0807 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

India has plenty of religious violence.

[–]ScotlandTomShoe 5ポイント6ポイント  (11子コメント)

Interestingly in Myanmar right now, Muslims are being violently repressed by Buddhists, of all people. Christians in central Africa are killing plenty of Muslims, as well as vice-versa. There really aren't hard and fast rules with these things. People will do what they'll do more or less regardless, and justify it however they see fit. One person interprets a text this way, another that way; some will ignore a passage, others play it up. In most cases the book isn't even what matters, it's what it inspires, and that can vary pretty widely.

[–]TheColorOfStupid 5ポイント6ポイント  (8子コメント)

Are they killing people because of Buddhism? If not I don't see Buddhism has to do with it.

[–]ScotlandTomShoe -5ポイント-4ポイント  (7子コメント)

[–]TheColorOfStupid 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

Nope. Your link doesn't support your claim. Killers who happen to buddhist is not the same thing as killing because of buddhism.

[–]ScotlandTomShoe -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

[–]TheColorOfStupid 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

What buddhist teachings are being used to justify these acts?

[–]European UnionPwndbyautocorrect 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

You're not answering his question. He's asking what part of buddhist teaching endorses this. If there is none, we can conclude that those riots are due to tensions between communities, not the religion itself.

[–]United States of AmericaMeep_Meep_Meep_Meep_ 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Whats funny (and by funny I mean depressing) is watching people on Reddit talk about Myanmar, when they know nothing about whats happening over there. I've seriously seen people on /r/worldnews praise the Buddhists in Myanmar 'for standing up against Islamization of their country'

[–]ScotlandTomShoe -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, I wouldn't expect anything less from that cesspool. I guess the point I'm trying to get at is that humanity is vast and varied, some of it good, some of it bad, a lot of it pretty ambiguous, but above all else complex — certainly far too complex to make such sweeping statements and expect them to hold any useful amount of truth.

[–]Swedenpreciousdoggy 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

No, they should not kill more, the economical justification is that more lost youths who have no education or jobs will be prone to radicalisation.

China had the Cultural Revolution which was anti religious. They burned and destroyed religious texts, idols and places of worship and jailed relgious leaders. A long time after that they had a stigma associated with religion. There are still fundamentalist Muslim terrorists in Xinjiang. They had problems with fundamentalist Christians a long time ago in the Taiping Rebellion. India has religious violence, they believe in honour killing, tribal fights and rapes, child marriage, because of religion. In the West people don't really care unless they rape tourists because they are not terrorizing us, they terrorize people in their own country.

Edit: /u/Jamsambuck

I don't see indians and chinese kill and terrorize as many people as muslims

I think you make a big mistake in assuming there are no Muslims in China or India. This is false. There are Muslims in Xinjiang, China. Muslim is a religion not a nationality or ethnicity like Swedish, Indian or Chinese. I have seen blonde Muslim converts in Sweden.

[–]Indiaperseus0807 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

Honour killings, tribal fights and rapes are not because of religion, they're just because of backwards mentalities.. Child marriage is, though, yeah.

[–]Swedenpreciousdoggy 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

I am not well versed as you, is honor killing really not religious? A Muslim man in court said he has to be faithful to Allah and murder his daughter for rejecting arranged marriage or breaking curfews or something. Are fights with high body counts among the Catholics, Christians, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs not because of religion?

[–]Indiaperseus0807 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I am not well versed as you, is honor killing really not religious?

It's a bit complicated, to be honest.. honour killings are a very regional thing, and occur in very specific parts of the country, whatever the religion might be. So in, for example, Haryana, where honour killings are a huge problem, they happen across all religions, whereas they're almost non-existent in south or west India (where there are also plenty of Muslims). Also, I don't think Hindus use religion to justify honour killings.

Because it's so regional, I would call it cultural rather than religious.

Are fights with high body counts among the Catholics, Christians, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs not because of religion

Those are, yeah. Sorry, when you said tribal fights, I thought you literally meant guerilla tribal violence, which happens in West Bengal and Odisha, but the driving factor there is communism, not religion.

[–]Swedenpreciousdoggy 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Honour killing happens outside India, if you look at the Wikipedia article every country has cases of murders usually involving the Muslims. Gays have been bashed or disowned by their family for being gay in for example Muslim and Catholic communities, the Westboro Church is infamous for doing this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people#Religious

[–]Indiaperseus0807 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I know that they happen outside India, I was pointing that the motivating factor for them happening inside India is largely culture and not religion, because all religions do it in certain areas, and no religion does it in other areas.

[–]United States of AmericaMeep_Meep_Meep_Meep_ -5ポイント-4ポイント  (1子コメント)

A mass murderer, a warlord who wiped out entire tribes out of pure greed and bloodlust. He was worse than an overwhelming majority of humans, even in his time. Certainly worse than you and me, and worse than Jesus.

As someone who plans on specializing in Islamic history when I go to graduate school, I'm going to need a source on that (and Gatesofvienna.org doesn't count)

[–]AustraliaNowhrmn 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza

Hope you'll be a real historian and not an Islam apologist.

[–]ScotlandTomShoe 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Muslims will likely see that as a false choice. Whether they're modern, progressive, and normal, or reactionary and bigoted, I'd think most muslims are probably going to see themselves as both good people and good muslims.

[–]YouAreAnIndividual 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

He tries his hardest to convince himself that his prophet was good

He's trying his hardest to convince us that his his prophet was good

[–]A minha pátria é a língua portuguesaestaserrado -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ou então ele simplesmente pode continuar a ser um bom muçulmano e uma boa pessoa.

Or he could simply continue being both a good muslim and a good person

[–]FranceThouny -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Unfortunately for everyone, his prophet wasn't good and muslims need to choose fast.

Er… what? I know Muslims who are also good people. They don't have to chose either, they can be both. Or did I misunderstand your comment?

[–]European Federationjtalin -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

On the flip side, being a person who works to "de-radicalize" extremists, his job would become far more difficult if he had allowed that part of the interview to remain.

The work that he does, which hopefully we all agree is of critical importance in times like this, hinges on building up mutual trust with the people he works with. That trust would quickly go down the drain if he was heard on a radio show where his belief in the "religion of peace" was publicly humiliated. How would he be able to impress that belief onto others after something like that goes on air?

[–]Romaniacbr777 14ポイント15ポイント  (5子コメント)

If your entire work is based on a lie than you better get another fucking line of work. What kind of rational is that? We know what we're saying is a lie, but it's really for the greater good, trust us. Bullshit!

[–]European Federationjtalin -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

If your entire work is based on a lie than you better get another fucking line of work.

There's a rather large number of professions that would disappear if we followed your line of reasoning here. Lies are an incredibly useful tool, the society could arguably not even function without them.

His work is based on saying things that have the optimal effect and accomplish the best results. In his case, it is removing focus from the violent aspects of the religion, and instead cherry-picking only the more positive values that can be found in the texts.

Besides, as far as I'm aware, everyone agrees that the work he does is the work that needs to be done. So unless you have an alternative strategy that is not based in social engineering, you don't really have a valid argument here.

[–]Romaniacbr777 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

My argument is that he should base his argument on the fact that Mohammed was a man and as such was not perfect.

All this lets pretend the shit isn't there is what got the West in this fucking mess to begin with. The shit is there and you should be able to fucking deal with it if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Maybe you should reread the article in OP again, your line of thinking is exactly what it's arguing against.

[–]European Federationjtalin -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

My argument is that he should base his argument on the fact that Mohammed was a man and as such was not perfect.

His work would have been impossible if he had based it on that argument, because the difference between what he's saying and what the other person believes is far too large to establish a rapport and gain their trust. Like with many counseling-like activities, the client has to believe that you're "on their side" and you understand them (or their faith, in this case).

The shit is there and you should be able to fucking deal with it if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Dealing with it correctly does not involve being rash, stubborn or lashing out in anger. By doing that, you are only building walls that somebody else will have to work that much harder to overcome later.

Maybe you should reread the article in OP again, your line of thinking is exactly what it's arguing against.

I know, I'm just saying it's a very poorly constructed argument. He's preaching to the choir, but doing very little to make a convincing point.

[–]Romaniacbr777 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

I know, I'm just saying it's a very poorly constructed argument.

You keep doing what you're doing, it's been working perfectly already, clearly you won't change your mind until there's going to be attack near you. Unfortunate, but not unexpected.

[–]European Federationjtalin -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The fact that you can't seem to make a coherent argument against what I'm saying and you're jumping out of the debate when confronted with facts only goes to show that what I'm saying is currently the only known way to deal with existing tensions.

This is a common trend too. First people complain about nobody wanting to "talk about the problem", but when we DO talk about the problem, they have very little to say.

clearly you won't change your mind until there's going to be attack near you.

Yes, I might change my mind if my judgement were clouded in anger by something that happened near me. But that would not make me right, it would only make me biased and incapable of reasoning properly.

All arguments made out of anger are toxic and destructive.

[–]Romaniacbr777 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm afraid that the West won't start to accept that Islam has a structural problem until a much bigger attack occurs.

[–]thalos3D 50ポイント51ポイント  (9子コメント)

The 7th Century is waging open warfare on modernity, and modernity thinks it's cute and fluffy. Guess there's a reason why civilizations fall.

[–]Freddie_AppsHero 20ポイント21ポイント  (6子コメント)

Same thing happened to the Romans. "Oh, these Germanians are so cuddly-wuddly... Hang on, has there always been so many of them?"

[–]DenEvigaKampen 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Sounds interesting, got any more info thats what happened to rome?

[–]Freddie_AppsHero 13ポイント14ポイント  (4子コメント)

There were numerous factors involved in the fall of Rome, but one of them was undoubtedly the over-reliance on German troops and leaders.

[–]Ỏ̷͖͈̞̩͎̻̫̫̜͉̠̫͕̭̭̫̫̹̗̹͈̼̠̖͍͚̥͈̮̼͕̠̤̯̻̥̬̗̼̳̤̳̬̪̹͚̞̼̠͕̼̠̦͚̫͔̯̹͉͉̘͎hmunkey 16ポイント17ポイント  (3子コメント)

…and the inability to pay them. If you stop paying your best armies you're setting yourself up for disaster.

Those same Germans ended up conquering large parts of the former [western] Roman Empire and governing it as Roman successors, so they were very much aligned with Roman culture and considered themselves good Romans.

The Eastern Romans also hired Germanic troops, along with a large variety of soldiers from places across the Balkans and Middle East. Because they were able to pay them and keep their families safe, those troops never really turned on their government in the same way.

[–]Freddie_AppsHero 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Another factor was that the East wasn't oppressing the Germans in the same way as the West. The West hired the same people that they were fighting against. So you ended up with guys who had the same idea as Arminius.

[–]StaticShock9 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Except in the end it was the Germans that continued and the Romans did not. One civilization died and another began to surface.

[–]Czech Republicembicek 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sometimes the pay was in form of province free to plunder.

[–]Glorious YuropVileFrog 31ポイント32ポイント  (29子コメント)

A religion that didn't upgrade from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek" will always breed murderous extremism.

[–]Berlino-soto-gari 26ポイント27ポイント  (5子コメント)

They did upgrade though. Islamic countries were relatively moderate, by religious standards, during the 1900s. They just downgraded again.

[–]United States of AmericaRaven0520 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Wahhabism has existed for hundreds of years though.

[–]ScotlandTomShoe 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, but it didn't get big until after the fall of the Ottoman empire, and the creation of Saudi Arabia. Even before that, though, it was always seen as a revival movement. It was a reactionary response to the more progressive Islam of the time.

[–]ipito 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

No it hasn't, Wahabism is pretty damn new.

[–]United States of AmericaRaven0520 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

It was created in the 18th century by Saudi Arabs as a reaction to the more secular Islam of the Ottoman Empire and other ways of practicing the religion in Arabia that they considered heretical.

[–]common_senser -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

They tend to do well under sadistic dictators. Once you give them a little freedom they go all Mohamed-style.

[–]Y--Z 17ポイント18ポイント  (4子コメント)

a WWMD (what would mohammed do?) morality is far move violent and intolerant than a WWJD morality.

[–]IrelandCaisLaochach -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ah yeah, but that didn't stop Christianity endeavouring to set all the non-Christian parts of the world on fire.

[–]LancashireCaptain_Ludd -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

NO NO! DOWNVOTES FOR YOU SIR! do NOT break the islamaphobic circlejerk

thank fuck /r/europe doesn't represent the actual opinions of the avarage european. i imagine when these folks actually have something to live for, a couple things to fight for, and somewhere they can actually call their own (and not their mams place), their opinions won't come at such a cheap price

[–]AtomicGarden 16ポイント17ポイント  (4子コメント)

The only people who I hear saying "Religion of Peace" are people saying it ironically to get free karma whenever there is an article about Islamisim posted on Reddit.

[–]FranceJacksambuck 25ポイント26ポイント  (2子コメント)

Shame that Cameron said it yesterday.

[–]Indiaperseus0807 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

Votes are just IRL karma mate.

[–]NederlandHomSig 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yet the same people who do that, also complain that muslims never dissociate themselves from the violence.

[–]United States of Americawadcann 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

In France, Britain, Germany, America and nearly every other country in the world it remains government policy to say that any and all attacks carried out in the name of Mohammed have ‘nothing to do with Islam’.

Because by-and-large, most people on both sides of the matter aren't particularly interested in a religious fight -- it isn't in anyone's interests. The only hope that someone who does want to convince the masses to fight has is to argue that religion mandates a religious war. The appropriate counter is to say that it doesn't.

[–]ScotlandTomShoe -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

The only hope that someone who does want to convince the masses to fight has is to argue that religion mandates a religious war. The appropriate counter is to say that it doesn't.

Exactly. Whether or not it does is beside the point. One side will want war either way, and the other won't either way; who, if anyone the actual text supports is beside the point. Religion has always been up for interpretation, and all too often people interpret it in a way that supports their political points.

[–]HappyReaper -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

What's extremely important to understand is that there is no "one" Islam, just like there is no "one" Christianity, or Communism, or any other belief or ideology that isn't concise enough to be understood the same way by everybody.

Like other religions, Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance for some, and one of war and conquest for others. The second subset is the one toxic for society, yet for some reason (maybe in order to create an easily recognisable enemy that makes tribalism easier) many outside of Islam insist on the idea that it is the only "real" version of the religion. Ironically, that is just playing into their hands, as (like the xenophobic subset of non-muslim population) what they want most of all is to be recognised as the one true face of their religion.

On the other hand, empowering the peaceful versions of the religion and helping them recover lost ground within their faith (even if from outside we of course believe there is no "true" form) is the only way towards ending the current situation with terrorism; yet accepting that the majority of Muslims don't fit into their definition of "the enemy" is unacceptable for some.

If the consequences weren't so sad, it would be interesting to observe how tribalism, which at some point of evolution helped humanity thrive, is now one of the main causes of our own undoing.