Because religion is power.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jihadi gunmen kill 28 passengers on Kenyan bus for not being Muslim
- Thread starter Soriku
- Start date
- Status
DiscoJer
Member
Bad, but not as sickening as the suicide bombing of a boy's school in Nigeria 2 weeks ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/world/africa/nigeria-suicide-bomber-boko-haram.html
50 children killed (and 80 wounded, which generally means maimed for life), ages 10-20, because they went to a "non-Quranic" school.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/world/africa/nigeria-suicide-bomber-boko-haram.html
50 children killed (and 80 wounded, which generally means maimed for life), ages 10-20, because they went to a "non-Quranic" school.
I don't think you should compare two acts of barbarism and murder that it's 'not as bad'. It's fucking murder, it's the same.
triplestation
Member
fuck..
the islam religion is really gaining recognition for this type of stuff
these terrorists are real monsters
the islam religion is really gaining recognition for this type of stuff
these terrorists are real monsters
You'd think they would have a patrol to exterminate these fuckers as a priority.
Aquamarine
Member
It's a bit ironic that they killed in the name of religion, because if a god actually exists, he would never accept someone into heaven who murdered innocents.
A bunch of savages, really.
A bunch of savages, really.
Which ones were done in the name of atheism?
Whitechocolatekrispies
Banned
One could very easily argue that it is the moderate, non violent Muslims that preach tolerance and equality that are the rebels.
We are seeing exactly what a complete Islamic state, with no strings, no dictators, no royalty and no multicultural ties looks like. It's called ISIS and this attack is nothing compared to the ethnic cleansing occurring over there.
All across the world there is one common defining factor in most of the violent indiscriminate attacks on innocent victims. The perpetuators are Muslims, attacking in the name of Islam.
Asia, Europe, the America's, Africa, Australia etc etc all have seen and will continue to see attacks from one single source.
theignoramus
Member
Moaist purges, Khmere Rouge.
That's adorable.
What? You're saying that Nazism and Stalinism are too "religious", despite the fact that they exactly fit your definition of an "ideology-driven killing. Ideological groups and religions very often share many similar characteristics. Modern Western atheism is probably the best example of that, in fact. The co-opting of religious icons or practices is pretty common.
What's the difference between "bullied virgins" and "run-of-the-mill crazies"?
Kenshin001
Member
Seems not a week passes without some atrocity committed by some Islamic group in some part of the world. I wonder when it will end.
Terra Firma
Banned
History has shown us what "a complete Islamic state" is: one where religious minorities had rights, including the right to have their OWN LAWS be legally binding, and weren't massacred for merely believing differently.
Similarly, one can argue that Asia, Europe, the Americas, Africa, and Australia all have seen and will continue to see attacks from white Caucasian Christians. It's a lot easier to condemn an entire group for wrongs that some within it commit when your group is sitting on the skulls of millions of dead.
Kenshin001
Member
Which Islamic state are you talking about?
Terra Firma
Banned
The various Islamic caliphates that lasted for centuries. Religious minorities had the right to perform and enforce their own religious laws on their people, such as under the millet system of the Othmani caliphate.
ignoramus indeed
MisterFalcon
Member
Terra Firma
Banned
Then why not generalize everything, according to your logic? Are all Americans like Timothy McVeigh? Are all Christians like Hitler? Are all Atheists like Stalin? Oh, but they weren't "true" Americans/Christians/Atheists, right?
IS has yet to establish itself as a state (in Islam, there are prerequisites to calling yourself a caliphate; even the Taliban do not recognize IS). IS has been in the news for a couple of years.
The Islamic caliphates of the past ruled for over a millennium. If they were anything like IS, not a single Christian, Jew, Hindu, Druze, Zoroastrian, etc. would be able to trace his or her lineage through any of the areas that the caliphates governed. I know that none of the pre-Christian religious groups, such as those who believed in the Roman gods or the Druids or other pagan groups that the Christians ruled over could do that because they were cleansed from Europe.
And do pay attention to the conversation. I was responding to that guy who was saying that the "moderate, non violent Muslims" are "rebels" and ergo not the "true" Muslims.
Interceptor
Banned
Ah revisionist history at its best. Make non believers second class citizens, make them pay the official subhuman tax, give them the right to do as they please (you know.. out of everyones sight and dont get caught doing it - btw ISIS has the same policy). Wait for a thousand years and call it a paradise.
Terra Firma
Banned
Uh, yes, it was one of the best forms of governance. The Jews, for example, flourished under the Othmani caliphate. The Othmani caliphate even sanctioned Jews to go on rescue missions to Europe to retrieve Jews and granted them residence in Muslim lands. Jewish accounts under the Othmani caliphate are overwhelming positive, until nationalism trumped religion in the 19th century. In the centuries before that, Jews had autonomy to practice their own laws.
How on earth was the jizya a "subhuman tax" when that tax exempted non-Muslims from serving in the military (Muslim citizens did not have this luxury), exempted women, children, the sick, and elderly from payment, and even exempted those non-Muslims who volunteered to join the Muslim army from payment? You obviously have no idea what the jizya is.
And what on earth are you talking about? Religious minorities were allowed their own judicial systems. Rabbis presided over cases involving Jews and passed verdicts based on halakhic law. Patriarchs presided over cases involving Christians and passed verdicts based on canonic law. Jews and Christians were allowed to build their places of worship. They were allowed to marry, divorce, inherit based on their laws and even punish people of their community according to their own laws.
MisterFalcon
Member
Slavery and religious apartheid: the ideal state.
Talk us through the Devşirme system and the Ottoman backed Barbary Pirates.
Terra Firma
Banned
Slavery was the norm in every single community. Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc. all had slaves.
And it is kinda obvious that there is going to be religious segregation when the law of the land is theocratic. Furthermore, segregation was NOT enforced. Jews and Christians could live in the same area as Muslims, if they chose to, but just how many communities choose to stick together, there were Jewish areas and Christian areas, etc. Would you call Chinatown or Greektown or Little Italy, etc. as forms of apartheid?
Interceptor
Banned
No no, not apartheid. `Flourish within their own laws.`
MisterFalcon
Member
But always seperate and less. If a jew gets a position of power: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1066_Granada_massacre
How about a law that gives equal rights and treatment to everyone of any (or no) faith ?
Whitechocolatekrispies
Banned
And so does ISIS ... in the year 2014.
Comparisons to centuries old barbaric practices as justification for current actions is not only weak, it's pretty disgusting.
Terra Firma
Banned
I thought we were talking about what Islam commands and how it was promoted under the Muslim caliphates, not what some of the Muslim caliphates did that was blatantly against Islam (and even the laws of the state). We know the motivation for that system was power, not some sort of religious precedent. We also know that it was abolished by a Muslim caliph as well. We could even remove the aspect of religion from it and we see that those who were forced into service were those who were the least powerful, i.e. minorities in rural communities.
My point is simply that the Ottoman Empire was no better or worse than any other empire of its day, regardless of the religion they pushed. There is a tendency that is worryingly common these days to glorify the Ottoman Empire as somehow being a benign empire that was ever so kind to its religious minorities. You see a similar thing sometimes with people claiming the British Empire was a force for good.
This is one of those times where a muslim militia is militia pretty much with being Muslim in name only.
Their revision of the Islamic texts highlights their agenda as driven by political and/or military goals, in this case revenge rather than an authentic expression of the Islamic faith.
Ironically, and quite a sad commentary of the state of affairs in the Islamic world, their justifications are worse on a scholarly level, than anti-islamic islamophobic websites. So their justifications are worse than people who maliciously and deliberately misinterpret the text, - worse than their harshest most extreme critics.
They flat out ignore anything that contradicts them, even the medieval scholars they cite, would not advocate this heinous act as legal under shariah in the middle ages.
And that's just the recruiters and their propaganda machines. Go down the chain, and the henchmen probably don't even need to discuss this.
Their revision of the Islamic texts highlights their agenda as driven by political and/or military goals, in this case revenge rather than an authentic expression of the Islamic faith.
Ironically, and quite a sad commentary of the state of affairs in the Islamic world, their justifications are worse on a scholarly level, than anti-islamic islamophobic websites. So their justifications are worse than people who maliciously and deliberately misinterpret the text, - worse than their harshest most extreme critics.
They flat out ignore anything that contradicts them, even the medieval scholars they cite, would not advocate this heinous act as legal under shariah in the middle ages.
And that's just the recruiters and their propaganda machines. Go down the chain, and the henchmen probably don't even need to discuss this.
Terra Firma
Banned
Jews got in positions of power time and time again in the Islamic caliphates. A one off massacre in centuries of living under Muslim caliphate rule means that it was the norm? I guess the lack of any continuity of Jewish lineage in the lands that were governed by Muslims is evidence of that. Oh wait, that never happened. Jews existed in almost every Muslim nation prior to Zionism.
I guess Americans massacring Native Americans is also the norm, right?
(and you should read your own link; there was much more to the murder of the Vizier and the Jews than some caricature of evil Jews; a belief in a conspiracy blew it out of proportion; after all, the Muslim KING appointed a Jew as the vizier).
But not on the name of atheism. Some happened to be atheists. They didn't do what they did in order to spread atheism or because of some sort of religious intolerance.
Terra Firma
Banned
Of course no empire is perfect. The Othmani caliphate ruled for centuries, yet its subjects maintained their cultural and religious heritage. And I am only bringing them up to counter the point made that IS is some sort of representation of a "true" Islamic caliphate and that "moderate, non violent Muslims" are the "rebels".
The millet system is also deeply rooted in Islamic law. A similar system is not found in other religious law, which is why the only other religion-based governance that was able to expand and conquer lands, which was the Christian Roman Empire, ended up cleansing its lands of non-Christians, which is why we do not see a continued worship of Zeus or Jupiter or any of the Nordic gods. The only movements that exist today are revivalist movements.
Whitechocolatekrispies
Banned
Here's a bunch of Islamophobics
Not Safe For Life (victims of the attack)
I don't think anything could quite be as terrifying as sitting in the dirt next to a bunch of guys quivering and crying to the left, and freshly executed, dead men to the right ... with a loaded, freshly smoking rifle in your face held by a Muslim asking you to recite the Quran.
Stop using that stupid fucking term.
theignoramus
Member
You sure showed me.
Do you mind explaining yourself or are you just here to make a driveby potshot?
The movements I named werent killing strictly in the name of atheism, but destroying the church was a cornerstone of their ideological beliefs. And they set about doing it.
clem84
Gold Member
These people are so hardcore into their beliefs that they are beyond asking themselves questions or even reasoning or any kind. Religion, especially Islam, will do that to you.
Well no. It has uses in contexts other than having a gun in your face.
But I'm glad that's the only thing you have issue with. Or would you like to actually respond to points expressed in my post?
Terra Firma
Banned
Are you even following the conversation or do you just skim across to make some irrelevant point?
We were talking about legitimate Islamic caliphates of the past. Slavery was the byproduct of capturing enemy combatants in the past, a reality of the time. Not a single mainstream Islamic scholar advocates slavery in a modern context because it simply CANNOT exist in the current world. Islam never advocates slavery, but rather placed limitations upon it. Islam is the only religion that advocated freeing the slave. In fact, Muslims who omit some compulsory acts of worship or perform certain acts of worship with inadequacy are commanded in many circumstances to free slaves.
What these murderers did has nothing to do with beliefs. Islam forbids killing the innocent in no ambiguous terms. These murderers look for loopholes to satisfy their blood lust, and when they can't find them, they see even an innocent civilian as a combatant, as we can see with them using the term "crusader" to describe the people they killed.
I think you are missing the point with this post.
Religions, like ideologies and limited liability companies are abstract ideas whose real "value" is the intangible trust/faith people put in them. Christianity exists because people believe in it. Microsoft exists because the governments and people acknowledge its presence. The idea behind the company (and the justice system in general) has no tangible source. The paper on which the laws are written only has "value" because we give it "value". We believe in it/we trust it. (Fiat money is the penultimate example of trust in intangible ideas.)
Human cruelty expresses itself through all of these channels. Big companies take advantage of the poor and extreme ideologies massacre millions (e.g. Stalin). People kill each other over money all the time.
The majority of religious violence in the 21st century takes place in regions in poor economic conditions (see Africa and other developing areas). While yes, some attitudes towards religion should change, I personally think that the long term solution will be lead by economic development rather than any major change in religious attitudes. Poor economic conditions breed extremism, just we are seeing in Greece.
Improve the outlook of the average joe and they'll tend to give less of a shit about ideology and religion. They are less likely to look for extreme options for their current predicament.
Obviously an element of injustice and cruelty would still exist even with good economic conditions (see US), but unless you change the fundamental nature of our species, cruelty and injustice will not disappear (as you have acknowledged later on).
The attack is a symptom of a much wider problem. It's sad to see such things happen, but if the expected development of Africa in the coming half a century has anything to say; happier times are on the horizon.
And when a militia wants to kill Muslims such as in Iraq, they redefine Muslims as apostates.
Joel Was Right
Member
It seems like most are actually discussing the thread title rather than the actual story in the OP, which gives background information and context as to why Somali Jihadists slaughtered Kenyans.
TheWarrior
Banned
What's it like, way up there up there on that pedestal?
I can't think of any Christian Roman Empire that Christianized both the Germanic and Nordic pagans, as well as the Roman and Greek pagans.
Kenshin001
Member
The legitimate caliphates of the past enforced jizya which is what IS are doing. You seem to think it's a good thing to impose a tax on a minority, to demonstrate their subjugation, because of their religion. I think that's why people regard it as subhuman.
I find it hard to believe during the Muslim conquests no innocents were killed. People keep saying that is not Islam and ignore what Muslims have done for centuries and are still doing now.
Stereogatari
Banned
The last legitimate caliphate that existed actually abolished the jizya and was a European-style constitutional monarchy with a parliament.
Whitechocolatekrispies
Banned
Of course like silencing criticism by trying to throw critics into the same camp as racists.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked