Calling a spade "a spade"
Since the 'Charlie Hebdo' murders in Paris, we've often heard the name "Daesh" being added to the names for the terrorist group also known as ISIS, ISIL, IS and "Islamic State". Which name to use?
Well, I'm going to continue using "Islamic State", because it clearly attributes the atrocities to a group wanting the world to be ruled by their brand of Islamic law.
We often hear Muslims objecting to an association between their religion and Islamic State fanatics. Twitter is awash with hash-tag #NotInMyName. And good - Muslims who are appalled by attacks by adherents to their religion should definitely and clearly disassociate themselves with the terrorist fanatics. But is it fair for us to make an association between Islam and groups like Islamic State, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram; as well as the many real, repressive and repulsive Islamic states from as Saudi Arabia to Uganda?
Well, the name is "Islamic State" - not "Secular State". There is no part of secularism that can be used to excuse or justify terrorism. Islamic militants get their justification from the koran - the same book from which every other Muslim takes their religious instruction. The same words which are ignored, excused or (generously speaking) "symbolically interpreted" by many Muslims are implemented in blood by the fanatics. Is it an unfortunate accident that a perfectly reasonable religion (which just happens to call for death to infidels and all manner of other nastiness) has been hijacked by murderous extremists? Or could it happen to any group?
Let's test that thought by thinking what would happen if a branch of so-called 'militant atheists' decided to engage in "unholy" war. What would be their justification? Atheism has no "instruction manual" of incitement comparable to scripture. So if some speaker seen to represent militant atheists incited violence, would they succeed?
I think we'd have to conclude that if they did succeed, it would be on the basis of a prejudice which is genuinely, entirely and completely separate from "atheism" itself. Atheism has no written works which are called "truth" and which may not be challenged. There is no un-accountable god of unquestionable and unimpeachable authority. And the main message of atheism is "Think for yourself, challenge a priori beliefs and your own preconceptions."
This fundamentally differs from Islam (and of religions generally) where there are a set of prescribed, unprovable truths which devotion requires them to accept without challenge. To be a Muslim, to be a Christian, to be a follower of Judaism requires adherence to a canon of literature and deference to an authority which must be accepted on trust, "in faith". So in a direct proportion to the degree of willingness of a follower to accept the religion's authority, adherents are allowing themselves to set aside any innate rational instinct they may possess, and be softened-up for brain-washing.
So has Islam been annexed by a tiny minority who do not share the values of 'real' Muslims? Well it's certainly not a tiny minority.
On the night of the November 2015 atrocities in Paris, I engaged with Muslims and Muslim supporters on Twitter, who had complained that they were being unfairly held as scapegoats for the extremists. You can feel the emotion from Brooklyn madness, who used her 145 characters to tweet:
A rational response to extremism and causes of extremism is one that addresses the evidence. And that's why I'm going to start by calling the terrorists in Paris "Islamic State", not "Daesh". Let's look around the world and see what happens when Islam rules states. Forced marriage. Beheading. Stoning. Lashing. Female genital mutilation. Misogyny. Apostate killing. Gay killing. Honour killing. Female subjugation.
Muslims, Christians and other religions should be free to believe in their fairy stories of gods and angels, miracles and flying horses, creation myths and resurrections. But when the religion is used in large part to inflict scripture-based beliefs in its name on unwilling participants, Members of the Club need to reform it or leave it.
Hash-tag #IslamIsTheProblem. Hash-tag #ReligionIsTheProblem. And that is why I will call a spade a spade, and why I will call the group responsible for the Paris atrocities "Islamic State".
Well, I'm going to continue using "Islamic State", because it clearly attributes the atrocities to a group wanting the world to be ruled by their brand of Islamic law.
We often hear Muslims objecting to an association between their religion and Islamic State fanatics. Twitter is awash with hash-tag #NotInMyName. And good - Muslims who are appalled by attacks by adherents to their religion should definitely and clearly disassociate themselves with the terrorist fanatics. But is it fair for us to make an association between Islam and groups like Islamic State, Taliban, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram; as well as the many real, repressive and repulsive Islamic states from as Saudi Arabia to Uganda?
Well, the name is "Islamic State" - not "Secular State". There is no part of secularism that can be used to excuse or justify terrorism. Islamic militants get their justification from the koran - the same book from which every other Muslim takes their religious instruction. The same words which are ignored, excused or (generously speaking) "symbolically interpreted" by many Muslims are implemented in blood by the fanatics. Is it an unfortunate accident that a perfectly reasonable religion (which just happens to call for death to infidels and all manner of other nastiness) has been hijacked by murderous extremists? Or could it happen to any group?
Let's test that thought by thinking what would happen if a branch of so-called 'militant atheists' decided to engage in "unholy" war. What would be their justification? Atheism has no "instruction manual" of incitement comparable to scripture. So if some speaker seen to represent militant atheists incited violence, would they succeed?
I think we'd have to conclude that if they did succeed, it would be on the basis of a prejudice which is genuinely, entirely and completely separate from "atheism" itself. Atheism has no written works which are called "truth" and which may not be challenged. There is no un-accountable god of unquestionable and unimpeachable authority. And the main message of atheism is "Think for yourself, challenge a priori beliefs and your own preconceptions."
This fundamentally differs from Islam (and of religions generally) where there are a set of prescribed, unprovable truths which devotion requires them to accept without challenge. To be a Muslim, to be a Christian, to be a follower of Judaism requires adherence to a canon of literature and deference to an authority which must be accepted on trust, "in faith". So in a direct proportion to the degree of willingness of a follower to accept the religion's authority, adherents are allowing themselves to set aside any innate rational instinct they may possess, and be softened-up for brain-washing.
So has Islam been annexed by a tiny minority who do not share the values of 'real' Muslims? Well it's certainly not a tiny minority.
- A 2007 poll poll of British Muslims conducted by the "Policy Exchange" think-tank (key findings here) found that 28% of British Muslims "would prefer to live in Britain under sharia law rather than British law".
- The same poll found that 36% of 16 to 24-year-olds believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death, compared with 19% of over-55s.
- A 2015 ComRes poll of British Muslims commissioned by BBC Radio 4's "Today" programme found that 27% British Muslims have some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.
- The same poll found that 11% of British Muslims feel sympathetic towards people who want to fight against western interests.
On the night of the November 2015 atrocities in Paris, I engaged with Muslims and Muslim supporters on Twitter, who had complained that they were being unfairly held as scapegoats for the extremists. You can feel the emotion from Brooklyn madness, who used her 145 characters to tweet:
Brooklyn madness But when I replied to her as to 17 others, I got no response.@artdecxo
NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST
NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST
NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST
NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORIST
NOT ALL MUSLIMS A
It's as if there is a consensus of understanding on what this means, but an unwillingness to address it. This 'ostrich mentality' is shared by our politicians, and quality media; who seem to believe that calling a spade a spade is simply unacceptable, even after it has been independently found to be a JCB digger!@artdecxo This BBC poll found 27% of British Muslims support motivation of Hebdo attack. What do you think about it? http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/bbc-radio-4-today-muslim-poll/ …
A rational response to extremism and causes of extremism is one that addresses the evidence. And that's why I'm going to start by calling the terrorists in Paris "Islamic State", not "Daesh". Let's look around the world and see what happens when Islam rules states. Forced marriage. Beheading. Stoning. Lashing. Female genital mutilation. Misogyny. Apostate killing. Gay killing. Honour killing. Female subjugation.
Muslims, Christians and other religions should be free to believe in their fairy stories of gods and angels, miracles and flying horses, creation myths and resurrections. But when the religion is used in large part to inflict scripture-based beliefs in its name on unwilling participants, Members of the Club need to reform it or leave it.
Hash-tag #IslamIsTheProblem. Hash-tag #ReligionIsTheProblem. And that is why I will call a spade a spade, and why I will call the group responsible for the Paris atrocities "Islamic State".
posted by Tsuchan at 10:52 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home