SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Pakistani attorney and author Rafia Zakaria wrote an op-ed in Al Jazeera America about the Islamic extremists' war on fun, including sports, music, even dining in a fine restaurant. Zakaria points out that this apparent obsession predates the existence of ISIS by several decades (at least); he suspects this is a big reason why the attackers chose Paris, renowned worldwide for its brilliant culture and joie de vivre.
Terrorism’s targeting of the merry is universal and indiscriminate, a division of the world between those who wish to live and laugh and hope and those who kill and destroy. The latter are deadly and relentless, and they have already squeezed out the mirth from too many of the world’s cities, from Karachi, Kabul and Baghdad to Nairobi and Beirut.
Zakaria experienced this aspect of terror firsthand. A high school friend had just passed a big exam, and was out celebrating with his family at a restaurant in Karachi, Pakistan, when terrorists struck.
Al Jazeera America provides a separate analysis warning that military action alone cannot defeat ISIS (aka ISIL), which of course is not a "nation" in the traditional sense, but more of a guerilla outfit like Al Qaeda, that opportunistically seized a stronghold in chaotic regions of Syria and Iraq. The piece's author, political scientist Rami G. Khouri, recommends that both the West and Muslim nations of the Middle East spend more resources on addressing economic and political problems facing impoverished youths who are potentially attracted by the ISIS' recruiting pitch:
If the underlying threats to ordinary citizens’ lives in autocratic Arab-Islamic societies remain unaddressed — from jobs, water and health insurance, to free elections, a credible justice system and corruption — the flow of recruits to movements like ISIL or something even worse will persist and even accelerate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @05:14PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ [theatlantic.com]
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants-reader-response-atlantic/385710/ [theatlantic.com]
In reply many like to say "No Islam is not like that" or "ISIS is not following Islam", "You're taking verses out of context". "You can't read it literally like that".
To that I give you this:
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/122176/Egypt/Politics-/AlAzhar-head-says-IS-murderers-deserve-to-be-kille.aspx [ahram.org.eg]
The head of Al-Azhar, Egypt's pre-eminent Sunni Islamic institute, has strongly condemned the killing of a Jordanian pilot by the "terrorist, devilish" Islamic State (IS).
A video released on Tuesday showed Muath Al-Kassasbeh being burned alive by militants in Syria.
Ahmed El-Tayeb said: "The Quran mandates that the perpetrators of this cowardly act, which goes against God's word, deserve to be killed, or crucified, or have their legs and arms amputated."
Ahmed El-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of al-Azhar is considered to be one of the most moderate Sunni clerics in Egypt and his position is considered by some Muslims to be the highest authority in Sunni Islamic thought and Islamic jurisprudence. So now tell me what is the big difference between one of the top authorities of Sunni Islam from the leaders of ISIS? Seems to me they agree on the methods but disagree on who is to be killed.
And here's how the people in many Muslim countries want apostates to be treated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Apostasy_in_the_recent_past [wikipedia.org]
See also: http://sunnah.com/search/religion-kill-him [sunnah.com]
and: http://sunnah.com/search/?q=burn+prayer+houses [sunnah.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16 2015, @06:16PM
> http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/122176/Egypt/Politics-/AlAzhar-head-says-IS-murderers-deserve-to-be-kille.aspx [ahram.org.eg]
Now I am confused. You seem to be arguing that if you are not a crazy ISIS nutjob then you aren't a real muslim. But then you link to an article quoting one of the most prominent islamic scholars saying that what ISIS has done is un-islamic and that murderers deserve to die the way their victims died. I really can't figure you nutjobs out.
> And here's how the people in many Muslim countries want apostates to be treated:
Apostasy doesn't mean the same thing in most of those countries as it does in the west. When you say "apostasy" without any qualifications they hear "treason." In fact as written the laws against apostasy often include a requirement for actively working against the community. Ask the same question about treason in the US and you'll get similar if not higher numbers. You'll also get all kinds of people claiming something is treason when it really isn't. When you look at the number of people executed in the middle-east for apostasy its tiny. Like 5 in the last 20 years and most of those were in conjunction with other crimes like drug smuggling or rape.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @12:00AM
My understanding is that in that part of the world leaving Islam and converting to another religion is widely considered "actively working against the community" and "treason".
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @08:42AM
But then you link to an article quoting one of the most prominent islamic scholars saying that what ISIS has done is un-islamic and that murderers deserve to die the way their victims died. I really can't figure you nutjobs out.
When Buddhists are killed do you hear the top Buddhist religious leaders call for their killers to be killed in the same manner?
When Catholics are killed do you hear the Catholic Pope call for their killers to be killed the same ways? Perhaps in the past when Catholicism was a violent religion, but nowadays no.
So now understand why Islam is still considered a religion of violence. Where the leaders lead their flock will mostly follow.
You can't figure us "nutjobs" out because you're not smart enough to see the obvious when its right in your face. I wonder if you can even see it with me spelling it out like that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by moondrake on Tuesday November 17 2015, @11:54AM
You are aware of the fact that the US still has the death penalty? And how US politicians ordered and achieved the murder (cannot really call it otherwise, it certainly was no trail) of the man which they saw responsible for an act of terrorism? So is the US a country of violence, where the leaders lead their flock, and most will follow?
You are making a strawman argument here. I cannot fault the man for calling for the death of terrorist. I would perhaps ask for the prosecution instead, but in these kind of situations emotions play a role.
Apart from that, you are giving incorrect analogies, it is more like that Pope would call for the death of catholics who killed other people. I think the current pope is above that, but I wonder, if a high-prolific catholic terrorist attack were a thing, I would not be surprised hearing at least some bishops making very similar statements.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 17 2015, @03:36PM
You are aware of the fact that the US still has the death penalty? And how US politicians ordered and achieved the murder (cannot really call it otherwise, it certainly was no trail) of the man which they saw responsible for an act of terrorism? So is the US a country of violence, where the leaders lead their flock, and most will follow?
Yes. The US is a country of violence. Plenty of statistics to prove it. You should have realized it by now. But why even bring this up? And then you have the cheek to say I'm making a strawman argument.
That you even wrote your first paragraph shows you're either incapable of seeing and understanding simple obvious stuff, or you are bad at arguing a point. Or both.
You should work at getting better. I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain simple obvious stuff to you after this post. Your claiming that some bishops _would_ do X is weak and pathetic. If you're going to go to talk about some random bishop around the world possibly saying stuff, you can go find for yourself many times more imams and muftis who have _actually_ said far worse stuff in public or to their followers.
p.s. in case you try to bring it up, I'm well aware of the child molestation stuff by bishops and priests but they weren't exactly teaching their followers to do that were they? And that area looks even worse for Islam: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/17/saudi.child.marriage/ [cnn.com]
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-father-jailed-marrying-14-year-old-daughter-off-30-year-old-man-1508511 [ibtimes.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Wednesday November 18 2015, @09:42AM
Why do you feel the need to sprinkle your reply with personal attacks? Its not relevant to the discussion.
I talked about the US simply to show you that answering violence with violence is a thing that not only Muslims do. If you already knew this: great. But why write your post in such a way as if it is a think that only Muslims do? And I only brought up the bishop argument because it is one you *should* have used if you were trying to be logically correct. The issue at hand was a Muslim calling for the death of Muslims, not a Muslim calling for the death of people that attacked Muslims. You miss the point by calling it weak. Your argument simply did not make sense.
There are a lot of cultural differences in this world. Not everything you hear a Muslim say is because he is Muslim, but because he grew up in a society with its own particular values. Often, this will be a 3rd world society that we find very hard to understand. Sometimes, they do things much better than we in the "West". Sometimes, they do things much worse. But who are we really to judge? Take your child marriage example. In many societies, arranged marriages, even at a young age, were (and sometimes still are) seen as beneficial for both families and the children involved. If it happens in country where its forbidden, then I think it should be prosecuted. If it happens in a country were the majority of people think it should be allowed, I have no right to judge them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 18 2015, @05:04PM
Whereas the pope or an archbishop is far better analog to a grand imam. The religious leaders are supposed to set higher standards so their followers can hopefully get better. That many people want to answer violence with violence means little when they are not leaders of a major religion.
And this is not the grand imam getting caught in private saying what he really wants - this is his official public statement.