The French Massacre - Do We Stand Up For Free Speech?

Neapolitan · 01-20-2015, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Take the words "allahu akhbar" (or how it is spelled), it simply means something relatively harmless like "God is great", but I dare say most westerners today associate it with something a little more sinister, like a terrorist battle cry.

Not denying its more benign usage, but it is now and it was use in the very beginning of islam as a "battle cry." It is not a new development either but a radical step backwards.

Quote:

"When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers."

It has been used historically as a battle cry during war. It was first used in war by Muhammad in the Battle of Badr, the first battle in Islam.

Takbir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 01-20-2015, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

For someone who nitpicks, you don't seem to read my post thoroughly. Did my use of the word "islamism" indicate that I do not know its meaning? Did I write that islamism is harmless?

These are rhetorical questions.

you didn't specifically write that islamism is harmless, you wrote this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

The actions of these terrorists is creating more and more such associations and if it goes far enough, you can end up in a situation where islamism and the harmless things that relate to the religion remind us of fear, violence and terror.

which sounded to me like you were grouping islamism with the harmless things that relate to the religion. maybe i misinterpreted your point, but that's just how it reads to me.

DwnWthVwls · 01-20-2015, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

i agree with the overall message of your post, just want to point out that islamism refers specifically to the political ideology of ruling through islam. i don't consider this to be harmless, personally.

I would take that with a grain of salt. I'm speaking purely through assumption here but if it's anything like every other religion it should be looked at as a generalized term with few or no absolute characteristics when put into practice. If this isn't the case please feel free to school me I'm naive to the subject.

The point I'm trying to make is: being a christian doesn't mean you don't support abortion or the death penalty, so why do islamists(?) have to support political ruling through islam? Harmfulness should be approached on a case by case basis and not be a stigma that you attach to an entire group of people.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 01-20-2015, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Islamism (Islam and -ism) or political Islam (Arabic: الإسلام السياسي‎ Islām siyāsī; or الإسلامية al-Islāmīyah) is a set of ideologies holding that "Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life".

Islamism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that's the actual definition of the term from what i understand. so i'm not sure how i am attaching a stigma to anyone.

DwnWthVwls · 01-20-2015, 01:15 PM

Ok but is it that way in reality? That's the point I was making. Definitions don't mean much if they don't represent reality. It's also why I used the christianity example. Here's another: the real definition of the swastika versus how it's viewed in western/european culture.

And "you" was a generalization not JWB specific.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 01-20-2015, 01:18 PM

i don't understand what you're saying. islamism is a term for a political ideology holding that islam should be the guiding set of principles by which a state should be ruled. it's not the same as islam, which is a religion. to me, saying that islamists don't necessarily support ruling through islam is like saying that communists don't necessarily support the redistribution of wealth.

DwnWthVwls · 01-20-2015, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

i don't understand what you're saying. islamism is a term for a political ideology holding that islam should be the guiding set of principles by which a state should be ruled. it's not the same as islam, which is a religion. to me, saying that islamists don't necessarily support ruling through islam is like saying that communists don't necessarily support the redistribution of wealth.

Ok. That's why I was confused and asking. I didn't know there is a difference.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 01-20-2015, 01:22 PM

well, there are some people (muslim and non-muslim alike) who will say there is no difference. but there are plenty of muslims that don't identify as islamists.

Neapolitan · 01-20-2015, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

For someone who nitpicks, you don't seem to read my post thoroughly. Did my use of the word "islamism" indicate that I do not know its meaning? Did I write that islamism is harmless?

These are rhetorical questions.

you didn't specifically write that islamism is harmless, you wrote this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

The actions of these terrorists is creating more and more such associations and if it goes far enough, you can end up in a situation where islamism and the harmless things that relate to the religion remind us of fear, violence and terror.

which sounded to me like you were grouping islamism with the harmless things that relate to the religion. maybe i misinterpreted your point, but that's just how it reads to me.

I would probably used "Wahhabism/islam" where tore used "islamism/the religion" just to clarify things. I really don't to comment on how tore says things, but rather point out that you do worse than what you accuse him of doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

ah. i like free speech better than human life personally. life isn't worth living if you stand for nothing. that's why i ultimately respect the extremists more than i do you appeasers.

What "extremists" are you talking about? In that sentence you make it seem that you respect islamic "extremists."

The Batlord · 01-20-2015, 01:38 PM

Still agreeing with JWB, since, no matter how racist and incendiary the cartoons, when they get published, the idea of killing over them is absurd, and anyone who would do it, not only needs to be brought to justice, but their ideology needs to be scrutinized in a public forum. Doing so would naturally inflame extreme Islamists even further, leading to greater violence, but I see that as a necessary evil when faced with a threat on Western ideals of freedom of speech. And considering the level of Arab immigration to Europe, I imagine that same influence that allows extremists in the Middle-East to exert control over moderate Muslims might start to come into effect if the populations reach a certain point. So there might actually be a threat to freedom of speech somewhere down the line. I say this as an American who isn't as up on European politics and news as his Old World brothers, but that's just how it seems to me.

But I also saw a Facebook thing posted by a friend on a forum that pointed out something I was previously unaware of.

Tens of thousands of Muslims flee Christian militias in Central African Republic - The Washington Post

I don't know how much news coverage it gets, but considering how much publicity the Paris thing is getting, versus the outcry over this, then I think that there's definitely a double standard, either A.) of media coverage concentrating on Muslim-on-Christian violence over Christian-on-Muslim violence, or B.) of media coverage concentrating on first world violence versus third-world violence (or at least what is perceived as third-world).

There certainly isn't such an issue with world-wide Christian terror groups, or "home grown" Christian terrorists at the level as home grown Islamist terrorists, but there are certainly extreme Christians in parts of the world with enough numbers to cause things like this who need to be called out on their religious bull**** in a more public way.

01-20-2015, 01:18 PM	#446 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	i don't understand what you're saying. islamism is a term for a political ideology holding that islam should be the guiding set of principles by which a state should be ruled. it's not the same as islam, which is a religion. to me, saying that islamists don't necessarily support ruling through islam is like saying that communists don't necessarily support the redistribution of wealth.

01-20-2015, 01:22 PM	#448 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	well, there are some people (muslim and non-muslim alike) who will say there is no difference. but there are plenty of muslims that don't identify as islamists.