Yeah, it works. I don't presume to speak for him, so I'll leave it at that.
If the media don't show it they should do more to convince them to show it.
Remember 2003 when the entire world was up in arms because USA invaded Iraq? There were demonstrations all over the world, including countries like France that were doing all they could to stop the invasion, remember? There is no way anyone could say any person in, say, France, was to blame for the invasion and yet they still marched. Effigies of George W. Bush burned all over the place.
How many effigies of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi were burned when ISIS invaded Iraq 11 years later, or in the years of atrocities since?
See how this works? It doesn't matter if you're implicated in the events or not. What matters is that you show you oppose that in principle and do it in a way that is impossible to ignore.
Loud Islamic demonstrations against Islamic violence are a part of the solution. They aren't the whole solution, but could build up a meaningful contribution in a short time, for minimal cost.
The one primary reason we go to work every day is because we want to earn money. There is a mish-mash of other reasons as well, but this is one reason that works for a vast majority of people. Do you consider this silly or not?
A growth in literacy and increased availability of both Islamic literature on one hand and of weapons of destruction on the other are two significant differences that have appeared. A direct off-shot of the first difference is a drop in power of various religious authorities.
There weren't significant number of Muslims in the UK until a few decades ago, so the "centuries" claim is bogus. They didn't wait for very long, the terror campaigns started only a few decades after Muslim population boomed.
http://www.brin.ac.uk/wp-content/images/galepeachestimates.jpg
Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus were about evenly represented in the UK in 1961. By 1971 there were twice as many Muslims as Sikhs or Hindus and by 1981 there were twice as many Muslims as Sikhs and Hindus combined. Muslim population as a percentage of (growing) British population skyrocketed from then on.
The upshot of this is that Islamic terrorism followed the trend, with a lag of one generation. Apparently the first generation immigrants of that time were fine people, but their kids are less savory.
No doubt, but your claim is that the war zone in Syria (or Libya, Iraq, ...) is making Britons who have never been to Syria, who don't originate from Syria, who have no family in Syria and who don't even know of anyone who is of Syrian origin into mass murderers. That's just absurd. The only connection is their shared Islamic faith, nothing else.
How come the chaos among Christians in Africa doesn't make non-African Christians go bonkers over that conflict? If your hypothesis were correct we should see Christian terrorism in the West over Christian on Christian conflicts in Africa too. Or, by extension, Christian terrorism in US during the first world war, because of the said war.
Either show examples of the above or explain why this works for Islam and only Islam. Good luck.
Of course not. Nationalism, among other ideologies, can inspire someone to conduct terrorism. This is not in question. The fact nationalism can inspire terrorism does not tell us Islam can't.
Being Irish does not mean you follow a 7th (or any other) century warlord who left written account of his ideology for his successors to follow (written by those successors, I know) and of his biography to emulate. Islam does. Your comparison is invalid from here on.
They are more likely to engage in terrorism though, by a large margin.
How come? Because war in Syria makes Muslims in UK crazy? How come it doesn't work on other religious groups?
That particular passage has no easy or very meaningful interpretation.
These three on the other hand:
Koran 2:191-193:191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)
Are most easily understood as if the unbelievers are to be fought wherever and whenever possible, except in the holy shrine of Mecca, until such time as the entire world is converted to Islam. Unbelievers who convert are to be left alone.
The usual 'interpretation' is that this only applied to Meccans, which is a major mental hoop one must jump through, due the part I'll cite again below:
fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone).
It seems quite inclusive to me, no discrimination there. The easiest interpretation is the one ISIS uses, most other Muslims jump through a mental hoop at this one to weasel out what they want. I don't mind that they do in the slightest, but your point is still in ashes.
McHrozni
McHrozni
- find and replace as well.
