But adherents of pro-life ideology base it on religion.
Ex-Muslim atheist on Islamic extremism and "new atheism"
- Thread starter Dusty Bake Activate
- Start date
But adherents of pro-life ideology base it on religion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Techniec
Drugs and Kalashnikovs
the problem with the article is that despite making several good point it tends to lump all types of Islamic militancy into one pile
Islam has, inherent to it, an aggressive expansionary element. We know this to be true from the exortations to preach, to convert, and to expand. It is not satisfied with keeping to itself.
Even if one makes the argument that nothing in scripture commands the Muslim to conquer, certain that strain exists historically and in some cases culturally
Some Arab groups have appropriated this in the struggle against the Jews, Pakistanti nationalists use this rhetoric against India etc
You also see this manifest itself in this global khalifate lets take over the world nonsense from some extremist circles
If Muslims are being tasked with the responsibility of confronting this element, then that is a reasonable thing to ask of it.
However we know confidently, that the overwhelming majority of manifestation of Islamic militancy is explicitly reactionary in nature. Its not expansionary.
That doesnt mean the first point I raised is irrelevant, or doesnt merit discussion, but its not really a priority. And thats not what Jihad really is. It can be manipulated to pretend to be as such but thats not what it is.
Jihad is inherently defensive, and the majority of conflicts Muslims are involved in are reactionary and thats why Jihad appeals to these Muslims.
Thats why Hamas can mobilize more against Israel than it can against Fatah
Thats why the Taliban used Jihad as a rallying cry againt NATO but faced a backlash over its use of Afghans against other Afghans during the civil war
So if you wanna complain about Islamic militancy, what do you address? Do you address that one inherent strain within Islam, that while it may or may not manifest itself in a much larger manner in some hypothetical future certainly is not a factor today?
Or do you address the other strain of militancy which accounts for the overwhelming majority of Islamic militancy? So Rizvi , to me, has no right to preach to a Muslim about violence when you dont hold the external factors that breath oxygen into the fire and keep it ablaze to account
You need to check those first.
Implementing Sharia in London is not what aggravates millions of Muslims and spurs them to violence. Thats not what motivates them.
To me, the dangerous ones are not the Hamas or Hezbollahs
Its the Takfiris, the ones who show up and operate outside of an external enemy. They consider and attack the enemy within. They consider other Muslims infidels for not believing what they believe. Theyre not rallying against a foreign oppressor.
But even in their case, the biggest sponsor of Salafi groups are the Saudis who are the biggest Muslim allies of the West. And these groups essentially operate in a context of weakened dimasculated Islamic societies who have only their religion to latch on to hence the competition for whose the strongest Muslim
Its complex as fukk and I dont pretend to have the answers, but all I see from this Rizvi character and other tap dancing brown skinned ex Muslims is talk for the sake of talking/
Islam has, inherent to it, an aggressive expansionary element. We know this to be true from the exortations to preach, to convert, and to expand. It is not satisfied with keeping to itself.
Even if one makes the argument that nothing in scripture commands the Muslim to conquer, certain that strain exists historically and in some cases culturally
Some Arab groups have appropriated this in the struggle against the Jews, Pakistanti nationalists use this rhetoric against India etc
You also see this manifest itself in this global khalifate lets take over the world nonsense from some extremist circles
If Muslims are being tasked with the responsibility of confronting this element, then that is a reasonable thing to ask of it.
However we know confidently, that the overwhelming majority of manifestation of Islamic militancy is explicitly reactionary in nature. Its not expansionary.
That doesnt mean the first point I raised is irrelevant, or doesnt merit discussion, but its not really a priority. And thats not what Jihad really is. It can be manipulated to pretend to be as such but thats not what it is.
Jihad is inherently defensive, and the majority of conflicts Muslims are involved in are reactionary and thats why Jihad appeals to these Muslims.
Thats why Hamas can mobilize more against Israel than it can against Fatah
Thats why the Taliban used Jihad as a rallying cry againt NATO but faced a backlash over its use of Afghans against other Afghans during the civil war
So if you wanna complain about Islamic militancy, what do you address? Do you address that one inherent strain within Islam, that while it may or may not manifest itself in a much larger manner in some hypothetical future certainly is not a factor today?
Or do you address the other strain of militancy which accounts for the overwhelming majority of Islamic militancy? So Rizvi , to me, has no right to preach to a Muslim about violence when you dont hold the external factors that breath oxygen into the fire and keep it ablaze to account
You need to check those first.
Implementing Sharia in London is not what aggravates millions of Muslims and spurs them to violence. Thats not what motivates them.
To me, the dangerous ones are not the Hamas or Hezbollahs
Its the Takfiris, the ones who show up and operate outside of an external enemy. They consider and attack the enemy within. They consider other Muslims infidels for not believing what they believe. Theyre not rallying against a foreign oppressor.
But even in their case, the biggest sponsor of Salafi groups are the Saudis who are the biggest Muslim allies of the West. And these groups essentially operate in a context of weakened dimasculated Islamic societies who have only their religion to latch on to hence the competition for whose the strongest Muslim
Its complex as fukk and I dont pretend to have the answers, but all I see from this Rizvi character and other tap dancing brown skinned ex Muslims is talk for the sake of talking/
Slaimon Khan Shah
SLAIMON KHAN SHAH = SHAOLIN MONK/S OF ISLAAM
ISLAM IS A PERFECTED WAY OF LIFE FROM THE CREATOR.
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Why is that a valid reason?