Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Tolerance, the Muslim way

Via Dennis, another bit of festival cheer from the Religion of Peace (3,899 fatal attacks carried out since 9/11 according to my wee button).
A husband and wife who dedicated their lives to helping African children were murdered in cold blood by Islamic terrorists, an inquest heard yesterday.

Dick and Enid Eyeington were watching television at their home in Somaliland when a terrorist linked to al-Qaeda shot them.

The couple were considered "infidels" by their attackers, who wrongly believed that they were trying to convert Africans to Christianity.

Det Chief Insp Jill Bailey told the hearing that last month four men, including Mohammed Ali Essa, who fired the AK47, had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death by firing squad. The terrorists shouted "Allah Akbar" (God is Great) after being sentenced and are still awaiting execution.

Miss Bailey said the men were part of a terrorist cell called El Itihad which had killed an Italian nun a week earlier. She also said that Essa's brother-in-law, Adan Ayro, who owned the house in which Essa was captured, could have had links to al-Qa'eda. A plan to blow up an Ethiopian airliner and bomb-making manuals were uncovered during the investigations.

"The defendants did not recognise their actions as crimes," Miss Bailey said. "They felt justified in murdering infidels who they believed were offending Muslim fundamentalism."

If one more person tries to tell me that Islam is a religion of peace or a tolerant religion, I won't turn the other cheek, frankly.


snooo said...

Yes. Because of some (ok, a couple of) nutter's interpretation of a set of theological ideals and doctrines, the entire religion is damned. Like if Sir Benny (the pope) condemns gays, as he does on occasion, all Christains must be homobashers?

That's just damn wrong, sir.

Devil's Kitchen said...

The Religion of Peace: now, you are saying that none of these attacks are anything to do with Islam as a religion?

This is not a religious minority here, as the Christian poof-bashers are. And the point is that, although radical Christians may preach that gays are evil, they do not advocate the killing of unbelievers.

Islam does. And it is not a question of "interpretation". Muslims can choose to adhere or not to all bits of The Koran and Hadiths, but the fact that they preach the killing of infidels cannot be disputed.

Furthermore, in a complete contrast to Christianity, the peaceful bits of The Koran were superceded by the more warlike and intolerant parts (written after Mohammad had been driven from Mecca and was a refugee in Medina).


snooo said...

Now I am by no means an expert in scripture, save for a few Bible lessons recieved at school and youth clubs, but the Islam followed by most Muslim denizens of the earth is not the version practiced by the idiots in your example above.

Yes it is a question of interpretation - I'm sure you'd agree with me that parts of the Bible certainly do mention gay bashing, and if you were to take the bible literally, you'd end up around here. Many liberal Christians do not interpret the Bible literally. Now does this mean that they practice a religion that is by default homophobic but which they choose to ignore in order to be a nice Westerner, or is that religion the religion in their heads?

Similarly, if there are violent passages in the Quoran or the take-them-or-leave-them Hadiths (the status of which I am not well read up on and you'll have to excuse my ignorance, which I am not trying to validate or otherwise here),
then why hasn't every single Muslim on earth volunteered to blow up their neighbours?

I just don't feel that such deterministic stances (Islam is a violent religion) help anybody.

Devil's Kitchen said...

I am not suggesting that all Muslims are evil fucks. However, what I am saying is that Islam is a hegemonising religion in a way that Christianity is not. Sure, we could mention the Crusades, although we could then, in the same breathe, mention the Moorish Empire (which stretched across Southern Spain, remember) and, by extension, that which became the Caliphate.

It is true that the old Testament (Deuteronomy 23, I think) does advocate the (severe) punishment of two men who "lie together". However, the old Testament has been superceded by the New, which says things such as "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". The old strictures were replaced with, and superceded by, an anti-violence philosophy, a philosophy of foregiveness and forebearance. As I pointed out before, the exact opposite happened with Islam.

Christianity has long since dropped the hegemonising tendency. Christianity does not force conversion, and nor does it treat as secondary citizens those who do not believe. Islam, in many places, most notably in parts of Africa, Indonesia, the Asian sub-continent and the Middle East, does. Christians, for instance, are routinely persecuted because they are not Muslims. They are arrested, beaten, churches burnt to the ground, and this is by state agents. Non-state agents do things like sawing the heads off schoolgirls. Furthermore, even though many Christians may believe that homosexuality is wrong, we do not hang them. Nor do Christians, however radical, stone women to death.

It would be foolish to say that all Muslims are head-sawing fantics. This is patently not the case. However, Islam, as a religion, encourages and condones violence in a way that Christianity does not. Many, many acts of violence and murder are perpetrated in the name of Islam, and are motivated, as in this case, caused by an absolute believe in Islam as the one fundamental truth. Islam means "submission" [to God] and whilst this god allows killing (of unbelievers) in his name, the Christian god does not condone killing under any circumstances, and certainly not in his name.

Islam is often, as in this case, not simply a justification or an excuse, but the actual motivation for killing. Yes, it would be wrong to say that all Muslims would kill for their religion, but to ignore Islam as a factor in thousands of killings around the world is to be deliberately blinkered and naive.

I have expanded on this subject throughout this blog, and had many arguments along the same lines as you have laid out. The end conclusion is, for me, inescapable. Islam the religion is a major factor in murder and acts of terrorism throughout the world. Yes, there are political and social factors as well, but Islam is a connecting thread throughout these (and often brings about the other factors, as ably illustrated in this post by Chris at Strange Stuff). Me, I'm seriously worried about the whole situation (not least by the fact that 5,500 Muslims in Britain feel that the 7/7 attacks were justified and they'd like to see more), and the riots in France, Denmark, Holland and Australia have not in any way allayed my forebodings.

I just don't feel that such deterministic stances (Islam is a violent religion) help anybody.

Ignoring the truth because you do not feel that it is correct is also no help. To ably fight a war, which we are effectively doing against the radical Muslims, one should know one's enemy. To ignore the violent and hegemonising aspects of the Koran and Hadiths, and by extension the religion based on them, is both blinkered and dangerous.


NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...