• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
'Police have shot and killed a man who entered a west Auckland supermarket and injured six people on Friday afternoon.

The man - who was on a terror watchlist - carried out the "ISIS-inspired" attack at the LynnMall Countdown with a knife just after 2pm.'

'The Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand (FIANZ) has released a statement condemning today's attack, saying it has "resurrected the trauma" of the Christchurch terror attack.

"Terrorists who do such inhumane and vile acts do not belong to any religion, said Ibrar Sheikh, President of FIANZ.'

Source: Police shoot man dead after terror attack at Countdown LynnMall in Auckland leaves multiple people injured

Personally I take issue with Ibrar Sheikh's response on two counts.

1. It is dishonest to say that a person who belongs to a religion does not belong to any religion. The person in question had a religion and that religion was 'Islamic State'

2. I think it tarnishes the image of the non-religious to say all the terrorists belong to us.

Thoughts?

In my opinion.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Perhaps he meant that such people don't represent the religion,
not to deny that he followed the religion. ie, terrorism is against
the religion.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Perhaps he meant that such people don't represent the religion,
not to deny that he followed the religion. ie, terrorism is against
the religion.
Well he is not here to speak for himself, but if he meant that such people don't represent all Islam he could have said as much without slurring the non-religious.

In my opinion.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I had a different inference. The ambiguity of his
statement points to awkward use of language.
Well I don't know if Ibrar Sheikh is an English as second language speaker so it might be possible that he handles the language awkwardly, but I think that if he has an underling who is highly familiar with the language they should pull him aside and suggest to him a better word choice for the handling of the next attack.

If he is proficient in English on the other hand I think a public retraction/explanation of his comments is in order.

In my opinion.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
2. I think it tarnishes the image of the non-religious to say all the terrorists belong to us.

It always happens, i call it "sloping shoulder syndrome" deny any connection with the speakers views.

And as yet i have never seen any non religious inspired terrorism.
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
Yeah. I would also read FIANZ’s statement as “These sub-human scum are not welcome in our good religion, or in any other religion either.”

rather than what you seem to be implying @danieldemol ….I.e. that FIANZ was saying “These sub-human scum must be atheists or agnostics, because people from real religions are good people.” :confused: :facepalm:
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Yeah. I would also read FIANZ’s statement as “These sub-human scum are not welcome in our good religion, or in any other religion either.”

rather than what you seem to be implying @danieldemol ….I.e. that FIANZ was saying “These sub-human scum must be atheists or agnostics, because people from real religions are good people.” :confused: :facepalm:
I think that he could have said the former more clearly, and that if he did mean the former especially if he is proficient in English a clarification is in order.

In my opinion.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
His agenda wasn't Catholic though.
I contrast this with Islamic terrorism, which is rooted in
religion. And Christians murdering abortion clinic staff.

I always consider those raised in religion (including myself) have some of that religion ingrained.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Perhaps he meant that such people don't represent the religion,
not to deny that he followed the religion. ie, terrorism is against
the religion.

Religion and religious people are two completely different things.
When Catholics write books bashing the Vatican, they still are staunch Catholics.
The Vatican is few people. It is not the religion.
If very few people are bad, it doesn't mean "the religion" is bad...or all the people of that religion are bad.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Source: Police shoot man dead after terror attack at Countdown LynnMall in Auckland leaves multiple people injured

Personally I take issue with Ibrar Sheikh's response on two counts.

1. It is dishonest to say that a person who belongs to a religion does not belong to any religion. The person in question had a religion and that religion was 'Islamic State'

2. I think it tarnishes the image of the non-religious to say all the terrorists belong to us.

Thoughts?

In my opinion.

I figure it's just the obligatory thing to say after events like this. They want to dissociate themselves from the attacker.

I saw New Zealand's prime minister was also quoted as saying it was "an individual, not faith, not a culture, not an ethnicity - but an individual person..." (Auckland terror attack: New Zealand reacts in shock to New Lynn stabbing | Newshub)

"It was carried out by an individual, not faith, not a culture, not an ethnicity - but an individual person who was gripped by [an] ideology that is not supported here by anyone or any community," Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said of the attack.

My impression is that they say things like this to calm the public so nobody gets it into their head to retaliate. Even after 9/11, Bush said something similar:

The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don't represent peace. They represent evil and war.

Statements like this might direct people away from taking matters into their hands - which is essentially a good thing. It would be far worse if people started retaliating against Muslims at random (and such attacks have occurred). However, I think it does tend to confuse people more than offer any real clarity.

The NZ prime minister said it was not due to a faith, culture, or ethnicity, but due to an ideology. Is Islamic State a religion or an ideology, or is it a religious-based ideology? Or is it more closely related to nationalism?

There appears to be a nationalistic component in much of what has gone on these past decades, especially when it appears to overlap with the ideology of national liberation and opposition to imperialism and interventionism by the West in Muslim-majority countries.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Religion and religious people are two completely different things.
When Catholics write books bashing the Vatican, they still are staunch Catholics.
The Vatican is few people. It is not the religion.
If very few people are bad, it doesn't mean "the religion" is bad...or all the people of that religion are bad.
The inherent badness of some religions could be argued.
But I recognize that bad religious people don't necessarily
represent the religion.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
It always happens, i call it "sloping shoulder syndrome" deny any connection with the speakers views.

And as yet i have never seen any non religious inspired terrorism.


The Red Army Faction (Baader Meinhoff gang)
The Red Brigade
The Angry Brigade
The IRA
The Mau Mau
The ANC
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
The Red Army Faction (Baader Meinhoff gang)
The Red Brigade
The Angry Brigade
The IRA
The Mau Mau
The ANC

I will just chose 1 of which i have first hand knowledge, the IRA were and still are catholic, despite many catholics denying this. They were formed to rid Ireland protestantism.

I will add both the mau mau and anc were religious based groups
 
Last edited:

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
I will just chose 1 of which i have first hand knowledge, the IRA were and still are catholic, despite many catholics denying this. They were formed to rid Ireland protestantism.


I think you should consider learning at least something about Irish history, before making statements like that.

The level of ignorance many British people display regarding the roots of that conflict, is an eye opener sometimes.
 
Top