Peak Australian Islamic groups seek to whitewash religion of religiously motivated terrorism in my view

[danieldemol]

Peak Australian Islamic groups seek to whitewash religion of religiously motivated terrorism in my view

'An alliance of peak Islamic groups has called for Australia's terrorism laws to be changed, to remove the concept of "religiously motivated terrorism" from the legislation...

...
A spokesperson for ASIO said the overarching descriptors of "ideologically motivated violent extremism" and "religiously motivated violent extremism" allowed accurate categorisation of security threats on the basis of their primary driver.

"ASIO’s subject matter experts have an extensive and detailed understanding of threats, and they concluded that individuals or groups who support violence to oppose or achieve a specific social, political or legal outcome based on a religious interpretation can appropriately and accurately be described as "religiously motivated", they said in a statement.'

Source: Sixth teenager charged with terror offence as Islamic groups call for review of Sydney counterterrorism raids

I would like to applaud the ASIO director General's courage, honesty and integrity for his comment at the ASIO threat assessment summary as intelligence agencies have both the right and the responsibility to know what the greatest terror threats they face are in my view. It is the bread and butter of their business.

 

[Glaurung]

The distinction between "religious" and "ideological" is meaningless when the ideology in question is explicitly religious in its aims and doctrine. It may be an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth for Muslims (and politically correct progressives) to admit, but Islam is not merely incidental to Islamist violence.

 

[Augustus]

The distinction between "religious" and "ideological" is meaningless when the ideology in question is explicitly religious in its aims and doctrine.

The distinction is pretty meaningless in all circumstances.

There is no meaningful way to differentiate a religious ideology from a non religious ideology imo.

They are functionally the same thing.

 

[stevecanuck]

The distinction is pretty meaningless in all circumstances.

There is no meaningful way to differentiate a religious ideology from a non religious ideology imo.

They are functionally the same thing.

When a terrorist poses for a picture with an AK47 in one hand, a Qur'an in the other, a headband with an Islamic phrase, or an ISIS flag with the Islamic shahada in the background, then it's not only easy to make such a differentiation, but they're doing everything they can to make sure you do.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Peak Australian Islamic groups seek to whitewash religion of religiously motivated terrorism in my view

'An alliance of peak Islamic groups has called for Australia's terrorism laws to be changed, to remove the concept of "religiously motivated terrorism" from the legislation...

...
A spokesperson for ASIO said the overarching descriptors of "ideologically motivated violent extremism" and "religiously motivated violent extremism" allowed accurate categorisation of security threats on the basis of their primary driver.

"ASIO’s subject matter experts have an extensive and detailed understanding of threats, and they concluded that individuals or groups who support violence to oppose or achieve a specific social, political or legal outcome based on a religious interpretation can appropriately and accurately be described as "religiously motivated", they said in a statement.'

Source: Sixth teenager charged with terror offence as Islamic groups call for review of Sydney counterterrorism raids

I would like to applaud the ASIO director General's courage, honesty and integrity for his comment at the ASIO threat assessment summary as intelligence agencies have both the right and the responsibility to know what the greatest terror threats they face are in my view. It is the bread and butter of their business.

Religiously motivated terrorism, hatred, etc., definitely exist, but I find myself agreeing with this excerpt from the article:

"The use of charged language such as "religiously motivated Sunni violent extremism" by the Director-General of ASIO Mike Burgess, particularly during sensitive times ... fuels Islamophobia and further marginalises the Muslim community," she said.

Rephrasing that part to something like, "violent extremism motivated by some forms [or a subset] of Sunni Islam" seems to me reasonable and probably less likely to feed into anti-Muslim sentiments, since it would be more specific than ascribing the extremism to Sunni Islam wholesale. Sunni Islam is the largest sect in the religion, comprising 85%-90% of the world's Muslims—so at least 1.6 billion people. Coupled with the current rise in anti-Muslim sentiments and hate incidents in some countries (examples here and here), I think the criticism I quoted above is valid.

 

[Revoltingest]

Terrorism is terrorism.
Adding the religious component here in USA has
been quite demonizing of Muslims generally.
It causes suffering while offering no benefit.
So I'd say to ditch the "religious" label.

Note that when Christians have committed
terrorism here, it's been portrayed as a
separate thing from their religion, despite
it's being integral.

 

[Augustus]

When a terrorist poses for a picture with an AK47 in one hand, a Qur'an in the other, a headband with an Islamic phrase, or an ISIS flag with the Islamic shahada in the background, then it's not only easy to make such a differentiation, but they're doing everything they can to make sure you do.

You seem to misunderstand.

They are identifying themselves as jihadis, the same as someone might identify themselves as a Nazi or Communist terrorist.

Religiously motivated violence is ideologically motivated violence though.

A religious ideology is no different from a secular ideology, and there is no meaningful and consistent way to demarcate “religious” ideologies from “not religious” ones.

Feel free to explain a
meaningful and consistent way to demarcate “religious” ideologies from “not religious” ones if you disagree.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Terrorism is terrorism.
Adding the religious component here in USA has
been quite demonizing of Muslims generally.
It causes suffering while offering no benefit.
So I'd say to ditch the "religious" label.

That's more an issue with xenophobia, more like anti-Asian sentiments in America after Pearl Harbor was attacked.
Amd a bigger issue with the way we see America using terrorist in a very lopsided and unevem and unequal application of the term.

Note that when Christians have committed
terrorism here, it's been portrayed as a
separate thing from their religion, despite
it's being integral.

There's a history of downplaying it, glossing it over, erasing it and even glorifying and romanticizing it, such as with the Hollywood blockbuster Birth of a Nation.

 

[stevecanuck]

You seem to misunderstand.

They are identifying themselves as jihadis, the same as someone might identify themselves as a Nazi or Communist terrorist.

Religiously motivated violence is ideologically motivated violence though.

A religious ideology is no different from a secular ideology, and there is no meaningful and consistent way to demarcate “religious” ideologies from “not religious” ones.

Feel free to explain a
meaningful and consistent way to demarcate “religious” ideologies from “not religious” ones if you disagree.

LOL!

I just did. Read post #4.

 

[stevecanuck]

Terrorism is terrorism.
Adding the religious component here in USA has
been quite demonizing of Muslims generally.
It causes suffering while offering no benefit.
So I'd say to ditch the "religious" label.

The reason people bend over backwards to not talk about the teachings of Islam is that deep down they know it will force them to pull their heads out of the sand. To admit that nearly 2 billion people follow (at least nominally) a religion that explicitly calls for violence against the rest of us is just more than they want to deal with. You would be a perfect example.

Note that when Christians have committed
terrorism here, it's been portrayed as a
separate thing from their religion, despite
it's being integral.

Islamic jihad is NOT a "separate thing from their religion". The Qur'an explicitly tells Muslims to fight non-Muslims. We have to have the resolve to admit that uncomfortable truth.

 

[Revoltingest]

The reason people bend over backwards to not talk about the teachings of Islam is that deep down they know it will force them to pull their heads out of the sand. To admit that nearly 2 billion people follow (at least nominally) a religion that explicitly calls for violence against the rest of us is just more than they want to deal with. You would be a perfect example.

The teaching of Christianity & Judaism are
also filled with violence. So I criticize all
Abrahamic religions for this.
But to make some terrorism about Islam,
& to ignore terrorism by Christians & Jews
is dangerous bigotry.

 

[stevecanuck]

That's more an issue with xenophobia,

Another LOL from Shadow Wolf. If you want hundreds and hundreds of examples of xenophobia, just read the Qur'an. Here's a free sample pack:

- 2:75 - "They [Jews] willfully distorted the word of Allah".

- 2:88 - "Allah has cursed them for their disbelief."

- 2:92 - "You [Jews] were evildoers."

- 2:93 - "[Jews] Thou wilt indeed find them, of all people, most greedy of life."

- 3:71 - "O People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians): 'Why do you mix truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know?'"

- 3:112 - "Shame is pitched over them ... they draw on themselves wrath from Allah, and pitched over them is destitution.This because they rejected the Signs of Allah."

- 4:46 - "Among the Jews are those who distort words from their proper usages ... twisting their tongues and defaming the religion ... Allah has cursed them for their disbelief.

- 5:13 - "But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and you shall always discover treachery in them except a few of them."

- 5:41 - "the Jews, avid listeners to falsehood ... They distort words beyond their usages ... They distort words ... Those are the ones for whom Allah does not intend to purify their hearts. For them in this world is disgrace, and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment."

- 5:42 - "[Jews are] avid listeners to falsehood, devourers of what is unlawful [usury]."

- 5:64 - "And the Jews say: The hand of Allah is tied up! Their hands shall be shackled and they shall be cursed for what they say."

- 5:82 - "You will find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe [Muslims] to be the Jews and idolaters."

- 9:32 - "They [Jews] want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths."

- 62:5 - "Those who were to carry the responsibility of the Torah [Jews] but ignored it, are like donkeys laden with books. How terrible is the example of the people who reject the revelations of God. God does not guide the unjust."

- 98:6 - "Indeed, those who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture [Jews and Christians] ... will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures."

 

[stevecanuck]

The teaching of Christianity & Judaism are
also filled with violence. So I criticize all
Abrahamic religions for this.
But to make some terrorism about Islam,
& to ignore terrorism by Christians & Jews
is dangerous bigotry.

How about if we just make Islamic terrorism about Islam? Does that sound fair?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

How about if we just make Islamic terrorism about Islam? Does that sound fair?

As I've known many Muslims and they weren't violent and treated me better than many Christians, no that doesn't sound fair.

 

[stevecanuck]

As I've known many Muslims and they weren't violent and treated me better than many Christians, no that doesn't sound fair.

The people you know have nothing to do with what the Qur'an commands.

 

[danieldemol]

Religiously motivated terrorism, hatred, etc., definitely exist, but I find myself agreeing with this excerpt from the article:



Rephrasing that part to something like, "violent extremism motivated by some forms [or a subset] of Sunni Islam" seems to me reasonable and probably less likely to feed into anti-Muslim sentiments, since it would be more specific than ascribing the extremism to Sunni Islam wholesale. Sunni Islam is the largest sect in the religion, comprising 85%-90% of the world's Muslims—so at least 1.6 billion people. Coupled with the current rise in anti-Muslim sentiments and hate incidents in some countries (examples here and here), I think the criticism I quoted above is valid.

I can agree to that, some retraining of the director general would be in order provided he can't justify the seemingly false implication of his comments that all sects of Sunni are a problem.

Although this maybe a problem that many Muslims feed with the oft repeated marketing claim that there are only two sects of Islam, actually I've heard many Muslims claim there is only one Islam in my view.

Perhaps being a little more open and upfront about which Sunni sect they belong to would save them conflation in the eyes of the general population with more violent interpretations/sects.

 

[Revoltingest]

How about if we just make Islamic terrorism about Islam? Does that sound fair?

Not when terrorism by Christians & Jews
isn't given the same treatment. I know that
many here loathe Muslims & Islam, but this
doesn't justify a double standard designed
to demonize them, & sanitize others.

 

[Augustus]

LOL!

I just did. Read post #4.

Yes, I read it that’s how I know you didn’t understand.

“LOL”

What you identified is that ideologies, be they “religious” or otherwise, generally have their own symbols and doctrines to differentiate them from other ideologies.

Just as Nazis might pose with a swastika and copy of mein kampf.

What you did not do is offer meaningful criteria of demarcation between violent “not religious” ideologies and violent religious ideologies in general.

 

[stevecanuck]

Not when terrorism by Christians & Jews
isn't given the same treatment. I know that
many here loathe Muslims & Islam, but this
doesn't justify a double standard designed
to demonize them, & sanitize others.

There is no double standard. The Qur'an explicitly tells Muslims to kill non-Muslims. Mohamed made war - not peace, and the Qur'an holds him up as the example to follow. The mythical character called Jesus is said to have made peace - not war. A more polar opposite role model could not exist.

Verse 9:29 of the Qur'an says to "fight those who believe not in Allah .... from the People of the Book (Jews and Christians)." Verse 9:111 says that Allah will allow Muslims into heaven provided they "fight in the cause of Allah, kill and be killed."

Nothing that you can quote from the bible even comes close to matching the Qur'an's succinctness, specificity, and sheer visceral hatred.

Give. Your. Head. A. Shake.

 

[stevecanuck]

Yes, I read it that’s how I know you didn’t understand.

“LOL”

What you identified is that ideologies, be they “religious” or otherwise, generally have their own symbols and doctrines to differentiate them from other ideologies.

Just as Nazis might pose with a swastika and copy of mein kampf.

What you did not do is offer meaningful criteria of demarcation between violent “not religious” ideologies and violent religious ideologies in general.

I realize you're going to say "IS NOT" to everything I post. I also realize you'll never actually address the details of my posts. Post 4 answered your auto-denial. I won't repeat it. I will also probably let you prattle on without engaging.

But, please. I beg of you. Claim victory. Accept my surrender. I know you want to.