Slashdot Mirror
Fourth Bangladeshi Blogger Murdered
An anonymous reader writes: In May we discussed news that three bloggers in Bangladesh had been targeted for brutal killings in recent months over what they wrote online. Now, the local branch of Al-Qaeda is claiming responsibility for a new victim, blogger Niloy Chakrabarti. "The journalist had contributed to the humanist blogging platform Mukto-Mona. His posts often were critical of Islam. Mukto-Mona was established by another blogger—Avijit Roy, who was murdered in Bangladesh in February." His murder was as ghastly as the previous three — six men broke into his apartment with machetes. Rights groups are condemning the killings and demanding that the government put a stop to them. "There is little doubt that these especially brutal killings are designed to sow fear and to have a chilling effect on free speech. This is unacceptable."
Depending upon how one reads the first commandment " take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Left loves Islam (atheism is really just the name for their hate of christians) and they love blogging their useless opinions to find people with similar views.
Bullshit. Stop spreading your FUD and lumping "left" together as if they all thought alike. They no more think alike than those on the right do.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
atheism is really just the name for their hate of christians
Nonsense. I'm atheist and dislike all religions, though I confess I have a special hatred for Islam in particular, given the disgusting behavior of a small minority of its adherents and the silence and blame-deflecting of most of its adherents.
Unfortunately, it's true that a lot of leftists cry about "Islamophobia" and that's too bad. Islam is a fascist ideology diametrically opposed to everything leftists say they hold dear, so I really can't understand how they can maintain the cognitive dissonance.
The Left loves.....blogging their useless opinions to find people with similar views.
Conservatives love blogging a lot.
Bloviating is a human tradition that knows no political parties (a couple of those blogs look reasonably good, too).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Wow, you really are confused by your Christian persecution syndrome. The "Left," aka normal rational people, are fine with both Christians and Muslims. They're not fine with either trying to set up a theocracy.
Atheism is just one part of understanding that the supernatural is imaginary, which seems to send religious people off the deep end. It has nothing to do with your feelings of persecution.
The Left loves Islam
Only in the sense that they think it's unfairly demonized.
(atheism is really just the name for their hate of christians)
Rather the only reason an atheist ever becomes visible is when they're resisting the influence of the pre-dominant religion of their culture.
and they love blogging their useless opinions to find people with similar views.
Which is somehow inferior to posting your useless opinion to troll people with different views?
They must feel confused about who to cheer for in these murderous events.
Nah, I think your opinions are the ones with a monopoly on confusion.
I stole this Sig
If a life manual needs to be interpreted, and if interpretations range from peace to burning in hell for eternity, then I think we can all agree that the manual is very poorly written. Why doesn't this ring alarm bells in Christians' minds? Aren't they one bit open to the possibility that they got tricked into believing in a book full of made up stuff?
Thanks for that out of context quote. You can read the entire speech here, which includes the following:
And passage that has you concerned...
Doesn't quite read like the call for the worldwide caliphate you imply.
Does anyone think that a Code of Conduct would help avoid situations like this?
LOL! It's a centuries old "Code of Conduct" that created situations like this.
An interesting choice of word: "islamophobia", i.e. an irrational fear of Islam. Personally that belief leaves me with a mix of disdain and rational fear. Read the qur'an. Read what Islam's prominent and well respected scholars have to say about the right interpretation of its laws. Look at what is going on in every country where Islam is a mainstream religion. Listen to what so-called moderate preachers teach followers in western mosques. We should not fear, judge or condemn every muslim for their faith; like us, most of them are decent folk who just want to get on with their lives. But looking at it as a religious and political system, there's plenty to fear from Islam.
Starting with fear of erosion of our freedoms. Here in Europe, it is no longer safe to criticize Islam; those who do need fear retribution from fanatics as well as legal prosecution. There's even talk of blasphemy laws, in national as well as the European parliaments.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The Republicans who want to ban evolution from schools, kill abortus doctors and who will never allow an atheist to become the President are closer to liberals than Sharia lovers? Give me a break...
Right, because they are representative of "Republicans" enough for someone like you to say that's what that party is all about are just like people who vote Democrat, but who are espouse pure, confiscatory communism or burning down medical research facilities are representative of "Democrats" enough to say that's what that party is all about. Right? Right. Sure.
The difference is that, unlike ISIS, there aren't tens of thousands of insane anti-vaccine lefties (or righties, whatever - they both exist) rounding up school nurses and lopping their heads off for YouTube videos. There aren't squads of militant atheists burning Unitarians (or Buddhists or anyone else) alive in cages in Ohio. There aren't fiscal conservatives planting IEDs along school bus routes to kill dozens of people at a time to show how upset they are that some school districts have officials who write contracts with corrupt public employee unions. There aren't "occupy" groups with enough gumption to do much more than be persistently annoying about the fact they want to shut down businesses of which they disapprove (as opposed to shooting RPGs into the windows of those office buildings).
No, there's a huge, huge difference between they way people debate and go about resolving their differences in the US, than in places like much of the middle east. And the theocratic thugs who want to run the whole world in that model would be happy to kill you for disagreeing with them. See the difference? I think you're wrong, but I'd buy you a beer to talk about it. They'd kill you for having a beer because Allah doesn't like beer.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
> hint: it's in Bangladesh, there is no First Amendment there
Bangladesh is a secular country. It was declared an Islamic state when under military dictatorship. That was repealed later. From Wikipedia: "As part of a series of rulings following from the February Supreme Court ruling, on 4 October 2010 the High Court ruled that Bangladesh is a secular state".
It's law is not what is at fault. It is in part because of the general lawlessness that comes from being a poor country. Culturally, Bengalis are not a fundamentalist lot. For millinea, and only until a few centuries ago, the greater Bengal area was one of the most prosperous centers of civilization. It was left behind by industrial and colonial eras.
I'd like to think most Christians would loathe someone like you.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Get a grip idiot. The vast majority of Republicans don't support killing abortion doctors and a significant portion actually support abortion. That's like saying all Democrats think one guy marrying another guy is normal. As for not allowing an atheist to become President I'm pretty sure that's already happened more than once although President Obama may be a closet Muslim I strongly suspect he's his own God. Hell, the majority of women who got an abortion last year consider themselves to be Christians (combined Protestant and Catholic). Don't run around spouting false bullshit. Only the lunatic fringe of the left and right are really that different. Of course you sound like a lunatic.
And it's the media that constantly pushes our differences and tries to incite rage and anger against one side or another. All in the name of ratings. There are a lot of things in society I don't like but I've never thought of going to pull a trigger on an abortion doctor or a gay rights advocate plugging gay marriage. That's the kind of thing that turns a society into a cluster fuck like Syria is today.
There is nothing contradictory in defending someone when they're being attacked, and opposing them when they're doing the attacking.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You might not have, but there are the few that do and use their "holy book" to justify it.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Seems like you are lumping all muslims into the "mad nutters of ISIS" category. the majority of muslims are just like the majority of christians and jews whose religion is Abrahamic based, just fine and reasonable. Even though anyone who believes in gods etc are deluded, they can still be reasonable human beings.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Of course this cowardly idiot calls for mass indiscriminate murder but lacks balls and has to do so anonymously. What's the difference between ISIS and those who have no apparent viable soul and would willing drop weapons of mass destruction on innocent men, women and children.
No, sorry, that no longer flies. The 'but there are so many good ones' argument is invalid.
When a wacko Christian does something wrong and claims his faith, Christians stand up and condemn that person. Just a week ago a nutcase Jew stabbed people at random at the gay parade. His community condemned that act and explicitly mentioned that their own fate was to blame.
No such thing happens with islam. Every day atrocities are committed in name of islam. There's a billion muslims out there who could stand up and show disgust for the atrocities. Doesn't happen. In fact, a disturbing number of young muslims agree with what IS does and are looking for ways to support or even join them. Until that big majority of silent muslims stand up and condemn their extremists, I lump them all together as followers of a very dangerous ideology that should be fought.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
You can consult the etymology of Atheism in any good English dictionary. The fact that you think it violates "language, history, or critical thought" really reflects poorly upon yourself... but you knew that which is why you post as coward.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.
Doesn't quite read like the call for the worldwide caliphate you imply.
And yet, it is still an utterly unacceptable thing to say, on every level. First of all, the future must belong to those who have a right to slander any prophet they want. That is in fact the most basic tenet of human rights in this country. Second, there is no fucking comparison whatsoever between insulting a supposed prophet or "desecrating" an image of Jesus Christ, and destroying a church. Conflating those things is either horribly stupid or horribly wrong, and I don't think Obama is that stupid. I think he's that evil.
Holocaust deniers, of course, are just dumb.
In any case, it is hardly necessary to slander Mohammed, the child rapist. What's worse than raping children?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
An interesting choice of word: "islamophobia", i.e. an irrational fear of Islam. Personally that belief leaves me with a mix of disdain and rational fear. Read the qur'an. Read what Islam's prominent and well respected scholars have to say about the right interpretation of its laws. Look at what is going on in every country where Islam is a mainstream religion.
The difference between christianity and islam in this regard is simply one of degree, not nature! The only reason Christianity isn't worse today is because of tireless efforts by those who would free you rather than enslaving you; Christianity was much worse than Islam, but it's lost most of its popularity. For some reason, Islam is still growing. I really don't have a theory as to why.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Seems like you are lumping all muslims into the "mad nutters of ISIS" category. the majority of muslims are just like the majority of christians and jews whose religion is Abrahamic based, just fine and reasonable.
You have a different definition of reasonable than I do. There's nothing reasonable about putting yourself on a pedestal because of your beliefs. It's not surprising, either, but it's not based on reason. It's based on emotion.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
to "messy" and its a waste of fissionables
i do think we have enough conventional weapons to do the job
If the 'general population' weren't such fcuking sheeple - waiting on dysfunctional governments for justice -- perhaps, they would be equally ruthless in handing out swift justice like in the case of these uncivilized murderous Islamic fanatics. Heck, they are the majority - yet the sheeple just sit back and accept these endless acts of TERROR...often backed and financed by our allies. It's gotta be the fluroride and all the overpriced junk food that's creating spineless, compliant sheep all over the world. I weep for Humanity. Judgement day is coming soon, and then all Hell's gonna break loose. Now...who was it again that said "death to tyrants is obedience to god"??
First of all, the future must belong to those who have a right to slander any prophet they want. That is in fact the most basic tenet of human rights in this country
Nope. Slander is an offense, not a right, even in this country.
That's why it is a tort. The boundaries of what constitutes slander may vary, but not the concept.
That's the point ScentCone (795499) appeared to be making. There's a few - which is too many - but it's much better than a lot.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'm not sure it's the lack of popularity that makes the difference. I suspect it's the absence of anything like the reformation.
Had there been a Martin al-Luther or a John bin-Calvin things might have been different.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Let's not forget that whenever crazed Muslims butcher people, we "shouldn't get on our high horse" because during the Crusades, Christians were pretty mean too.
Nevermind that A) the Crusades was forever ago, and B) the Christians were hitting back against aggressive Muslims even then. It's a kind of argument that wouldn't be very effective in an undergraduate sociology class, yet here's the leader of the free world spouting it.
Actually, I agree with this for both Islam and Christianity.
I suspect it's the absence of anything like the reformation.
The reformation is the only reason we still have christianity. Without that, they would have been hunted down like the jews.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually, I agree with this for both Islam and Christianity.
Join with me now friends, in a celebration of religion, the source of all morality, without which people will just go around murdering each other.
wait.......what?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The difference between christianity and islam in this regard is simply one of degree, not nature! The only reason Christianity isn't worse today is because of tireless efforts by those who would free you rather than enslaving you; Christianity was much worse than Islam, but it's lost most of its popularity
It's not right to think of it in terms of "Islam" and "Christianity." The proper dichotomy to recognize is between "modern thought" and "medieval thought." The Middle East is stuck in an era where it's ok to kill your political enemies, where men are above women, where the value of freedom of speech has not been recognized.
Christianity did all kinds of bad things, but now Europeans and Americans have largely recognized the value of rule of law, freedom of religion, etc. It's not about religion, it's about a region of the world that hasn't learned those things yet. When they do, they will be fine, even keeping their religion.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I do not think it is an offense to slander long-dead self-proclaimed prophets. I sure as hell hope that you are not advocating changing the law to make it so that it is an offense.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Are you advocating state-sponsored terrorism to fight terrorism? What, exactly, do you think that will really accomplish? I am no expert but I spent eight years enlisted and have made it a hobby to study military history. I can tell you, with some certainty, that that would not end up with the results you seem to think it will have. That will not reduce terrorism, violence, or deaths. That will almost assuredly increase those things. There is also the issue of moral high ground...
I suppose this could have been said in jest. However, Poe's Law and Cole's Law...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Oh man, Allahu is just *so* fuckin akbar, isn't he?
Ignorant savages.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
A phobia is an irrational fear. One can have a phobia of butterflies, but not wasps. Similarly, one can have a phobia of Jews, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or Shintos, or even Christians. One can't have a phobia of Muslims.
Seems like you are lumping all muslims into the "mad nutters of ISIS" category. the majority of muslims are just like the majority of christians and jews whose religion is Abrahamic based, just fine and reasonable. Even though anyone who believes in gods etc are deluded, they can still be reasonable human beings.
There have been polls out by Pew on Muslims in a number of countries - both in the Islamic empire and the non-Islamic world. Most Muslims endorse Islamic supremacist views, and are supportive of Jihadi campaigns. What's even more revealing - even at a personal level, they are pretty hostile to the idea of their children marrying outside Islam. Which is a major reason why 90+% of all honor killings happen among Muslims.
Also, some people do try to distinguish b/w Muslims and Islam, but it's a worthless distinction to make. The only reason we worry about Muzzies so much is that there are 1.8 billion of them. If there had been only as many Muslims as there are Jains, nobody would have sweated it so much. So Islam is the threat that it is b'cos 1/4 of the world's population adheres to it
What does reading a map have to do w/ it? The Middle East is contiguous, w/ the exception of Israel, so if nuked, they can cover enough Islamic areas. It would take a number of such nukes though to eviscerate places from Raqqa to Sana, and in Africa, from Cairo to Timbuktu. Thousands, probably
After gaining independence from Pakistan, Bangladesh became the first country in South Asia to constitutionally proclaim secularism in 1972.[162] It was followed by India in 1976.[163] However, the military junta led by Ziaur Rahman removed secularist principles enshrined in the document through a martial law ordinance in 1977.[164] In 1988, President H. M. Ershad, another de facto military ruler, promoted a parliamentary amendment that made Islam the state religion.[165] In 2010, the High Court ruled that Zia's changes under martial law were illegal and void, and upheld the secular principles of the 1972 constitution.[166] But it allowed to keep Islam as the state religion. The Constitution calls for a secular government and bans religion-based politics
The statement in bold pretty much negates your claim that Bangladesh is secular. A secular country is a country that either has no state religion, or is officially atheist. Bangladesh is neither of the 2, as the above statement claims. And what the constitution calls for is moot when they have Jihadi parties campaigning to make Bangladesh an active center of Jihadist activity
Doesn't quite read like the call for the worldwide caliphate you imply.
It's still in line with the stupid idea of religious pluralism. Mahatma Gandhi adopted this stance too, but it was his mistake. In the end he was assassinated by Hindu religious fanatic for looking for compromise with Islam faithful. Learn from mistakes of world's great thinkers! Gandhi should have opposed religions as much as he opposed British colonialism. There is inherently no compromise between religions because existence of other religions will be always a source of butthurt for a particular religion. And they'll always try to weaken and suppress other religions. Thus religious pluralism isn't a path to lasting peace.
GFY, @$$h01e
Well, before we get all bent out of shape and waving the First Amendment around (hint: it's in Bangladesh, there is no First Amendment there), let's all remember what our President had to say about the situation.
"The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." -- President Obama, addressing the United Nations General Assembly
Interesting that ISIS, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, the Taliban, Fuckistan and Bangladesh all agree w/ him. Although not in the way he imagines.
Wrong
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And passage that has you concerned...
Doesn't quite read like the call for the worldwide caliphate you imply.
Just like one can't have fries w/o the ketchup, it's impossible for some people to condemn Islam w/o a side helping of moral equivalence w/ at least one non-Islamic religion. As a very good example, Obama lectured India about religious tolerance during his visit there, and the very next day, while attending the funeral of king Abdullah, avoided mentioning it in Riyadh.
Even though religious freedom in Saudi Arabia is non-existent, except for Sunni Muslims who accept the Hambali jurisprudence. While in India, religious freedom pretty much exists, and the only controversies are over the issue of whether converting someone else from religion A to B should be legal - which it isn't in a handful of states. But as far as religious freedom goes for BO, India is a lot more problematic than Saudi Arabia
I believe that the majority of Muslims are just like Christians in that they just want to live in peace and get along with their neighbors. Unfortunately while the Christian Bible states that if you don't believe you'll go to hell when you die it appears far too many of the radical muslims interpret their scripture to say "if they don't believe then kill them all and send them to hell." It's impossible to get along with those people but since they are Muslim then the non-crazy Muslims take their side when it comes to a shoot out with any non Muslim country. That's a bad thing because it's one thing to let God decide what's what in the afterlife and it's entirely another thing to decide it all for God here in this life. The later causes blood to flow and lots of innocents to die in the crossfire.
By whom? Generally religions are hunted down by other religions.
Atheists, by their very nature, are unlikely to partake in holy wars. Also, they were pretty rare in 1517.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Gandhi was a dhimmi of the highest order. Appeasing Muslims was his #1 priority, just like it's both Bush & Obama's, and the reason he was assassinated was that he did everything he could to prevent Hindu backlashes against Muslims who were trying to massacre or drive Hindus completely out of Muslim areas in India, and insisting that India retain its Muzzies even if Hindus were completely expelled from Pakistan (which included Bangladesh at the time). Oh, and he advised Jews to march to the camps of the Nazis, and supported Muzzie claims in Palestine, opposing Israel.
As for your view about banning all religions, nothing like Atheist Fanaticism to substitute religious ones. Point remains that in all countries - outside Muslim & Communist countries - it's perfectly legal to practice different religions, and churches, synagogues, temples, et al do little to nothing to subvert all that. Only one of them do, and just to avoid a head on confrontation w/ them, you have geniuses who draw moral equivalents and campaign to take on ALL of them head on. Not that that avoids any confrontation w/ the Muzzies.
What a stupid strawman argument. It's irrelevant in this context what is legal and what isn't. It's the fact that people of different religion shun or kill each other depending on how close they think their religion is close to "winning". This makes religion definitely a negative social force. I don't advocate ban of religion though because it's not needed. Just prevent shunning and killing via dialogue and diplomacy and eventually humanity will become entirely irreligious. Nobody will join a religion unless some kook like Ron Hubbard tricks them. They won't stay in religion unless peer pressure and threat of loss of property would keep them in.
You do realise that over here in Europe, we have *Christian Socialist* parties in a number of countries, don't you? Just thought I'd ask...
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Sure, the juntas tried to hide behind religion as usual when they usurped power.
> And what the constitution calls for is moot when they have Jihadi parties campaigning to make Bangladesh an active center of Jihadist activity
They don't have Jihadist parties AFAIK. They have Islamist parties. Naturally, they want Bangladesh to be Islamic. That is not the same as "campaigning to make Bangladesh an active center of Jihadist activity".
Many western countries also have parties that campaign to make the respective countries Christian countries. Party lines do not have precedence over what the constitution says.
Allowing to keep the state religion is a more valid point.
"There's a billion muslims out there who could stand up and show disgust for the atrocities. " - bear in mind these billions are generally subdued by various factions who enforce extreme sharia law so they are not going to put their head above the rafters like this blogger did. we have plenty of muslim leaders here in the Uk condemning these nutters.
... don;t see many christian organisations voicing support for personal freedom of choice with regards abortion and gay marriage...
"When a wacko Christian does something wrong and claims his faith, Christians stand up and condemn that person. " westborough church is still running
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
"There's nothing reasonable about putting yourself on a pedestal because of your beliefs. " the ones that do that are the ones that fit into the unreasonable sector as far as i'm concerned, the majority tend to keep their head down and live and let live. Minorities are always louder and appear to be a bigger number than they really are.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Are you really going to get a reasonable poll of muslims who like under the yoke? Most of these muslims live under threat of being maimed or killed by the self-appointed or government sanctioned sharia police to keep them subdued so you are not going to get a truthful answer in case the pollsters are working for the government. Its like saying all germans were nazies because they were german.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
So your response to the claim that one book is full of crap is that one other book is full of crap, too. We already knew that. How is it relevant here?
Ezekiel 23:20
You're a liberal Christian who dislikes all religions?
Ezekiel 23:20
in defending someone when they're being attacked
This "islamophobia" thing attacks Islam. I didn't know that Islam qualified as "someone" instead of "something".
Ezekiel 23:20
Several people are "a big majority" for you? Not to mention that opposing one specific act doesn't make them any less crazy. That craziness makes them have undesirable ideas on average. Nobody ever claimed that it makes them have undesirable ideas regarding every single issue.
Ezekiel 23:20
"There's nothing reasonable about putting yourself on a pedestal because of your beliefs. " the ones that do that are the ones that fit into the unreasonable sector as far as i'm concerned, the majority tend to keep their head down and live and let live.
No, their belief system tells them that they are better than other people, they get to go to heaven when people who don't believe what they believe are going to hell. That kind of unfounded discriminatory bullshit thinking leads to bullshit people making bullshit decisions. And remember, life in the western world is predicated upon the suffering of others. There's nothing "live and let live" about keeping your head down and living. It's live and let die.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Please, stop talking so general, if you want to state something, base it on details. I was born in Iran, and although I'm not a muslim, I have a good knowledge of what Islam is, and what its supporters want, whether normal, moderate or extremist. Islam is not a religion that tends towards terrorism, in fact, there is no order to take lives in the whole Quran. There is only one condition that killing is allowed: when the other party is attacking your city, your people. This is literally Real Islam. What you see in extremist groups, is exactly what extremist groups of other religions and parties do, they forge their own interpretation, and talk about it like it is obvious. And the fact that terrorism has become so widely seen in muslim world, is because of the capital. The flow of capital, in an economy that is based on selling oil, and not production, leads to such actions. It is not like "he is producing something and getting wealth, I can do the same and be wealthy", it is like "he has the oil, he is reach, and he doesn't let me have it, so I should get it by force." and don't forget the constant humiliation the European countries and U.S. have towards muslims. Whatever they say, the overall view is similar to barbarian. It creates a lot of hate, anger. And the Europe and U.S. aren't that innocent in the crisis that we face in muslim world. They are a part of it, please study the history of Al-Qaida, ISIS, or any other terrorist group that you want, you can see how they have invested in it. Besides all of it, what you say about muslims being silent on what is being done in the name of Islam is simply not right. Come to Iran, ask anybody, I'm pretty sure that you can't even find a single person who thinks ISIS or Al-qaida people are muslims. NOT A SINGLE PERSON. And the same goes in most of the muslim world: What you are considering your test group is not a fair test group, it is selected from a subset that live in U.S. or Europe, and also the ones that are bold enough to express their radical thoughts.
Until it's too late and we have no choice but to eliminate anyone who's religious, otherwise the human race will vanish from the Universe.
No such thing happens with islam. Every day atrocities are committed in name of islam. There's a billion muslims out there who could stand up and show disgust for the atrocities. Doesn't happen.
http://news.sky.com/story/1298...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-2...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.u...
http://www.yourlocalguardian.c...
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/new...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Like fuck it doesn't happen. Get your head out of your ass.
Such a movement is unlikely, using pure reason alone, to convince enough people to join to give it any chance of success; "live and let live" is an appealing argument.
It might might have an outside chance if it was branded properly - symbology, titles, legends, an us-vs-them narrative, funny clothes and maybe just a bit of hocus-pocus for good measure.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
No, the polls in question included Muslims in Western countries - it was a worldwide poll. Plus they were anonymous even in the Muslim countries where the surveys were taken, so yes, I do expect them to state honestly whether they like the supremacist movements of their religion or not. There were a good percentage of people who approved of honor killings, believed that Jews are behind the world's problems, etc. So no, the majority of Muslims do not believe what we wish them to believe
Whatever it is these countries make that we need, we should end our reliance on their exports and let these misguided ideologies implode. Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better.
There is nothing in Bangladesh that the West is dependent on. Yeah, you do sometimes see clothing that's 'Made in Bangladesh', but that's available from all sorts of countries - Honduras, Vietnam, Costa Rica, et al. So avoid buying anything made in Bangladesh, and buy something made in one of the other countries. Bangladesh ain't China, which you can't avoid buying from
Jihad is the sixth pillar of Islam
So, what's Islam (or individual Muslims) going to do to me? I live in the US, and the risk of Islamist terrorism is far lower than other risks I disregard. I'm not afraid of them. I deplore what many Muslims are doing, and want them stopped, but I'm not in danger and I don't fear them.
Now, if I lived in a Muslim country, I'd feel threatened, but I don't.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In the US, I believe that a test for slander is that it actually harms the slandered. I don't see that anything I say is going to harm Mohammed, considering that he's been dead for over a thousand years.
Besides, truth is a defense against slander, as well as having good evidence for what I say. There's a lot of derogatory things I can say about Mohammed within those bounds.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So? During the era of crusades, for several centuries, the same could be said of Christianity. It did eventually reform. I am arguing against lumping societies that have distinct cultures, solely based on religion. They are not all the same within. Would you lump Kurds and the rest of Iraqis as culturally same today?
Passing judgment on cultures, on any single descriptor, especially without taking into account their economic stage of development, is in my view... naive. One cannot judge societies, by the standards of the modern era, when they have not had the opportunity of a modern education, by reasons of poverty.
Additionally, Bangladesh was set back by more than a generation, when its intellectual class, of which it used to be proud of, was selectively butchered during its freedom struggle. These are complex matters that cannot be reduced to one word.