Society/Culture Christchurch Mosque mass shooting

[Frank Bunn]

Radical Islam is ‘far right’. How can this be overlooked so often?

The term becomes meaningless when radical Islamists, Brenton Tarrant, Mussolini and Scott Morrison are all described as 'far right'.

If Radical Islam is ‘far right’ then Islam is surely right and the left should oppose it. Instead we get apologism about Islam’s sexist and totalitarian tendencies. It's the cultural relativists that give their support to sharia courts, the wearing of the full-face veil, arranged marriage, and gender segregation in public places. Of the Christchurch 50 victims 47 of them were men, because Muslim women are second-class citizens and discouraged from attending mosque. The media passes this by.

The real challenge of the feminist quest for liberation from patriarchal structures is against the norms of regular non-radical Islam. Instead we see the leftist agenda focused on the imaginary pay gap and gender quotas for jobs that women are not inclined to partake in.

It was also the left that facilitated the sexual abuse of thousands of young girls in Britain by Pakistani gangs because the authorities were afraid to be seen as Islamophobic.

 

[Cooldude]

And the so-called English translations of the Qur’aan that you see online and in the stores nowadays is exactly what they (some of the extremist Wahhaabis) use to try and brainwash people into believing what they believe.

You do not know what I mean with the Wahhaabi and extremist ideology and where they get their belief from, so I would not comment on something you clearly don’t know much about. Sounds like you are one of those people who just go online and read a couple of these so-called translations and think you know what Islaam teaches.

Oh no we know exactly what we're talking about. What does get tiresome is when defenders of religions always claiming superiority over knowledge of doctrine on an ambiguous and schizophrenic religious scripture. The history of Islam is showered with violence, most of the religious wars were Islam related. Those are inescapable facts. No amount of people who tell you that you gotta read the text in the language they approve of and interpret it in the way that they personally like, can change the violent tendency of Islam

 

[Pessimistic]

Religious wars between and within the two dominant and expansionist religions (plus Judaism thrown in for good measure) are the most common.
How surprising

 

[Pessimistic]

The term becomes meaningless when radical Islamists, Brenton Tarrant, Mussolini and Scott Morrison are all described as 'far right'.

If Radical Islam is ‘far right’ then Islam is surely right and the left should oppose it. Instead we get apologism about Islam’s sexist and totalitarian tendencies. It's the cultural relativists that give their support to sharia courts, the wearing of the full-face veil, arranged marriage, and gender segregation in public places. Of the Christchurch 50 victims 47 of them were men, because Muslim women are second-class citizens and discouraged from attending mosque. The media passes this by.

The real challenge of the feminist quest for liberation from patriarchal structures is against the norms of regular non-radical Islam. Instead we see the leftist agenda focused on the imaginary pay gap and gender quotas for jobs that women are not inclined to partake in.

It was also the left that facilitated the sexual abuse of thousands of young girls in Britain by Pakistani gangs because the authorities were afraid to be seen as Islamophobic.

Who exactly is apologising?

 

[Cooldude]

Islam were the cause of over 60% of all religious wars in history. Christianity was around 18%. Considering that the Christians have outnumbered them throughout history, it is disproportionate.

 

[Pessimistic]

OK, but exactly 0% of the wars or atrocities in new zealand

 

[Lsta062]

You can just read the exact post I replied to, not that hard, ya know

Have you not seen the torrents of defenses of Islam every time there's an Islamic terrorist attack? "These extremists are not part of Islam, Islam is not a violent religion and does not endorse these attacks.", that is a line often touted, all the time. I am just genuinely curious how much knowledge of Islam these people actually have

I am baffled that you think you know more about what Islaam teaches than people who have devoted their entire lives to learning the Islaamic knowledge. I say this because some of the people condemning the extremist behaviours are those that dedicate their lives to the Religion. I am not saying that I am one of them, but I certainly learn from people like that.

I say that we can co-exist peacefully with the non-Muslims for a reason and not because I am ignorant in the Islaamic teachings. There are actual differences between us and the extremists. We believe that God does not have anthropomorphic characteristics yet the Wahhaabis I was talking about earlier in this thread do. And where do some of these Wahhaabis get their ill beliefs? The so-called English translations of the Qur’aan. I say so-called because many of these books contain errors that contradict the actual fundamentals of belief mentioned in the Book that is in Arabic.


So no, we do not sit in Islaamic lessons and get taught how to detonate a bomb. We are not taught how good it is for us to go out and kill non-Muslims that are just minding their own business on the streets. We are not ordered to steal from the non-Muslims. In fact, we are always taught to show patience and a kind face to the non-Muslims we deal with. We are taught to treat our neighbours kindly whether or not they are Muslims. You really need to understand this.

 

[Lsta062]

You know what? I am done with this thread. There were 50 Muslims that were killed (which is the attack this thread relates to) yet I am still defending the Muslims from the actions of the extremists.

 

[Cooldude]

I am baffled that you think you know more about what Islaam teaches than people who have devoted their entire lives to learning the Islaamic knowledge. I say this because some of the people condemning the extremist behaviours are those that dedicate their lives to the Religion. I am not saying that I am one of them, but I certainly learn from people like that.

I say that we can co-exist peacefully with the non-Muslims for a reason and not because I am ignorant in the Islaamic teachings. There are actual differences between us and the extremists. We believe that God does not have anthropomorphic characteristics yet the Wahhaabis I was talking about earlier in this thread do. And where do some of these Wahhaabis get their ill beliefs? The so-called English translations of the Qur’aan. I say so-called because many of these books contain errors that contradict the actual fundamentals of belief mentioned in the Book that is in Arabic.


So no, we do not sit in Islaamic lessons and get taught how to detonate a bomb. We are not taught how good it is for us to go out and kill non-Muslims that are just minding their own business on the streets. We are not ordered to steal from the non-Muslims. In fact, we are always taught to show patience and a kind face to the non-Muslims we deal with. We are taught to treat our neighbours kindly whether or not they are Muslims. You really need to understand this.

A myth that just because someone spend a lot of time on something means they know all of it, particularly untrue with religion. On the contrary, many people are able to stay with religion for long periods precisely because they are adapt at cherry picking only bits of the religion that suit and benefit them, so their view of the religion is distorted and biased.

Ya know, we are over religious sub-sects talking about how different they are from one another, this is no different to the denominational BS that comes with Christianity. Muslims complaining about the English translation of the Quran is no different to Christians complaining that all bible translations except the Greek are valid. It's tiresome. Not to mention untrue, as Islam has had violent incidents long before English was even popularized centuries ago

Just because "some" Muslims are well behaved does not detract from the fact that your history is littered with violence, and it is patently untrue to claim that the Quran doesn't endorse the murdering of unbelievers. The defense of "but some religious people aren't violent" is a copout, the fact remains that religion, be it Islam or Christianity, will always find a way to produce deviant people because there are sections of their text that tell them so. As long as religion exists, we will have to deal with extremists. We cannot separate extremists away from their religion, it is just selective bias

 

[AM]

The first step in coming to terms with the attack in Christchurch is to understand that it has been produced by right wing extremism, both in Australia and internationally.
The problem does not lie with immigration policies. The problem does not lie with the so-called outsiders, such as Muslim communities, who are so often the targets of right wing rage.

In this country, the problem lies with the broader Australian community that ignores or accepts the presence of right wing extremists in its midst, and tolerates the increasingly Islamophobic and anti-immigrant discourse in Australia.

In Australia, right wing extremists tend to position themselves in response to an imagined or constructed threat. Sympathisers believe that society is degenerating, or is at risk of degenerating. Then they externalise this to attribute blame to a target group, such as an ethnic or ideological community.
Right wing extremists foster feelings of peril, and exploit crises to drive narratives that society’s problems are entirely the fault of a target group of outsiders.

THE CONVERSATION

 

[Frank Bunn]

Who exactly is apologising?

So you're condemning moderate Islam?

 

[Mike Smyth]

Is the whingeing and carrying on about Ardern wearing a scarf a proxy for a return to normal transmission with the RWNJ?

That damn free speech - bloody rwnj's...

 

[Mike Smyth]

Radical Islam is ‘far right’. How can this be overlooked so often?

If I think I'm better than you just because I'm in a particular group doesn't that make me radical. In other words, IMO, all religions are radical with Islam being at the extreme end of radical. I once went to a supposed inclusive, new-age Christian group with my niece. The most arrogant, rude, insular group of people I have meet.

 

[Pessimistic]

So you're condemning moderate Islam?

After the Bourke st incident, scomo called a show meeting of Islamic leaders to get them to condemn the extremism, even though the perpetrator appeared more mentally affected than religiously affected. Some refused saying it was a stunt and he admonished them to the surprise of no one.

Where was a similar stunt with right wing groups?

Btw I’m no fan of religion, but it is a fundamental right in this country

 

[Carringbush2010]

Look at the core argument of those on the far right. It literally mirrors ISIS arguments

This!

Extreme Islam is very much extreme right, Men have more rights than women and women are not considered equal and while the "arguments" are similar extreme right from a westernized point of view has very very different culture.

I assume you're using westernized extremism as an example, for example the rwnj from Australia believes that men have right over women and believes the women can wear bikinis for their own amusement where as far right islamists believe women are to be invisible and slaves for their own amusement and use their religion to justify it. - completely different culturally.

And there is a belief that extreme islam cannot mix with westernized culture purely because the beliefs of what is right or wrong clash and can clash badly because extreme w***ers do exist and commit terrorism because of the belief differences, this mosque shooting is an example.

 

[Malifice]

Just because "some" Muslims are well behaved does not detract from the fact that your history is littered with violence, and it is patently untrue to claim that the Quran doesn't endorse the murdering of unbelievers. The defense of "but some religious people aren't violent" is a copout, the fact remains that religion, be it Islam or Christianity, will always find a way to produce deviant people because there are sections of their text that tell them so. As long as religion exists, we will have to deal with extremists. We cannot separate extremists away from their religion, it is just selective bias

But cant we say the exact same thing about Europe? European history is also littered with violence. The last 70 years have been the longest continuous period of relative peace in Europe ever. The 40 years before that saw WW1 and 2 kick off there and a genocide of 6 million people, and atrocities on a shocking scale (Dresden etc). Cities were leveled and tens of millions killed. Mustard gas. Trench warfare. Fascism. Nazism. Marxism. The Rape of Berlin. Etc, etc, etc.

How is the Islamic world, worse or even the equal of that? By any metric Christian Europe has been infinitely more violent, aggressive and expansionist (colonialism etc). And by a considerable degree.

If you're being objective, you have to agree.

I find any argument that Muslims are more violent than anyone else to simply be self evidently wrong.

 

[Carringbush2010]

So you're condemning moderate Islam?

It's amazing the naivety of some (Ben Affleck) who refuse to believe that extremism is very very real and in reality is very threatening.

 

[Malifice]

It's amazing the naivety of some (Ben Affleck) who refuse to believe that extremism is very very real and in reality is very threatening.

Salafissm is a threat for sure.

What people object to is tarring Mo the Uber driver, or Usman Khwaja with the actions of Salafdi Jihadis.

Not all conservatives are RWNJ Hitler wanna-bes. Not all Muslims are Salaffi Jihadis either.

Instead of blaming Islam generally, lets work with the moderate Muslims in rooting out the terrorist nutters.

Remember, moderate Muslims are the main victims of Islamic terrorism.

 

[Carringbush2010]

But cant we say the exact same thing about Europe? European history is also littered with violence. The last 70 years have been the longest continuous period of relative peace in Europe ever. The 40 years before that saw WW1 and 2 kick off there and a genocide of 6 million people, and atrocities on a shocking scale (Dresden etc). Cities were leveled and tens of millions killed. Mustard gas. Trench warfare. Fascism. Nazism. Marxism. The Rape of Berlin. Etc, etc, etc.

How is the Islamic world, worse or even the equal of that? By any metric Christian Europe has been infinitely more violent, aggressive and expansionist (colonialism etc). And by a considerable degree.

If you're being objective, you have to agree.

I find any argument that Muslims are more violent than anyone else to simply be self evidently wrong.

More broadly, human history is saturated with violence and failed extreme ideologues. Using the "this group has more history of violence than that group" argument doesn't solve anything.

The problem with this particular terrorist attack is we have some white wack job who has probably been fuelled by his hatred for extreme islam ideology and feels hard done by - that doesn't justify anything I know.

But you can't escape the fact there will always be crazy's who do these things, and what doesn't help is the defending of extremism (extreme islam included) with a "nothing to see here" attitude from some.

 

[Cooldude]

But cant we say the exact same thing about Europe? European history is also littered with violence. The last 70 years have been the longest continuous period of relative peace in Europe ever. The 40 years before that saw WW1 and 2 kick off there and a genocide of 6 million people, and atrocities on a shocking scale (Dresden etc). Cities were leveled and tens of millions killed. Mustard gas. Trench warfare. Fascism. Nazism. Marxism. The Rape of Berlin. Etc, etc, etc.

How is the Islamic world, worse or even the equal of that? By any metric Christian Europe has been infinitely more violent, aggressive and expansionist (colonialism etc). And by a considerable degree.

If you're being objective, you have to agree.

I find any argument that Muslims are more violent than anyone else to simply be self evidently wrong.

There are plenty of groups that are violent, I don't particularly want to play the whataboutism everytime we point out a particular group is dangerous. It quite frankly is tiresome. As far as I'm concerned, the world would be a much better place without Christianity, Islam and nationalists, who contribute to the most violence in general

What I don't understand is the defending of one group such as Islam while admonishing the other ones.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Salafissm is a threat for sure.

What people object to is tarring Mo the Uber driver, or Usman Khwaja with the actions of Salafdi Jihadis.

Not all conservatives are RWNJ Hitler wanna-bes. Not all Muslims are Salaffi Jihadis either.

Instead of blaming Islam generally, lets work with the moderate Muslims in rooting out the terrorist nutters.

Remember, moderate Muslims are the main victims of Islamic terrorism.

Can't disagree with the objections, the problem is though that people like Ben Affleck in that video are being naive in thinking that people like Sam Harris are making this stuff up - even when presented with facts. There is a link between the extremities and what the religion really is because nut job jihadi's are using the religion to justify "killing people leaving the religion" and it's likely they are more prevalent that what is popularly believed.

The problem is not necessarily the quantity but the extreme ideology behind these psych ward should be's.

 

[Carringbush2010]

There are plenty of groups that are violent, I don't particularly want to play the whataboutism everytime we point out a particular group is dangerous. It quite frankly is tiresome. As far as I'm concerned, the world would be a much better place without Christianity, Islam and nationalists, who contribute to the most violence in general

What I don't understand is the defending of one group such as Islam while admonishing the other ones.

I agree that the world would be a better place without religion.

I question your thought on Nationalism though, if by nationalism you mean patriotism then I think it's wrong to paint patriotism as a bad thing.

If anything globalism in the endth degree is more dangerous because it would be impossible to have a national identity. There's nothing wrong with a bit of national pride only extreme w***ers who hijack it to justify violence - just like jihadi's hijack their religion to justify their evil.

 

[Malifice]

There are plenty of groups that are violent, I don't particularly want to play the whataboutism everytime we point out a particular group is dangerous. It quite frankly is tiresome. As far as I'm concerned, the world would be a much better place without Christianity, Islam and nationalists, who contribute to the most violence in general

What I don't understand is the defending of one group such as Islam while admonishing the other ones.

I'm admonishing extremists.

Muslims and Conservatives/ Right wingers generally are OK.

The nutter that did this attack raved about the hospitality and generosity of Pakistani people while he was visiting them.

Then he murdered them while citing internet memes.

 

[Cooldude]

I agree that the world would be a better place without religion.

I question your thought on Nationalism though, if by nationalism you mean patriotism then I think it's wrong to paint patriotism as a bad thing.

If anything globalism in the endth degree is more dangerous because it would be impossible to have a national identity. There's nothing wrong with a bit of national pride only extreme w***ers who hijack it to justify violence - just like jihadi's hijack their religion to justify their evil.

Patriotism is a form of cultism, the amount of bullshit that has been justified using patriotism throughout history should be enough to show people what a bullshit concept it is

Dictators and fascists of all kinds throughout history has used the concept of patriotism to whip a country into a frenzy for their ends, doesn't matter if it's Mao or Stalin or Hitler.

 

[Malifice]

Can't disagree with the objections, the problem is though that people like Ben Affleck in that video are being naive in thinking that people like Sam Harris are making this stuff up - even when presented with facts. There is a link between the extremities and what the religion really is because nut job jihadi's are using the religion to justify "killing people leaving the religion" and it's likely they are more prevalent that what is popularly believed.

The problem is not necessarily the quantity but the extreme ideology behind these psych ward should be's.

But that connection between Islam and extremism can exist with almost any ideology.

You'll have Christians murdering doctors at abortion clinics and advocating for the death penalty.

Last time I checked Jesus was pretty opposed to that kind of thing.

Islam has a propensity to draw extremism at its fringes, but so does Nationalism and Right wing and reactionary thought generally.

I'm down with banning Neo Nazis, but not with banning all right wingers generally.

I'm down with banning Salaffi Jihadism but not Muslims generally.

The enemy here is extremism. Not Muslims (or conservatives/ the political right).