When the World Trade Center fell, I was in 7th grade... about 13 years old. I was still identifying as a christian, even though I don't think I actually believed anymore and there was only one muslim kid that I knew of. In my town that I just moved to, about half of the people were Jewish and about half were christian, so the concept of Islam was a VERY distant concept.
When I think about my mom's heritage, with her family coming from Turkey at the turn of the century, I remember her telling me that my grandma and grandpa's parents came to the U.S. to escape the Armenian Genocide that was happening there at the time (give or take a few years)...
For people in the forum that are older than me (and ideally were atheist their whole lives)... when did Islam become the bad guy?
-Did it all of a sudden become a concept of interest after 2001 with the terrorist attacks?
-or was there another instance that happened before that that you can remember?
-or has it always been a concept of interest in that way? (as far as you can remember)
As someone that is probably too young to answer the question myself, I'm just curious.
I've had a hard time not seeing Islam as the bad guy ever since that Danish cartoonist was murdered a few years back.
When did Islam become the bad guy?
In 622 AD when Muhammad created it.
270 million corpses (and counting) thanks to Islam.
The same time any religion does, and when they first create holy wars against other people. It just sometimes takes stepping back and realizing what it really is, and by then its to late to stop it.
Prior to 9/11, Islam was just something "over there". I didn't feel any particular threat, but the Mid East, as long as I can remember, has been a violent barbaric place. Most of the violence there happened there. That was the impression, but in fact, I think that people in Europe would say the US was not aware of violence exported out of the Mid East only because we remained unaffected until 9/11.
The conservative think tank New American Century (the people who brought us George Bush's Iraq invasion), had for years been advocating an invasion of the Mid East as a means about bringing about stability, I think to insure a steady supply of oil. They had lobbied President Bush I, President Clinton, and possibly Reagan (I can't remember if Reagan was aware of their plans). For sure, Bush I and Clinton told them the idea was crazy, possibly Reagan as well.
I'm not sure if New American Century identified Islam as the threat. It seemed more like their concern was just an unstable Mid East. Now here's the thing. While New American Century was known as a think tank of intellectual conservatives, they seemed to lack any intellectual acumen whatsoever. They were idealists lacking broad perspective, and were more hair-brained than intellectual. They seemed to know nothing about Mid East culture, and were intellectually ill equipped to understand the consequences of an invasion that many of us weaker brained idiots anticipated. They seemed to think that American military power could squash the Mid East into submitting to democracy, as if democracy was a default state that people in general would flock to in a power vacuum.
Since the invasion, the Mid East seems to be much more unstable, and exporting violence more of the norm. Would this have happened without the invasion anyway? I don't know, but it could be an interesting debate. From my limited perspective, just talking as an average American, I viewed the Mid East as a violent place with a rich and interesting heritage (before 9/11). Now, I don't think much about the rich heritage, the glorious past, and it being a one time center of scientific growth. It's a civilization that seems bent on pissing itself away.
Quote from: pr126 on March 01, 2015, 11:20:46 AM
When did Islam become the bad guy?
In 622 AD when Muhammad created it.
270 million corpses (and counting) thanks to Islam.
A great post! A better question is when did any religion become a good religion when it speaks speculated nonsense. Only the original teachings of Buddha make any sense to me, and it has been corrupted by its various schools and other religions. Solitary
Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 01, 2015, 11:12:02 AMFor people in the forum that are older than me (and ideally were atheist their whole lives)... when did Islam become the bad guy?
While there was some interest before (I remember lots of news stories about the Taliban prior to 9/11 and war in Afghanistan), Islamic fundamentalism and Islam in general quickly became a big deal immediately after 9/11. And I'm not sure if it's just a result the more intense news coverage and the greater interest in Islamic militants, but there's lots of really bad news out of the Middle East where there wasn't nearly as much before.
Quote from: SGOS on March 01, 2015, 11:53:53 AMSince the invasion, the Mid East seems to be much more unstable, and exporting violence more of the norm. Would this have happened without the invasion anyway? I don't know, but it could be an interesting debate. From my limited perspective, just talking as an average American, I viewed the Mid East as a violent place with a rich and interesting heritage (before 9/11). Now, I don't think much about the rich heritage, the glorious past, and it being a one time center of scientific growth. It's a civilization that seems bent on pissing itself away.
Yeah, I don't view those countries very favorably, either. Even the relatively prosperous ones, like Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE. The impression I get is that the whole region is torn between nationalism and Islamism - with Islamism increasingly victorious - with a very little interest in westernization, particularly secularization. And of course, the end result of these trends is a dismal future. I'd be more sympathetic if I saw a concerted effort to get things back on track, but I'm not seeing it. It's falling apart and it's all the U.S.'s fault. Or all Israel's fault. Or all Britain's fault. While foreign intervention clearly hasn't always had favorable results, it's undeniable that much of the problems plaguing the Middle East are homegrown. But among the many other good policies that the Middle East has abandoned, it seems that personal responsibility is at the top of the list.
For me it was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
when we first started to get an idea of what Islam was. Although I don't altogether disagree with their tactics so much, but the ensuing coverage showed us the face of a particular lunacy that one was unaccustomed to seeing. A pre courser of things to come from people who truly believed in their religion as opposed to those who believe only at night.
W
Quote from: aitm on March 01, 2015, 12:49:07 PM
For me it was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
when we first started to get an idea of what Islam was. Although I don't altogether disagree with their tactics so much, but the ensuing coverage showed us the face of a particular lunacy that one was unaccustomed to seeing. A pre courser of things to come from people who truly believed in their religion as opposed to those who believe only at night.
When the news came over the air about Iran taking those hostages, I was working out in the front yard. My wife, in her mid 20s then, came out of the house crying, an unusual emotional state for her, as I always thought of her as "hard as nails." She started telling me about the news. As she explained about the near rioting crowds protesting the US, it began to dawn on me the effect it was having on her. I think she was frightened. Now she was a sensible person, and quite aware that we were not in danger ourselves.
When I went in and watched the news, I could see what was frightening her. It was a face of humanity that was different from what we usually imagine. I saw people out of control, a mob that individuals became lost in, and had gone over an edge into as you describe it, a state of lunacy. Later, some pundits said it was all staged, and not representative of the population of Iran at large. But good grief, these people genuinely appeared to have plumbed the depths of their insanity, and that's what frightened my wife.
Whether it was real or not, these people wanted others to think it was real, and that in itself is a type of lunacy I can't identify with. Although, I can't say I experienced fear, myself, I remember trying to understand what we had done to them. I know we had supported the Shah, because he sold us oil, and I know he was evil, but today, my reaction is more like, "We can't talk about your concerns unless you stop acting like lunatics."
I don't know. Maybe they have to blow up more buildings for a another ten years or so, until they get it out of their system, but I don't think so. They seemed to have gone over the edge. But this shouldn't be so hard to understand. Look at our own fundamentalists who want ultimate control over those they don't approve of. So I tend to think that lunacy is deep in all of us. It's a matter of deciding whether to let it take control of us. I don't relate to people who allow such insanity to rule them.
From my active duty experience, we were planning on fighting a war against China and/or North Korea. After September 11th, it changed to several Islamic countries and North Korea.
I think it is like the other enemies to the East we have had; the Middle East has it's time in the limelight, then some other threat comes up and we forget about it for a couple of decades or even a century until another radical group comes into power (either from internal strife or their government over-thrown by the west).
As for Islam itself... it's been awhile since it was considered a direct threat. Obviously 9/11 put it back in the limelight, but before that it had been quite awhile as far as I know... the last truly "anti-Islamic" wars we had were the Crusades, and about 3/4ths of them had far more to do with political agendas than religious.
I suppose you could count Iran as a religious conflict, but I think that is an extreme stretch. If we didn't support a dictator and butcher (because the Brits asked us to protect their oil interests [Anglo-Saxon Oil, now known as BP]) in the country by over-throwing a secular democracy, the Islamic extremists never would have been able to exploit the rage of the people against the Shah. The Ayatollah was there to exploit the situation, he did not create it.
Same for Afghanistan... a secular country turned radical by Islamic extremists that we trained to fight the Soviets. So it's hard to blame Islam for that when it was Western anti-Communist policies that over-threw a secular state and allowed Islamists it trained to take over.
(http://www.juancole.com/images/2013/04/relviolence.jpg)
(rough numbers)
100 million by Christians, 2 million by Muslims. Who is the real threat?
Western religions are always in conflict with each other. That's part of their fundamental nature.
Oh, in the Western world, it became the enemy the instant they started controlling territory previously under kings owing fealty to the Pope. If I had to pin a date on it, it would be around 720CE--the beginning of the Reconquista in Spain.
Thanks for your posts, guys. I find SGOS's and aitm's posts in particular very insightful.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on March 01, 2015, 11:14:48 AM
I've had a hard time not seeing Islam as the bad guy ever since that Danish cartoonist was murdered a few years back.
Hijiri, did you see Islam as a negative force at all before then? Did that instance start you thinking about Islam in the way of "This is probably not a good belief system to follow" or more along the lines of "I had my suspicions about Islam being bad, but this solidified it"
The reason I ask, Hijiri. is because even though you are only slightly younger than me, you have been an atheist for your whole life (if I remember correctly) where I only started not identifying as a Christian around 2007 or 2008
I still don't think Muslims are the bad guys, despite being 5 when 9/11 happened. So "the war" so to speak may as well have been going on my entire life. If you consider the 9/11 - ISIS to be one string of bad decisions and events.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 01, 2015, 07:56:39 PM
Thanks for your posts, guys. I find SGOS's and aitm's posts in particular very insightful.
Hijiri, did you see Islam as a negative force at all before then? Did that instance start you thinking about Islam in the way of "This is probably not a good belief system to follow" or more along the lines of "I had my suspicions about Islam being bad, but this solidified it"
The reason I ask, Hijiri. is because even though you are only slightly younger than me, you have been an atheist for your whole life (if I remember correctly) where I only started not identifying as a Christian around 2007 or 2008
I didn't really think about Islam much before that. Thought of it about the same way I think of Christianity, the difference being that I didn't (and still don't) interact with many of its followers.
I will acknowledge that my perspective of Islam being dangerous has as much to do with how western media addresses religion as anything else. Muslim shooters are crazy Islamists, but Christian shooters are lone-wolf psychopaths, etc. It's also probably because Islam is less ubiquitous in my life. Just by virtue of where I've been raised, even as an atheist I still kind of cringe at satirical or inappropriate portrayals of Jesus, but I don't have the same reaction to similar portrayals of Mohammed because I had basically never heard of him until well into Junior High/Highschool. When I'm calm and logical, I'm generally able to notice this bias, but if a story has me riled up I'm pretty much always going to be harder on Islam whether it's justified or not.
In my case it had little to do with 9/11 or terrorism; I was willing to give Islam the benefit of the doubt at the time.
Then I learned about the religion, the specifics on who Mohammed actually was and what he did, and how they governed their countries; things changed, and lets just say I now feel as you might expect I would about all of this.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 01, 2015, 04:18:31 PM
(http://www.juancole.com/images/2013/04/relviolence.jpg)
(rough numbers)
100 million by Christians, 2 million by Muslims. Who is the real threat?
That graph is kind of meaningless without methodology or sources. The best I can discern is that you added up the rough number of people killed by white Christians and by Muslims in 20th century wars and political violence. And I can tell you just mean killed by Christians and Muslims regardless of motivation, since 102 million people did not die in religious strife during the last century. Ignoring whether or not religion is the motivation behind an atrocity undermines the purpose of asking whether or not one or another religious belief is more prone to violence; you could just as easily claim that atheists were the cause of 70+ million deaths in the 20th century. I'm tempted to say this is duplicitous.
I also have to call your numbers into question. I don't doubt 100 million people were killed by Christians of European descent (though again your lack of sources make it difficult to verify). But 2 million deaths at the hands of Muslims regardless of motivation is a bit modest. 1.5 million (http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/Description_and_history.php) Armenians were killed by the Ottomans. The partition of India resulted in 500,000 (http://necrometrics.com/20c300k.htm#India) deaths. 24,293 (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/memorial-day-24-293-fallen-soldiers-terror-victims-since-israel-was-born-1.274877) Israelis have been killed since the nation's founding. 25,600 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War#Death_toll) French soldiers were killed in the Algerian War of Independence. Half a million (http://necrometrics.com/20c300k.htm#Sudan) people died in the first Sudanese civil war and two million (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ245/html/PLAW-107publ245.htm) in the second. At least 400,000 (http://necrometrics.com/20c300k.htm#Indonesia) were killed in Suharto's purges in Indonesia. Sékou Touré of Guinea killed 50,000 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2349639.stm). Hissène Habré of Chad killed 40,000 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5140818.stm). Idi Amin killed up to 500,000 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2003/aug/18/guardianobituaries). At least a million (http://necrometrics.com/20c1m.htm#Biafra) died during the Nigerian Civil War. The Bengali genocide took 1.25 million (http://necrometrics.com/20c1m.htm#Bangladesh) lives. The Soviet-Afghan War claimed 1.8 million (http://necrometrics.com/20c1m.htm#Afghanistan). 150,000 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/world/middleeast/after-2-decades-scars-of-lebanons-civil-war-block-path-to-dialogue.html) were killed in the Lebanese Civil War. Saddam Hussein killed at least a quarter million (http://www.hrw.org/news/2004/01/25/war-iraq-not-humanitarian-intervention) people internally. The Iran-Iraq War killed 700,000 (http://necrometrics.com/20c300k.htm#Iran-Iraq) people. Half a million (http://necrometrics.com/20c300k.htm#Somalia) have died in Somalia since the government was overthrown. So out of the 20th century conflicts I listed that's ~5,239,893 dead at Muslim hands alone and another ~5,950,000 dead shared between Muslims and other warring parties.
But again, this is ignoring whether or not religion was a motivation.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 01, 2015, 04:18:31 PM
I think it is like the other enemies to the East we have had; the Middle East has it's time in the limelight, then some other threat comes up and we forget about it for a couple of decades or even a century until another radical group comes into power (either from internal strife or their government over-thrown by the west).
As for Islam itself... it's been awhile since it was considered a direct threat. Obviously 9/11 put it back in the limelight, but before that it had been quite awhile as far as I know... the last truly "anti-Islamic" wars we had were the Crusades, and about 3/4ths of them had far more to do with political agendas than religious.
I suppose you could count Iran as a religious conflict, but I think that is an extreme stretch. If we didn't support a dictator and butcher (because the Brits asked us to protect their oil interests [Anglo-Saxon Oil, now known as BP]) in the country by over-throwing a secular democracy, the Islamic extremists never would have been able to exploit the rage of the people against the Shah. The Ayatollah was there to exploit the situation, he did not create it.
Same for Afghanistan... a secular country turned radical by Islamic extremists that we trained to fight the Soviets. So it's hard to blame Islam for that when it was Western anti-Communist policies that over-threw a secular state and allowed Islamists it trained to take over.
(http://www.juancole.com/images/2013/04/relviolence.jpg)
(rough numbers)
100 million by Christians, 2 million by Muslims. Who is the real threat?
Much as I would love to, and I mean I would
really love to, I dont agree that religious affiliation ought to be presented first and foremost as a means to count bodies for conflicts such as WW2.
Youre presenting it as if a typical Christian is about 50 times more inherently violent and dangerous then a typical Muslim, which... seems a bit off from what I would have guessed.
Edit: Also, what I forgot to mention is that this kind of graph might be more to the point if it focused on deaths resulting primarily as a result of religious doctrine/divine rationale.
The implication here seems to be that religious leaders were calling the shots and the soldiers were pious in their motivations during such campaigns, which is rather absurd. I mean I would love to blame religion, but it's... not a very rational way of looking at it.
Interestingly enough, once you tally it all up I believe WW2 Japan might be the runaway overall leader. Hirohito was distinct from Hitler and Stalin in that he was seen as divine, dying for the him was considered a great honor and ultimate goal, and they were taught that death is preferable to defeat which made battles quite attritious; Kamikazes obviously had a similar mindset to any other zealot who straps explosives to their body for the purpose of killing people.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 01, 2015, 04:18:31 PM
I think it is like the other enemies to the East we have had; the Middle East has it's time in the limelight, then some other threat comes up and we forget about it for a couple of decades or even a century until another radical group comes into power (either from internal strife or their government over-thrown by the west).
As for Islam itself... it's been awhile since it was considered a direct threat. Obviously 9/11 put it back in the limelight, but before that it had been quite awhile as far as I know... the last truly "anti-Islamic" wars we had were the Crusades, and about 3/4ths of them had far more to do with political agendas than religious.
I suppose you could count Iran as a religious conflict, but I think that is an extreme stretch. If we didn't support a dictator and butcher (because the Brits asked us to protect their oil interests [Anglo-Saxon Oil, now known as BP]) in the country by over-throwing a secular democracy, the Islamic extremists never would have been able to exploit the rage of the people against the Shah. The Ayatollah was there to exploit the situation, he did not create it.
Same for Afghanistan... a secular country turned radical by Islamic extremists that we trained to fight the Soviets. So it's hard to blame Islam for that when it was Western anti-Communist policies that over-threw a secular state and allowed Islamists it trained to take over.
(http://www.juancole.com/images/2013/04/relviolence.jpg)
(rough numbers)
100 million by Christians, 2 million by Muslims. Who is the real threat?
Do you have an accurate source for this? And something that solidifies the claim that these deaths happened because of the killer's (or the person that ordered the killer's) religious beliefs?
Please source your claim.
And if I had to pin a second date on when Islam became the "bad guy", I would say 1973, when Saudi Arabia suddenly realized "Hey--this is our oil, maybe we oughta treat it as a real commodity and not just fork it over to our former colonial rulers" and the former colonial rulers and their allies went "Oh, shit!"
Although until the Iranian revolution, the image largely portrayed in the West (or at least in the US) was that of the hyperwealthy Arab playboy sheikh -- religion didn't really enter into it much, but the Arab (and by extension, the Islamic) world came to be portrayed as 'the other', if not actually the enemy, then at least a geopolitical rival.
Also, here's an interesting thought: about 1500 years into Jewish history came the Jewish revolts against Roman rule (the Jewish-Roman Wars and other incidents) . Around 1500 years into Christian history you had the end of the Crusades and the height of the Inquisition. And around 1500 years into Islamic history is... right about now.
Quote from: trdsf on March 02, 2015, 02:09:46 PM
And if I had to pin a second date on when Islam became the "bad guy", I would say 1973, when Saudi Arabia suddenly realized "Hey--this is our oil, maybe we oughta treat it as a real commodity and not just fork it over to our former colonial rulers" and the former colonial rulers and their allies went "Oh, shit!"
Although until the Iranian revolution, the image largely portrayed in the West (or at least in the US) was that of the hyperwealthy Arab playboy sheikh -- religion didn't really enter into it much, but the Arab (and by extension, the Islamic) world came to be portrayed as 'the other', if not actually the enemy, then at least a geopolitical rival.
I'm just throwing this out there, but I'm not too sure oil has anything in particular to do with religion/Islam. I think the only think Muslims have to do with that is the middle east has a bigger grouping over in the middle east. Unless you meant something else by that.
QuoteAlso, here's an interesting thought: about 1500 years into Jewish history came the Jewish revolts against Roman rule (the Jewish-Roman Wars and other incidents) . Around 1500 years into Christian history you had the end of the Crusades and the height of the Inquisition. And around 1500 years into Islamic history is... right about now.
Yes. That is very interesting.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 02, 2015, 05:30:02 PM
I'm just throwing this out there, but I'm not too sure oil has anything in particular to do with religion/Islam. I think the only think Muslims have to do with that is the middle east has a bigger grouping over in the middle east. Unless you meant something else by that.
The Islamic world/Middle East didn't really impinge itself upon day to day life in the West until the oil embargos of the early 1970s -- there were ongoing conflicts between Arabs and Israelis, but for the most part it didn't have an impact on daily life.
What changed in 1973 was that Arab governments (and particularly in Saudi Arabia, where you really can't separate the government from the religion) started taking action that not only affected the money men in America, but also Joe Sixpack -- it doesn't really have anything to do with Islam
per se, but it is about the time that we started seeing the Islamic world being portrayed as 'the other' in the West.
There's a very good chance I'm not making the point I want to make as clearly as I want to make it. :)
I do remember clearly in (Catholic) grade school when we started learning about other religions and that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all essentially come from the same root, and thinking (loosely translated), "Well, if we're all theological cousins, what the hell is all the fighting about?"
I was probably more than a little naïve at the time. :D
Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 02, 2015, 12:50:37 PM
Do you have an accurate source for this? And something that solidifies the claim that these deaths happened because of the killer's (or the person that ordered the killer's) religious beliefs?
Please source your claim.
That isn't saying they killed in Christanities' name, only that they were White Christian killers. To me they seem like the bigger threat.
And I didn't post it for numerical accuracy, I feel the Muslim killings are higher (as Vali posted)... but again, 100 mil (conservatively+) vs 10 mil muslim...sorry, but I find it hard to say that Islam is at all the most imminent threat when clearly there are much bigger factors than religion causing people to kill in such huge numbers.
270 million killed by jihad. (http://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/)
History of Jihad (http://www.historyofjihad.org/)
From 622 AD to the present day, ongoing.
Quote from: trdsf on March 02, 2015, 09:08:04 PM
The Islamic world/Middle East didn't really impinge itself upon day to day life in the West until the oil embargos of the early 1970s -- there were ongoing conflicts between Arabs and Israelis, but for the most part it didn't have an impact on daily life.
What changed in 1973 was that Arab governments (and particularly in Saudi Arabia, where you really can't separate the government from the religion) started taking action that not only affected the money men in America, but also Joe Sixpack -- it doesn't really have anything to do with Islam per se, but it is about the time that we started seeing the Islamic world being portrayed as 'the other' in the West.
There's a very good chance I'm not making the point I want to make as clearly as I want to make it. :)
I do remember clearly in (Catholic) grade school when we started learning about other religions and that Judaism, Christianity and Islam all essentially come from the same root, and thinking (loosely translated), "Well, if we're all theological cousins, what the hell is all the fighting about?"
I was probably more than a little naïve at the time. :D
Oh ok. So you're saying a similar thing like aitm was; We never really even knew anything about what Islam was before then, and the stuff with the oil gave us a better peek at what it is.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 02, 2015, 11:18:54 PM
That isn't saying they killed in Christanities' name, only that they were White Christian killers. To me they seem like the bigger threat.
And I didn't post it for numerical accuracy, I feel the Muslim killings are higher (as Vali posted)... but again, 100 mil (conservatively+) vs 10 mil muslim...sorry, but I find it hard to say that Islam is at all the most imminent threat when clearly there are much bigger factors than religion causing people to kill in such huge numbers.
So if it's not accurate, why post it? right now it's just a fluff post. If you have numbers, show 'em. But quite honestly, I'm not looking for a comparison of "who did worse shit to who... christianity or islam" I'm just trying to see, like the question asks in my OP, "when did Islam become the bad guy" or "when did we start seeing Islam as a negative belief."
So actually, I take that back, shiranu. Even if you can find a reliable source that illustrates your point of bringing up the graph you posted, I don't think it's on topic for this discussion. I'd like to keep this thread on track.
Quote from: pr126 on March 03, 2015, 01:26:08 AM
270 million killed by jihad. (http://www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/)
History of Jihad (http://www.historyofjihad.org/)
From 622 AD to the present day, ongoing.
can you find a better set of links? the first one has no cross references and looks like just some blog and the second one is not only incredibly difficult to read from the web formatting, it also looks like an unreliable source.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 03, 2015, 01:34:28 AM
can you find a better set of links? the first one has no cross references and looks like just some blog and the second one is not only incredibly difficult to read from the web formatting, it also looks like an unreliable source.
http://www.islam-watch.org/HistoryOfJihad/
http://www.politicalislam.com/
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.faithfreedom.org/library-2/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZaQvgqlp4M
The problem I see is that links provided by me will be rejected as bias, unreliable, because it is inconsistent with the present narrative that Islam is peace, and so forth.
It will be better if each person can search the web on Islamic jihad and make up their own mind.
But the best sources are the Islamic text themselves, such as the Quran, Hadiths, Sirat Rasul Allah, the Sharia (see Reliance of the Traveler).
Quote from: pr126 on March 03, 2015, 02:17:32 AM
http://www.islam-watch.org/HistoryOfJihad/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZaQvgqlp4M
The problem I see is that links provided by me will be rejected as bias, unreliable, because it is inconsistent with the present narrative that Islam is peace, and so forth.
It will be better if each person can search the web on Islamic jihad and make up their own mind.
But the best sources are the Islamic text themselves, such as the Quran, Hadiths, Sirat Rasul Allah, the Sharia (see Reliance of the Traveler).
Not may will be that inquisitive to wade trough all that.
Anyway, each should do his or hers research if they want.
I strongly encourage people to do so.
Ignorance is is inexcusable when all the information is available.
I was just looking for better links is all. A source that sites facts is a source that sites facts and that's all that I'm looking for. Any reliable links that anyone has, or if they have a notable instance in particular like aitm and trdsf provided are welcome.
I'm just trying to piece together information. For me, like I said in the beginning of the thread, I am too young to remember muslims being hated before the world trade center was reduced to rubble, and for me it seemed like hatred against muslims came from either that or sprouted out of nowhere.
In today's political climate of manipulations, lies, misdirections and denials facts and truths became subjective.
Lies are repeated so often, that they have become truths.
For example, before the 1967 war there was no mention of the "Palestinian People".
Searching the UN archives reveals no records whatsoever of a Palestine State before that date.
It was the invention of Yasser Arafat after losing the 6 day war.
The so called "Palestinian People" were Arabs from Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. whom for political purposes became a "Nation" which has not existed before.
There was no Palestinian borders, government, currency, or anything that resembles a nation.
Historically it was a Turkish ruled territory, vilayets, later a British Mandate.
Rewriting history (http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=495)
I'll go a step further, and be an eyewitness to this, as I have lived there between 1956 to 1967.
There was no mention at all of the "Palestinian People" through that time. The idea did not exist then.
Palestinian people do not exist (http://www.wnd.com/2002/07/14501/)
QuoteWay back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here’s what he said:
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people†to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
Again, find your own links if this is unacceptable.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 03, 2015, 01:30:33 AM
Oh ok. So you're saying a similar thing like aitm was; We never really even knew anything about what Islam was before then, and the stuff with the oil gave us a better peek at what it is.
Sortakinda yeah. The Western attitude toward Islam after the Crusades was more or less to pretend it wasn't there, or occasionally bump into it awkwardly while trying to colonize somewhere. Besides, Europe was busily engaged in the Reformation, Counter-reformation, and that spirited debate about Catholicism and Protestantism they called the 30 Years War (
et al.).
Now, I'm not old enough to remember Middle Eastern history between the end of WWII and the rise of OPEC as a major economic force, but my reading of history indicates that politically, it was of far more interest to the US whether a particular Arab leader was "ours" or "theirs" (
i.e., the Soviets) than whether or not they were an Islamic culture or state. Personally, I don't recall events being cast explicitly in terms of Islamic fundamentalism until the Iranian revolution (keeping in mind that I was only in my middle teens at the time). Before that, I seem to recall that part of the world was usually presented as the Arab world, which happened to be mostly Islamic, but Islam as a "threatening religion" so to speak is really more a product of the Iranian revolution and the hostage crisis.
Before that, Islam was just part of their so-called "alienness" to the western world. After that, their "alienness" was defined in terms of Islam more than anything else -- in that "AAAAH!! It's different from us, you should be terrified of it!!!" way that the media loves to do.
Quote from: trdsf on March 03, 2015, 05:31:00 AM
Before that [the hostage crisis], Islam was just part of their so-called "alienness" to the western world. After that, their "alienness" was defined in terms of Islam more than anything else -- in that "AAAAH!! It's different from us, you should be terrified of it!!!" way that the media loves to do.
That's pretty much the way it was to Americans before the hostage crisis, I think. Although to me, Islam was certainly part of the "alienness". It was the alienness of a culture of fervent fundamentalist worship with huge gatherings of men down on their knees facing the same direction with their butts sticking up the air, all begging their god for favor. I came from a fundamentalist Christian family, and that was a type of groveling that was alien to me, and a defining part of the culture. I didn't actually know much about Islam at the time, but the fervor seemed a bit spooky.
However, during that time, Islam was not posing a threat that I was aware of. No attacks were being made on Western Culture. People from Europe might want to correct me on that. You are right at pushing the change in American perception back to the time of the oil embargo. That was economic, not physical, but probably more damaging to the world than any physical threat the Mideast now poses. I've read that the collapse of the soviet union was more influenced by skyrocketing oil prices than anything else. The embargos were damaging and serious to be sure. But I didn't associate that with Islam as much as good old fashion greed.
Perceptions about Islam, I think, began to change with the hostage crisis. That was the first time I was aware of where a physical threat to the US from Islam existed, and I believe that fear of that threat was justified. It wasn't just a media hype. It was a horrible event that went beyond defiance and was potentially physically harmful to Americans. But still the American reaction to that was more like caution towards the motives of the Mideast.
But 9/11 brought it home. I think Americans are still struggling and divided over what that means. Some see it as a threat from Islam, and some deny it as just a few vandals having a good time. I personally take it as a threat from Islam. I have no reason to question Al Qaeda or ISIS when they openly define their violence as the work of Islam. This is coming from the horses mouth, not some talking head on the television who wants to use a paradoxical spin to say it's something else. In fact, the directives of Islam have been recorded in the Quran all along. But few Americans ever knew what was actually in the Quran. So was the Islam of the past, the one we knew nothing about and mostly ignored, the "true" Islam? I would have a hard time making that case.
Unfortunately there is still a woeful, you could say willful ignorance on Islam in general.
Governments and the media are not helpful by covering up, downplaying or flatly denying that Islamic atrocities have anything to do with Islam.
The speeches by Obama, Cameron, Merkel, Hollande and assorted heads of states are denying that Islam is to blame. When did they became Islamic theologians?
They asserting that the deeds by ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taleban are not true Islam, and they are perverting the texts for their own purposes.
Anyone who reads and understands the Islamic texts knows that they [ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taleban, etc.] are indeed following Islamic scriptures and Muhammad's teachings to the letter.
Quote from: pr126 on March 03, 2015, 10:31:39 AMAnyone who reads and understands the Islamic texts knows that they [ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taleban, etc.] are indeed following Islamic scriptures and Muhammad's teachings to the letter.
Religion finds a way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkWeMvrNiOM
Hijiri Byakuren wrote:QuoteReligion finds a way.
That is because of ignorance, apathy, indifference.
Here's a Big WTF!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268395/Adil-Rashid-Paedophile-claimed-Muslim-upbringing-meant-didnt-know-illegal-sex-girl-13.html
I forgot; I guess it probably also became an American boogieman when men like Malcom X and Cassius Marcellus Clay converted to Islam and realised that it taught that the black man, the brown man, the yellow man, the white man, the red man and every other shade were equal. I know that pissed alot of white people off to hear that.
Quote from: d4w6zBak on March 05, 2015, 12:49:41 AM
Here's a Big WTF!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268395/Adil-Rashid-Paedophile-claimed-Muslim-upbringing-meant-didnt-know-illegal-sex-girl-13.html
And where are all the feminazis now on this?
Quote from: Shiranu on March 05, 2015, 01:15:34 AM
I forgot; I guess it probably also became an American boogieman when men like Malcom X and Cassius Marcellus Clay converted to Islam and realised that it taught that the black man, the brown man, the yellow man, the white man, the red man and every other shade were equal. I know that pissed alot of white people off to hear that.
There are something like 50 million Caucasian Muslims in Europe.
People who equate this to a racial issue at this point are being intellectually dishonest. Not saying its you necessarily... Im just hoping that's not what you're hinting at. Regardless, it bears mentioning.
There are a lot of Ben Afflecks out there, and for my liking far too many people heed the words of pundits like Reza Aslan who confusticate and conflagrate using half truths.
Ah, but the race card is very effective, so useful. It is the Joker in the pack, trumps it all.
What race is Islam?
Quote from: Shiranu on March 01, 2015, 04:18:31 PM
(http://www.juancole.com/images/2013/04/relviolence.jpg)
(rough numbers)
100 million by Christians, 2 million by Muslims. Who is the real threat?
Not a fair comparison. Christians have been around a bit longer. They've had more time to get some killing in. We need a proper graph, not a pie chart.
Quote from: Shiranu on March 05, 2015, 01:15:34 AM
I forgot; I guess it probably also became an American boogieman when men like Malcom X and Cassius Marcellus Clay converted to Islam and realised that it taught that the black man, the brown man, the yellow man, the white man, the red man and every other shade were equal. I know that pissed alot of white people off to hear that.
It teaches that people like you and me are worth nothing next to other men.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on March 01, 2015, 11:12:02 AM
When the World Trade Center fell, I was in 7th grade... about 13 years old. I was still identifying as a christian, even though I don't think I actually believed anymore and there was only one muslim kid that I knew of. In my town that I just moved to, about half of the people were Jewish and about half were christian, so the concept of Islam was a VERY distant concept.
When I think about my mom's heritage, with her family coming from Turkey at the turn of the century, I remember her telling me that my grandma and grandpa's parents came to the U.S. to escape the Armenian Genocide that was happening there at the time (give or take a few years)...
For people in the forum that are older than me (and ideally were atheist their whole lives)... when did Islam become the bad guy?
-Did it all of a sudden become a concept of interest after 2001 with the terrorist attacks?
-or was there another instance that happened before that that you can remember?
-or has it always been a concept of interest in that way? (as far as you can remember)
As someone that is probably too young to answer the question myself, I'm just curious.
When it was created. Duh
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/03/08/d9a598ac196fc9e986b4704f1a11235a.jpg)
A picture can say a thousand words.
Quote from: Jason78 on March 08, 2015, 04:01:03 AM
Not a fair comparison. Christians have been around a bit longer. They've had more time to get some killing in. We need a proper graph, not a pie chart.
Accuracy aside (the Muslim part should be about 10% instead of 5% ), you realise it says 20th Century killings, right?
Islam became the bad guy when Gabriel told Muhammad to slaughter the jews from the Banu Qurayza.
Wikipedia has ex muslims setting the record straight,it's easy to see what was written by ex muslims there.
800 men and woman had their heads chopped off by muslims.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza)
If muslims only fight in self defence can any apologist explain this-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Mustaliq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Mustaliq)
Muhammad was a warlord,take note of his first expedition which was highway robbery to relieve muslims from poverty-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_expeditions_of_Muhammad)
We could read Islamic texts to see how the jews pissed the muslims off-
QuoteUmar expelled the jews and Christians from Hijaz.
When Allah's messenger had conquered Khaibar, he wanted to expel the jews from it as its land became the property of Allah,his apostle,and the muslims.
Allah's messenger intended to expel thejews but they requested him to let them stay there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits.
$Profit Mo told them-we will let you stay on thus condition,as long as we wish,so the jews kept on living there until Umar forced them to go towards Taima and Ariha.
sunnah.com/bukhari/41/19 (http://sunnah.com/bukhari/41/19)
Islam became the bad guy at the moment of it's inception. The same for all other organized religions.