Broken_Shoelace said:
DarthFed said:
France has long been a hotbed for Islamic radicals...I'm surprised there haven't been more problems before this.
No. It was a hotbed for Muslims. Not Islamic radicals. That's actually part of the reason why Al Qaeda is trying to stir up the pot over there.
Broken, I think I hear some version of this line repeated every other day anymore. And more and more I am questioning why it's even significant.
Yes, I know, you were born Muslim and you are from the Middle East. You would rather watch OKC games or see Djokovic dictate rallies to Nadal (had to throw that in there) than listen to a Palestinian preacher tell little kids to strap bombs to their chests and kill Jews. Like the vast majority of Muslims, you are a good person and you don't have any intention of doing terroristic things. This is all true.
One of my good friends is actually a Muslim, and I admire him for his deep spirituality and principle. He is unquestionably a good person and his Islamic faith has a great deal to do with it. To be honest, I have far less of a problem with Muslims than I do with self-hating Western leftists who tout Islam simply because they hate Christianity with such a passion that they can't help themselves in speaking well of anything that isn't Christian.
That said, the fact that most French Muslims are peaceful, secular, non-hostile, etc. etc. is, at best, a trivial fact in the context of these larger discussions. It is repeated ad nauseam by the leftist media, but it does not address anything or solve anything.
So, here is the fundamental issue - when it comes to acts of Islamic terrorism, is there a firm doctrinal authority in place within the religion of Islam to condemn these attacks outright as immoral and un-Islamic? In other words, is there a definitive way of declaring - in a logically coherent, consistent, and honest fashion - that these people are what we might call "bad Muslims"?
I am a Catholic. If a Catholic terrorist was to blow up a Protestant church and kill 200 people, I could point to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and firmly declare that the act is considered immoral and that therefore the terrorists were not acting as genuine Catholics (not to mention that I can point to the example of Christ, and say that these acts were un-Christlike). In Islam, I am afraid there is no such authority, and, to the contrary, it appears that many Islamic scholars and sheikhs give tacit approval to these acts. Absolutely no one has proven that Boko Haram or al-Qaeda or ISIS or the Taliban are "bad Muslims" or "heretical Muslims". No one has done this - least of all non-militant Muslims. They just call them "extremists" or unpleasant characters. Well, that may be the case, but in discussions of doctrine, it hardly matters whether we like how someone presents themselves emotionally.
It is not satisfactory to keep saying "most Muslims are peace-loving, most Muslims just want normal lives, most Muslims aren't terrorists, blah, blah, blah". This is true to a large extent, but it is utterly irrelevant. I believe that someone can be a wonderful, virtuous human being as a Muslim; in fact, I have no doubt about this. I believe that a Muslim can imitate Muhammad and lead a highly virtuous life. But I also believe that a Muslim can pull off atrocities and be considered acceptable or justified within the Islamic canon. That is the problem. And that is partially why Bin Laden was widely revered in the Muslim world.
lot ) but now they also have to deal with disgruntled would-be passengers: "Angry Bristol residents took to the site this morning to post messages to the group and ask for help with problems on the site."
