A flawed defence of Islam
I stumbled across this popular video on YouTube, showing a discussion about whether Islam is a peaceful religion. However, the discussion in this video doesn’t address the issue at all. The lecturer claims that Islam preaches peace and compassion, but when one student highlights behaviour by Muslims which directly contradict these teachings, the conversation is suddenly diverted into a criticism of American foreign policy. How does this prove Islam to be a peaceful religion? In an argument defending the peaceful nature of Islam, shouldn’t there be some kind of condemnation of violent acts being committed by Muslims? There isn’t one here…
Chill bro,
it’s just a Bollywood film.
awesome.
hi. your opinions abut this particular video has disturbed me. you cannot simply blame a religion, there are much greater and concrete powers at work. and these words are coming from an atheist who is a citizen of a country with a muslim majority(over 90%). i strongly suggest you to read edward said’s “orientalism”.
bro u kno this shiz got notin to do wid religion. da whole thing’s gotz ta do with ‘foreign occupation’. this is a high budget bollywood film and obviously isn’t the place for a discussion of such a misunderstood topic. be that as it may this particular scene’s point was that the white girl is pissed off at islam cause of 9/11 and yadi yada. she wudnt give a shit bout wat da taliban were doing to their own ppl oderwise. and dats the point addressed. da guyz like look dat shit went down cuz of ur foreign policy not da religion.
and dats what ROBERT PAPE’s awesome study on 30 years worth of suicide bombing stats show. no matter where in the world, what race or religion (or lack of religion), rich or poor, educated or not, suicide bombing primarily takes place only when there is a foreign occupying force.
I don’t think that you have the full picture on this one, Dan. The arguments in this video were completely valid. The “Terrost” acts that are portrayed in America only became known after the 9/11 attack. Afghanistan was actually a better place to live than some of the states in the US. The students were asking about the “Terrorism” in Afghanistan, but what is “Terrorism” defined as? I mean. Gang violence could be considered Terrorism because Gangs attack innocent civilians. Where is the War on Gangs? “Part of our police force” Why not relate gangs to terrorists?
In America, the major source of the word “Terrorist” is from the media and our government. This scene was valid in its points that violence is located anywhere regardless of religion, and that the figures of violence and more troubled regions are only true after the events transpired of 9/11. A lot of figures are skewed when it comes to reports, also. When looking for violence in a religion that is being targeted for an easy war, it is nice to have a few forged documents backing you up saying that “X religion relates to more violence and suicide bombings cause virgins after death”. This is really all that is ever heard when it comes to the US televisions. People are brainwashed here, Dan. Brainwashed. I am embarrassed at my country and it’s citizens.
So another point: What is strictly violence, and what is “religious violence”
We go into a country, bomb the fuck out of it, and say religious terrorists. How can we know? You can’t ASK someone who did a suicide bombing why they did it. You can find anything out about the people. If someone is a “terrorists” they are killed or sent to an unknown location, only to arise a few months later killing a theater of people watching batman.
I could go on and on. But this is bull when it comes to the religions are more violent than others. That is what makes Hitler proud. Jews are evil, remember?
Oh. Just recall how well that worked out.