Terror-spooked EU: 'Don't say Muslims'

[Nemesis6]

Gordon Brown?s ban on the word ?Muslim? in relation to terrorism can be blamed on the EU.

The prime minister has told Cabinet members not to mention ?Muslim? and ?terrorism? in the same breath.

It comes after the European Commission issued a guide for government spokesmen to avoid offence by ruling out the words such as ?jihad?, ?Islamic? or ?fundamentalist? in statements about terrorist attacks.

It has been working with governments to make sure ?non-offensive? phrases are used when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time the EU has tackled the issue of language - last year its guidelines suggested that the phrase ?terrorists who abusively invoke Islam? should be used rather than ?Islamic terrorism?.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...ews.html?in_article_id=466130&in_page_id=1811

 

[15357]

I am offended by their cowardly actions and will now commit myself to the destruction of the european railways and will likely cause many thousands to die in glorious bombings across the continent.

 

[Nemesis6]

Don't call the railways 'european'. You will insinuate that Europeans connected to your evil deeds. :-S

 

[Solaris]

Find proper source please.

 

[No Limit]

Find proper source please.

+1

Second, I find this ammusing. Apparently saying you shouldn't muslims to terrorists is giving in to fear yet taking away basic freedoms such as the right the privacy and the right of habeas corpus because of terrorism isn't.

 

[Nemesis6]

But that's not what's being said. What is being said is that you cannot say that a terrorist is Muslim, which must be pretty confusing in 50 years when the young generation of England have zero idea what the common denominator is between the people who's started bombing the Indian businesses. Hypothetical scenario aside, people have a right to know whether or not a terrorist is a Christian, a Muslim, or a Goddamn Buddhist for that matter. From a journalistic standpoint, this qualifies as selective omission.

By the way, what does Habeas Corpus have to do with this?

 

[CptStern]

and now for the non-retarded version of this story:

The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements.

Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers "non-offensive" phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.

Banned terms are said to include "jihad", "Islamic" or "fundamentalist".

The word "jihad" is to be avoided altogether, according to some sources, because for Muslims the word can mean a personal struggle to live a moral life.

One alternative, suggested publicly last year, is for the term "Islamic terrorism" to be replaced by "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam".

An EU official said that the secret guidebook, or, "common lexicon", is aimed at preventing the distortion of the Muslim faith and the alienation of Muslims in Europe.

"The common lexicon includes guidance on a number of frequently used terms where lack of care by EU and member states' spokespeople may give rise to misunderstandings," he said.

"Careful usage of certain terms is not about empty political correctness but stems from astute awareness of the EU's interests in the fight against terrorism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/30/wislam30.xml

ah Nemesis you havent learned a thing have you? stop reading articles written by people who are clearly retarded; probably because their readers are also retarded

 

[<RJMC>]

thats because nemesis want to warn us about the danger of those brown people in the midle east

 

[Gray Fox]

But as far as I know terrorist don't abusively invoke Islam. Islam clearly supports and justifying the many things terrorist do.
If you truly follow Islam like in the Koran how can you not wage war against the west.
And if Islam doesn't justify it, it's followers do, because Islam like all religion leaves much ambiguity about it's meaning.

So to be honest I do see this as inappropriate.

 

[No Limit]

But as far as I know terrorist don't abusively invoke Islam. Islam clearly supports and justifying the many things terrorist do.
If you truly follow Islam like in the Koran how can you not wage war against the west.
And if Islam doesn't justify it, it's followers do, because Islam like all religion leaves much ambiguity about it's meaning.

So to be honest I do see this as inappropriate.

Can you point out examples of where Islam supports terrorism?

 

[Asknoone]

Yeah, because I'm going to find something credible and non-stupid if I click the Daily Mail link.

 

[CptStern]

Samon has the right idea; lets all get back on topic: how utterly retarded Nemesis' source is

 

[99.vikram]

Can you point out examples of where Islam supports terrorism?

The Verse of Swords, or something like that. You can start there.

But to be honest, every holy text advocates irrational violence to various degrees, muslims just take it a lot more literally.

Example: A friend of my dad's, a soldier in the Indian army, once tried to justify fidayeen attacks in the Kashmir valley as something noble.

 

[No Limit]

The Verse of Swords, or something like that. You can start there.

But look at all the different meanings that entire section has. Then look at how many times it is contradicted before and after that verse.

The Koran is no different from any other religious scripture in that it constantly contradicts itself. Some people simply use that as an excuse, it is no different than any other religion which is pretty much what Gray Fox was saying. But on the other hand saying Islam clearly justifies terrorism is simply not correct and has very little to do with why these terrorists attacks happen.

 

[Absinthe]

This is just stupid. The Koran is a vicious, violent book. Islam is a vicious, violent religion.

This is not to say that all Muslims are terrorists, as that's ludicrous. But the extremists are on the winning side of the theological argument.

They're just finding ways to sidestep the sensitive issue of religion when it's undeniable that these people draw heavy inspiration from Islam every time they quote their verses and behead their enemies in imitation of Mohammed. The Koran may not lie at the heart of their fervor for bloodshed, but it is inarguably the greatest enabler in their intellectual armory. For every verse about personal struggle and peace, there are a dozen others explicitly calling for the deaths of those who oppose you or do not share in your same beliefs. You can't say Islam is just a superficial mask for secular concerns. Not when its theology is so ingrained in its methods.

"Islamic extremism" and "Islamic terrorism" are very real. They are not semantical fabrications. To avoid these terms entirely is to refuse to acknowledge what it is you're dealing with. It seems people aren't mature enough to be honest and call a spade a spade.

 

[CptStern]

listened to an interview with former extremist and current writer for the Guardian, the unforetunately named Hassan Butt (tee hee) .. he says strict interpretation of the Koran allows for war against the west only in the convoluted sense that since there is no islamic state then that must mean that the entire world is an islamic state (which is what the koran says ..no surprise there, that's what the bible says too) ..extremeists interpret that to mean war with the west is taking the land back to it's proper state ...remember these are extremists ..they're "extreme" for a reason ..this doesnt justify Nemesis' anti-muslim stance ..he doesnt differentiate between extremist and moderate

The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

be warned I've read the entire article and have listened to an audio interview: he does not say muslims are terrorists ..just that interpretation allows for terrorism ..read the article before posting, it'll be very apparent if you havent and I will nail you on it <me points two fingers towards my eyes and then points at Nemesis>



http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2115832,00.html



found this comment on the story interesting ..it's off topic but worth noting ..

Interesting piece. Although, one does find it hard not to pause for thought when on the front page of the Guardian Unlimited there are two headlines, the former by far dominating the latter:

Terror threat 'critical' as Glasgow attacked

and much smaller, but adjacent:

'Up to 80 civilians dead' after US air strikes in Afghanistan


Realpolitik, one supposes. Cause for retaliation against Scot civilians, no. Cause for greater concern by the Brit public (and media), yes.

Perception shapes reality.

 

[Gray Fox]

Yes but what kind of interpretation does the koran leave other then the one the so called extremist take? I mean doesn't it literally call for violence against the infidels. Doesn't it encourage it, didn't the writer of the Koran take it upon himself to conquer land.
The stance that Nemesis takes may be wrong overall in my opinion, but I agree with him on this particular issue.

Can you point out examples of where Islam supports terrorism?

Unfortunately I can't. I mainly believe it does because so many religious people call for the actions taken by terrorist. I also believe it because of what I read about Islam, els were and here. Absinthe's post have heavily influenced my opinion. Plus my experiences with the Bible have showed me how ****ed up these books really are. But unfortunately I cannot quote passages myself of the Koran that explicitly state.

 

[CptStern]

read the article, the writer calls for muslims to address those passages

 

[Gray Fox]

read the article, the writer calls for muslims to address those passages

I did read it, and I interpreted it as him saying that Islam is extreme, that it does not recognize the world we live in today. And that he is asking it( the fundamental rules) to be rewritten. But he said himself that Islam has a good deal of responsibility in modern terrorism.

 

[CptStern]

but that's like saying the Bible is responsible for anti-abortion legislation, creationism in schools, conservapedia ...well of course it is ..how many christians stone their children to death for speaking out of turn? they should, it says so in the Bible. Radicals/extremists follow the koran to the letter ..christian extremists PICK and CHOOSE which passages of the bible they want to follow ..you think the christian right wouldnt ban abortion, abolish the teaching of evolution, and force homosexuals to undergo radical conversion therapy if they could get away with it? the difference being that they cant get away with it ..not so much in the islamic world where there's no separation of church and state: this is what he is saying

 

[No Limit]

This is just stupid. The Koran is a vicious, violent book. Islam is a vicious, violent religion.

So is the bible. So is Christianity.

There is really one verse in the Koran that calls for Islam to attack non believers and many argue that that is taken out of context, I read the explaination for this somewhere and I'll try to post it later. But even if you don't buy that it was taken out of context the fact remains there are literally many more quotes from the Quran that call for forgiveness and peace and war only in self defense.

This is why I have a problem with people saying Islam is a vicious, violent religion. It really isn't. The people that abuse it are vicious and violent. They abuse the koran to attack us while we abuse democracy to attack them. We would be in exactly the same situation if the muslim world was christian and we were muslim, they would use the bible to justify attacking us because we attacked them.

 

[Gray Fox]

but that's like saying the Bible is responsible for anti-abortion legislation, creationism in schools, conservapedia ...well of course it is ..how many christians stone their children to death for speaking out of turn? they should, it says so in the Bible. Radicals/extremists follow the koran to the letter ..christian extremists PICK and CHOOSE which passages of the bible they want to follow ..you think the christian right wouldnt ban abortion, abolish the teaching of evolution, and force homosexuals to undergo radical conversion therapy if they could get away with it? the difference being that they cant get away with it ..not so much in the islamic world where there's no separation of church and state: this is what he is saying

But I do think the bible is responsible for all of those things,why wouldn't it be, it preaches those things doesn't it? And how does the failure of the people in Islamic states to stop Islam, suddenly not make Islam responsible for what it advocates.

 

[CptStern]

But I do think the bible is responsible for all of those things,why wouldn't it be, it preaches those things doesn't it? And how does the failure of the people in Islamic states to stop Islam, suddenly not make Islam responsible for what it advocates.

backtrack ...we're saying the same thing here

 

[kirovman]

The actual thing that is happening is they are calling them "criminals" rather than "islamic terrorists", because the term islamic terrorist could be construed as glorifying them.

I see that as a reasonable and smart move which serves to alienate these people further from muslim communities. It makes sense to have them on your side, rather than on the criminals/terrorists side.

And here's evidence that it seems to have worked so far

Also, there's a bit of a difference between political Islam and Muslim's own personal religious beliefs.
Just as Solaris is a self-professed Marxist Socialist, I don't believe that he goes around indulging in revolutionary guerilla activities designed to destroy capitalism and bring the world under a united Soviet government in the style of Che Guevara, Mao or Lenin.

I think that hegemonic/revolutionary Communism, and socialism of the last century is analogous with political islam and the ordinary religion.

-5 for Daily Mail link.

 

[Laivasse]

I don't think that saying 'Christianity is just as bad' gets us anywhere, since those people who criticise Islam here rarely have a much better opinion of Christianity. The holy texts of both of these religions can be used to attempt to justify outrageous violence. The difference is that Christians no longer do this (at least, not that often) because Christianity no longer holds as much intimidating authority as it used to in centuries past (at least, outside the USA). Christianity had its reformation, and the more sensible Christians nowadays make a compromise between their beliefs and the realities of the world.

As Gray Fox correctly sums up, this is exactly what Hassan Butt is calling for to happen on a much wider scale in the muslim world. In doing so, he's acknowledging that the Koran does provide fuel for more violent actions, which is something that these EU guidelines do not acknowledge.
Speaking of Abu Qatada he says: 'He is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.'

As such, it is an insult to the intelligence of the population at large to suggest that these terrorists aren't muslim. I agree with Absinthe - they just plain are muslim. Same with the more moderate, peaceful people - they are also muslim. Noone can assert that any one side has a 'wrong' interpretation, because there is ammunition for both sides in the eternal war of holy quotes - and after all, if the Bible and Koran weren't so open to subjective interpretation then there would be no role for imams and priests within their respective communities. We reasonable people can claim that the 'right' interpretation is the one that gets the least number of people blown up, but that is simply an expression of wishful thinking; it might be a 'right' interpretation in the sense that it is most virtuous on our moral scale, but we simply don't have the authority (or evidence) to claim that it is the only accurate reading.

So yeah, I think this doublespeak is insulting our intelligence. However, while I tend towards Absinthe's 'call a spade a spade' way of thinking, maybe the general population NEEDS to have its intelligence insulted simply because it is so collectively stupid. Far too many people don't (want to) grasp that to say 'these terrorists are muslim' does not amount to saying 'muslims are terrorists'. So I accept that there is a quandary there for the powers that be.

As an aside, going back to talk about Hassan Butt's point:
It's all very well calling for a muslim reformation in countries where there is a minority muslim population (such as Britain), of whom even the more moderate side has trouble squaring its beliefs with the rest of society (after all, even the most moderate muslims [*sigh* yes, and Christians too] are still often very right wing). Especially when in Britain, as one of the commentors points out: 'We're not talking about some insignificant 'minority' here. Remember the recent Channel 4 poll? A quarter of British Muslims think the British government staged the 7/7 bombings! ... In Britain, we have a rapidly growing Muslim population where a small minority seems to support or even actively participate in such attacks on us while massive number [sic] blame the Jews/MI5/CIA.'

In this country we have a problem with integrating the various ethnic communities into the 'British' collective, and the kind of reformation that Butt calls for would go a long way towards facilitating that. Which would be lovely, if unlikely. BUT it would do nothing about external extremism, since there would be no incentive to reform for countries that operate under Islamic law. What do politicians and scholars in Islamic states have to gain from reevaluating the meaning of Islam so that it becomes a bit more soft and hippie, like Xianity? As the Pakistan/Rushdie thing demonstrated, asserting the most extreme interpretation of Islam you possibly can means that politicians in those countries can use religious dogma to distract from real issues whenever they like. Furthermore, even the most peaceful followers of Islam often have trouble accepting the full implications of freedom of speech, and that it can mean having your own very precious beliefs derided (happens to me all the time).

Let's face it, theocracies are pernicious and shitty, full stop. But until Islam stops being the kind of religion that can be abused as it is by politicians in Islamic states, and until it stops grating so abrasively with key values such as freedom of expression, it (Islam) is going to generate problems for centuries to come.

(Qualifier: for the record, I'm not some zionist neocon; I DO also believe that our foreign policy plays a part in the hassles we're facing)

 

[99.vikram]

More than anything, what interests me is that all muslims think of each other as brothers - even the extremists, separatists and terrorists. They may not actively support the cause, but provide moral backing to criminals who they have never met in their lives. And when the interests of their home country and the interests of their religion collide, loyalty is almost always first to religion.

 

[Absinthe]

So is the bible. So is Christianity.

Yep. And I'm not a Christian and have made my disdain for that particular religion very clear in other posts. So I don't see the relevance of this response towards me.

There is really one verse in the Koran that calls for Islam to attack non believers and many argue that that is taken out of context, I read the explaination for this somewhere and I'll try to post it later. But even if you don't buy that it was taken out of context the fact remains there are literally many more quotes from the Quran that call for forgiveness and peace and war only in self defense.

I'll supply excepts later, but I personally don't buy the argument that passages condoning violence are taken out of context or misinterpreted. Some parts of it are so explicit that the only way they could be interpreted otherwise is if there was a "...not!" following them.

The Koran is indeed full of contradictions. I've found the extremist take on it, however, to be more consistent and accurate in following Islamic teachings despite its repulsiveness.

A hugely significant aspect of Islam that I think you're neglecting is the importance of imitating Mohammed. Devout Muslims are to conduct themselves as he did. They are to follow in his footsteps. He is their holy role model.
Mohammed was a violent, militant, conquest-oriented man. He beheaded captives, developed an official second-class system for those of other faiths, and was driven heavily by vengeance. The hadith is one of the most important parts of Islam. Most apologetics for the religion have to struggle in painting a kinder, gentler version of Mohammed, but it's never convincing.

This is why I have a problem with people saying Islam is a vicious, violent religion. It really isn't. The people that abuse it are vicious and violent. They abuse the koran to attack us while we abuse democracy to attack them. We would be in exactly the same situation if the muslim world was christian and we were muslim, they would use the bible to justify attacking us because we attacked them.

Islamic extremism may be evil, but terming it as an abuse is dishonest. If the Koran is truly open to numerous intepretations, then theirs is just as valid as its peaceful counterpart. Just because it's violent doesn't mean they're hijacking or wrangling the faith.

Modern Islam needs to go through the same reformation that modern Christianity has. While I am quite critical of theists who are inconsistent with their beliefs and cherry-pick their holy texts, it is undeniable that a sacrrifice of theistic dogma is needed for the Muslim world to become far more palatable to the rest of the world than it is now.

 

[Geogaddi]

So is the bible. So is Christianity.

There is really one verse in the Koran that calls for Islam to attack non believers and many argue that that is taken out of context, I read the explaination for this somewhere and I'll try to post it later. But even if you don't buy that it was taken out of context the fact remains there are literally many more quotes from the Quran that call for forgiveness and peace and war only in self defense.

This is why I have a problem with people saying Islam is a vicious, violent religion. It really isn't. The people that abuse it are vicious and violent. They abuse the koran to attack us while we abuse democracy to attack them. We would be in exactly the same situation if the muslim world was christian and we were muslim, they would use the bible to justify attacking us because we attacked them.

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 4:91

Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. That is how they will be treated in this world, and in the next they will have an awful doom. 5:33

Believers must fight for Allah. They must kill and be killed , and are bound to do so by the Torah, Gospel, and Quran. But Allah will reward them for it. 9:111

I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

I'm not defending the Bible either, it's just not as specific.

 

[Godron]

All this talk of interpretting the Koran in the "correct" way... how can anyone interpret a book correctly if it contradicts itself so much? And if the holy book contradicts itself so much, then why define the good practice of a religion by how closely it follows the holy text? I mean, religion is about conforming to a set of ideals or practices, so if it's commonplace to cherrypick a book and leave out the violent parts, as in Christianity, then doesn't that interpretation of the book define the religion?

Oh, yeah. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but it seems all the terrorists are Mulsim.

 

[Jintor]

NEWSFLASH: Religion doesn't make sense.

 

[Nemesis6]

I remember reading an entry from a Sudanese Muslim interpreting a verse from the Quran:

Don't be aywali to the Christians and the Jews because they are aywali to each other.

It doesn't really get anymore clear than that.

He talked about how the word is unclear in Arabic, even though it's broadly translated and interpreted as 'friendly'.
There really is not much left for interpretation in the Quran today it seems. As Abu Usama -- One of the main English-speaking Imams of Greenlane Mosque, now arrested for inciting hatred only after Dispatches caught him doing it -- says: "The Quran is very clear about this.", he was referring to homosexuals whom he knows as "perverted, dirty, filthy dogs, that should be murdered". I tend to agree with him that the Quran is very clear on that issue, and on quite an amount of other ones.

Interpreting the Quran is much like, and it pains me to say it, like interpreting Mein Kampf. For all the good that can be found in Islam, there is unprecedented evil that not even our Bible can contend. Let's make a deal right now: Let's not start comparing passages and posting, because that's not productive here.

I keep posting about these things even though I'm called a racist because I know that somewhere out there are a lot of Muslims who agree that the way to make bridges between the Muslim world and the West is NOT by pathetic appeasement such as this. This; turning the other way and ignoring the main cause of terrorism today -- which is Islam -- will undermine the people who DO oppose terrorism within the Muslim faith.

 

[Godron]

I remember reading an entry from a Sudanese Muslim interpreting a verse from the Quran:
It doesn't really get anymore clear than that.

He talked about how the word is unclear in Arabic, even though it's broadly translated and interpreted as 'friendly'.
There really is not much left for interpretation in the Quran today it seems. As Abu Usama -- One of the main English-speaking Imams of Greenlane Mosque, now arrested for inciting hatred only after Dispatches caught him doing it -- says: "The Quran is very clear about this.", he was referring to homosexuals whom he knows as "perverted, dirty, filthy dogs, that should be murdered". I tend to agree with him that the Quran is very clear on that issue, and on quite an amount of other ones.

Interpreting the Quran is much like, and it pains me to say it, like interpreting Mein Kampf. For all the good that can be found in Islam, there is unprecedented evil that not even our Bible can contend. Let's make a deal right now: Let's not start comparing passages and posting, because that's not productive here.

I know there's a lot of shit in the Quran, even more than in the Bible. This though, seems to show that a lot of Muslims either don't know about or simply don't listen to it, just like Christianity. The problem is that people like Abu Usama go round brainwashing people into actually reading the damn book.
If the words in the book alone were enough to brainwash people like that, we would have a much larger problem with Christian extremists.
It's about bloody time people started confronting the problem directly, like those Muslims were, rather than tip-toeing and trying not to make a few reactionary idiots react.