|
dhajjieboy wrote: I myself deny the very premise of 'they become martyrs'....
This is surely 1 way to deny 'them' legitamacy.
If in fact Islam is a peacefull religion, it is the Islamist's themselves that need to make this point as a collective entity.
One could easily make a similar argument regarding the West - "If in fact the West is 'civilized,' it is the West itself that needs to make this point as a collective entity"
Instead, the West has a multi-century habit of destroying most of the world through political and economic means, treating those whom they destroy as backward sub-humans with no culture while simultaneously patting themselves on the back for how "progressive" and "civilized" they are.
In short, considering that ISIS is not a "legitimate" government, and has only come to power through terrorizing the population, I don't think "Muslims" as a whole are under any moral burden to apologize for a group of whackos who misrepresent them. On the other hand, if the West really is the "democracy" it claims, then Westerners must bear at least some responsibility for what their governments do in their name. (And no, I am NOT suggesting France "deserved" the recent attack. What I am saying is that I find the whole "Muslims should apologize" argument extremely hypocritical.)
As to whether Islam is inherently violent or not, my response would be to ask, what religion isn't? I used to have some naïve hope in Buddhism but now in Myanmar we've even got Buddhist monks advocating the ethnic cleansing of the country's Rohingya minority. So the "Islam is a violent religion" argument also doesn't cut it in my book, considering that every established religion is in large part a way to keep certain groups in power at the expense of others.
|
