Discussion Paris Terror Attacks

[Newkerzy]

I'm just gonna repeat what I said over at another forum here:

Sigh.....

This whole shit actually goes all the way back since Muhammad's passing. Muhammad was a man of many things; a leader, a guide, a messenger, husband and father. But despite his elevated status, he was still a flawed human being, just like the Quran told us so.

One particularly famous instance is the accusation of one of his wives' adultery. Rumors spread so greatly that Muhammad started believing them before he prayed to God to help him seek the truth. Once God cleared it up, he apologized to her and supposedly literally begged her to. While she did eventually forgive him, the man who was implicated in the adultery rumors was actually one of his closest followers as well, and this eventually created a noticeable rift between them. This would later result in the forming of the Shia.

For all of Muhammad's great virtues, he had one MAJOR flaw: He was too naive.

To elaborate, Muhammad was not a politician at all. Far from it. While he did have God's messages relayed to him, they merely acted as his moral compass, not as a political guide. There were basic socio-political norms to lay the groundwork for a civil society, but nothing explicit about running a frigging empire..... So, during his reign over the Muslim community, Muhammad basically had to learn on the fly.

There's a good reason why you can consider Muhammad's advice for Itjihad (before you say anything, no, Itjihad is not the same thing as Jihad. It means that you have to make your own considerations based on the Quran and Hadits) to be summed up as a how-to to learn on the fly.

But the worst of it, he died too soon. He only reigned over his community for about 2-3 years. When Muhammad was in rule, he ruled as fair as possible. Muhammad was not a natural-born politician, but with God's messages, he did well enough. But that doesn't make him a politician in the truest sense of the word, he was merely a moral authority like Mandela and MLK. Muhammad's lack of political savvy-ness, led to his naivety.

His naivety is that, most likely, of him being too trusting in his followers. Muhammad was able to create peace and stability during his rule, but he didn't think far enough in the future to prepare his followers for his eventual death. He did foreshadow his death at his last Hajj pilgrimage, but he didn't do anything beyond that. Muhammad didn't have enough political experience to foresee infighting in the future. His former enemies, however, did. They would later on be the root of this whole shit the world's going through.

The first two Caliphs did well in keeping the peace, but after that, everything started to go to hell. It isn't helped by the fact that the third Caliph was corrupt as hell.

Had Muhammad specifically cited criterias for a leader in a Hadits, then we would be seeing less infighting in this world now. The infighting from the ancient times finally culminated in the Cold War in which is still ongoing in the middle east. The worst of it, the infighting eventually divided the Muslim community in different parts from the Sunni, to the Shi'ites and Kurds. All of which are fighting for dominance in the middle east.

So, basically, Muhammad was indirectly responsible for why the whole world has gone to crap.

In case you're wondering where I get this from, I recommend reading Reza Aslan's "No God but God". It's a real eye-opener on Islamic politics.

 

[Anera]

Didn't France reopen its gates to Syrian refuges again?

Reality is more complicated. Identity checks and passport controls are made at the borders so it must be harder for the refugees. Btw, it's not because France said "we will welcome x refugees" that the government do everything it can... Actually, the government gave orders to welcome some refugees decently in front of the cameras... Once the journalists are not there, the French government doesn't care anymore about them. I don't know what kind of information you have but some French newspapers are not blind and made articles about the true help brought to the refugees : it's mostly from associations and private individuals. And based on what they said, the government just threw a wrench in the gears.

What I mean is that I don't really appreciate all the propagandia made by my government about its presumed help to the refugees. They're not treated better than the homeless, if it's not even worse than them actually... And yeah, a handful of refugees are really helped actually but they are at least 30 000 according to the official data and it's pretty certain they're in a deep shit right now. I want to help refugees but if it's not even done decently, it's a shame. If they can find a country which really wants to receive them, I think it's better. And refugees are not blind either : most of them don't want to come in France, because they know about the current atmosphere.

 

[M3J]

I didn't say you should have a dialogue with them or that you should necessarily expect such people to change their minds, though. Just that it's better to be the one who posts something thoughtful focused around learning about/getting to better understand complex issues like this, as opposed to remaining silent. Just putting that on your wall without directing it at anyone might get some of the less hardline people to think again about putting their ignorance on display. (I'm actually thinking about a specific study that showed that the less people with bigoted views are challenged, the more okay they think it is to spout off, and the more they spout off, the more people they influence.)

Issue is, how will it help the ignorant people? I'm sure they'll just deny it or not care. It won't stop anyone, though I could see it actually potentially helping the uninformed.

Reality is more complicated. Identity checks and passport controls are made at the borders so it must be harder for the refugees. Btw, it's not because France said "we will welcome x refugees" that the government do everything it can... Actually, the government gave orders to welcome some refugees decently in front of the cameras... Once the journalists are not there, the French government doesn't care anymore about them. I don't know what kind of information you have but some French newspapers are not blind and made articles about the true help brought to the refugees : it's mostly from associations and private individuals. And based on what they said, the government just threw a wrench in the gears.

What I mean is that I don't really appreciate all the propagandia made by my government about its presumed help to the refugees. They're not treated better than the homeless, if it's not even worse than them actually... And yeah, a handful of refugees are really helped actually but they are at least 30 000 according to the official data and it's pretty certain they're in a deep shit right now. I want to help refugees but if it's not even done decently, it's a shame. If they can find a country which really wants to receive them, I think it's better. And refugees are not blind either : most of them don't want to come in France, because they know about the current atmosphere.

All I know is that they're accepting Syrian refugees, which is a step further than the US. I can't imagine any country wanting to take in the refugees and wantin to help them wholeheartedly though, ISIS did a great job in getting people against the group.

 

[xi0]

All I know is that they're accepting Syrian refugees, which is a step further than the US. I can't imagine any country wanting to take in the refugees and wantin to help them wholeheartedly though, ISIS did a great job in getting people against the group.

False. No one has stopped taking Syrian refugees. Many governors have come out against it, but the final say is with the federal government.

 

[M3J]

Aren't the state governors refusing to accept refugees in their states though? Some others are takin them in.

 

[xi0]

Aren't the state governors refusing to accept refugees in their states though? Some others are takin them in.

Not sure if all 31 are actively taking measures against it, but those who have have already had their efforts blocked. Honestly, I'd expect more of the same...the issue is particularly cut and dry.

 

[kannazuki]

Issue is, how will it help the ignorant people? I'm sure they'll just deny it or not care. It won't stop anyone, though I could see it actually potentially helping the uninformed.

I guess I didn't make my intent clear earlier, but there are two kinds of people who are going to spout the bigoted and ignorant nonsense. (1) Those who actually believe it wholeheartedly (i.e. actual bigots), and (2) those who don't know what else to think because it's all they hear all day every day, often even from mainstream media. This is the same as with any other political issue: you're not trying to convince people who obviously have their minds made up against you. You're looking to reach those who haven't with facts, reason, and sense so that those bystanders who are caught in the crossfire (category 2 above) aren't getting only that one side of the story. Just for people to acknowledge an alternative way of looking at the issue when they otherwise wouldn't have heard of it at all, or if they only heard it from one unrelated source before and now you're source two? That by itself is something, even if they don't change where they're leaning right away.