Muslims have nothing to apologize for

[longsuffering]

Do Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, or Buddhists apologize for the actions of adherents who are alleged to have committed serious crimes?

Let us compare this with the media coverage of the firebombing that took place in Ottawa three months ago. We all know the facts by now: a bomb went off at an RBC branch with an estimated property damage of more than $300,000. No media coverage I saw described the event as an act of terrorism, despite the fact the bombing was politically motivated. It was rather described as a "firebombing," and the suspects were labelled "anarchists," "bandits," or "bombers." I can cite many similar examples, such as the bombing of gas pipelines in British Columbia and the recent bombing of a Canadian Forces recruitment centre in Quebec, all of which had the potential to harm the public.

Another example that comes to mind is the coverage of the many priests who have been accused of sexual abuse of children. Despite the fact that these accusations are widespread, do we see terms such as "Catholic pedophilia" or "Christian pedophilia" used in the media to describe this crime? Of course to do so would be outrageous, since Christianity does not condone this heinous act. But time and time again, Muslims are compelled to immediately condemn any fellow Muslim who is accused of terrorism or security-related crime, in what seems to be a desperate, and perhaps even frightened, attempt to avoid being painted with the same brush.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/...499/story.html

He's right.

[Slava]

I think the difference is that the Muslim extremists are doing so in the name of their religion whereas the others are not using religion at all. In other words just like no one pays attention to whether the Muslim extremist was an environmentalist no one cares if the anarchist was Muslim.

[starseed]

Those three acts of terrorism in Canada were not designed to directly harm people, just their property. As far as I know, they were all branded as acts of terrorism. I would say the problem is just how we use the word terrorism in our every day language, we just make the word more serious when it directly involves harming innocent people.

Regardless, those are excellent points and I would say they do amount to racism in one form or another.

[Nage Waza]

The other key difference is that if someone knew who the firebombers are, we feel that they would call the police (there is a trust that we are all looking out for the common good as citizens). The perception is that Muslims are not stepping in and calling the police when they know something is up within their community. I think that point is pretty simple and you are well aware of this perception. Since you knew that, why did you make that post?

And yes many other groups do apologize for stupid actions of their members.

Do you get paid to make posts like this? What motivates you to post things like this to Calgary puck? It seems every website I frequent has someone making virtually the same type of posts.

[peter12]

do we see terms such as "Catholic pedophilia" or "Christian pedophilia" used in the media to describe this crime?

Seriously? Is he actually serious?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think the difference is that the Muslim extremists are doing so in the name of their religion whereas the others are not using religion at all. In other words just like no one pays attention to whether the Muslim extremist was an environmentalist no one cares if the anarchist was Muslim.

Yup.

Beyond the terrorism in the name of Allah, I'd also say that Muslim societies have a lot to apologize for so long as they treat women like property instead of people.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by starseed

Those three acts of terrorism in Canada were not designed to directly harm people, just their property. As far as I know, they were all branded as acts of terrorism. I would say the problem is just how we use the word terrorism in our every day language, we just make the word more serious when it directly involves harming innocent people.

Regardless, those are excellent points and I would say they do amount to racism in one form or another.

Huh, acts of terrorism are acts of terrorism no matter if people are there are not.

The guy blowing up pipelines in Western Canada is a terrorist. The people firebombing the recruiting center is a terrorist.

Its the use of violence to terrorize. destroying property with a bomb or a molotov cocktail even if no-one is around is still terrorism and shows a capability to escalate those acts.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by peter12

Seriously? Is he actually serious?

Nobody says "I molest you in the name of Jesus!"

However, it is widely documented that the terrorist acts of 2001 were done in the name of Allah.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by starseed

Those three acts of terrorism in Canada were not designed to directly harm people, just their property. As far as I know, they were all branded as acts of terrorism. I would say the problem is just how we use the word terrorism in our every day language, we just make the word more serious when it directly involves harming innocent people.

Regardless, those are excellent points and I would say they do amount to racism in one form or another.

Muslim / Islam is not a race.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Nobody says "I molest you in the name of Jesus!"

However, it is widely documented that the terrorist acts of 2001 were done in the name of Allah.

My point was that the media furor over the Catholic sex abuse scandal clearly associates the pedophilia of priests with their Christianity.,

Oh my lord, I just realized this article was written by Maher Arar.

[amorak]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Nobody says "I molest you in the name of Jesus!"

However, it is widely documented that the terrorist acts of 2001 were done in the name of Allen.

Fata'ing Allen... He was never the same since Home Improvement ended, was he? Then he started with the planes and the buildings...

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by peter12

My point was that the media furor over the Catholic sex abuse scandal clearly associates the pedophilia of priests with their Christianity.,

Oh my lord, I just realized this article was written by Maher Arar.

I wasn't arguing with you, I was empahsizing your point with hyperbole.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/...499/story.html

He's right.

He's not right at all.

If Catholic priests were molesting children in the name of Christ, then the Church would absolutely be held to same level of accountability to denounce the actions of these individuals and clarify the Church's position and condemnation of such actions. And even though these acts are individual-based (regardless how rampant), the Church / Pope has still been making statements and apologies wherever this depravity has been demasked.

Islamic fundamentalists (sorry, Maher) insist on invoking Allah and other Islamic religious tenets as part of or justification for their acts of terrorism. The author should be more concerned about that than trying to start a big pity party.

[CaptainCrunch]

To me one of the most positive things that I've seen is the condemnations that are now coming out of the Muslim community concerning extremism. Because these terrorists directly link their actions to their god or their religion, there is a resentment after these acts based on silence or a lack of condemnation from the Muslim community.

On the pedophilia thing, I can find a single catholic who isn't repulsed by the idea of a kid getting buggered. What we are seeing though is a reduction in the number of people that are ardent catholics. Their backlash is based around people losing their faith in the church's ability to do the right thing.

[bizaro86]

The pipeline bombings in BC were absolutely decried as an act of terrorism.

Michael

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

To me one of the most positive things that I've seen is the condemnations that are now coming out of the Muslim community concerning extremism. Because these terrorists directly link their actions to their god or their religion, there is a resentment after these acts based on silence or a lack of condemnation from the Muslim community.

On the pedophilia thing, I can find a single catholic who isn't repulsed by the idea of a kid getting buggered. What we are seeing though is a reduction in the number of people that are ardent catholics. Their backlash is based around people losing their faith in the church's ability to do the right thing.

Sadly, that's the exact thing the author is arguing against.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Sadly, that's the exact thing the author is arguing against.

I think he is arguing against apologizing, not condemning. It's one thing to say "those acts are not mine and the people committing them do not represent me or my religious community", it is another thing to say "I apologize for this person's act, on behalf of my religious community."

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by alltherage

I think he is arguing against apologizing, not condemning. It's one thing to say "those acts are not mine and the people committing them do not represent me or my religious community", it is another thing to say "I apologize for this person's act, on behalf of my religious community."

This is a great point. If you apologize on behalf of the community, that's basically admitting that this is a "Muslim" act. If you decry the act as being against Islam, non-Muslims are more likely to be understanding of Islam, and young people in the community can see their leadership opposing violence.

Michael

[Boblobla]

Thanks Mike.

Bob

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by alltherage

Nobody says "I molest you in the name of Jesus!"

However, it is widely documented that the terrorist acts of 2001 were done in the name of Allah.

What does it mean for something to be done in the name of someone? It's a rhetorical argument that amounts to nothing. If a priest did tell a victim that Christ compelled him to submit to the priest's wishes, (and really, I don't think it's that much of a stretch for a man who's already abusing his power so horribly to invoke the name of Christ) would that make all other Christians culpable? Clearly not. If you want to talk about whether Islam has contributing factors that lead to the attacks (a very valid argument), or whether Catholicism has contributing factors that lead to abuses (also valid), go ahead and make those arguments. But to suggest that all Islam is culpable because the name of their god was invoked is laughable.