I wanted to take a moment to reply to this article/video clip. To summarise it briefly, the question from the floor which ignites this vitriolic response, is from a young girl of the Islamic faith, dressed in the hijab. She asks the panel, why is there no discussion on how to fight the ideology of Jihadists (Islamic holy-war supporters), also making reference that most Muslims are peaceful people and that she does not see them represented on the panel. The response from the panelist is stirring, prophetic, and rather stoic. It also appears to be quite articulate and measured, however for me whilst there is an appearance of logic in her argument, I believe there are fundamental flaws in her response - flaws which I would like to address as people can be quite taken by articulate rhetoric, which can be dangerous if there are errors in the message being delivered. Her argument is that they do not propose that Western Society does not hate all Muslims, and stands by that fact staunchly. She focuses on the rhetoric that most Muslims are peaceful, arguing that in all of the worlds historical atrocities, the people behind them have represented a radical minority compared to the peaceful majority, but it is the radical minority we should fear and act against. She exemplifies the Nazi, Stalinist, and Maoist radical minorities and their roles in killing millions, despite the remaining majorities being peaceful, drawing parallels to the large global Islamic populations and venturing to say their minority group happens to be the largest of all the historical radical minorities. Here is where the waters first become murky, because up until now, those arguments seemingly display a strong basis in reality and logical coherency. She throws a number out there, suggesting that the world intelligence numbers deduce that 15-25% of the global Islamic population is classed as radical. Im sorry, but where on Earth is this quantified? You cant throw arbitrary numbers out there without referencing your source and methodology. First thing you learn in university, and it seems to fade as time goes on, or as the political stakes increase. As this is the basis from which her argument draws its strength, I am not nit-picking when I ask for clarity here. I doubt the validity of that figure until I see grounds for proof. From that point, she uses the large number of 300 million to describe the size of the potential pool of Islamic radicals, and the destruction they could supposedly reap, citing this reason as the mitigating circumstance for creating a retaliatory policy. Well, as described, this arbitrary number with no basis is easy to manipulate people with. It sounds like such an enormous number, and if I am willing to accept it for a moment as true, I instantly suggest, using the same reason and logic, that if 300 million radicals (of any denomination, culture, or belief system) existed, we would already be deep in a war that we would all be losing. The world has never been more weak than it is now (at least economically), so the perfect time to strike would have been in the last 5 years, yet beyond small skirmishes (comparatively to the size of global war), nothing has occurred worthy of note as a coordinated radical uprising. 300 million people and they just send a few people at a time to create small moments of (admittedly devastating) havoc? That sounds more far fetched than the claim there are 300 million Muslim radicals. So for me, whilst the logic in her vehement response sounds initially compelling, it is based on a highly dubious, arbitrary, unquantified number which requires significant qualification. So how can you adopt her point of view when the very fulcrum of her argument is unjustifiable and potentially flawed? Moreover, to compare like-for-like, all of the worlds atrocities is to ignore the variables involved in each event. The Nazi rise during the Great Depression had its own circumstances, the Stalinist regime... They all have their own roots and histories. Radicals though they may be, youre talking about killing in the name of God, something which Christianity has done in greater measure historically than the religion of Islam. If we are talking numbers, more people have died at the hands of Christians than Muslims. So why is there not an argument suggesting Muslims are simply crafting the same anti-terrorist measures - in their own opinion of course and from their own perspective. If youre resting your argument on logic and reason, you had better be prepared to be challenged on the same grounds. Lets not even talk about the fact that the U.S waged a clearly unjustified war on/invasion of Iraq for the oil, killing in the name of lies and deceit. I do agree with her on the point of political correctness. It has gone so far as to interfere with the underlying message - but this is another debate for another day. This all ignores the fact that I personally think all religion is bogus, and killing in its name is ridiculous, misguided, and archaic. When will the world wake up and realise that in this game of imaginary friends, real people are dying. Enough with the ideological rhetoric - from ALL sides. Have a Snickers maybe?
Posted on: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 01:35:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015