Four articles and a comment
1. Edwin A. Locke, in an article called, The Terrorists' Motivation: Islam, says:
3. The New York Times is getting warm but still can’t get it. In a recent piece Olivier Roy rightly rejects the usual motives for Islamist violence like the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, he has decided that it is psychological: “they are frustrated by a Western society that does not meet their expectations.” Wait a second! They’re not the first group of immigrants that have felt that way. In the UK and here in the US, group after group have sought a better life and often their expectations aren’t met. What is the difference with Muslims? The answer: read Dr. Locke’s article above.
4. Daniel Pipes comments on recent surveys that show half of the UK’s Muslims are sympathetic in their understanding of the actions of the 7/7 terrorists. They can understand “why some people behave in that way.” Imagine a racial attack in Mississippi or even New York where half the population expresses such “understanding.” What would your judgment be? Such actions should not be so understood. I discuss different types of understanding here.
Some people get it, some are getting warm, but most are still in denial. At least half of UK's Muslims feel empathy rather than shame. But praising the motivation of the 7/7 terrorists - Islam - why would we expect anything else?
The terrorists are not "un-Islamic" bandits who have "hijacked a great religion"; they are consistent and serious followers of their religion. … It is only to the extent that they depart from their religion--and from a society that imposes it--that they achieve prosperity, freedom, and peace. … America has groveled to so-called "moderate" Muslim leaders to strongly repudiate terrorism, with little success. … Such a campaign cannot work, since insofar as these "moderates" accept Islam, they cannot convincingly oppose violence in its name.2. I often argue with people, usually on the multi-cultural left, who insist that I criticize Christianity as much as I criticize Islam. They have no qualms with my critique of Islam as long as I say the same things about Islam. I can’t do that in all honesty. It is not at all fair. James Worthing of West Sussex explains the vast difference between contemporary Christianity and Islam in a recent post.
3. The New York Times is getting warm but still can’t get it. In a recent piece Olivier Roy rightly rejects the usual motives for Islamist violence like the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, he has decided that it is psychological: “they are frustrated by a Western society that does not meet their expectations.” Wait a second! They’re not the first group of immigrants that have felt that way. In the UK and here in the US, group after group have sought a better life and often their expectations aren’t met. What is the difference with Muslims? The answer: read Dr. Locke’s article above.
4. Daniel Pipes comments on recent surveys that show half of the UK’s Muslims are sympathetic in their understanding of the actions of the 7/7 terrorists. They can understand “why some people behave in that way.” Imagine a racial attack in Mississippi or even New York where half the population expresses such “understanding.” What would your judgment be? Such actions should not be so understood. I discuss different types of understanding here.
Some people get it, some are getting warm, but most are still in denial. At least half of UK's Muslims feel empathy rather than shame. But praising the motivation of the 7/7 terrorists - Islam - why would we expect anything else?
posted by Jason Pappas at 6:56 AM
0 Comments:
<< Home