Terrorism is about Greed not Religion

[cbayer]

http://www.chicagonow.com/absolute-muslim-absolutely-american/2014/05/terrorism-is-about-greed-not-religion/

By Essam, Saturday at 8:24 pm


TIME magazine international cover

The Boko Haram are not an "Islamic Militant group" there is no such thing as being Islamic and militant too. They, and all others like them are cowards. Calling them filth would be to insult filth. As the world comes together to speak up against the Boko Haram, it is easy to forget that the Boko Haram aren't the only ones we should be rising up against. The 300+ girls they kidnapped are indeed our sisters and I want their safe and prompt return and this evil group to be brought down. I also want the hundreds of thousands of girls, boys, mothers and fathers who are being kidnapped, raped, and murdered by other groups to have justice too. We need to rise up to take the power away from all those that stand for evil and that includes; the Buddhist Terrorists in Burma who have been orchestrating ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Rohingya population, the Taliban & Al Qaeda and all their factions across the world, and last but not least the many governments and armed forces across the world using their power to oppress others. Terrorism using bombs, rape, kidnapping, tanks, and drones are all terrorism regardless of the perpetrator's race, religion, or creed.

The Boko Haram kidnapped scores of girls in Nigeria and then went onto defend their actions and attempts to sell them by stating that God wants them to sell girls. Not one religious scripture supports their claim, yet some how they have followers that believe it. How is that possible? It's possible because people aren't educating themselves and are unable to counter their narratives. The Boko Haram go against every teaching of Islam and are breaking every Islamic law, so they don't get the right to be called Islamic anything. Take away their biggest weapon by not giving them the satisfaction by using the word Islamic when defining them.

Barbaric drug lords just looking for the next score, that is all they are and ever will be. It's easy for us to see that the Boko Haram aren't the torch bearers of Islam and those stopping them aren't at war with Islam, however the young boys being recruited into their fold don't have the luxury of the knowledge we have. They don't know what the reality is behind their leaders, they think they are following Islamic leaders doing the work of God. Our placing the label of Islamic to their names and actions gives them the credibility they couldn't get without us. They're using us as tools and our hands are just as red as theirs if we don't stop playing their game. To take away someone's rights, to abuse power, oppress people, murdering people, and to change the word of God for your own gain are amongst the worse of sins in Islam. These sins are pretty much the corporate culture for the Boko Haram, they are the very evil they claim to be against.

Thanks to the label of Islamic being affixed to their actions we almost miss the real business the Boko Haram are in, and that is Human and sex trafficking. This is an evil that is happening right here in the US as well as all over the world and with the spotlight so brightly on the subject we need to educate ourselves and empower ourselves to make a difference. There are many groups and organizations behind both Human trafficking and the Sex trade, while each group uses different tactics to steal people and force them into slavery and trade, their true motives are all the same. Do not let them confuse you with the various banners they operate under as they are all fueled by fear, ignorance, and the lust for power & money.

more at link

[skepticscott]

1. Just a pompous, long- winded NTS argument

What does it matter that "Not one religious scripture supports their claim"? If you believe that "god" exists and that he talks to people and tells them what to do every day (as many religious groups indoctrinate their followers to believe), even so-called "liberal" and "progressive" ones, then what could be more natural? And if you believe what you were taught in Sunday School (and who has any right to say all that was nothing but fairy tales?), this crime would be far from the worst one that a god has ever ordered his followers to commit.

[pinto]

3. What's NTS? Is it no true scotsman? I've never quite gotten it.

I don't get the rest of your comments. I think the group (Boko Haram) is a sham. They're violent thugs.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. A 'sham' in what sense?

I agree they're violent, and I'm happy using the word 'thug' for them. I think they'd agree they're violent too, though, so I don't see them as a sham. They claim that being violent in the name of Islam is necessary.

[pinto]

8. I'm not clear if it's really about Islam, per se. They make that claim. I think a cover of sorts.

The "sham" is that, imo. Could be totally off on my take. I know little about the culture or local situation. But I saw many muslim groups denounce the violence and their havoc.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. I think there's plenty of Islam involved

See, for instance, an article from "Africa Spectrum", from 2010: http://journals.sub.uni-hamburg.de/giga/afsp/article/view/330

I'm sure many Muslim groups have denounced them; but you can say the same about, for instance, the Westboro Baptists being denounced by many Christian groups.

[pinto]

10. Yes on the denunciations. I'm glad to see them. Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.

Do you think the Westboro folks are a religious organization outside of their own media ploys? I think they're a sham, as well. Different situations and very big different levels of harm. Yet I see a similarity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Yes, I think they're religious

Look at the way some of them are excommunicated (even Fred Phelps himself), or leave, over doctrine. The ones expelled don't say "it's just a sham".

Why would you think they're not a religious organiziation?

[pinto]

22. They leave because it's a sham, I think. They get it and move on.

Maybe more to the point - an oppressive, narrow, extremist, controlling, self-isolated environment.

I do think they portray themselves as a religious organization. That's clear.

Yet the sham, imo, is that they are an anti-social, secretive cult. No idea what their "doctrine" is. I just think it's a hoax. And I rail, at times, about the media coverage they garner.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. But they don't denounce it as a sham after they leave

They don't say "this isn't about religion". They just develop more sociable ideas.

" an oppressive, narrow, extremist, controlling, self-isolated environment", "an anti-social, secretive cult" - and? Why would that mean they're not religious? Their doctrine is repeated on all those placards - "God Hates ...".

[trotsky]

25. Sure, a hoax.

They can't be religious, because religion can only inspire people to do good. If someone does bad, they must be an atheist!

[pinto]

30. Oh come on. That's not what I meant at all. Someone leaves a group because it doesn't work for them.

Doesn't mean they adopt some other group. They just move on. What happens next is anyone's guess.

(aside) Did I misread the sarcasm in your comment? Wouldn't be the first time. If so, desculpe.

[trotsky]

34. You said: "I do think they portray themselves as a religious organization."

"Portray themselves" - that seems to me to indicate you don't think they really are religious. Care to clarify?

[skepticscott]

48. The group was formed by an Islamic cleric

And they have been trying to impose Shariah law wherever they can.

Tell us again why they have nothing to do with religion.

[pinto]

54. Good points. And unfortunately typical condescending snark. So no, I won't tell us anything again.

[skepticscott]

55. When you post

demonstrable nonsense to try to make a false point, you should expect that kind of response. You could have discovered that information yourself very easily, if you cared to, but instead, you tried to wave away any connection to religion with "it's a sham".

[cleanhippie]

56. Have you noticed the uptick in the use of "sham" and "hoax" by believers and apologists lately

when discussing religions that they don't approve of or believe in?

I wonder if there was a memo or something.

[pinto]

2. I read a stat the the region in Nigeria where Boko Haram operates is largely illiterate and poor.

It would seem to follow that few have actually read the Koran, fwiw, and many are in it for the money, personal safety or some other reason.

Pretty sad in a country that has enormous resources, apparently a vibrant economy and opportunity, for those that get through the door. Education is one big step.

[cbayer]

4. After living in AFrica for 3 years, my daughter says Nigeria is the worst of all the

countries she visited. She says it is devastatingly poor, exceedingly poorly governed and has horrible education system.

[merrily]

51. I know few Christians who have read the Bible cover to cover.

I don't think that has a thing to do with whether their religious beliefs are their motivation or not.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. So, according to the blogger, you can't be an Islamic Militant, but you can be a Buddhist Terrorist?

I think I see a double standard here.

[cbayer]

7. I noticed that as well and wondered whether he were using the term

culturally as opposed to religiously.

[Cartoonist]

11. Islamic Misogyny

Yes, I know there are good Muslims. Millions more than the bad ones. The problem is, though, religion. Doesn't matter which creed. Once you create an omnipotent being and try to pass him off as real, then reality itself is compromised. The Koran frowns on the education of women. The Taliban in Afghanistan are the same way as Boko Haram. Essam is wrong. Nice try to defend religion, but religion is indefensible.

[Cartoonist]

12. Holy free association, Batman

from the article:
We are well aware of what people like Hitler, Osama, and now the Boko Haram did with that kind of influence.
-
Blood pressure going up here!

[cbayer]

13. Can you elaborate?

[Cartoonist]

14. About what?

One sentence, three people. The writer needs to elaborate why he grouped them together.

[cbayer]

15. His point, imo, was that these are high profile people/groups that garnered a lot of

public attention, but it's going on all over the place and no one even hears about most of it.

[Cartoonist]

16. Why Obama?

Why didn't he include Reagan alongside Hitler? Or Jesus?

[cbayer]

18. Osama, not Obama, lol.

Jesus? Really?

To be honest, I think he is quite young. His stated goal is to defend Muslims living in the US and to confront the bigotry that they experience.

But he did not say Obama.

[Cartoonist]

19. D'oh

Blood pressure back to normal.

[cbayer]

20. I think we have all done this at one point or another.

I know I have.

[trotsky]

21. Why can't it be both?

It's extremely dishonest to push this nonsense. If religion can inspire people to do good, then it can also inspire bad.

To deny the negative aspect of religion also serves to promote hatred, bigotry, and prejudice against non-believers - essentially claiming that only the non-religious can do bad things.

It is very sad to encounter this harmful, destructive bullshit on a progressive website. Thanks a lot, cbayer.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. religious inspired violence has a long history, about as long as the history of religion.

claiming that it just can't be is ridiculous.

[Joe Magarac]

26. I get it. It's only "real" religion when it's nice.

If it's about anything other than niceness -- greed for example (or hatred of women) -- then it's not religion at all.

[skepticscott]

27. Yep, you've got it figured out

But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the OP to acknowledge that.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Typically when indefensible articles are posted here, the poster

when cornered starts claiming no association with the opinions expressed.

[cbayer]

35. Except that's not even close to what he actually says

[arely staircase]

28. rich man's war

ali was the second son of a second son
Grew up in Gaza throwing bottles and rocks when the tanks would come
Ain’t nothin’ else to do around here just a game children play
Somethin’ ‘bout livin’ in fear all your life makes you hard that way

He answered when he got the call
Wrapped himself in death and praised Allah
A fat man in a new Mercedes drove him to the door
Just another poor boy off to fight a rich man’s war

steve earl

[MellowDem]

29. And economic disparity is about laziness, not privilege...

The disgusting tripe you keep posting to defend religion could only happen because religion is so privileged.

Another piece claiming that religion, which advocates terrorism very explicitly in many holy texts, and which, by it's inherent contradictory illogical nature, could be interpreted to mean anything, even when not explicitly said by certain religions, has nothing to do with violence or terror is to deny the very real oppression religion causes to many of it's victims every day. Disgusting.

[LostOne4Ever]

31. As others said

Colossal No true Scotsman.

We see this time and time again. One religious group does something bad and supporters of that religion are quick to say they were not "real" members of their religion. Someone of "their" religion could not do those things.

These agents of hate have nothing to do with religion, science, God, or Buddha. Take away their ability to hide behind the banner of religion and they'll turn their back on their "cause" in a heartbeat.

Yes, cause someone who is truly religious would never ever do anything bad. Cause only the unreligious and the irreligious do bad things

Their religion gets all the credit when they do something good, and none of the blame if when they do something bad.

How convenient!

[cbayer]

36. Perhaps there are times when people really aren't true scotsman.

Perhaps there are truly times when people use the mantle of something as cover to do heinous things.

It would seem to me to be important to acknowledge that, expose them and remove their cover.

Particularly if the behavior of a small group of extremists is impacting on the vast majority of those that also share the label in a very negative way.

These memes like "no true scotsman" and "cherry picking" and pretty much all the logical fallacy arguments are sometimes logical fallacies themselves.

They don't necessarily stand on their own and should be regularly challenged, imo.

Nowhere does this guy say only the unreligious and irreligious do bad things. What does one call that? Oh yes, a big glaring straw man.

[Act_of_Reparation]

44. I don't follow

These memes like "no true scotsman" and "cherry picking" and pretty much all the logical fallacy arguments are sometimes logical fallacies themselves.

No True Scotsman:

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing&quot , rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing&quot .[2] It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements.

In other words, yes, there are times when there are, in fact, no true Scotsman: when there are specific, objective rules excluding people from that label. A Scotsman is one who is nationally or ethnically Scottish. Having not been born in Scotland, having not been a naturalized citizen thereof, and having not descended from anyone who meets the aforementioned criteria, I am not a true Scotsman... even if I have an inexplicable predilection for bagpipes and kilts.

If the author wanted to make a real case for as to why Boko Haram should not be considered an Islamic movement, he or she would have to get into the brass tacks of Islamic jurisprudence, but they did not. Given that traditional Islamic jurisprudence does allow for sex slavery (provided certain conditions are met), I have to wonder whether or not this was deliberate.

[cbayer]

45. It becomes much more complicated when one defines themselves as

something that can not be proven by nationality, ethnicity, where you are born or who you have descended from.

Which is the case with religious identification for the most part.

We see this argument used frequently when discussing both "religious" and "non-religious" people here. People are frequently told that they are not what they say they are, that they don't really meet the criteria for that label. Authors of posted articles often meet the same fate as well.

He's making a rather simple point here, though not all that eloquently. Muslim identified terrorists have little in common with ordinary muslims in reality and the association is harmful.

[Act_of_Reparation]

46. It all depends upon the specificity of the label

I can't very well call myself a vegetarian because I regularly eat meat; my dietary practices are necessarily excluded by the definition of the label.

Religious labels typically aren't that specific, especially when you are dealing with umbrella religions that are host to numerous sects, like Christianity and Islam. These labels tend address what one generally believes, not how one conducts themselves despite said beliefs. A Mafia boss who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ is still a Christian; a poor Christian, perhaps, but a Christian just the same. Boko Haram identifies itself as an Islamic organization, and is comprised in its totality of people who self-identify as Muslims. They may be poor examples of Muslims, but there is nothing inherent to the definition that necessarily excludes them from the faith.

Muslim identified terrorists have little in common with ordinary muslims in reality and the association is harmful.

The association certainly is harmful, and we could probably have ourselves a grand debate about how best to break down that association, but the author's problems go well beyond lack of eloquence. The entire argument is fallacious at best, and could easily be regarded as dishonest by anyone with five minutes to spare and access to Google.

[cbayer]

47. Well said, and that's why the "no true scotsman" accusation often falls flat.

Since the definitions may be wide and include many different and varying beliefs, it sometimes is perfectly logical to say that someone does not fit the definition but may be just adopting it for other reasons. In short, that they are in fact not a true scotsman.

I don't think the author is dishonest. Naive and overly-enthusiastic perhaps, but I think his aim is true. He just doesn't shoot very well.

[skepticscott]

49. Baloney

I know it must be annoying when the gaping flaws in your arguments (and those of the hacks you regularly post here) get thrown back in your face constantly, but saying that pinpointing the fallacies in those arguments is also a logical fallacy is just ludicrous hand-waving. I defy you to show us one real-world example of that from this room.

This groups was formed by an Islamic cleric and has been trying to impose Shariah law wherever it can. Tell us how they are not a religious group. Tell us why they are only using religion as a mantle to impose religious law.

[LostOne4Ever]

50. To begin with what she/he said was:

These agents of hate have nothing to do with religion, science, God, or Buddha. Take away their ability to hide behind the banner of religion and they'll turn their back on their "cause" in a heartbeat.

Which means that these "agents of hate" are not religious, rather they are either irreligious or un-religious. By mentioning god she/he is implying they are atheists. Thus going a step beyond his/her earlier statements about them simply not being muslims.

So you are right on the author is not saying only the unreligious and irreligious doing bad things; however, what he/she is implying is that all "these agents of hate" are all unreligious/irreligious/atheists which is not much better. But accuracy is important, so I will refine my statement to that.

Could the author be unaware that his/her statements are illogical and offensive? Yes. But being unaware that their defense of their religion (against other people of their own religion) is inadvertently offensive is why I am calling it privilege. People are often quite ignorant of their privilege.

Thus by pointing this stuff out, and how their arguments are fallacious they can learn not to make such an argument again. Or they can ignore what people have told them and double down on their position and thus go from being inadvertently offensive into the realm of flat out bigotry.

As for challenging allegations of statements being a logical fallacy, that should only be done when those allegations are being used incorrectly. This case is textbook NTS. If you are saying that all fallacies are fallacies in and of themselves that means that nothing is illogical and all claims are now tautological.

Or maybe you are referring to a fallacy from fallacy? That simply pointing out that one part of an argument is fallacious does not mean that the entire premise is incorrect? I never claimed that the entirety of her/his argument was fallacious, simply that he/she was making a colossal NTS. In fact I would agree with him/her that Wirathu is a horrible terrorist that needs to be stopped. But, what the author is doing also needs to be pointed out and noted and he/she is making a no true scotsman.

A good way to fix this would to simply say that not all Muslims agree with Boko Haram and that they are in no way representative of all Muslims. That would have been logical and not offensive to anyone. But they didn't do that...

[cbayer]

52. Your leap to inferring that he is calling them atheists is really not valid.

He says that their cause has nothing to do with god, not that they have no belief in god.

That means that offense is being taken where none is clearly implied. It's a simple way of dismissing an argument, even though it really is not a logical conclusion to draw.

People are often quite unaware of their privilege, but if you think this muslim american of middle east heritage has more privilege than you do, I think you are quite possibly very wrong.

I don't buy the NTS argument when it comes to religion. Being a scotsman has a narrow definition and can be proved or disproved. Being religious or the member of a specific religious group does not. It's simply not applicable.

[trotsky]

53. You don't get to declare what something means.

You don't get to hand-wave away objections to your personal interpretation of a hack piece of Internet journalism.

Other people's points of view are just as valid as yours. This is what you yell at everyone who disagrees with you, but you absolutely refuse to let it apply to yourself.

And regarding NTS, you need to read this. You clearly don't understand the fallacy. It also applies to those arbitrarily restricting a broad definition. Please inform yourself, especially when you are so viciously berating others.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

With respect to religion, the fallacy is well used, often even overused. Religious apologists will repeatedly try to use the No True Scotsman argument to distance themselves from more extreme or fundamentalist groups, but this does not prevent such extremists actually being religious - they themselves would certainly argue otherwise. Moderate Muslim leaders, for example, are well known for declaring Islamic extremists as "not true Muslims" as Islam is a "religion of peace." Similarly, moderate Christians, such as those in Europe, are sometimes aghast when viewing their fundamentalist counterparts in the US, immediately declaring them "not true Christians," even though they believe in the same God and get their belief system from the same book. Many of these statements stating that the extremists are not true believers are often used as a reaction against Guilt by Association.

[edhopper]

33. Just responding to the title

So suicide bombers are greedy and not doing it because of their religious beliefs?

[cbayer]

37. No, it's somewhat more complex than that, though he is not the greatest of writers,

I admit.

He is trying to be an advocate for Muslim americans who I think we all can agree have suffered due to the action of a small group of extremists.

He wants to separate the vast majority of Muslims, and particularly those living in the US, from the hatred towards those that actually deserve it due to their actions.

[edhopper]

38. Well saying that

terrorism is not about religion at times is a stupid way to go about it.
It isn't the only reason, but it is the motivation for a good portion of it.

[cbayer]

39. I am taking it that you are still just responding to the headline.

If you aren't interested in the article, that's cool, but the case he makes is more complex than the headline.

[edhopper]

40. Could be

not worth my time though.
I don't think most Muslims are terrorist, and even you admit he isn't a very good writer.
And in this case, I don't think the overriding cause of the Boko Haram is religion.

[cbayer]

41. I think he's young and more driven by enthusiasm for his cause

than by scholarly research.

But his point is important, imo. It's not about thinking that most Muslims are terrorists, but recognizing the prejudice that effects most Muslims in this country because some Muslims are terrorists.

As I, and I am sure you, have seen this in action and know it to be true, I have a significant amount of empathy for him.

[edhopper]

42. True

mainly propagated by the right wing hate mongers.
I have no problem challenging the very pretext of Islam, but I think most Muslims, especially in this country, are people just trying to live their lives.

[nil desperandum]

43. No such thing as being Islamic and Militant?

That's an interesting assertion as many Islamic or Muslim militant groups would probably beg to differ. Jihad costs money, selling women is one way to finance it. Boko Haram define themselves as Muslims since their inception, when they were founded in 2002 by Yusuf who believed that Prophetic Sunnah was important enough to receive an organization devoted to promoting the ideology.

The basic flaw in the article is that the writer is attempting to state that the use by those countering terrorists of the terrorists own self defining labels contributes to the problem is ridiculous and without merit. Murderers commit murder for a number of reasons, in the case of Boko Haram, Al Qaeda and the Taliban the stated reason is these organization's interpretation of their religious instruction.

The root cause of this violence is doing god's work and driving out the infidels. When bin Laden made the move from targeting military targets to targeting civilians he used the logic a dead civilian who was a believer would still reach a heavenly afterlife and those who were not believers were already doomed so there was nothing wrong with killing civilians in that situation. He used his interpretation of his god's words to arrive at this conclusion.

Boko Haram has a desire to carry its' religious war to the surrounding region to dominate that region under a rule of law they interpret from their religious instructions, indeed they are murderers but they are murderers with a divine inspiration for their acts of violence.

Pretending that those who are fighting terrorists and using the same words the terrorists use to define themselves are contributing to the problem is disingenuous at best and at worst a complete abandonment of journalistic integrity.