Excerpt:
Sadly, Isis kills lots of people. Some Muslim, some non-Muslim. Did Jardin mean that if Isis murdered only atheists, Yazidi, Christians, etc, then all would be well, and that Isis would not be a group of “psychopaths”? Why did Jardin focus on Isis’ Muslim-on-Muslim killings, except to dehumanize the non-Muslim victims, and to teach that authentic Islam (as Jardin understands Islam) specifically prohibits Muslim-on-Muslim murder, rather than precluding murder generally?
Jardin is not teaching tolerance and respect. Jardin is teaching tribalism and the soft bigotry of low expectations. Her world view is a newly invented faux-orientalism: a Westerner’s politically correct view of non-Westerners.
Those who have given Jardin’s post a “like,” those who have become her Twitter “followers,” are not part of the solution—they are part of the problem. A big part.
When some people say that ISIS isn’t Muslim what they really mean is ‘I wish ISIS wasn’t Muslim’.
Grurray – Actually, they’re partially agreeing with ISIS. It is mainstream Islam that holds that ISIS is made up of muslims but very poor ones. It’s ISIS’ position that they are muslim and mainstream Islam is not Islamic at all. If you create a dividing line between ISIS and the mainstream, you’re agreeing with ISIS about the division and just disagreeing about who gets to keep the label Islam after the divorce, a funny thing for non-muslims to insert themselves and have an opinion on.
a funny thing for non-muslims to insert themselves and have an opinion on.
It’s a tactic of weakness. If you want to solve the problem you take action against the group that’s attacking you and stay out of foreign intra-group controversies. By getting involved in the intra-group controversies you show that you’re unwilling to take action or to take enough action. A large part of the current problem results from the ignorance and moral confusion of westerners who mistake the cure for the disease.