Ive been reading many of the comments in regards to the shooting in France and the Sydney siege and the same argument about the terrorists are not a reflection of muslims, and there are a billion peaceful muslims in the world ALWAYS is used to shut down the argument. But I ask, why do they call them moderate muslims? I find the semantics and political correctness to be the biggest problem with these discussions. The radicals are the ones who are demonstrating a fair reflection of the teachings of Islam. To use a simple analogy its akin to the labelling of coke and diet coke. With coke you get the full sugar hit, the full flavour, the effects of diabetes and health issues; with muslims who live the teachings of the quran you get people who kill while shouting god is great because defending Islam is the highest honour. With diet coke you get something that resembles coke but tastes nothing like it, gives you none of the sugar and flavour and you can drink it without it affecting your health too badly; just like moderate muslims, where you might get people who resemble the so-called radicals but dont do any of the loud shouting or admit that to do this they have to ignore most of the teachings of the quran. But no one goes around saying you cant blame coke the company for the health problems of the population, defending it by saying that coke isnt representative of the problem, because look at all the diet coke out there. You cant blame coke the company for creating full sugar coke because it also created diet coke and coke zero which doesnt have the sugar, so doesnt cause as many health issues. The problem is that the peaceful majority is irrelevant, and the fact that it needs to label itself as moderate to apologize for the damage its full flavour cousins create is a smokescreen and a giant cop-out.
Posted on: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 00:47:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015