‘Not Islam’. It is just not going to stand up to any reasonable evaluation as increasingly the broken bodies and lives keep rolling in.
At what point regards the above and the ethical network connections these individuals make outside those listed above which sustains their existence and social support constitutes the exact point, the British Task Force claims exists, between the ethical divide of Islam and 'Not Islam'='a distinct ideology'? It is not possible is it? Therefore?
The British Task Force report defines Islamist extremism as "a distinct ideology which should not be confused with traditional religious practice (and)... is based on a distorted interpretation of Islam, which betrays Islam's peaceful principles"
Terror Asbos For Extremists Under PM Plans Sky News UK, Wednesday 04 December 2013
How is it possible statistically for so many Islamic adherents from the seventh century to this point in time to come to exactly the same interpretation of the Islamic cultural foundation codex construct of Other that such a claim 'distorted interpretation of Islam' is rationally possible? That the Islamic codex is so convoluted or otherwise it necessarily informs such terror generation to generation yet can be determined it is not of the Islamic codex making.
Clearly rational logic dictates Islamic terror being consistent in form, constant in appearance is therefore an integral characteristic of the Islamic class. If it is not of the Islamic class where is this other 'blank' class from which it is derived? If you cannot reveal this 'blank' class to counter the incredible amount of evidence, from even the fundamentalists and extremists themselves, that their actions do stem from the Islamic cultural foundation codex such claims of a 'distorted interpretation of Islam' are unsupportable.
In not revealing this 'blank' class this so called 'distinct ideology' and explaining how it generates such extremists views, all the while the exact same individuals can be shown to exist in a claimed liberal moderate context does not enable these claims to be able to be rationally accepted. For three reasons, one life experience, two the claims are not coming from a credible source, and three no evidence it is in fact true.
Simple life experience would determine such a claim as illogical. These Islamic/Muslim fundamentalist, extremists and terrorists are being sourced from these very same families, institutions, communities and cultures claiming they are the 'real' Islam, they are the liberal moderates. How many times have we heard the parents of terrorists, institutions and communities they come from proclaiming loudly they are liberal moderates “We cannot understand how this has happened?”. One or two outliers statistically this may be taken as approaching truth but thousands? To claim Islamic/Muslim culture is pristine and at the same time they produce thousands of extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists directly from their cultures simply makes no sense. It would be the same as throwing yeast into dough, being seen to do so and then claiming you have no idea why the dough expands.
The British Task Force is simply not a credible source for such statements regards a purely psychological /social psychology field of study based upon a cultural critique of the inputs from the cultural foundation codex textual and non-textual. No one has presented any credible research to support the notion the Islamic cultural codex constructs of Other which enable such Islamic extremism cannot be enabled in anyway within what is defined as a liberal moderate Islamic Muslim context, is in no way sourced from the exact same codex, if this cannot be proved in a scientific manner the political spin is seen for what it is, spin. The British Task Force as with David Cameron are purely political creatures of the moment telling the ‘truth’ is clearly seen as going too far.
Just saying there is 'a distinct ideology' cultural foundation codex is not proof there is, where is the evidence this is the case from a credible source that can be seen as much as possible to be removed from bias in either direction? There is none and there is a very good reason why, the notion of 'a distinct ideology' is a lie.
Such extremist interpretations of Islam are therefore as valid as the supposed liberal moderate Islamic interpretation, you therefore under such an Islamic genocide construct cannot have the Liberal Moderate without the Fundamentalist, Extremist, and Terrorist in time and space. You cannot claim one interpretation is anymore valid than the other given the clear consistency and constancy of both interpretations (and everything in between - Islamic cultural behavioral variance 'spectrum') from exactly the same codex source.
Using the logic of the British Task Force I can rightly claim the reverse the Muslim liberal moderate interpretation ".is based on a distorted interpretation of Islam, which betrays Islam's justified 'grievous harm' and 'severest penalty' principles regards Other."
Rouhani addresses Iran’s divided students By Jason Rezaian, Published: December 7 The Washington Post
"Rouhani delivered his address at Tehran’s Shahid Beheshti University before at least 1,000 students. Various groups in the audience shouted out competing slogans, illustrating the deep political divisions among Iran’s educated youth.
Some of the students reportedly called for the release of political prisoners, including former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi and former parliamentary speaker Mehdi Karroubi, who led the 2009 post-election opposition movement.
Hard-line supporters of the government, known as Basij, were also present and chanted “Death to America,” along with other revolutionary mantras."
Both interpretations co-exist, consistent and constant from generation to generation based on selective interpretation of the Islamic/Muslim cultural foundation codex represented all along the resultant Islamic/Muslim cultural behavioral variance ‘spectrum’. The proof just in this one example for if the British Task Force determination was true, a completely ‘distinct ideology’ neither could exist in the same space being instructed by a cultural leader of a ‘distinct ideology’ apart from the Other. How can they possible appear in the same space, why would they even believe it was possible, let alone Other watching from the outside?
It is the same as a medical practitioner determining you have cancer and telling you with a straight face ‘Do not worry there will be no ill effects.’. You rationally determine this cannot be the case from the impact it is having on your body, you inform the medical practitioner of the deleterious effects but still they insist there is nothing wrong with you, you are suffering from delusion they will sue you for casting doubt on their professionalism and determine you have a mental illness.
To say there is a 'distinct' difference is rationally impossible because it means culturally the ‘distinct’ class of extremist are not a part of the larger community nor have the ethical construct of Other been derived from it in anyway – psychology/social psychology would dictate it is absolutely impossible for such a state to exist.
It would mean the so called ‘Islamic’ liberal moderate parents of terrorists cannot claim they are not terrorists also, because the culture which formed the child of which they are psychologically integral within which they reside Islam (defined by the task force as ‘Not Islam’ at exactly the same time) has formed the terrorist behavior – the task force report claims this is not so, how can this be possible. It means the terrorist was born in a completely different family and informed by a ‘Not Islam’ culture – is this true? Can it possibly be true?
Cultural Foundation Codex (genetic, (con) textual authority and exemplar (messianic) templates) = Ethics = Ideas = Motivation = Consistent Cultural/Adherent Behavioral Variance ('spectrum') = Cultural Action For and Against Other.
Cultural 'education' (Cultural Foundation Codex) the core problem and solution.
Fundamentalist and extremists are only able to come into being because such a genocide construct is justified and authorized by the cultural foundation codex otherwise they would simply not appear.
An Australian ‘liberal moderate’ Muslim bemoaning and being fearful of the rise of these so called Islamic/Muslim extremists and fundamentalists in Australia, at a Muslim conference, referred to these extremists and fundamentalists as the ‘True Believers’. In the Muslim community itself therefore extremists and fundamentalists are clearly seen as integrally linked to Muslim community and interpreting Islam in its 'True' form. It is therefore fallacious to promote the notion of extremists, fundamentalists and even terrorists themselves as 'distinct', separate, not connected at all to the 'real' Islamic/Muslim culture.
It is a very dangerous lie because it prevents the Islamic/Muslim cultures from being held to account that they do indeed have a cultural foundation codex which although it informs a supposedly 'good' construct via selectivity of Islamic/Muslim codex leaving out the 'evil' bits regards Other, at the same time the Islamic/Muslim cultural foundation codex informs an 'evil' construct via selectivity of Islamic/Muslim codex leaving out the 'good' bits regards Other. Islamic/Muslim culture informs 'good' and 'evil' at the same time. It is not one or the other.
It clearly indicates there must be extensive qualification of these so called 'good' bits of the Islamic/Muslim codex for Islamic/Muslims extremist fundamentalists adherents to exist statistically in such numbers. And if one simply reads the core Islamic cultural foundation textual codex the Quran such qualification are overwhelming and makes statements of any support for Other logically inconsistent and determines even what appears to be a categorical statement in support of Other i.e. Other cannot be coerced to change religion for instance, when taken in context of the construct of Other already detailed it is simply a restatement of the fact it is impossible to so.
The Islamic God is the only one who can enable a human to believe according to the Quran, human intervention is wasted effort and forcing one to believe is in reality not possible anyway. This has been utilized to prove Islam has respect for Others religion, it does not mean this at all, and clear diabolical descriptions of Other from the very first pages of the Quran make this very clear, it is just a restatement of the conclusion already arrived at in the Quran it is impossible to force change of belief that is Gods job.
It does not mean at all the construct applied to Other in not ‘voluntarily’ believing, rejecting the word, simply goes away, that Other does not suffer the full consequences as detailed in the Quran of justified ‘grievous harm’ and ‘severest penalty’ – we see the outcome of this construct every day. Also the Quran assigns each Muslim with the power to identify ‘non-true-believers’ those only mouthing adherence, and if it is at all possible these Other are in for an even worse time.
How this is possible to determine without any doubt another’s non-belief in reality beggars belief but I am sure such a construct has determined the elimination of many ‘innocents’ in fact we have all seen them passing in the images and words of horror each day. Though a neat psychological trick to create fear you may be seen to be not measuring up to the desired cultural mean - because what is authorized to happen to you is not very pleasant.
The trouble is prejudice against Other and therefore subsequent propensity for violence are set between approximately 0-5 years of age and they look so cute (it is not their fault it is called cultural conditioning), changing it after that has been found to be neigh impossible. You want to stop 'distinct ideology' affecting infants and children you would have to remove the parents and the culture within which they are formed i.e. you would have to change the cultural foundation codex completely.
Violently inclined preachers are a product of this developed prejudice without its formation, infant and child within the Islamic/Muslim culture, so called extremist preachers simply would not exist. Targeting them is simply not going to stop the rising push for the Muslim ethical mean to align with the cultural foundation codex normative construct of Other. It is a short term feel good solution – it is very much like trying to keep growing numbers of coconuts from floating to the surface with just one hand – it is not going to work.
Hate preachers to be 'silenced' by new anti-terror Asbos to block their bile on the internet By JAMES CHAPMAN 4 December 2013
Indonesian research has shown there is no ethical quantum leap between the fundamentalist and the terrorist, in fact how could there be? Rational reflection and logic would determine no quantum ethical leap between liberal moderate and fundamentalist. There has to be an ethical construct which links all along the behavioral spectrum otherwise we would have to be talking about two completely different cultures based on diametrically opposed cultural foundation codex construct of Other.
As well the extremists being so distinct, so contrasted as to be separate from the culture from which they have clearly originated from, they would not be allowed to move in or out of the so call liberal moderate fellow adherent’s cultural space for support in anyway – extremists and terrorists are determined by this report as not of the culture Islam – distinct (separate) – ‘Not Islam’. Is this happening? No it is not therefore to claim extremists and terrorists are culturally ‘distinct’ is a false assumption.
As I can or anyone who can read, Muslim extremists and terrorists know and can point to the exact justification and authorization for their ethics and informed actions from the Islamic cultural foundation codex of which liberal moderate exemplars are also self-avowed adherents.
Any cultural foundation codex informs a cultural behavioral variance ‘spectrum’ along which the ethical mean moves in space and time, to say there is an ethical ‘grand canyon’ separating the so called liberal moderate and the fundamentalist extremists is simply untrue. For it would propose the ethical mean is static at a specific point within the cultural behavioral spectrum and not only that a miracle occurs, a completely new cultural behavioral mean appears from nowhere to create a completely new fundamentalist extremist cultural ethic – it is absolutely insane reasoning.
What the British task force are also dangerously putting forward is somehow a cultures ethical mean despite the propensity of its cultural foundation codex to inform a genocide construct and subsequent action against Other, even with the continuing existence of so called liberal moderate exemplars within and even the liberal moderates ethical mean itself (either in terms of belief or action or lack of it regards Other or all three) does not, cannot shift towards the cultural foundation codex normative construct of Other driven by fundamentalists and extremists.
This idea that somehow the Islamic cultural mean (or any cultures for that matter) is stuck at the liberal moderate exemplar position denies reality, it proposes the rise in fundamentalist and extremists in any culture have no effect on the actions which the culture as a whole enables to be informed against Other.
Such logic in the 1930s-1940s determines the Nazi fundamentalist and extremists had not impact on the ethical mean of the German culture.
Such logic in the 2000-2013 determines Indonesia’s violent Islamist group Front Pembela Islam, its supporters being just a 'handful' have had no cultural impact, yet they have the public support of at least two Indonesian Government Ministers, one even giving a keynote speech at their recent annual conference and the Indonesian press have determined they can do the following:
"The FPI has gained considerable influence among conservative public officials in provinces such as West Java, where local officials are routinely accused of cowing to hard-line pressure." JakataGlobe
According to the task force logic this simply will not, cannot occur – it does and it will when fundamentalists and extremists are allowed to appear, allowed to by the very liberal moderates who are the supposed majority, the point here being they are the ‘majority’ or ethically so they tell us. Reality tells a different story.
The British task force is proposing the Milgram experiment results are erroneous, that even contrived authority will not push the liberal moderate of healthy mind and body to ‘switch off morality’ to switch on the switch past the screaming and silence. It was determined prior to the experiment that only pathological persons would do this 1% at the most. What happened in this contrived experiment, what would happen what does happen more so in an actual cultural setting where negative feedback mechanisms are manifest? The British task force should consider why Milgram undertook this psychological experiment in the first place.
"Most Muslims are moderates who cherish freedom just like everyone else."
Sounds very familiar
Norman Hillson “I speak of Germany”, London 1937 said “: the Germans (inclusive of the Nazi) . that great unified people are looking for peace and see friendship with Britain as a basis for peace not only for themselves but for everyone else”
So what individuals of cultures cherish ‘freedom’ of course they do but as a culture as a whole Freedom to do What, To Whom, For Whose Benefit? Other and women, certainly not under the Islamic construct. If 'freedom' for Other or internally culturally was in fact the core cultural ethical codex construct fundamentalists, extremists and terrorists would not even see the light of day.
One should reflect why it is necessary for any individual within a culture or outside it to even have to be in a position to say the above - clearly there is a clear perception derived from actual observation there may be a reason to believe otherwise based on the evidence.
You ignore a truth as with outliers in statistics the methods extremists use to move the ethical mean of any culture enable their influence to far outweigh the 'good' of many so called liberal moderates at the other end of such a cultures behavioral spectrum as the ‘tranquility of silence’ so desired by the fundamentalists and extremists is realised.
The appearance of fundamentalist’s extremists and terrorists from a culture is the actual indicator the ethical mean of the culture as a whole has shifted and you are in deep trouble with the culture as a whole despite those individuals, as there always will be, who rationally determine and state publically (diminishingly) they desire ‘freedom’ – the fundamentalists and extremists are the product of the culture as a whole. Einstein understood if you wanted peace and harmony you had to understand, had to understand individuals are not the culture, this in fact I believe, the following paragraph, is Einstein’s greatest work.
"Communities (cultures) tend to be guided less than individuals by conscience and a sense of responsibility. How much misery does this fact cause mankind! It is the source of wars and every kind of oppression, which fill the earth with pain, sighs and bitterness." (Albert Einstein, 1934)
Islam cultural foundation codex informs ALL of the Muslim cultural behavioral variance spectrum liberal, moderate, fundamentalist, extremist, terrorist. Not to be honest as Tony Blair said about this truth means you are always treating the symptoms and not the cause the actual Islamic foundation codex construct of Other.
There is a very dangerous lie being promoted here that Islamic culture does not inform extremists and terrorists and that they have obtained ethics from a blank space, ‘Not Islam’. It is just not going to stand up to any reasonable evaluation as increasingly the broken bodies and lives keep rolling in.
"Mr Cameron said that the task force had also looked at Islamophobic extremism, such as the murder of 82-year-old Mohammed Saleem, who was stabbed to death by a Ukrainian student as he walked home from a mosque earlier this year."
Terror Asbos For Extremists Under PM Plans Sky News UK, Wednesday 04 December 2013
If one accepts the existence of a British Task Force 'distinct ideology' one therefore must accept the existence of 'Islamophobic extremism', because 'Islam's peaceful principles' are manifest, Islam and according to the British Task Force should not be confused with 'Not Islam' which is informing 'Not Islam' 'grievous harm' and 'severest penalty' against Other.
Therefore one can be justifiably fearful of 'Not Islam', this is a rational fear and not a mental illness a phobia, whereas fear of peaceful 'Islam' is a mental illness and a phobia.
Given the reasoning above that Islam informs from opposite ends of the spectrum both peace and terror and varying degrees of both along the Islamic/Muslim cultural behavioral spectrum the argument Islamophobia exists is based on a false premise Islam does not inform terror where clearly even today we see that it does.
How much do you think is expended simply to protect humanity from our Islam/Muslims neighbors’ worldwide better spent elsewhere on education, health, infrastructure, …..? This David Cameron would have us believe is not rational fear of what Islam can and does do?
Murdering anyone is wrong, but this does not translate into justifying the fear of what Islam/Muslims can and does do being determined as a phobia. It is the same as determining as not all members of the Nazi party are violent or advocate violence (As Norman above did) even though their textual codex certainly does and therefore determining the Nazi as a threat despite attempted and successful terror against Other the fear of them in the streets or elsewhere is a phobia. I have to start to observe maybe such rational is a mental illness – pathological altruism for instance.
Look you can fool most people most of the time but there comes a time when the hypocrisy and contradictions simply are unsustainable no matter how much we suffer from wishful thinking - for our own survival as individuals and a culture it will become obvious what the British Task Force and David Cameron are putting forward as reality is a blatant lie. Just that one child too many and it all falls apart. Will it be your child, it could very well be, we all think we are immune it happens to someone else, I am here to tell you sadly it is not the case.
To ascertain if 'a distinct ideology' is a valid conclusion one simply has to ask the question - "Have any Islamic/Muslim extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists come from so called liberal moderate families, have any Islamic/Muslim extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists come from local religious institutions which claim to be liberal moderate, have any Islamic/Muslim extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists come from any Islamic/Muslim culture insitu in Society which proclaims itself liberal moderate?"
And if these are the same families, religious institutions, cultures the British Task Force and David Cameron are defining as the 'real' Islam then if the answer is yes then it is not possible for "a distinct ideology" being the determinate of the nature of the Islamic/Muslim extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists for an individual’s ethics and informed actions are shaped by the culture within which they exist as the "Non-Islam" as an ethical construct is determined as 'a distinct ideology' and therefore separate from the 'real' Islam cultural context these Islamic/Muslim extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists simply cannot possibly exists in the so called 'real' liberal moderate Islamic context, yet they do - therefore these Islamic/Muslim extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists are being matured in the liberal moderate Islamic/Muslim context and they along with their joint cultural foundation codex are all responsible for the appearance of the Islamic/Muslim extremists, fundamentalists and terrorists.
How do you go about it. One Child Lost is One Child Too Many. One Child Lost is One Child Too Many. One Child Lost is One Child Too Many. One Child...