Sudden Jihad Syndrome

[reverendjeremiah]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome
Yes.. the experts at Conservapedia have discovered, using highly sophisticated creation science, a new syndrome. Sudden Jihad Syndrome.

Sudden Jihad Syndrome is a term coined by Daniel Pipes to describe Muslims that suddenly or unexpectedly turn against civilized, Western society and engage in acts of terror. [1]. Pipes has argued that due to this phenomenon all Muslims must be considered potential terrorists. [2]

Examples include:

John Allen Muhammad and Lee Malvo, the so-called Washington snipers. John Allen Muhammad was a Muslim convert, but some people allege that his motivations may not have been religious. [3] [4]
Ali Hassan Abu Kamal, a Palestinian school teacher who engaged in a shooting rampage on top of the Empire State Building. He killed one and wounded six before taking his own life.[5]
Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an American Muslim born in Tehran who ran over students at the University of North Carolina to punish the United States. Taheri-azar was the first terrorist to be explicitly called an example of Sudden Jihad Syndrome by Daniel Pipes.[6]
Mujtaba Rabbani Jabbar who shot up a movie theater in Baltimore.[7], * Rashid Baz, a Lebanese can driver living in New York City who shot at a van full of Orthodox Jews. [8]. In a burst of political correctness, the FBI initially refused to label this act a terrorist act.[8]
Sulejman Talovic, a Bosnian Muslim, opened fire in a Salt Lake City mall, killing five poeple before being shot dead by police.[9]
In another example of bias in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has refused to allow any article on this topic[10][11] and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.[12]

Sure..Wikipedia is so obviously biased to refuse such a creation scientifically accurate article.

[Rayaan]

Sudden Jihad Syndrome is a term coined by Daniel Pipes to describe Muslims that suddenly or unexpectedly turn against civilized, Western society and engage in acts of terror. [1]. Pipes has argued that due to this phenomenon all Muslims must be considered potential terrorists.[2]

1. Is the word being coined as a medical condition?

2. Why doesn't he apply the same syndrome to Christians, Jews, and others whenever they kill someone? Why only the Muslims?

3. Just because a Muslim commits a crime doesn't mean that it was religiously motivated (i.e. act of "Jihad"). It may be, but not always. All crimes have to be labeled so case-by-case.

4. One should be wary of the fact that many of these religious violence are a form of state violence which are instigated by extremist Muslims.

Read the following, which is continued in the link below:

Dr. Nurit Peled-Elhanan is the mother of Smadar Elhanan, 13 years old when killed by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem in September 1997. Below is Nurit’s speech made on International Women’s Day in Strasbourg earlier this month. Please listen to the words of a bereaved mother, whose daughter fell victim to a vicious, indiscriminating terrorist attack. I wish her words will enter the hearts of all peace seekers in our troubled and divided world.

Article: Israeli mother Addresses European Parliament

5. This is another silly argument by someone trying to give more fuel to the notion of "Islamophobia" (in the words that I highlighted above).

This, too, is a question of how we define Islamophobia. Is it just another definition for racism, and specifically racism against people with Muslim names, whatever their religious standing. Or is it the rejection of a religion? There are militant anti-racists who are against the veil – among the feminists for example - and there are racists who think the veil is irrelevant because they regard Muslims as quintessentially other. What makes this so untenable is the lack of distinction between ethnicity and religion.

Article: When religion and culture part ways (by Oliver Roy)

[reverendjeremiah]

1. Is the word being coined as a medical condition?

This is Conservapedia. Rules and standards of science are tossed out with the bath water and several babies as well. Conservapedia is a group effort that is censored/edited by the intentions of one man: Andy Shlafly, who happens to be a very antagonistic, ignorant, and right wing fascist asshole.

2. Why doesn't he apply the same syndrome to Christians, Jews, and others whenever they kill someone? Why only the Muslims?

Because he is trying to make "conservative" = "His idea of politics and religion". Needless to say, from the time I have spent studying this site, I have come to the conclusion that they ONLY respect Muslims for these reasons:

#1 - They inspire fear in those who disagree with them
#2 - They push hard core conservative theological beliefs upon the public (wether the public wants it or not)
#3 - They are willing to believe in god and take it very seriously

Thats pretty much it. These people do not respect your religion. They merely see you as a PRIME CANDIDATE to convert to right wing conservative Christianity.

3. Just because a Muslim commits a crime doesn't mean that it was religiously motivated (i.e. act of "Jihad"). It may be, but not always. All crimes have to be labeled so case-by-case.

Of course you are correct, I understand this, as well as you and many others on this forum. In reality, if the offending muslims in question were causing violence in the name of their right wing christianity, the people on this site would call them saints, or martyrs, as opposed to terrorists. The only difference is their theological writings.

4. One should be wary of the fact that many of these religious violence are a form of state violence which are instigated by extremist Muslims.

Sure, I understand that. It sure would be nice if the majority of Moderate muslims put their foot down and demanded that moderation and freewill be applied, instead of implied.

5. This is another silly argument by someone trying to give more fuel to the notion of "Islamophobia" (in the words that I highlighted above).

I agree 100%

[Cinjin]

Islamophobia

Interesting word.

Until something other than brutal violence against nearly everyone starts regularly coming out in the news, I'd say that is a very legitimate fear to have.

In today's hostile world, an "Islamophobe" may actually have a slightly better chance of living longer than those with a more cavalier attitude.

[Rayaan]

This is Conservapedia. Rules and standards of science are tossed out with the bath water and several babies as well. Conservapedia is a group effort that is censored/edited by the intentions of one man: Andy Shlafly, who happens to be a very antagonistic, ignorant, and right wing fascist asshole.

Oh, I didn't know that Conservapedia was a website designed for the facilitation of right wing Christianity. I thought you agreed with the quoted information. So, that's why I replied.

Until something other than brutal violence against nearly everyone starts regularly coming out in the news, I'd say that is a very legitimate fear to have.

Brutal violence always comes out in the news, and again, I think these brutal acts of violence are miniscule when compared to the 1.4 billion Muslims around the world.

[DeistPaladin]

I wonder if they feel the same way about Christian terrorists?

Abortion clinic bombers? Tim McVey? The KKK? The Hutaree movement?

Rhetorical question.

[Cinjin]

This is Conservapedia. Rules and standards of science are tossed out with the bath water and several babies as well. Conservapedia is a group effort that is censored/edited by the intentions of one man: Andy Shlafly, who happens to be a very antagonistic, ignorant, and right wing fascist asshole.

Oh, I didn't know that Conservapedia was a website designed for the facilitation of right wing Christianity. I thought you agreed with the quoted information. So, that's why I replied.

Until something other than brutal violence against nearly everyone starts regularly coming out in the news, I'd say that is a very legitimate fear to have.

Brutal violence always comes out in the news, and again, I think these brutal acts of violence are miniscule when compared to the 1.4 billion Muslims around the world.

"Miniscule" implies that one could only find a rare story of violence here and there. That is not the case. I think you're wearing a blindfold and plugging your ears.
Like I said many time before Rayaan, if violence wasn't the standard it wouldn't be the only thing plastered all over the known world. Everywhere Islam exists, you can be damn sure to find extreme violence in the name of Allah. As much as I hate christianity, that is not the case. Have you typed in the words, "peaceful Islam" into google images yet?

[Rayaan]

"Miniscule" implies that one could only find a rare story of violence here and there. That is not the case. I think you're wearing a blindfold and plugging your ears.
Like I said many time before Rayaan, if violence wasn't the standard it wouldn't be the only thing plastered all over the known world. Everywhere Islam exists, you can be damn sure to find extreme violence in the name of Allah. As much as I hate christianity, that is not the case. Have you typed in the words, "peaceful Islam" into google images yet?

I did type the words "peaceful Islam" into google images.

Here it is:
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl...1251l3.6.1

However, there is a story behind all of those pictures, and you can't know them just from looking at the pictures, and these pictures do not represent the behavior of each and every of the world's billions of Muslims. There are both political and psychological factors at play which leads to the dominance of that particular viewpoint of Islam on such matters.

The thing is that you believe that corporate media reported events of violence of the past decade are representative of Islam, but if you were to actually look in through accepted methods of research, you will find out how the house of cards were built by the media and politicians and the self-proclaimed sham artists milking the current Anti-Muslim climate for making their own book deals, TV interviews, and honorariums. Instead of the hate sites and the hate books, you should read things which are from peer reviewed and academic sources and not from the so called ex-Muslims who are now on the speaking circuit funded by ultra right wing Christians and politicians. But, research requires effort. You cannot achieve this just by going to google images.

[Skipper]

Instead of the hate sites and the hate books, you should read things which are from peer reviewed and academic sources and not from the so called ex-Muslims who are now on the speaking circuit funded by ultra right wing Christians and politicians.

How about you take a look at some peer reviewed academic sources when it comes to science, the universe, our origins ect... Obviously those peer reviewed academic sources go against the koran, so will be deemed invalid by you. However thought it was worth pointing out the irony of a religious person demanding more academically peer reviewed sources.

[Rayaan]

How about you take a look at some peer reviewed academic sources when it comes to science, the universe, our origins ect... Obviously those peer reviewed academic sources go against the koran, so will be deemed invalid by you. However thought it was worth pointing out the irony of a religious person demanding more academically peer reviewed sources.

So far, I didn't come across any academic sources on the history of the earth and the universe which truly contradict the Quran. Feel free to share them if you have any.