My Opinion

nothing but my opinion

"Allahu akbar" - and what an unbeliever thinks about it

KaabaI can understand how bad it must be for a peace-loving, believer when murdered somewhere in the world in the name of his god. "Allahu akbar" means "God is great" and is simply an act of faith, which probably pronounce every Muslim at prayer or at different occasions.

Every time a suicide bomber calls "Allahu akbar!" before he ignites his explosive belt or with the machete man starts, like a stitch must for a believer feel the heart. One harmless but important religious phrase is robbed the innocence, it is made to their war cry. The situation is already as bad as you cannot bring the sentence itself, without getting suspicious.

If you once whisper innocently "Allahu akbar" in the tram, bus or at a public place, all the bystanders wince overlook a suspiciously or take even panicky flight. No, it cannot be pleasant. Probably wants to be on some days when ruling on all channels the terrorist messages prefer crawl home.

I can also understand how much it must annoy a peace-loving, devout Muslim, to be pushed back again and again after each attempt to distance himself from the assassins. "Well, what do you say?", You will probably demand a challenging tone several times a day - from close friends as well as by casual acquaintances, in the work break in the cafeteria, in the school yard and on Facebook.

So, as if you are related to the terrorists, like as if one had only yesterday phoned them or as it is otherwise responsible somehow for the behavior of wild strangers. I can understand why the questions getting asked. Why should have a devout Muslim to violence a different opinion as a devout Christian, a staunch atheist or else a normal sentient human? Assuming that not already the question is from a kind which makes a Muslim co-responsibility and pushes him accusingly in a corner from which it is hard to disentangle, without getting moral scratches?

What I completely cannot understand is that not much more vigorously defend the million peace-loving, righteous, devout Muslims throughout the world against what terrorists do with their faith.

I imagine ungodly before, strange guys would kidnap my God, in his alleged order to commit the most atrocious crimes, they would all that I hold sacred twist, pervert and abuse for their own destructive purposes and then then even claim they have the for "all Muslims", i.e. done for me - then you can make it happen without objection that yet! If one has because if one is a believer, not the heartfelt desire to take his God in protection?

Will you not defend your God against his perverted fans? Is it not necessary to protect your God and his name against the murders and rapists? Why are you allowing to burn down in his name? "Nobody kills in my name!", takes a stand on the banners that Muslims around the world millions of times held in the height (at least where it is safe to do so). "Our God is not your God!", would preachers, politicians, scholars or other tribunes call the IS. Or: "You are not Muslims!"

People of faith will not do all this to make themselves popular to unbelievers or distance themselves from their God. They would do it because their God and their religion would be so important for them. Are people not only using their religion for their own purpose if they are not distance themselves from terrorists and criminals? Which value has the religion really for such people? Which value can have a religion with such a kind of followers? Who will trust into the teachings from such a religion? Isn’t it a nice kind of promotion for a religion?

But perhaps all that follows merely a logic that can occur only from an unbeliever…

 

The true face of Facebook

Facebook CensorshipRegularly hear the accusation that Facebook practicing censorship. This is not about racism or incitement to violence. But practice to blocked profiles of persons criticism of Islam or immigration policy. Or to certain visual content, such as to the body, which are displayed in the "extremely adverse" way: So Facebook founded in May 2016, the deletion of a photograph with the obese US model Tess Holliday, who had campaigned for bikinis in oversize.

Facebook as an aesthetic education police? The social network as a machine which controls our perception, programmed by social engineers with connections to the elite of our countries? One is not paranoid if one sees Facebook as a global media power - at its 1.6 billion users. What allows this platform or not, democracy and cultural policy relevance.

Algorithms shape our perception long, and when the blocking of certain views or aesthetic variations to come, vigilance is required. Whether it is a cartoon of the "New Yorker", which was censored in 2012, because the nipples of a woman could be seen. Or to a Russian photo with kissing homosexuals that had to disappear along with a Turkish side that showed images of the Prophet Muhammad after the attack on the satirical magazine "Charlie Hebdo".

Or the latest example from Germany: The Catholic theologian and Islam critic David Berger commented after the assassination of Orlando critical of Islam, after his side was blocked. Berger told a Christian media magazine: "In Orlando a fanatical Islamist directed a bloodbath among gays, and Facebook disables users who criticize the Islamism." And further: "was the Inquisition compared to Facebook, a refuge of fairness and justice.”

Bergers reaction is understandable but exaggerated. There are no pyres for uncomfortable users. Also you can Facebook no homophobia or pro-Islam policy reproach. Rather, it seems as if depending on the country just a certain mainstream preferred. In the US and in Europe Facebook promotes integration devout views that want to provoke any division among Muslims in the West, no matter how many deaths the last stop cost. One preferred images that speak for a productive public health and obesity. And of course favored Facebook "pro choice" and "pro gay", including nearly 100 gender options offered to us the network gender conformity.

It should be clear that everything that disturbs here disappears from the platform.

No, this is not a conspiracy. Facebook shows its true face, ironically against the initial vision. Mark Zuckerberg sought a platform to show the human face. He wanted the "Face" of our world, to share around the globe hopes, beliefs or concerns. Now it becomes clear: on Facebook man should not show his true colors, because it is in the end not to the people but to support and projection of very specific ideas and interests.

This makes Facebook a reflection of today's society, which constantly motivates us, corrected and optimized. The ideal of the present: the voluntary self-exploitation. The productive psyche from the creative team of the company. It should be clear that everything that disturbs here - too personal, too bulky to integration critically - disappears from the platform. And not just from Facebook. There we find it easy even to, at least temporarily.