Close Topic Options

Supporting Islamists Without Being Violent?

Supporting Islamists Without Being Violent?

A new CNN Documentary, "ISIS: Behind the Mask" covers how thousands of Westerners are supporting and joining ISIS. One person, a White male, was interviewed said that he is not a violent person but supports the violent aggression of ISIS.

When the Paris attack was executed the interviewee's prayers were with the attackers and not the victims. How does that make any sense? How does someone who says they worship the religion of "Peace" support violence against random civilians?

Should there be laws that put restrictions on citizens who have such opinions but do not carry it out? Many will say yes, but then where will freedom of speech be? Your thoughts?

Violent Without Islamists Supporting

I watched part of that interview. He is so delusional. He supports he fellows who are killing people because they do not have the same views of them shooting them in the face. That is extreme violence to others who disagree with you. Then he goes on and says he is peaceful. He is not peaceful in my opinion and as long as he supports such violent he is a part of it.

Supporting Islamists Without Being Violent? Islam Studies

JB,

He should be allowed to express his support for them, that is his freedom of speech. It's easy to give freedom of speech to people you agree with and who agree with you, it's much more difficult to give it to those who are fundamentally opposed to your view or to the majority view. True freedom means allowing those who have differing opinions to express them.

But that is as far as it goes. If they give aid in some way then that is a different story. Then they should be prosecuted. I know one could argue that expressing an opinion for terrorists is a form of aid, but it is fundamentally different to say I agree with them than say, sending them food, money, or weapons.

And let me add, what this person is saying is so illogical to me. How can you be a non-violent person but then support violence? Especially the type of violence ISIS espouses. They are the most barbaric group I've had the displeasure to have to deal with… in the way I dealt with them. They are actually malevolent. They treat women as objects and anyone not 100% in agreement with them they feel they have a moral obligation to kill, slowly and brutally. How does that jibe in any way with non-violence?

Edited: Abnninja on 31st Mar, 2017 - 10:40pm

Violent Without Islamists Supporting

Good, you went in the direction that adds more for debate. If these are your thoughts then no one can stop you from that, but if you voice them, if you use them as testimony or a method for subtle recruiting through a video recording then isn't that material aide to a terrorist group? If you say it is, then where does free speech come in? If it isn't, then where does one draw line with supporting killers? Is it a matter only of putting money where your mouth is to be determined as material support?

Violent Without Islamists Supporting

Any kind of support to violent terrorists is like doing the act yourself. Just because you are exploding the bomb yourself doesn't mean you aren't responsible for those who die because of your contribution to the whole thing even if it was simply to cheer on from the sidelines.

Supporting Islamists Without Being Violent?

JB,

In answer to your question, I'd say it's a fine line. If you have a video that simply expresses your support of ISIS, that is covered by freedom of speech. If your video is seen as a recruitment tool, then you can be prosecuted.

I would venture to say a savvy prosecutor could make almost any video out to be that… but she/he would have to prove intent and a direct connection that a video actually caused a person to join ISIS and perform an act of terrorism to be able prosecute. Of course, that is my take and I'm a layman when it comes to the law and its interpretation.