There are many sides fighting to influence our world view
We need to listen to all of them (free speech)
Including what the mainstream media refuses to cover
The rest of us are entitled to our perspectives:
Shia Muslims, men’s right activists, socialists, etc.
Amphiist is a Greek word meaning looking at both sides
Editor: Jaclyn Holland-Strauss Worldview @ jaclynhollandstrauss.com
Facebook: Jaclyn Holland-Strauss Twitter: @JaclynHStrauss
January 18, 2018 Today in the...
Natural Aristocrat, Emotionally Intelligent, Woke, Self-Actualized
Mainstream media perspective
The mainstream media does some things right, and many things wrong. One of the most dangerous things they do is to conflate terrorism with Islam without specifying that Islam is comprised of 73 different sects. They are not all alike. Two of the main ones are Sunni and Shia; these represent the vast majority of Muslims worldwide, like over 90%. The Muslims who are terrorists, the ones that you read about in the papers, are extreme Sunnis, known as Salafis or Wahhabis. Shias are an entirely different sect, and in fact make up the biggest group of victims of ISIS. ISIS is the group most associated with Wahhabi terrorism (Saudi Arabia is a country which basically the state form of Wahhabism with their beheadings).
(Turn page over for another perspective)
The Other Side
It’s not in the mainstream media’s interest to delineate the difference between the various Islamic sects. They tend to want to divide everyone so they talk about violence and war, which sells more copies. No one wants to hear about the good news; they want to hear about the bad and negative. Newspaper owners run a business, after all. They only care about the bottom line for the most part.
The Shia narrative makes a lot more sense than the Sunni for several reasons. I will go into one of the most important here, but will save other issues for later copies of Amphiist, as I have limited space here. Both believe in the Quran as being the word of God. But only the Shia believe that the Prophet Mohammed designated a successor for after his death. This makes sense. If there is no clear successor, then there is confusion. God is not about confusion. If God cares enough about His people to introduce a new religion, why would He leave up to chance what happened after the Prophet’s death? The Shia believe that the Prophet said that Ali ibn Abi Talib was his chosen successor, and this was revealed at Ghadir. The Sunni posit that the Prophet introduced Ali only as his friend at that time, but that doesn’t seem to make sense. Why go to all that trouble just to say what everyone already knew?
If you would like to see this newspaper in print, so that the average person is exposed to these alternative perspectives, then please consider donating to my Paypal account at email@example.com.