180 - 300 Million Radicalised Muslims
- Thread starter Flavus Aquila
- Start date
This thread seems relevant again.
The point that gets lost too easily with islamic terror apologists is that there may be very many "good muslims", but there are proportionally way too many radicalised ones.
Any demographic with such a high proportion of violent extremists is going to cause serious problems. It's like saying most prisoners are not violent offenders, therefore it would be okay to release all prisoners.
The point that gets lost too easily with islamic terror apologists is that there may be very many "good muslims", but there are proportionally way too many radicalised ones.
Any demographic with such a high proportion of violent extremists is going to cause serious problems. It's like saying most prisoners are not violent offenders, therefore it would be okay to release all prisoners.
Part of the question is the question "Does Islam as a religion promote violence?" The answer is no, of course it doesn't anymore than Christianity can be said to promote violence because Christians have engaged in terrorist acts. What we are fighting can be seen more as a expression of nationalism, of Arabic national identity than anything to do with religion specifically. When Daesh talks about establishing a new Caliphate that’s political. When they talk about about Arabs not being oppressed by the West and taking control of their identity that's also political. Religion is useful to them only as an expression of cultural identity. The actual practice of Wahhabism (fundamentalist Sunni Islam) is also political, but its a very specific sect of Islam that promotes this type of political expression. Other sects like Sufism are antithetical to it.
The definition of radical is also imprecise and difficult to quantify. One thing I know for sure is, by casting the conflict as "clash of civilizations" we lose, and one of thing we lose is the overwhelming majority of Muslims that disagree with Daesh and its aims
The definition of radical is also imprecise and difficult to quantify. One thing I know for sure is, by casting the conflict as "clash of civilizations" we lose, and one of thing we lose is the overwhelming majority of Muslims that disagree with Daesh and its aims
I respectfully disagree with your initial statement. Not all religions are the same. There is a spectrum. Jainism is inherently the most peaceful religion, while Islam is inherently the most violent religion. Of course there are other factors involved, but it is disingenuous to equate Islam with Christianity. I have attempted to learn about this subject. Read someone like Sam Harris. He has studied the Koran. He claims it is a "mother lode of bad ideas," something the "regressive left" apologists fail to accept. It can be argued that Bin Laden, according to orthodox Islamic doctrine, was a righteous Muslim. It is not a coincidence that the vast majority of terrorist acts are being performed by Muslims. Until we are honest about religion in general, and Islam in particular, things will only get worse. When was the last time you heard about a Buddhist terrorist, despite the large number of Buddhists globally, as well as the high proportion that are poor, wreaking havoc? The concept that many people fail to grasp is that the percentage of Muslims who possess views which are completely incompatible with democracy and progressive values is very high. It is not under 1%. Considering we are discussing an incident which is a combination of gay hate crime, domestic terrorism, and radical Islam, let's discuss the Islamic view of the LGBT community. Check out unbiased pew polls. I bet the majority of Muslims world wide (more than 1.5 billion I believe) honestly believe that engaging in gay sex for example is a crime which should be punished. This is not just ISIS. We are discussing huge numbers of non terrorists. Criticizing the religion of Islam is not the same as Islamaphobia. Religions are merely systems of belief, like the KKK. When I see a woman in my neighborhood who is forced to cover up her head and body because she is a Muslim, I feel sorry for her. But I also feel contempt for her patriarchal repressive religion. I think a culture that forces their females to cover up their faces and bodies deserves to be criticized harshly. If you think that makes me intolerant, so be it. I would rather be honest and right than PC and polite. A culture war has been created, and now we are facing a potential scenario which could lead to a new form of the Crusades or even WWIII. I wish I were simply being dramatic. But if we don't wake up soon to what is transpiring before our very eyes, the future could be very bleak. I have relatives who were killed in the Holocaust. The Jews always say, never forget. Don't assume we are now enlightened. If anything, we are less so than we were. If the shit hits the fan, I hope to be ready. How about you?
I do disagree with you on this [MENTION=14664]dang[/MENTION]
There aren't a large number of Buddhist globally when compared with Islam or Christianity. But have you examined the Sri Lankan civil war? Many atrocities committed on both the Tamil (Hindu) and Singalese (Buddhist) sides of the conflict. Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka do justify violence against the tenants of their religion. All religions promote the idea of peace and harmony and Islam is not different in this regard/. Again this conflict has more to do with nationalism than religion
But they are not unique in this regard. Every country outside of Western Europe/North America/Japan is not progressive. What do the Chinese think of gay rights or Democracy? What do Jamaicans think of gay rights? Do we declare war on them all because they don't accpet our values?
It not a matter of being PC and polite. The woman is covering herself because thats her culture. The religion says you should dress modestly which can be interpreted in many ways. It turns out Mennonite women also have to wear head covering and dress modestly. Do you feel the same contempt for their culture? How about fundamentalist Christians that have the same requirement? Do you have the same contempt for Christianity?
As for this equation with PC and politeness, it puzzles me. Take African-Americans. Do you think they should be called negroes? Why don't we just re-adopt that term and not worry about calling them "black" or "African- Americans" which is political correctness after all. You see back in 1950s no one gave a shit, they were negroes or darkies or whatever the majority wanted to call them. This idea that we shouldn't worry about one group or another thinks and just do or say whatever we want, well its total crap, in my opinion. We need to be sensitive, to understand our fellow man instead of reverting back into racist and intolerant viewpoints. They don't want to be called negroes for a reason.
Yes Daesh is real and they are a real threat, but I'd rather fight 10.000 of them rather than 1.6 billion Muslims. I have no quarrel with most Muslims
That's right -- we should not forget where intolerance and bigotry can lead us.
I know what I want and I know the type of society I want to live in. No worries there. The successful societies are the diverse ones that stick to progressive values. That's where the future is.
There aren't a large number of Buddhist globally when compared with Islam or Christianity. But have you examined the Sri Lankan civil war? Many atrocities committed on both the Tamil (Hindu) and Singalese (Buddhist) sides of the conflict. Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka do justify violence against the tenants of their religion. All religions promote the idea of peace and harmony and Islam is not different in this regard/. Again this conflict has more to do with nationalism than religion
But they are not unique in this regard. Every country outside of Western Europe/North America/Japan is not progressive. What do the Chinese think of gay rights or Democracy? What do Jamaicans think of gay rights? Do we declare war on them all because they don't accpet our values?
No the KKK is a political moment not a religion.
It not a matter of being PC and polite. The woman is covering herself because thats her culture. The religion says you should dress modestly which can be interpreted in many ways. It turns out Mennonite women also have to wear head covering and dress modestly. Do you feel the same contempt for their culture? How about fundamentalist Christians that have the same requirement? Do you have the same contempt for Christianity?
As for this equation with PC and politeness, it puzzles me. Take African-Americans. Do you think they should be called negroes? Why don't we just re-adopt that term and not worry about calling them "black" or "African- Americans" which is political correctness after all. You see back in 1950s no one gave a shit, they were negroes or darkies or whatever the majority wanted to call them. This idea that we shouldn't worry about one group or another thinks and just do or say whatever we want, well its total crap, in my opinion. We need to be sensitive, to understand our fellow man instead of reverting back into racist and intolerant viewpoints. They don't want to be called negroes for a reason.
Yes Daesh is real and they are a real threat, but I'd rather fight 10.000 of them rather than 1.6 billion Muslims. I have no quarrel with most Muslims
That's right -- we should not forget where intolerance and bigotry can lead us.
I know what I want and I know the type of society I want to live in. No worries there. The successful societies are the diverse ones that stick to progressive values. That's where the future is.
Much of this post is so far detached from actual reality, it's impossible to reply to. I think compartmentalising islam as a religion is a huge mistake; it is an apex of violent intolerance, politics, ideology, nationalism, customs, social mores, and more rolled into one system which only countenances one type of citizen/adherent/believer/etc.: a completely submissive one.
Islam is a religion and thats a fact that cannot really be argued.
Given what I have read of your posts on this topic@Flavus Aquila it apparent you have limited experience or knowledge of Islam and accept Wahhablsm fundamentalism as representative of the whole religion. That's sort of like saying Mormons and their beliefs and ideology represent all Christians. Personally I loath fundamentalism, both Christian and Muslim. Fundamentalists are load and pretend to speak for the entire faith. People looking from the outside in buy it into that narrative. Much of the criticism of religion by atheists is based on a caricature of faith based on fundamentalism.
Given what I have read of your posts on this topic@Flavus Aquila it apparent you have limited experience or knowledge of Islam and accept Wahhablsm fundamentalism as representative of the whole religion. That's sort of like saying Mormons and their beliefs and ideology represent all Christians. Personally I loath fundamentalism, both Christian and Muslim. Fundamentalists are load and pretend to speak for the entire faith. People looking from the outside in buy it into that narrative. Much of the criticism of religion by atheists is based on a caricature of faith based on fundamentalism.
I respectfully disagree with you again. Despite my best efforts to write a post which was intended to be clear, you have blatantly misrepresented many of my views in order to support your own claims. I will not address everything you said, because it would be an annoying chore for me to do so. But here are some basic points. First of all, I know the KKK is not a religion. I state it is a system of belief, as is a religion. You misread a statement I made which I thought was unambiguous. Second, yes, I do have contempt for all religion and superstition. And this is especially so when intolerance and oppression is hidden behind beliefs and culture. And thirdly, I never claim to be anti PC. I just state that in this particular situation, I refuse to act PC by being afraid of criticizing Islam. Not the people but the religion itself. For the record this is in no way connected to race or what we call blacks in this country. You honestly were attempting to make a point which was both not analogous to our discussion and also completely mischaracterized my views. I am sorry to say it, but you seem to have missed many of the points I was trying to make. Your views do seem to be an example of the regressive left. You are a progressive, but then you give the Islamic world basically a free pass. Perhaps Jamaicans are homophobic as you claim, but do they murder gays as they often do in certain Islamic societies? I never claimed America should declare war against anyone. By the way, I am neither a hawk nor a conservative, despite your attempts to paint me as such. You mention China as an example. Another poor analogy. Has China threatened the US recently? You are acting like the fact that virtually every act of recent global terrorism (not including war) has been connected with religious Muslims is just some kind of coincidence and not a trend. It is not mere correlation but causality in my opinion (among other factors which you correctly point out such as political). If you are unwilling to admit that Islam itself is not conducive to liberalism, egalitarianism, and pacifism, I have nothing else to add that will ever change your mind. Reread my original post with an open mind so you can at least try to understand where I was coming from. The fact that you seem to disagree with all of my points, which are completely anti Trump yet not permissive, says to me you simply want to defend your own positions. How can you claim to be a progressive when you can't even admit that the Muslim dress code is inherently misogynistic? And for the record, for the most part I believe that all religions suck. Just some suck more than others. So hold Muslims to the same standards you hold Christians to for example and then at least you will be consistent and not a hypocrite. By the way, if you think Islam isn't a violent religion, try drawing a cartoon of Muhammad and publish it and see what happens. You will get killed, and a significant number of so called non violent Muslims will agree that it was justified. This is our reality. Deal with it.
I think if you actually got yourself a passport, and ventured outside your idealised bubble, you might say something that gels with reality.
In my humble opinion, Islam is clearly a control paradigm of intolerance which lends itself very easily to violent behavior. I feel that all religions are problematic, but at the moment Islam is a major global problem which needs to be addressed.
[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] I don't need to be patronized. I have seen enough of the world to know what I'm talking about. This so called debate is pointless because clearly you have formed a hardened opinion (and I am being polite here) on the topic of what Islam really is, and no amount of facts which contradict your viewpoint is going to make reconsider your opinion.
[MENTION=14664]dang[/MENTION] - its not at all clear to me that Islam is a "control paradigm" that produces violent behavior. Many ideologies promote hatred and violence if you as individual give yourself over to them and any religion can be warped to serve the needs of the elites to promote violence. Zen Buddhism, for example which most people consider to inherently pacifist, actively supported Japanese militarism before World War II. Consider this quote from Daiun Sogaku Harada, a Soto Zen Monk: "[If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way]." You are confusing Islam is with Islamism and those things are not the same thing.
Islam is a political, religious and cultural system. Islam's success comes from it's politics. It's interaction with people outside itself is political and what interests us kafirs. The religious doctrine is what contains it's politics and you can't separate the religious from the political. I don't know how you can actually type out that Islam as a religion doesn't promote violence. A rational sane person can't even reply to this post with any substance because it's so loony tunes. Diversity is more important to you than every other progressive value that you hold. The alternative is that you refuse to deal with reality.
This is just garbage. It really comes from someone who has no idea what they are talking about. Islam is a religion period, like Christianity or Buddhism, that has practiced for thousands of years in various places on the face of the earth. Certain ideologies (stemming from fundamentalist Sunni Islam) which purport to be Islamic, promote violence. Because they make the make the claim to speak for all Muslims like you people just accept it uncritically. Daesh has killed more Muslims than other faith and continue to kill Muslims who refuse to pledge allegiance to them, but you likely don't even realize this or have never considered these facts.
You disprove your previous posts.
Not long ago, the group that is now IS was the "victim", which is the eventual fate of everyone living under the influence of islam.
Of course muslims kill other muslims - and in large numbers. While you mention this as some sort of ameliorating factor, surely even you can see a problem with it, and with every permutation of it from SE Asia, through the Subcontinent, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Africa, and even in the Western enclaves. Surely.
You speak about yourself, not me. Muslims have been killing other Muslims and non-Muslims since the beginning for not being Islamic enough. Thats Islam.