My guess is that it's not JUST the religion that's the problem. You're probably less likely to see a Muslim who leads a normal day-to-day life in a Western country going all Jihad than you are if, say, they lost a bunch of family members to a stray bomb, or if they attended the public beheading of a loved one.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
Actually...I would argue that your typical non-westernized Muslims prescribe to the life and religious ideals of "enshalla" or "ensha-allah," which means life is as god wills it. This means that while there is a semblance of blood feud, etc. in response to wrongs committed against them, in general, Muslims are not nearly as reactive as they get made out to be by the public solely based on their religion. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your second paragraph with even more emphasis that your everyday Muslims are even less reactive to wrong done to them.
RC - You realize "God's will" in your statement is spelled out in the texts that justify submission to an ideology that embraces spreading it by the sword right ?
And of course there are various levels reactions among different groups for a variety of factors. Do you not think the protests and murders over free speech, cartoons, etc. in western europe over the last 15 years or so is reactive ? Expecting Europeans to stand up for free speech and general human morality and well-being, and human rights is not bigotry and racism.
These are all based on "ideas" no different than Nazi racial justification, just protected because they are supposedly given by God through an angel, to a warlord pedophile that rode on a flying horse ? And we are protecting these immoral ideas why ?
RE: RE: RE: RE: Last night there were Muslim, Christian, Sikh, etc
cab drivers and others coming together to help the victims. Extremism is losing the war.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
You can call it what you want but extremism is losing the war. The US hasn't had a significant attack since 9/11.
If you don't think Fort Hood, San Bernadino and Orlando were significant we have very different definitions of that word.
No, I don't consider mentally ill people snapping like Orlando the equivalent of this attack.
RE: RE: RE: Last night there were Muslim, Christian, Sikh, etc
cab drivers and others coming together to help the victims. Extremism is losing the war.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
You can call it what you want but extremism is losing the war. The US hasn't had a significant attack since 9/11.
The acts of human decency by certain people has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.
There have been over 30,000 deadly attacks made in the name of Islam et al, since 9/11, across the world.
We are losing this battle consistently every time someone new criticizes people using free speech to attack the horrible ideas promoted by Islam.
It's a war of ideas and we are losing all the time thanks to political correctness, victimology poker, the abandonment of basic principles of human rights, moral relativism and intellectual dishonesty and fear over hurting people's feelings over "ideas."
Store signs in Arabic and Middle Eastern restaurants are threatening? I don't think so. Hence my request for nuance and comparison to Palisades Park.
Yeah, walk thru Williamsburg and you see signs in Hebrew. Walk thru Chinatown and you see signs in Chinese. Lower East Side (no longer super jewish), Williamsburg, and Chinatown all have populations equal/bigger than Dearborn.
njm- Sorry I think I missed your link and having an issue finding it. Nevertheless, I just scanned your posts on here and I don't disagree with your calls for nuance or you argument that street signs are not a threat.
To be honest, I am not too interested in the assimilation arguments and was only trying to argue why Islam makes it so different from every one else.
Assimilation is a waste of time until the core beliefs can be fully criticized, just like those of all other religions in the world (in the west).
Until people acknowledge the 800 lb gorilla in the room, I just don't think it matters who ate or didn't eat a few bananas (grin).
I'll respond, even though you don't care to hear it.
That is part of the problem, especially in Europe and in the press in Europe and to a lesser extent here. Avoiding saying it is just obfuscation and using euphemisms to avoid speaking the truth.
Some of us use it enough. It's an accurate description, though I prefer "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist" since it is the fundamentals of Islam that are being acted upon, used for justification and inspiration in the name of God.
For people only pushing shariah and political Islam (and not outright murdering little girls at concerts, etc,) and calling any criticism of the ideas asserted by the texts as bigots, etc. (apologists), I prefer "Islamist."
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Last night there were Muslim, Christian, Sikh, etc
My guess is that it's not JUST the religion that's the problem. You're probably less likely to see a Muslim who leads a normal day-to-day life in a Western country going all Jihad than you are if, say, they lost a bunch of family members to a stray bomb, or if they attended the public beheading of a loved one.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
Actually...I would argue that your typical non-westernized Muslims prescribe to the life and religious ideals of "enshalla" or "ensha-allah," which means life is as god wills it. This means that while there is a semblance of blood feud, etc. in response to wrongs committed against them, in general, Muslims are not nearly as reactive as they get made out to be by the public solely based on their religion. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your second paragraph with even more emphasis that your everyday Muslims are even less reactive to wrong done to them.
RC - You realize "God's will" in your statement is spelled out in the texts that justify submission to an ideology that embraces spreading it by the sword right ?
And of course there are various levels reactions among different groups for a variety of factors. Do you not think the protests and murders over free speech, cartoons, etc. in western europe over the last 15 years or so is reactive ? Expecting Europeans to stand up for free speech and general human morality and well-being, and human rights is not bigotry and racism.
These are all based on "ideas" no different than Nazi racial justification, just protected because they are supposedly given by God through an angel, to a warlord pedophile that rode on a flying horse ? And we are protecting these immoral ideas why ?
There are far more nuanced factors in the rise of extremism than merely religious ones that you and others are trying to generalize and vilify. However, if we want to oversimplify it like Sam Harris often does, then we can say the same for other religions when it comes to those who want to use religion to perpetuate violence against others. There is such complexity involving political, social, and economical factors that we must consider to really understand the rise and perpetuation of extremism but many people refuse to do so since religion is the low hanging fruit that's there for the picking. However, having read many of your posts on this topic over the years, I would rather not get into a back and forth with you as it will be a waste of time for you and me.
My personal experiences having dealt with hundreds of Muslims and extremism over my career and adult life go counter to your views on Islam and Muslims (not even sure what your experience with Islam and Muslims is). So I'll merely state that my argument is based on my anecdotal experiences. You don't have to agree, and honestly, I don't really care much.
Just change your handle to "Drive-By" and be done with it.
I think that's a very appropriate response unless you want to take to point out the misleading data. Victimology?
"It's a war of ideas and we are losing all the time thanks to political correctness, victimology poker, the abandonment of basic principles of human rights, moral relativism and intellectual dishonesty and fear over hurting people's feelings over "ideas."
I'm not wasting the time to point out the misleading data in his post.
I'll respond, even though you don't care to hear it.
That is part of the problem, especially in Europe and in the press in Europe and to a lesser extent here. Avoiding saying it is just obfuscation and using euphemisms to avoid speaking the truth.
Some of us use it enough. It's an accurate description, though I prefer "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist" since it is the fundamentals of Islam that are being acted upon, used for justification and inspiration in the name of God.
For people only pushing shariah and political Islam (and not outright murdering little girls at concerts, etc,) and calling any criticism of the ideas asserted by the texts as bigots, etc. (apologists), I prefer "Islamist."
And what does it accomplish? Theres a reason why anti-terror experts don't use those words. The same reason Trump didn't in Saudi Arabia, before he left the Middle East and went to Israel. Nothing in your post is a solution to the radical Islam problem.
The US approach has been on the money over the last 10 years. Vetting of immigrants and visitors, security and the counter terrorism efforts have done excellent job.
The radicals are losing the war. Look at how the people came together in the UK today. They may pull off an attack occasionally but long term the future isn't bright for them. With education and opportunity fewer will join the cause.
My guess is that it's not JUST the religion that's the problem. You're probably less likely to see a Muslim who leads a normal day-to-day life in a Western country going all Jihad than you are if, say, they lost a bunch of family members to a stray bomb, or if they attended the public beheading of a loved one.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
Actually...I would argue that your typical non-westernized Muslims prescribe to the life and religious ideals of "enshalla" or "ensha-allah," which means life is as god wills it. This means that while there is a semblance of blood feud, etc. in response to wrongs committed against them, in general, Muslims are not nearly as reactive as they get made out to be by the public solely based on their religion. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your second paragraph with even more emphasis that your everyday Muslims are even less reactive to wrong done to them.
RC - You realize "God's will" in your statement is spelled out in the texts that justify submission to an ideology that embraces spreading it by the sword right ?
And of course there are various levels reactions among different groups for a variety of factors. Do you not think the protests and murders over free speech, cartoons, etc. in western europe over the last 15 years or so is reactive ? Expecting Europeans to stand up for free speech and general human morality and well-being, and human rights is not bigotry and racism.
These are all based on "ideas" no different than Nazi racial justification, just protected because they are supposedly given by God through an angel, to a warlord pedophile that rode on a flying horse ? And we are protecting these immoral ideas why ?
There are far more nuanced factors in the rise of extremism than merely religious ones that you and others are trying to generalize and vilify. However, if we want to oversimplify it like Sam Harris often does, then we can say the same for other religions when it comes to those who want to use religion to perpetuate violence against others. There is such complexity involving political, social, and economical factors that we must consider to really understand the rise and perpetuation of extremism but many people refuse to do so since religion is the low hanging fruit that's there for the picking. However, having read many of your posts on this topic over the years, I would rather not get into a back and forth with you as it will be a waste of time for you and me.
My personal experiences having dealt with hundreds of Muslims and extremism over my career and adult life go counter to your views on Islam and Muslims (not even sure what your experience with Islam and Muslims is). So I'll merely state that my argument is based on my anecdotal experiences. You don't have to agree, and honestly, I don't really care much.
RC. so basically you have no argument or evidence. I don't doubt that you have many positive experiences that provide your anecdotal information.
Now it's "low hanging fruit" to blame an ideology that promises eternal paradise for murdering innocent women and children ? Do you not blame Christian terrorists for murdering abortion doctors on the bible ?
Can you name another religion that uses religious texts to inspire and justify/validate suicide bombing/martyrdom ? Must be a low hanging shot in the dark on that one. Forgive me for seeing a link that is validated and quoted word for word, over and over again by the perpetrators. I suppose virtually every article in every issue of ISIS's magazine, for example, is "twisting" the religion.
And you can certainly say the same for many other religions to some minimal degree, of course, but as you know, no one takes the fact that it's ok to kill your neighbor for working on the sabath, seriously anymore. If there are a few that do, they deserve all the scorn we can muster, just like a large number of immoral laws described by the Islamic texts deserve.
Unfortunately, people like you would rather see free speech criticism of those ideas in the public domain, restricted and silenced. If that is not the case, maybe you could let us know why your anectodal information should suffice for us to suspend our freedom of speech principles that western civilization has fought and died for, for centuries.
You do realize that on this subject you are out right possessed, stridently argumentative, obsessed, unable to process information, learn, grow, or understand feedback, and be self aware?
I'll respond, even though you don't care to hear it.
That is part of the problem, especially in Europe and in the press in Europe and to a lesser extent here. Avoiding saying it is just obfuscation and using euphemisms to avoid speaking the truth.
Some of us use it enough. It's an accurate description, though I prefer "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist" since it is the fundamentals of Islam that are being acted upon, used for justification and inspiration in the name of God.
For people only pushing shariah and political Islam (and not outright murdering little girls at concerts, etc,) and calling any criticism of the ideas asserted by the texts as bigots, etc. (apologists), I prefer "Islamist."
And what does it accomplish? Theres a reason why anti-terror experts don't use those words. The same reason Trump didn't in Saudi Arabia, before he left the Middle East and went to Israel. Nothing in your post is a solution to the radical Islam problem.
The US approach has been on the money over the last 10 years. Vetting of immigrants and visitors, security and the counter terrorism efforts have done excellent job.
The radicals are losing the war. Look at how the people came together in the UK today. They may pull off an attack occasionally but long term the future isn't bright for them. With education and opportunity fewer will join the cause.
RJ 30 - How about facing the truth ? Is that not enough ? I don't support rubbing peoples noses in it on their home soil. I agree that these conversations are not going to be easy. But we are heading towards a technological armageddon on this issue. I think some hurt feelings about 1400 year old superstitions might be a safer alternative. We can start by not calling everyone who calls for open dialogue on the scriptures "racists" "bigots" and "Islamophobes."
As to your take on how we are winning this war, I don't see how you could possibly argue that this is the case given the central focus of the immigration issues here and in western europe, for one example. Sure, we haven't had anything as bad as 9/11, but the volume of smaller attacks, investigations and attacks avoided, the money being spent, have all escalated greatly. France has 15,000 people on their terror list, 25% of whom are high risk. This attack last night was one person (with maybe some help along the way).
You do realize that on this subject you are out right possessed, stridently argumentative, obsessed, unable to process information, learn, grow, or understand feedback, and be self aware?
For years and years now.
Bill- I find it fun to come on here and argue this stuff once in a while. Sorry you feel that way.
You believe that calling others beliefs immoral and blaming texts a tiny tiny tiny percentage can interpret in their original language or teach from the original is necessary
You believe that calling others beliefs immoral and blaming texts a tiny tiny tiny percentage can interpret in their original language or teach from the original is necessary
Go over there and tell them
Yes, just like has been done to other religions, beliefs and texts that we as human beings, men of reason and science, have done of the years.
Not sure why you would find it so novel an idea or why you think this religion gets a pass.
in lands with the lowest consumable water, the highest number of cloudless days, some of the lowest levels of education, with only a tiny tiny few who learn the language of the Koran at universities, with great despotism, scarcity of expression, the fewest media outlets per nation and where they do not test for or notice or treat or counsel schizophrenia, bi polar, depression, OCD, ADHD, PTSD...where often the mosque is the only hope for answers, charity and truth to power...the only essential first step to solutions is telling them their religion is the worst in the world.
Cool. Maybe you are right. Why are you on a football message board? The flight to Bahrain is $884 dollars round trip.
My point is not to wish you to go there
My point is that you are extremely passionate about a subject where there is no useful audience for your point
in lands with the lowest consumable water, the highest number of cloudless days, some of the lowest levels of education, with only a tiny tiny few who learn the language of the Koran at universities, with great despotism, scarcity of expression, the fewest media outlets per nation and where they do not test for or notice or treat or counsel schizophrenia, bi polar, depression, OCD, ADHD, PTSD...where often the mosque is the only hope for answers, charity and truth to power...the only essential first step to solutions is telling them their religion is the worst in the world.
Cool. Maybe you are right. Why are you on a football message board? The flight to Bahrain is $884 dollars round trip.
My point is not to wish you to go there
My point is that you are extremely passionate about a subject where there is no useful audience for your point
Great to see you. Gonna steer clear of this debate, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the Philippines if you have a second. Hope you're doing well.
If, the point is to understand, influence and promote a better, safer world - it would be worth considering why modern Christian and Jewish societies have less religion-inspired violence. Especially considering the root texts for both religions upon academic analysis prove to be more violent and violence promoting.
It might be worth considering the impacts of poverty, access to education, impacts of generations of war, government corruption, and occupations, might be causes and religious, violent extremism might be symptoms.
But only if the point is to promote a better, safer world.
I guess i would toss one more question into the closed loop:
If the religion is so prone to follow the exact letter of the Koran then:
How come they dont charge us on horseback or camelback? Its prescribed in the Koran. True.
how come they would ever allow a woman from an foreign country be seen with out covering her head? Its in the same Koran you say they follow to the letter?
And how come if they follow the letter of the Koran...this is a problem thought pattern that started in 1938? If the Koran is the problem how come the Thomas Cook Company took newlyweds to the Middle East since King George III and they all came back? Did they lose the Koran from 1700 to 1938? I mean if the only reason is the violence in the Koran is official and fully followed by all the followers of this worst of all religions...how come Queen Victoria ever came back from her vacation?
who taught for 40 years at the University of Cairo. She was not 110 pounds. She was a German Protestant and not a nice person and never wore anything but second hand Chanel and stole a lot of their artifacts and never made more than any other teacher ( not very much) and walked to school from a poor section of town.
She came back without a scratch.
Must have been no Koran in Eygpt during those 40 years
What is the range of belief and questioning and compliance to the Koran?
from zero to approaching 100, just like anything else.
Quote:
So you really think they dont self examine and search for answers ?
I don't believe I ever would say such a thing. There is no evidence to suggest this of which I am aware.
Quote:
Alone of all humans...they dont self reflect? Really?
ditto...of course not. it's the problem with the questioning of the texts outside of oneself that is the issue. e.g. opening one's mouth about it. The texts are clear on the individual's right to interpret for themselves, but that doesn't allow for contrarian views to be aired. Add on the penalties, etc., and the recipe becomes clear.
Quote:
Then why are their so many offshoots?
There are certainly a ton of different interpretations, it's just that so few of them refute the recurring dogma that inspires the violence, penalties for apostates, blasphemy, etc. And none bow to human rights or the rights of non-Muslims unless it is coincidental.
Quote:
With the full range of interpretations humans give from rejection to absorbtion
yes, of course, but this means very little when questioning it's validity brings punishment, murder for cartoons, etc.
Quote:
And a Mike...in this century which religion has killed the most non believers in horrible ways ? Budhism or Islam?
Please expand. A core virtue of Buddhism is not to injure anyone. One would have to go through hoops to find a justification in the texts, certainly as it compares to Islam. Not to say Buddhists have not caused tribal violence, it's just that it is not supported by even a liberal interpretation of the texts. Perhaps you mean the zen buddhism aspects of kamikazes or something to do with Mao. Not sure what you mean.
Quote:
Careful...facts are inconvenient
Would be happy to see facts that potentially change my mind. Feel free to give them or suggest any articles or books that make arguments that dispute mine. I will gladly read, respond and thank you for it.
Its all there if you wanted to be an expert on the connection between religious inspired violence, genocide, mass killings in the name of religious interpretations.
If you want to be an expert in the worlds worst religion then challenge your self. Think a a family with their hands and ears sliced off by the DKBA thinks that Islam is the worst religion?
What about the series of Burmese kings who killed all practioners of the slightly different strains of Buddhism that was practiced by their predecessors...because their priests insisted it was written?
I guess i would toss one more question into the closed loop:
If the religion is so prone to follow the exact letter of the Koran then:
How come they dont charge us on horseback or camelback? Its prescribed in the Koran. True.
how come they would ever allow a woman from an foreign country be seen with out covering her head? Its in the same Koran you say they follow to the letter?
And how come if they follow the letter of the Koran...this is a problem thought pattern that started in 1938? If the Koran is the problem how come the Thomas Cook Company took newlyweds to the Middle East since King George III and they all came back? Did they lose the Koran from 1700 to 1938? I mean if the only reason is the violence in the Koran is official and fully followed by all the followers of this worst of all religions...how come Queen Victoria ever came back from her vacation?
You are picking out exceptions to make the same point over and over. That it's not all Muslims, that parts of the Quran are interpreted by some as being more or less literal, that there are conflicts (of course there are, it was written and interpreted by thousands of different human beings).
The fact that you need to even make such arguments shows that we are not discussing evidence. We have been through this a few times before. I do not blame evolution, people, free will or anything else and I accept that people are doing and have done the best they can given their circumstances, including all Muslims.
You are searching for nuance that I agree 100% exists, I don't doubt that I am mostly at fault for being argumentative and a dick about it. Do I really need to say over and over again "it's not all Muslims?" and the rest of it ? Granted, you make the arguments in a much more knowledgeable and sophisticated way than anyone else, but it doesn't change the fact that your argument is based upon the same logic.
Yes, not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Nazis killed Jews. Doesn't change the core anti-semitic ideology and laws created around those beliefs of Nazism.
Ditto on your aunt. Is that supposed to be evidence for a debate we are having that I don't know about ? When did I argue that parts and eras of Islamic history weren't more tolerant than others ?
Some jews survived late 30s Germany and got out before the laws changed, or were even allowed to leave. Doesn't change what happened once the ideology took root and people stopped fighting against it, until there was no choice and 70 million people died (many other nations/civil war/factors of course).
Not sure how that is supposed to dispute the evidence that people act up beliefs that are made clear in the texts when they are able to do so, and when there is little public dispute (other than secular or non-secular tyrants/rulers enforcing laws to the degree that they are able).
This is not about the past or casting blame on people who were responsible for letting it get where we are, it's about the insulation from criticism that this one ideology is granted. And we have clearly seen where this has led us, as well as the current trajectory. What Burmese kings did because of their priests is nothing more than a reminder of what happens when ideas spin out of control in the name of religion/God.
If people would rather not discuss it and just assume I see the world as black and white and am a reactionary/bigot/racist/etc, that is fine. I am certainly guilty of making similar judgements of other people, based on their refusal to acknowledge all the slightest evidence that there is a link between Islam and terrorism and arguing for ignoring it, or that no good will come from discussing it.
And your points about certainty all go without saying. The fact that you need to make those points indicate that I am doing a horrible job arguing and/or you feel they put me in my place as someone who is taking the easy way out and just wants to blame all Muslims for all the ills in the world. At this point, I'm not sure what I can say to convince you otherwise.
Either way, it's totally cool and I always appreciate your contributions and the thought-provocation that follows it.
If, the point is to understand, influence and promote a better, safer world - it would be worth considering why modern Christian and Jewish societies have less religion-inspired violence. Especially considering the root texts for both religions upon academic analysis prove to be more violent and violence promoting.
It might be worth considering the impacts of poverty, access to education, impacts of generations of war, government corruption, and occupations, might be causes and religious, violent extremism might be symptoms.
But only if the point is to promote a better, safer world.
Christian - Why do you feel the need to put such effort into justifying a reason to debate "ideas." Aren't we smart enough to see when people are using it for demagoguery and other self-serving and evil motives, generally ? Ideas should stand on their own merit or be cast into the historical dustbin, no ?
it's a fair question to ask what in Islam is giving encouragement and comfort to those who would do this. And some of the literature on the subject, such as the work of Efraim Karsh, does a good job of explaining this in its historical context.
Seventy years ago, it would have been a fair question to ask what in Christianity led to anti-Semitism, because for much of Christian history Jews living within or near Christian communities had been treated poorly, often quite brutally. Even if the Holocaust wasn't directed by people who were Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, plenty of the people who participated in it in Germany and especially in Nazi-occupied territory were living out decades or centuries-old hatreds. At this point, that question doesn't seem particularly apposite, but the intersection of history and faith throughout the Christian era suggested seventy years ago that it was.
So again, I don't think it's an unfair, bigoted question to ask of Islam and terrorism. But as Bill points out in quite learned fashion, it's equally fair to rejoin that for centuries Westerners, including unveiled women, walked freely in much of the Muslim world, and the present state of affairs may be better understood as being as much the product of history as of faith, or at least of particularized interpretations of that faith that are powerful now, again for unique historical reasons.
You can call a spade a spade, but make sure you're actually describing a spade and not just echoing an undergrad blogger with a shelf full of David Horowitz and Sam Harris tomes.
Assuming the goal is reduction/elimination of violent terrorism. Understanding the actors are not centralized and operate within stable and unstable societies that support, cause, condone and object to varying degrees. And understanding the most efficient resolution to any problem is understanding the cause and attacking the root.
Why have Muslim majority societies operated without violent terrorism in many regions for swaths of 100s of years? Why do Muslim majority nations and societies operate without violent terrorism now? Why have Muslim majority societies contextualized violent texts to time and place effectively for giants swaths of time? Is it more likely there are inherent differences in the humanity of Muslim societies that condone and act out in terror or differences in the conditions they live?
Why do violent texts leap from the dustpan into the present for societies routinely across theological and philosophical boundaries, time and time again throughout history?
Ending the discussion at "Islam bad" is boring.
But just for fun, it is zero sum, what's the solution?
Islam was ascendant under various standards for roughly a millennium. It wasn't until the 18th and 19th Century that it became clear that the Ottoman Empire - still nominally a caliphate - was hopelessly moribund and that the industrialized or industrializing Western powers could effectively impose their will. Although violence against non-Muslims or against perceived apostasy had occurred throughout history, some of the first instances of significant violence against minority communities within Muslim territories began after it became clear that they could not match the West militarily. And with a few exceptions (Gallipolli, the defeat of the invading Greek army after WWI, Afghanistan against the Russians, arguably the early stages of ISIS) Muslim-controlled countries have not been able to stand toe to toe with Western armies. So suicide attacks against Western armies and Western-allied governments and then suicide attacks against the West itself can be seen almost as a response to impotence. It is fairly easy to find holes in that or exceptions to it, but it's at least a coherent explanation.
Islam was ascendant under various standards for roughly a millennium. It wasn't until the 18th and 19th Century that it became clear that the Ottoman Empire - still nominally a caliphate - was hopelessly moribund and that the industrialized or industrializing Western powers could effectively impose their will. Although violence against non-Muslims or against perceived apostasy had occurred throughout history, some of the first instances of significant violence against minority communities within Muslim territories began after it became clear that they could not match the West militarily. And with a few exceptions (Gallipolli, the defeat of the invading Greek army after WWI, Afghanistan against the Russians, arguably the early stages of ISIS) Muslim-controlled countries have not been able to stand toe to toe with Western armies. So suicide attacks against Western armies and Western-allied governments and then suicide attacks against the West itself can be seen almost as a response to impotence. It is fairly easy to find holes in that or exceptions to it, but it's at least a coherent explanation.
Something that seems to be given short shrift here is the impact of tribe as opposed to, or in conjunction with, religion.
BTW, any response to my comment on the Philippines?
that there is no central or leading figure in Islam beyond Mohammad and the Quran. There is no Pope of Bishop of Canterbury. Each Imam or Ayatollah is free to interpret the Quran as he sees fit or as it matches his ideology in order to attract followers. With 2 billion followers worldwide, it is quite easy to find radicals and while the % is quite small, the ultimate size of the religion means there will be a significant number of the more radical interpretations of the Quran. 0.1% of 1000 is 1. 0.1% of 2 Billion is 2 million.
That explanation would make more sense if nations were behind the terror attacks. While Iran and some Saudi bad actors may provide some funding and support, for the most part it's a small group of extremists with no ties to a country.
Many of the attacks ISIS claims responsibility for were carried out by some nut with no real ties to ISIS other watching a video.
That crap is what I find most frustrating. It's complete BS and insinuates "liberal" policies support the terrorists. I can't think of a more stupid or counterproductive argument. Note how they don't provide a specific examples of what the policy should be and they completely ignore the success currents policies are having in preventing attacks. It's the perfect Fox News meme.
Did you know that the US undertook military actions against the Muslim minority jihads in 1899 and 1903 and 1905?
Islam got to the Philipines in the 13th century. If not for spanish conquest in the 1500s, the Phillipines, like Indonesia, would still be Muslim
As we know, the Spanish followed the ancient scripts as did the muslims. One of them had guns. So obviously, the best script won.
But the exception was the Moros on Mindano who held out against Spanish conquest and conversion.
Because they were more fundamentalist? No. Because the Chinese threatened to attack the Spanish and drove them away in the 1600s.
"When the American came in 1899, The native Moro Muslims and Lumads were supplanted by American colonization programs, with Christians from other islands assigned control of key areas and disrupting the natives' administrative structures to support the United States' dominion and extraction of food and lumber." ( Handbook of Terror and Insurgency of Southeast Asia)
When food is needed the the Philippine government, Philippine military and Filipino militias used extremely violent tactics against natives to support the settlers they wanted to seed the island. The government and the US corporations ( kind of a money laden web right there) targeted a Christian population of 75% Christians from the more crowded and less fertile islands. The forced colonization became quite violent and approached genocidal . Which the Christians said the Bible justified. The Moros fought back. Which they said the Quran justified. Money won. Resentment of generations was set in motion
Over time, the native locals have used their identity as islam and at times tried communism as an powerful way to redress wrongs (and raise money from China) and back to islam led rationales for fighting the imported structures.
over the century the muslims got agitated and then calmed as non religious issues took prominence. In particular they fought with the US against the Japanese
Now....is it religion or money?
Ok...take a timeline from 1565. Note the correlation of Chinese desire for food and lumber and the virulence of Islamic reaction.
So what is the cause here?
Money?
Colonization?
Strict following of ancient texts?
Off shore oil?
I say lets not look at any complexities. I read on BBI the only answer is to condemn the violence of the worlds only bad religion. If we dont do that then no solution will ever work.
Quote:
My guess is that it's not JUST the religion that's the problem. You're probably less likely to see a Muslim who leads a normal day-to-day life in a Western country going all Jihad than you are if, say, they lost a bunch of family members to a stray bomb, or if they attended the public beheading of a loved one.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
Actually...I would argue that your typical non-westernized Muslims prescribe to the life and religious ideals of "enshalla" or "ensha-allah," which means life is as god wills it. This means that while there is a semblance of blood feud, etc. in response to wrongs committed against them, in general, Muslims are not nearly as reactive as they get made out to be by the public solely based on their religion. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your second paragraph with even more emphasis that your everyday Muslims are even less reactive to wrong done to them.
RC - You realize "God's will" in your statement is spelled out in the texts that justify submission to an ideology that embraces spreading it by the sword right ?
And of course there are various levels reactions among different groups for a variety of factors. Do you not think the protests and murders over free speech, cartoons, etc. in western europe over the last 15 years or so is reactive ? Expecting Europeans to stand up for free speech and general human morality and well-being, and human rights is not bigotry and racism.
These are all based on "ideas" no different than Nazi racial justification, just protected because they are supposedly given by God through an angel, to a warlord pedophile that rode on a flying horse ? And we are protecting these immoral ideas why ?
Quote:
In comment 13479715 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
In comment 13479678 Ron Johnson 30 said:
Quote:
cab drivers and others coming together to help the victims. Extremism is losing the war.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
You can call it what you want but extremism is losing the war. The US hasn't had a significant attack since 9/11.
If you don't think Fort Hood, San Bernadino and Orlando were significant we have very different definitions of that word.
No, I don't consider mentally ill people snapping like Orlando the equivalent of this attack.
Quote:
In comment 13479678 Ron Johnson 30 said:
Quote:
cab drivers and others coming together to help the victims. Extremism is losing the war.
That's a platitude. Extremism is perpetrating several high-profile attacks each year, and the reaction to it is reshaping the political landscape in numerous Western countries.
You can call it what you want but extremism is losing the war. The US hasn't had a significant attack since 9/11.
The acts of human decency by certain people has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.
There have been over 30,000 deadly attacks made in the name of Islam et al, since 9/11, across the world.
We are losing this battle consistently every time someone new criticizes people using free speech to attack the horrible ideas promoted by Islam.
It's a war of ideas and we are losing all the time thanks to political correctness, victimology poker, the abandonment of basic principles of human rights, moral relativism and intellectual dishonesty and fear over hurting people's feelings over "ideas."
Just change your handle to "Drive-By" and be done with it.
Quote:
Store signs in Arabic and Middle Eastern restaurants are threatening? I don't think so. Hence my request for nuance and comparison to Palisades Park.
Yeah, walk thru Williamsburg and you see signs in Hebrew. Walk thru Chinatown and you see signs in Chinese. Lower East Side (no longer super jewish), Williamsburg, and Chinatown all have populations equal/bigger than Dearborn.
njm- Sorry I think I missed your link and having an issue finding it. Nevertheless, I just scanned your posts on here and I don't disagree with your calls for nuance or you argument that street signs are not a threat.
To be honest, I am not too interested in the assimilation arguments and was only trying to argue why Islam makes it so different from every one else.
Assimilation is a waste of time until the core beliefs can be fully criticized, just like those of all other religions in the world (in the west).
Until people acknowledge the 800 lb gorilla in the room, I just don't think it matters who ate or didn't eat a few bananas (grin).
I'll respond, even though you don't care to hear it.
That is part of the problem, especially in Europe and in the press in Europe and to a lesser extent here. Avoiding saying it is just obfuscation and using euphemisms to avoid speaking the truth.
Some of us use it enough. It's an accurate description, though I prefer "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist" since it is the fundamentals of Islam that are being acted upon, used for justification and inspiration in the name of God.
For people only pushing shariah and political Islam (and not outright murdering little girls at concerts, etc,) and calling any criticism of the ideas asserted by the texts as bigots, etc. (apologists), I prefer "Islamist."
No, I don't consider mentally ill people snapping like Orlando the equivalent of this attack.
Stop feeding the troll.
Quote:
In comment 13479544 santacruzom said:
Quote:
My guess is that it's not JUST the religion that's the problem. You're probably less likely to see a Muslim who leads a normal day-to-day life in a Western country going all Jihad than you are if, say, they lost a bunch of family members to a stray bomb, or if they attended the public beheading of a loved one.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
Actually...I would argue that your typical non-westernized Muslims prescribe to the life and religious ideals of "enshalla" or "ensha-allah," which means life is as god wills it. This means that while there is a semblance of blood feud, etc. in response to wrongs committed against them, in general, Muslims are not nearly as reactive as they get made out to be by the public solely based on their religion. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your second paragraph with even more emphasis that your everyday Muslims are even less reactive to wrong done to them.
RC - You realize "God's will" in your statement is spelled out in the texts that justify submission to an ideology that embraces spreading it by the sword right ?
And of course there are various levels reactions among different groups for a variety of factors. Do you not think the protests and murders over free speech, cartoons, etc. in western europe over the last 15 years or so is reactive ? Expecting Europeans to stand up for free speech and general human morality and well-being, and human rights is not bigotry and racism.
These are all based on "ideas" no different than Nazi racial justification, just protected because they are supposedly given by God through an angel, to a warlord pedophile that rode on a flying horse ? And we are protecting these immoral ideas why ?
There are far more nuanced factors in the rise of extremism than merely religious ones that you and others are trying to generalize and vilify. However, if we want to oversimplify it like Sam Harris often does, then we can say the same for other religions when it comes to those who want to use religion to perpetuate violence against others. There is such complexity involving political, social, and economical factors that we must consider to really understand the rise and perpetuation of extremism but many people refuse to do so since religion is the low hanging fruit that's there for the picking. However, having read many of your posts on this topic over the years, I would rather not get into a back and forth with you as it will be a waste of time for you and me.
My personal experiences having dealt with hundreds of Muslims and extremism over my career and adult life go counter to your views on Islam and Muslims (not even sure what your experience with Islam and Muslims is). So I'll merely state that my argument is based on my anecdotal experiences. You don't have to agree, and honestly, I don't really care much.
Quote:
So we don't use "Muslim Terrorist" enough?
Just change your handle to "Drive-By" and be done with it.
I think that's a very appropriate response unless you want to take to point out the misleading data. Victimology?
"It's a war of ideas and we are losing all the time thanks to political correctness, victimology poker, the abandonment of basic principles of human rights, moral relativism and intellectual dishonesty and fear over hurting people's feelings over "ideas."
I'm not wasting the time to point out the misleading data in his post.
Quote:
So we don't use "Muslim Terrorist" enough?
I'll respond, even though you don't care to hear it.
That is part of the problem, especially in Europe and in the press in Europe and to a lesser extent here. Avoiding saying it is just obfuscation and using euphemisms to avoid speaking the truth.
Some of us use it enough. It's an accurate description, though I prefer "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist" since it is the fundamentals of Islam that are being acted upon, used for justification and inspiration in the name of God.
For people only pushing shariah and political Islam (and not outright murdering little girls at concerts, etc,) and calling any criticism of the ideas asserted by the texts as bigots, etc. (apologists), I prefer "Islamist."
And what does it accomplish? Theres a reason why anti-terror experts don't use those words. The same reason Trump didn't in Saudi Arabia, before he left the Middle East and went to Israel. Nothing in your post is a solution to the radical Islam problem.
The US approach has been on the money over the last 10 years. Vetting of immigrants and visitors, security and the counter terrorism efforts have done excellent job.
The radicals are losing the war. Look at how the people came together in the UK today. They may pull off an attack occasionally but long term the future isn't bright for them. With education and opportunity fewer will join the cause.
Quote:
In comment 13479592 RC02XX said:
Quote:
In comment 13479544 santacruzom said:
Quote:
My guess is that it's not JUST the religion that's the problem. You're probably less likely to see a Muslim who leads a normal day-to-day life in a Western country going all Jihad than you are if, say, they lost a bunch of family members to a stray bomb, or if they attended the public beheading of a loved one.
I don't think there's anything inherent in the religion that will corrupt your average bloke, but it does seem to be an amplifying component when blended with other factors.
Actually...I would argue that your typical non-westernized Muslims prescribe to the life and religious ideals of "enshalla" or "ensha-allah," which means life is as god wills it. This means that while there is a semblance of blood feud, etc. in response to wrongs committed against them, in general, Muslims are not nearly as reactive as they get made out to be by the public solely based on their religion. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with your second paragraph with even more emphasis that your everyday Muslims are even less reactive to wrong done to them.
RC - You realize "God's will" in your statement is spelled out in the texts that justify submission to an ideology that embraces spreading it by the sword right ?
And of course there are various levels reactions among different groups for a variety of factors. Do you not think the protests and murders over free speech, cartoons, etc. in western europe over the last 15 years or so is reactive ? Expecting Europeans to stand up for free speech and general human morality and well-being, and human rights is not bigotry and racism.
These are all based on "ideas" no different than Nazi racial justification, just protected because they are supposedly given by God through an angel, to a warlord pedophile that rode on a flying horse ? And we are protecting these immoral ideas why ?
There are far more nuanced factors in the rise of extremism than merely religious ones that you and others are trying to generalize and vilify. However, if we want to oversimplify it like Sam Harris often does, then we can say the same for other religions when it comes to those who want to use religion to perpetuate violence against others. There is such complexity involving political, social, and economical factors that we must consider to really understand the rise and perpetuation of extremism but many people refuse to do so since religion is the low hanging fruit that's there for the picking. However, having read many of your posts on this topic over the years, I would rather not get into a back and forth with you as it will be a waste of time for you and me.
My personal experiences having dealt with hundreds of Muslims and extremism over my career and adult life go counter to your views on Islam and Muslims (not even sure what your experience with Islam and Muslims is). So I'll merely state that my argument is based on my anecdotal experiences. You don't have to agree, and honestly, I don't really care much.
RC. so basically you have no argument or evidence. I don't doubt that you have many positive experiences that provide your anecdotal information.
Now it's "low hanging fruit" to blame an ideology that promises eternal paradise for murdering innocent women and children ? Do you not blame Christian terrorists for murdering abortion doctors on the bible ?
Can you name another religion that uses religious texts to inspire and justify/validate suicide bombing/martyrdom ? Must be a low hanging shot in the dark on that one. Forgive me for seeing a link that is validated and quoted word for word, over and over again by the perpetrators. I suppose virtually every article in every issue of ISIS's magazine, for example, is "twisting" the religion.
And you can certainly say the same for many other religions to some minimal degree, of course, but as you know, no one takes the fact that it's ok to kill your neighbor for working on the sabath, seriously anymore. If there are a few that do, they deserve all the scorn we can muster, just like a large number of immoral laws described by the Islamic texts deserve.
Unfortunately, people like you would rather see free speech criticism of those ideas in the public domain, restricted and silenced. If that is not the case, maybe you could let us know why your anectodal information should suffice for us to suspend our freedom of speech principles that western civilization has fought and died for, for centuries.
For years and years now.
Quote:
In comment 13480008 Ron Johnson 30 said:
Quote:
So we don't use "Muslim Terrorist" enough?
I'll respond, even though you don't care to hear it.
That is part of the problem, especially in Europe and in the press in Europe and to a lesser extent here. Avoiding saying it is just obfuscation and using euphemisms to avoid speaking the truth.
Some of us use it enough. It's an accurate description, though I prefer "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist" since it is the fundamentals of Islam that are being acted upon, used for justification and inspiration in the name of God.
For people only pushing shariah and political Islam (and not outright murdering little girls at concerts, etc,) and calling any criticism of the ideas asserted by the texts as bigots, etc. (apologists), I prefer "Islamist."
And what does it accomplish? Theres a reason why anti-terror experts don't use those words. The same reason Trump didn't in Saudi Arabia, before he left the Middle East and went to Israel. Nothing in your post is a solution to the radical Islam problem.
The US approach has been on the money over the last 10 years. Vetting of immigrants and visitors, security and the counter terrorism efforts have done excellent job.
The radicals are losing the war. Look at how the people came together in the UK today. They may pull off an attack occasionally but long term the future isn't bright for them. With education and opportunity fewer will join the cause.
RJ 30 - How about facing the truth ? Is that not enough ? I don't support rubbing peoples noses in it on their home soil. I agree that these conversations are not going to be easy. But we are heading towards a technological armageddon on this issue. I think some hurt feelings about 1400 year old superstitions might be a safer alternative. We can start by not calling everyone who calls for open dialogue on the scriptures "racists" "bigots" and "Islamophobes."
As to your take on how we are winning this war, I don't see how you could possibly argue that this is the case given the central focus of the immigration issues here and in western europe, for one example. Sure, we haven't had anything as bad as 9/11, but the volume of smaller attacks, investigations and attacks avoided, the money being spent, have all escalated greatly. France has 15,000 people on their terror list, 25% of whom are high risk. This attack last night was one person (with maybe some help along the way).
Oh really, because I was really hoping to be able to change your mind, Deej.
For years and years now.
Bill- I find it fun to come on here and argue this stuff once in a while. Sorry you feel that way.
Go over there and tell them
Go over there and tell them
Yes, just like has been done to other religions, beliefs and texts that we as human beings, men of reason and science, have done of the years.
Not sure why you would find it so novel an idea or why you think this religion gets a pass.
Quote:
the free speech persecution complex isnt helping you convince anyone of anything.
Oh really, because I was really hoping to be able to change your mind, Deej.
Why wouldnt you be able to change my mind? Because Im a terrorist loving bleeding heart liberal?
in lands with the lowest consumable water, the highest number of cloudless days, some of the lowest levels of education, with only a tiny tiny few who learn the language of the Koran at universities, with great despotism, scarcity of expression, the fewest media outlets per nation and where they do not test for or notice or treat or counsel schizophrenia, bi polar, depression, OCD, ADHD, PTSD...where often the mosque is the only hope for answers, charity and truth to power...the only essential first step to solutions is telling them their religion is the worst in the world.
Cool. Maybe you are right. Why are you on a football message board? The flight to Bahrain is $884 dollars round trip.
My point is not to wish you to go there
My point is that you are extremely passionate about a subject where there is no useful audience for your point
in lands with the lowest consumable water, the highest number of cloudless days, some of the lowest levels of education, with only a tiny tiny few who learn the language of the Koran at universities, with great despotism, scarcity of expression, the fewest media outlets per nation and where they do not test for or notice or treat or counsel schizophrenia, bi polar, depression, OCD, ADHD, PTSD...where often the mosque is the only hope for answers, charity and truth to power...the only essential first step to solutions is telling them their religion is the worst in the world.
Cool. Maybe you are right. Why are you on a football message board? The flight to Bahrain is $884 dollars round trip.
My point is not to wish you to go there
My point is that you are extremely passionate about a subject where there is no useful audience for your point
Your points are well taken. Thanks.
Quote:
In comment 13480281 Deej said:
Quote:
the free speech persecution complex isnt helping you convince anyone of anything.
Oh really, because I was really hoping to be able to change your mind, Deej.
Why wouldnt you be able to change my mind? Because Im a terrorist loving bleeding heart liberal?
I was joking. Because I know you don't agree with me and don't expect it to change based on your posts on the subject.
So you really think they dont self examine and search for answers ?
Alone of all humans...they dont self reflect? Really?
Then why are their so many offshoots?
With the full range of interpretations humans give from rejection to absorbtion
And a Mike...in this century which religion has killed the most non believers in horrible ways ? Budhism or Islam?
Careful...facts are inconvenient
Hope you and yours are doing well my friend
It might be worth considering the impacts of poverty, access to education, impacts of generations of war, government corruption, and occupations, might be causes and religious, violent extremism might be symptoms.
But only if the point is to promote a better, safer world.
If the religion is so prone to follow the exact letter of the Koran then:
How come they dont charge us on horseback or camelback? Its prescribed in the Koran. True.
how come they would ever allow a woman from an foreign country be seen with out covering her head? Its in the same Koran you say they follow to the letter?
And how come if they follow the letter of the Koran...this is a problem thought pattern that started in 1938? If the Koran is the problem how come the Thomas Cook Company took newlyweds to the Middle East since King George III and they all came back? Did they lose the Koran from 1700 to 1938? I mean if the only reason is the violence in the Koran is official and fully followed by all the followers of this worst of all religions...how come Queen Victoria ever came back from her vacation?
She came back without a scratch.
Must have been no Koran in Eygpt during those 40 years
Please expand. A core virtue of Buddhism is not to injure anyone. One would have to go through hoops to find a justification in the texts, certainly as it compares to Islam. Not to say Buddhists have not caused tribal violence, it's just that it is not supported by even a liberal interpretation of the texts. Perhaps you mean the zen buddhism aspects of kamikazes or something to do with Mao. Not sure what you mean.
If you want to be an expert in the worlds worst religion then challenge your self. Think a a family with their hands and ears sliced off by the DKBA thinks that Islam is the worst religion?
What about the series of Burmese kings who killed all practioners of the slightly different strains of Buddhism that was practiced by their predecessors...because their priests insisted it was written?
and on and on and on
Know what I think the worst religion is?
Certainty
Certainty is a belief system
It has a trinity called Labeling, Mind Reading and Repeating.
It has an infallible Pope for life.
Oneself.
And its Pope does take confessions.
Hands out absolution to the self and penance to everyone else
If the religion is so prone to follow the exact letter of the Koran then:
How come they dont charge us on horseback or camelback? Its prescribed in the Koran. True.
how come they would ever allow a woman from an foreign country be seen with out covering her head? Its in the same Koran you say they follow to the letter?
And how come if they follow the letter of the Koran...this is a problem thought pattern that started in 1938? If the Koran is the problem how come the Thomas Cook Company took newlyweds to the Middle East since King George III and they all came back? Did they lose the Koran from 1700 to 1938? I mean if the only reason is the violence in the Koran is official and fully followed by all the followers of this worst of all religions...how come Queen Victoria ever came back from her vacation?
You are picking out exceptions to make the same point over and over. That it's not all Muslims, that parts of the Quran are interpreted by some as being more or less literal, that there are conflicts (of course there are, it was written and interpreted by thousands of different human beings).
The fact that you need to even make such arguments shows that we are not discussing evidence. We have been through this a few times before. I do not blame evolution, people, free will or anything else and I accept that people are doing and have done the best they can given their circumstances, including all Muslims.
You are searching for nuance that I agree 100% exists, I don't doubt that I am mostly at fault for being argumentative and a dick about it. Do I really need to say over and over again "it's not all Muslims?" and the rest of it ? Granted, you make the arguments in a much more knowledgeable and sophisticated way than anyone else, but it doesn't change the fact that your argument is based upon the same logic.
Yes, not all Germans were Nazis, and not all Nazis killed Jews. Doesn't change the core anti-semitic ideology and laws created around those beliefs of Nazism.
Ditto on your aunt. Is that supposed to be evidence for a debate we are having that I don't know about ? When did I argue that parts and eras of Islamic history weren't more tolerant than others ?
Some jews survived late 30s Germany and got out before the laws changed, or were even allowed to leave. Doesn't change what happened once the ideology took root and people stopped fighting against it, until there was no choice and 70 million people died (many other nations/civil war/factors of course).
Not sure how that is supposed to dispute the evidence that people act up beliefs that are made clear in the texts when they are able to do so, and when there is little public dispute (other than secular or non-secular tyrants/rulers enforcing laws to the degree that they are able).
This is not about the past or casting blame on people who were responsible for letting it get where we are, it's about the insulation from criticism that this one ideology is granted. And we have clearly seen where this has led us, as well as the current trajectory. What Burmese kings did because of their priests is nothing more than a reminder of what happens when ideas spin out of control in the name of religion/God.
If people would rather not discuss it and just assume I see the world as black and white and am a reactionary/bigot/racist/etc, that is fine. I am certainly guilty of making similar judgements of other people, based on their refusal to acknowledge all the slightest evidence that there is a link between Islam and terrorism and arguing for ignoring it, or that no good will come from discussing it.
And your points about certainty all go without saying. The fact that you need to make those points indicate that I am doing a horrible job arguing and/or you feel they put me in my place as someone who is taking the easy way out and just wants to blame all Muslims for all the ills in the world. At this point, I'm not sure what I can say to convince you otherwise.
Either way, it's totally cool and I always appreciate your contributions and the thought-provocation that follows it.
It might be worth considering the impacts of poverty, access to education, impacts of generations of war, government corruption, and occupations, might be causes and religious, violent extremism might be symptoms.
But only if the point is to promote a better, safer world.
Christian - Why do you feel the need to put such effort into justifying a reason to debate "ideas." Aren't we smart enough to see when people are using it for demagoguery and other self-serving and evil motives, generally ? Ideas should stand on their own merit or be cast into the historical dustbin, no ?
Lawrence Wright is just one place to start on this aspect of the topic. Then read his sources and bibliography he used.
Seventy years ago, it would have been a fair question to ask what in Christianity led to anti-Semitism, because for much of Christian history Jews living within or near Christian communities had been treated poorly, often quite brutally. Even if the Holocaust wasn't directed by people who were Christian in any meaningful sense of the word, plenty of the people who participated in it in Germany and especially in Nazi-occupied territory were living out decades or centuries-old hatreds. At this point, that question doesn't seem particularly apposite, but the intersection of history and faith throughout the Christian era suggested seventy years ago that it was.
So again, I don't think it's an unfair, bigoted question to ask of Islam and terrorism. But as Bill points out in quite learned fashion, it's equally fair to rejoin that for centuries Westerners, including unveiled women, walked freely in much of the Muslim world, and the present state of affairs may be better understood as being as much the product of history as of faith, or at least of particularized interpretations of that faith that are powerful now, again for unique historical reasons.
You can call a spade a spade, but make sure you're actually describing a spade and not just echoing an undergrad blogger with a shelf full of David Horowitz and Sam Harris tomes.
https://twitter.com/BlairImani/status/866821360919732224
Why have Muslim majority societies operated without violent terrorism in many regions for swaths of 100s of years? Why do Muslim majority nations and societies operate without violent terrorism now? Why have Muslim majority societies contextualized violent texts to time and place effectively for giants swaths of time? Is it more likely there are inherent differences in the humanity of Muslim societies that condone and act out in terror or differences in the conditions they live?
Why do violent texts leap from the dustpan into the present for societies routinely across theological and philosophical boundaries, time and time again throughout history?
Ending the discussion at "Islam bad" is boring.
But just for fun, it is zero sum, what's the solution?
Something that seems to be given short shrift here is the impact of tribe as opposed to, or in conjunction with, religion.
BTW, any response to my comment on the Philippines?
Many of the attacks ISIS claims responsibility for were carried out by some nut with no real ties to ISIS other watching a video.
That crap is what I find most frustrating. It's complete BS and insinuates "liberal" policies support the terrorists. I can't think of a more stupid or counterproductive argument. Note how they don't provide a specific examples of what the policy should be and they completely ignore the success currents policies are having in preventing attacks. It's the perfect Fox News meme.
Who is supporting these acts? and how?
Rather than what tangled rationalizations are cited after the fact.
News flash. Sick people can justify what they do. Sick acts always are accompanied by words the perpetrator believes.
Some people do sneaky shit in the name of a "really good reason"
Thats a universal in human history.
Then add that almost no human stays in compliance with their own beliefs 100% of the time
Did you know that the US undertook military actions against the Muslim minority jihads in 1899 and 1903 and 1905?
Islam got to the Philipines in the 13th century. If not for spanish conquest in the 1500s, the Phillipines, like Indonesia, would still be Muslim
As we know, the Spanish followed the ancient scripts as did the muslims. One of them had guns. So obviously, the best script won.
But the exception was the Moros on Mindano who held out against Spanish conquest and conversion.
Because they were more fundamentalist? No. Because the Chinese threatened to attack the Spanish and drove them away in the 1600s.
"When the American came in 1899, The native Moro Muslims and Lumads were supplanted by American colonization programs, with Christians from other islands assigned control of key areas and disrupting the natives' administrative structures to support the United States' dominion and extraction of food and lumber." ( Handbook of Terror and Insurgency of Southeast Asia)
When food is needed the the Philippine government, Philippine military and Filipino militias used extremely violent tactics against natives to support the settlers they wanted to seed the island. The government and the US corporations ( kind of a money laden web right there) targeted a Christian population of 75% Christians from the more crowded and less fertile islands. The forced colonization became quite violent and approached genocidal . Which the Christians said the Bible justified. The Moros fought back. Which they said the Quran justified. Money won. Resentment of generations was set in motion
Over time, the native locals have used their identity as islam and at times tried communism as an powerful way to redress wrongs (and raise money from China) and back to islam led rationales for fighting the imported structures.
over the century the muslims got agitated and then calmed as non religious issues took prominence. In particular they fought with the US against the Japanese
Now....is it religion or money?
Ok...take a timeline from 1565. Note the correlation of Chinese desire for food and lumber and the virulence of Islamic reaction.
So what is the cause here?
Money?
Colonization?
Strict following of ancient texts?
Off shore oil?
I say lets not look at any complexities. I read on BBI the only answer is to condemn the violence of the worlds only bad religion. If we dont do that then no solution will ever work.
So those are my initial thoughts njm and Dune