Chat About Islam

[dreams]

I'm not really sure what this means. If you are referring to radical Islam, then yes, you can't really ignore their radicalism, and I never said you could. There's certainly a subset of muslims that are radicals. Just like there's a subset of Christians that are radicals, such as those that murder doctors that provide abortions, or radical former members of the US military that bomb a Federal building in Oklahoma City.

Muslim extremists are but one flavor of extremist out there, and attempting to paint all Muslims with the same brush is misguided if not downright bigoted. The fact remains that the vast majority of Muslims in the US (nearly 1% of our population, where Mormons and Jews are at about 2% each) are pretty well integrated into the American mainstream. It's been pretty well documented that many of the reasons for the unrest in Europe have to do with the immigrant poor protesting austerity measures.

I agree partly with these comments, but I think that equalling Muslim extremism with Christian or Jewish extremism is a bit unrealistic.
Islamist extremism has killed tens of thousand of people, most of them catually...Muslim. Islamist extremis, or call it Djihadism is an officail, recognised policy suypported not only by strong aremd groups, but also states. Can't be said for Christian extremists, who are small, limited in numbers, and not supportedby any stte. Even Jewish orthodoxes don't kill, thay limit their "extremism" at throwing fruits to other non religious Jews...
Back to Japan: I repeat that Japan is probably the only country on earth where the risk of a sucicide attack by extremist muslims is nearly Zero.

 

[TheDutchElm]

I'm a vociferous opponent of the cultural accommodationist view that has allowed Sharia enclaves in the UK and western Europe, but to be quite honest, I'm far more likely to be gunned down in cross-fire gang warfare than blown up by a muslim extremist.

Islam has the dubious honor among the world's major monotheisms of not yet having had a reformation movement. Until then, it'll be a threat to civil liberties where its backwardness is tolerated. But I think it's important to view things in perspective: we're not exactly talking state-sponsored burning-at-the-stake unless you live in a contemporary, fundamentalist theocratic state.

 

[Zaphod222]

Muslim extremists are but one flavor of extremist out there, and attempting to paint all Muslims with the same brush is misguided if not downright bigoted.

But I wasn´t doing that. I was not talking about "all muslims", I was talking about islamic ideology. And that, alas, is an islamic issue. I am sure the vast majorities of nominal "muslims" everywhere are peaceful people who just want to mind their own business. But islam is not a a peaceful ideology, if you take the books literally. And salafist preachers all over the world do just that.

The fact remains that the vast majority of Muslims in the US (nearly 1% of our population, where Mormons and Jews are at about 2% each) are pretty well integrated into the American mainstream.

That "fact" is not sure at all; it depends on how you phrase the question. Ask how many muslims would like more Shariah and would vote for islamic parties, and you get a different picture. Immigration of muslims in Europe is a big failure, as it is everywhere in the world. Read the Koran and the Haddiths, and you understand why. Islam has very clear rules of how non-muslims are to be treated under islam. But it does not have the concept of muslims integrating into an infidel society. And that is the root of the problem.

Maybe this should be a thread of its own?

 

[meiji]

I agree partly with these comments, but I think that equalling Muslim extremism with Christian or Jewish extremism is a bit unrealistic.
Islamist extremism has killed tens of thousand of people, most of them catually...Muslim. Islamist extremis, or call it Djihadism is an officail, recognised policy suypported not only by strong aremd groups, but also states. Can't be said for Christian extremists, who are small, limited in numbers, and not supportedby any stte. Even Jewish orthodoxes don't kill, thay limit their "extremism" at throwing fruits to other non religious Jews...

I wasn't making an attempt to point them out as equal (i.e., Christians have killed just as many people). I was trying to point out that radical Muslims are but a very small subset of people that adhere to Islam, just as Christian extremists represent a very small percentage of Christians, etc.

There's a reason they are called 'extremists' after all.

Islam has the dubious honor among the world's major monotheisms of not yet having had a reformation movement. Until then, it'll be a threat to civil liberties where its backwardness is tolerated. But I think it's important to view things in perspective: we're not exactly talking state-sponsored burning-at-the-stake unless you live in a contemporary, fundamentalist theocratic state.

I don't know what having a reformation movement has to do with anything. To start with, Islam is not a monolithic belief system. There has been a number of splits in Islam, and there's a wide variety of schools of thought. I mean, Sunniism goes all the way from the schools of thought in Turkey, which is a moderate secular state all the way to Wahabism in Saudi Arabia. I personally wouldn't call the populations of Turkey, United Arab Emirates, or say, places like Malaysia to be 'backward'. I would argue many of these countries you are referring to have religious extremists due to foreign occupation, war, or economic inequality due to sudden oil wealth, or a combination of any or all of the above. Even many of the Arab states were fairly progressive states from a civil society point of view (access to technology, educational and health standards, etc), as long as you didn't say anything nasty about the government.

This is not to mention the fact that the Christian reformation has led to pretty radical folks on both side of the split as well (although more on the reform side)

But islam is not a a peaceful ideology, if you take the books literally. And salafist preachers all over the world do just that.
That "fact" is not sure at all; it depends on how you phrase the question. Ask how many muslims would like more Shariah and would vote for islamic parties, and you get a different picture. Immigration of muslims in Europe is a big failure, as it is everywhere in the world. Read the Koran and the Haddiths, and you understand why. Islam has very clear rules of how non-muslims are to be treated under islam. But it does not have the concept of muslims integrating into an infidel society. And that is the root of the problem.

Maybe this should be a thread of its own?

Judaism and Christianity aren't peaceful ideologies if you take the books literally, either. Salafists are but a very small percentage of all Muslims. Radicals feed on chaos, discontent, and separation from civil society. It's no wonder that muslims living in poverty and being treated as the Other are becoming radicalized this way.

 

[TheDutchElm]

It's the fact that Islam is a "book" religion with dogmatic tenets that makes it objectionable in my eyes. This is a feature it shares with all religions. In today's world environment, I think it would be hard to pick a belief system that has more people doing active violence in it's name.

It's a red herring to say that criticism of Islam is what is radicalizing Islam. People deserve respect, bad ideas don't deserve respect, no matter their origins.

 

[Zaphod222]

II don't know what having a reformation movement has to do with anything. To start with, Islam is not a monolithic belief system.

Yes, but both Sunni and Shiah (which make up about 95% of islam) do believe in literalism and thus preach that ultimate peace (dar-al salam) is achieved once the whole world is united under Shariah. There are small groups like the Ahmediyya, who have given up on islamic supremacy, but they are considered heretics and persecuted by both Sunni and Shia. So where does that leave you?

Judaism and Christianity aren't peaceful ideologies if you take the books literally, either. Salafists are but a very small percentage of all Muslims.

That is the point! Christianity had a period of enlightenment, during which the Christian supremacist nutcases were viciously criticized, and religion put into its proper place as a some spiritual concept without political power. Islam never had such a period of enlightenment, and alas maybe never will. Because being founded by a politician and established as a political system, a non-political islam is hard to imagine.

Radicals feed on chaos, discontent, and separation from civil society. It's no wonder that muslims living in poverty and being treated as the Other are becoming radicalized this way.

It is a popular PC talking point that Muslims are "radicalized" by "poverty". Problem is, it is not true. You won´t find many jihadis among the dirt-poor peasants of Bangladesh. Muslims are being radicalized by radical clerics, and being able to afford jihadism is a privilege of the wealthy. Almost all of the 9/11 pilots were Saudis, all from wealthy background. Their leader, Mohammed Atta, was radicalized in HAMBURG, Germany, in a radical mosque. By all accounts he was a friendly and popular guy. Certainly not poor or being mistreated. He was studying at Polytechnic University in Hamburg. Shall I point out that Osama Bin Ladin himself, is (was) a member of the wealthiest family in Saudi?

You really should check these convenient slogans before accepting them.

 

[meiji]

In today's world environment, I think it would be hard to pick a belief system that has more people doing active violence in it's name.

The US military is certainly killing an awful lot of civilians in Africa, the Middle and Near East in the name of 'freedom'.

It's a red herring to say that criticism of Islam is what is radicalizing Islam. People deserve respect, bad ideas don't deserve respect, no matter their origins.

I really wouldn't call circumstances such as "foreign occupation, war, or economic inequality due to sudden oil wealth" to be 'criticism'.

Yes, but both Sunni and Shiah (which make up about 95% of islam) do believe in literalism and thus preach that ultimate peace (dar-al salam) is achieved once the whole world is united under Shariah. There are small groups like the Ahmediyya, who have given up on islamic supremacy, but they are considered heretics and persecuted by both Sunni and Shia. So where does that leave you?

There's a number of countries that are strongly Shiia or Sunni that don't live under strict Sharia law. The only one I can think of is Afghanistan prior to the 9/11 attacks. I'm not sure how you reconcile that political reality. Yes, there are some countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia where the countries are either ruled by Islam or have independent political control held by religious sects, but even in those countries there's quite a bit of religious, economic and social freedom. For countries that are supposedly dedicated to united 'the whole world under Shariah', it's a little puzzling why there's still 25 synagogues in Iran (for example).

That is the point! Christianity had a period of enlightenment, during which the Christian supremacist nutcases were viciously criticized, and religion put into its proper place as a some spiritual concept without political power. Islam never had such a period of enlightenment, and alas maybe never will. Because being founded by a politician and established as a political system, a non-political islam is hard to imagine.

Hate to say it, but most of the Christian sects founded after the Reformation were pretty much nutballs themselves, and a lot of them ended up in America(i.e., Pentacostals, Calvinists, not to mention the downstream religions like Church of Christ, Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc). Then there's the religious turf wars like all of the Holy Roman Empire stuff, not to mention Ireland vs England. I really don't see how having a Reformation does much to talk about a religion's ability to take a back seat to politics or civil liberties.

It is a popular PC talking point that Muslims are "radicalized" by "poverty". Problem is, it is not true. You won´t find many jihadis among the dirt-poor peasants of Bangladesh. Muslims are being radicalized by radical clerics, and being able to afford jihadism is a privilege of the wealthy. Almost all of the 9/11 pilots were Saudis, all from wealthy background. Their leader, Mohammed Atta, was radicalized in HAMBURG, Germany, in a radical mosque. By all accounts he was a friendly and popular guy. Certainly not poor or being mistreated. He was studying at Polytechnic University in Hamburg. Shall I point out that Osama Bin Ladin himself, is (was) a member of the wealthiest family in Saudi?

It's not just poverty, but inability to affect political change and economic inequality that cause this. Atta and bin Laden and others live a life of privilege, but they are also in tune with their 'brothers' in poorer or exploited countries elsewhere. As for Bangladesh, well, a short google search of "Bangladesh radical" will certainly find several mentions of some radicalism there, too.

 

[Zaphod222]

The US military is certainly killing an awful lot of civilians in Africa, the Middle and Near East in the name of 'freedom'.

US foreign policy blunders are irrelevant to the issue.

There's a number of countries that are strongly Shiia or Sunni that don't live under strict Sharia law.

Of course. But not thanks to the clerics. Actually, in most islamic countries, there is a dictator or a political system that keeps islamist demands under a lid. But the islamists are always pushing for more Sharia, and places like Afghanistan and Yemen simply show you what that leads to.

For countries that are supposedly dedicated to united 'the whole world under Shariah', it's a little puzzling why there's still 25 synagogues in Iran (for example).

Not "countries". The ideology does. The demand to submit the world under islam is a fundamental religious one, and has never been revoked in islamic doctrine. And mentioning the remaining 5000 Jews and their pathetic 25 remaining synagogues is cynicism, I am sure? That is all what is left from a huge Jewish minority in Iran; and the few remaining ones are subject to Shariah "dhimmi" laws, which means they are on a gradual demographic curve to extinction.

Hate to say it, but most of the Christian sects founded after the Reformation were pretty much nutballs themselves, and a lot of them ended up in America(i.e., Pentacostals, Calvinists, not to mention the downstream religions like Church of Christ, Mormonism, Christian Science, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc).

They are nutballs, but they are not trying to take political power and impose old testamentarial law. These comparisons really belittle the problem we are facing with islam.

It's not just poverty, but inability to affect political change and economic inequality that cause this.

Repeating the statement does not make it true. There is no correlation between material wealth and islamic radicalism. There is an absolute relation between radical islamic preaching and islamic radicalism. Seeing everything in terms of poverty is just really modern Western bias. For you and me, religion might not matter, but for billions of people it does, especially if they are indoctrinated 5 times a day, day in day out. Have you ever wondered why hysterical islamic mobs, demanding blood for perceived insults such as Mohammed cartoons or Mohammed teddy bears or Mohammed videos or whatever, always erupt after "Friday prayers"? Pure coincidence? That is a heck of a lot of coincidences...

 

[dreams]

For countries that are supposedly dedicated to united 'the whole world under Shariah', it's a little puzzling why there's still 25 synagogues in Iran (for example).



.

You must be joking, sure?

It s a bit like Hitler having a few "jewish" friends... Hundred of thousands of jews had to live their country at the time Israel was established. Mostly from Irak, Yemen, and also Egypt, Iran, and the North African states. In number, there are today more Jewish "refugees" than Palestinian refugees... fact.

Would you rather be a Muslim in a Western democracy today, where you have a lot of (good) NGOs to defend you against bigots, or a Jew in Iran, where you can be arrested and hagngd as a "zionist" spy, without any proof or judgment?

I certainly agree that most Muslims livnig in the West are peaceful, but it does not support their cause to make such comparisons...

 

[TheDutchElm]

The US military is certainly killing an awful lot of civilians in Africa, the Middle and Near East in the name of 'freedom'.

Most victims of Islamic violence are other muslims. This is only tangentially relevant in that it gives one group of muslims an excuse (justified by scripture) to start killing the other group of muslims in the name of God (who, haven't you heard, revealed the divine truth only to them) for working with the US military. Or opposing them. Or crossing the street.

 

[Zaphod222]

Most victims of Islamic violence are other muslims. This is only tangentially relevant in that it gives one group of muslims an excuse (justified by scripture) to start killing the other group of muslims in the name of God (snip).

Easyist thing in the world under islamic doctrine, since "Fitna" is an unforgivable crime. And "Fitna" is fundamentally anything that goes against islam. Which, of course, is very much in the eye of the beholder.

If you listen to islamic Friday prayers (not something I´d recommend for enjoyment, but it is informative), you will hear declarations that killing is not good, except to fight "Fitna" on earth. So it is back to the same thing... as long as they are stuck with the pre-enlightenment literalism, nothing will change.