"It Has Nothing to do with Religion"

[It's Damn Real!]

Given the recent ISIS release, appropriately titled "Why We Hate you and Want to Fight You", in the Jihadist periodical Dabiq in which the group who've come to visually represent "extremism" [note the intentional exclusion of "Islamic" for full sarcastic value] have systematically explained why they hate "us" and want to fight and kill us, can we finally dispel with the titled notion that this has nothing to do with religion? Can we finally put to bed the "Western Imperialism" excuse-making and pedestal pushing from the likes of Noam Chomsky and others who have tirelessly fought the notion that religion is even a minority cause, let alone a major factor behind their behavioral choices?

For those who have not read it, I'll link you below, but in the interest of time, I can tell you that of the six points made, exactly two have nothing or little to do with religion. If these six points made represent the entirety of their justification (and why shouldn't they considering they are coming straight from the horse's mouth?), that means more than 65% of their cause is, as they believe and proclaim, divinely justified and religiously mandated. Forget the fact they are telling you it's religious for a second. How is this still not an acceptable number to emphatically throw this notion that their religion is irrelevant directly into the fire?

This isn't about blaming religion here, either. I'm aware my reputation precedes me, so before I'm charged with made up terminologies like "Islamaphobia", understand this -- this is about having an honest discussion about a real world problem that we cannot have any hope of curing if the conversation always begins with obfuscations about the core nature of the issue.

The constant outcry, mostly from the [regressive] Left, that this has nothing to do with religion is just as unhelpful that the outcries that it has everything to do with it. Neither is true. But religion has something to do with it. Clearly. In no unsure terms we've now been told this from the group themselves.

For anyone who hasn't read this "manifesto" or wants a refresher, it's here: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/why-hate-you-isis-reveal-8533563

 

[HBK-aholic]

This extremism nothing to do with the Islamic religion. Terrorists can claim they are undertaking their business in the name of Islam, that doesn't make it true.

Tomorrow, I could create a bomb, throw it in Montreal, and blame Shawn Michaels and the WWE. In my own, twisted head, I may think I'm avenging Bret Hart for the screwjob, but that doesn't mean it would hold any weight whatsoever, it doesn't mean Shawn or the WWE are at fault, and it doesn't mean everyone who watches WWE is an evil, bomb making terrorist and it doesn't mean WWE should be vilified or scrutinised.

^ That sounds so ridiculously stupid, surely no one would even make that connection, right?! Yet it happens daily to Muslims.

If these people weren't causing issues in the name of Islam, it'd be something else. They are making their ideals up in their mind, and twisting the teachings of the Qu'ran to fit. Anything can be taken out of context, or manipulated if you try hard enough. I remember reading a similar thing from a terror group, where the quote they used wasn't even from the Qu'ran - it didn't stop the media vilifying it.

We should be able to have discussions without fear of offending people. But in this day and age, with a large proportion of people being so misinformed and uneducated about Islam, it turns into a 'hate all the Muslims' platform. See: Donald Trump.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

The group tells you they are acting because of religion. You refuse to believe it and instead proceed to tell them what they are doing it for. This is exactly the kind of obfuscation I'm taking about.

How can we ever have an honest discussion about this when that is a response you expect me to take seriously?

Your HBK-bomb analogy might have weight if that were actually happening, or ever happened, but it isn't, and hasn't. Unlike violence and terrorism in the Islamic world, which happens regularly. That's an utter false equivalence.

Every effort for honest debate and solution seeking is stopped dead in its tracks with responses like yours because the moment the religion is brought up, the criticism is met with cries of racism and "Islamaphobia" in worst case scenarios and obscurantism and obfuscation in the lesser ones.

Absolving Islam of any blame helps nothing. It only hurts, just as often and just as awfully as blaming it entirely. Which I have not done, mind you.

 

[HBK-aholic]

The group tells you they are acting because of religion. You refuse to believe it and instead proceed to tell them what they are doing it for. This is exactly the kind of obfuscation I'm taking about.

How can we ever have an honest discussion about this when that is a response you expect me to take seriously?

But that was my point - just because someone says they are acting in some way, just because they shout out words like 'Allahu Akbar' doesn't mean the religion itself is at fault. My response was ridiculous, because it was supposed to be. You see the ridiculousness in my analogy, but not in what the media does every day to Muslims.

Are there issues with religion? Absolutely. But terrorists are uninformed and uneducated on the Qu'ran, twisting it in ways that completely change the original meaning. Terrorism isn't a requirement of Islam. It isn't taught in the Qu'ran - it's taught and encouraged by a manipulative minority to seek their personal goals. So, what do you actually want to have a discussion about? What do you suggest we do?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I didn't say the religion itself is at fault. I said the religion itself is part of the problem, and that it can't be absolved of wrong-doing if we expect to have an honest approach to solving the problem. Geopolitics and socioeconomics also play a role, as does historic tribalism, but it's the religion that's being used, consistently, to justify this behavior. Because the religion prescribes this behavior. It's the religion itself that is being used to craft and enforce horrific policies (found in well-respected Hadith) and laws (like Sharia) in predominantly Islamic nations where this type of religiously inspired and justified terror takes place so often.

I also don't deny the media doesn't help matters. Especially the American media. Especially the Right. But this is another strawman you're erecting to attack instead of actually asking me what my actual positions and opinions are.

I do have solutions I'd love to discuss, but how can you expect me to share them if you can't even agree that religion shoulders some of the blame here? I'd be wasting my time because my solutions account for this, which tells me you'd reject them outright for even mildly criticizing the faith as part of finding a solution for peace.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I didn't say the religion itself is at fault. I said the religion itself is part of the problem, and that it can't be absolved of wrong-doing if we expect to have an honest approach to solving the problem. Geopolitics and socioeconomics also play a role, as does historic tribalism, but it's the religion that's being used, consistently, to justify this behavior. Because the religion prescribes this behavior. It's the religion itself that is being used to craft and enforce horrific policies (found in well-respected Hadith) and laws (like Sharia) in predominantly Islamic nations where this type of religiously inspired and justified terror takes place so often.

My reply wasn't at anything you specifically said in regards to attacking the religion, it was a general point regarding what happens when this is brought up - Islam is attacked, and people generalise extremism with the religion - they are 2 very different things.

I don't believe Islam 'prescribes' this behaviour - it doesn't. That's not to say I agree with a lot of the Qu'ran, but there's difference between people misusing the book, and saying Islam prescribes terrorism. And it's that belief that you just professed, which I and others take issue with.

I also don't deny the media doesn't help matters. Especially the American media. Especially the Right. But this is another strawman you're erecting to attack instead of actually asking me what my actual positions and opinions are.

I literally asked you, in my last post, what your actual thoughts were - clearly asked for your solutions. I have no idea what you're getting at here.

I do have solutions I'd love to discuss, but how can you expect me to share them if you can't even agree that religion shoulders some of the blame here? I'd be wasting my time because my solutions account for this, which tells me you'd reject them outright for even mildly criticizing the faith as part of finding a solution for peace.

I mean, the Symposium is there for exactly that reason - to discuss solutions to things people disagree on? Feel free to criticise the faith -if I believed everything the Qu'ran said, I would be a Muslim. But I don't see what solutions there are, in regards to Islam, that won't end up attacking the faith, and those who follow it. Because there's a difference between criticising and attacking, that the vast majority of people don't seem to understand. If you have a way to do so, I'd genuinely love to hear it.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Sure, religion is a part of it. Whether or not the terrorists are actually following doctrine is up for debate because some say they are, some say they're not, some say they're using a mix of actual religious doctrine along with some of their own. Regardless of what I believe or don't believe, the terrorists have stated that their faith is one of the key motivating factors and whether it's actual legit Islamic doctrine or not makes no real difference to them.

If the various media reports are true, then a very hefty portion of Islamic extremists are very poor, uneducated and sometimes flat out illiterate people that the higher ups in the organizations actively want because they make excellent grist for the mill, so to speak; these are the sort of people that are easier to indoctrinate because of their lack of education and make great foot soldiers.

I watched a documentary a few weeks back on CNN produced by Fareed Zakaria entitled "Why They Hate Us" and the program alleges that one of they primary, motivating factors, I mean what some say is what started the whole idea of hatred of the west among many Muslims was because of the 1940s pop song "Baby, It's Cold Outside." I can't remember all the details exactly, just that there was a very, very conservative Muslim student attending a party and was absolutely scandalized by how people were behaving at this party. The men & women were dancing close together, the women didn't have their bodies covered, he thought the song was an affront advocating premarital sex or sex outside of any marital relationship, there was alcohol being served etc. I forget this man's name, I've been wracking my brain trying to think of it but it just won't come to me, but he returned home to a Middle Eastern country and wrote about what he'd seen at this party and it outraged many Muslims. He made it out to be like some wild Roman orgy in which every sort of sexually perverted debauchery that could be named was going on but it was simply just people at a party dancing; This was just at the dawn of the 1950s, one of the most socially conservative eras in the country's history and this student, as I said, was about as much of a conservative Muslim as it gets. So yeah, if the little documentary is accurate, then this whole thing of the United States being "The Great Satan" started because of a late 40s pop song.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Even if religion didn't exist, people would always find a means to make war, named religion or not.

The only part that religion plays here, is that it's being used as a tool by the leaders in order to have the sheep (people) make the wars, in order for them to make $$$.

Religion is like a drug: you use it the right way, you can cure a disease.. you use it wrong and you can do great harm.

PS: Those who say that "faith motivates us" or "god made me do it" are the biggest liars in the world. First of all they try to justify what they're doing by sounding holy and in some ways not to be seen us bad guys. In their eyes those suicide bombers are heroes. Second of all, even without religion, man would still find an excuse to kill other people. So religion is not to blame. Blame humanity.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Have you heard about the Edict of Milan? It was voted 1700 years ago. It said that any person is free to believe in any god he wants, in any religion he believes in.

If some muslim had a problem about the way Americans behave, then he shouldn't stick his nose in other people's businesses. He had no right to interfere with other religions.

Of course religions should level up a little bit and stop being so strict and have stuff like treating women like shit.

Basically, all those religion extremists are 1700 years too late.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

My reply wasn't at anything you specifically said in regards to attacking the religion, it was a general point regarding what happens when this is brought up - Islam is attacked, and people generalise extremism with the religion - they are 2 very different things.

So you quote me in a manner that appears to assign these responses to me, but didn't mean to, and didn't explicitly state that you were addressing statements or issues I didn't make? And I'm supposed to infer all of this correctly, what, by mind-reading?

I don't believe Islam 'prescribes' this behaviour - it doesn't. That's not to say I agree with a lot of the Qu'ran, but there's difference between people misusing the book, and saying Islam prescribes terrorism. And it's that belief that you just professed, which I and others take issue with.

I'm not going to get into a scripture war with you here. The texts and passages are quite clear on prescribing violence, and the Hadith are even worse. ISIS throwing gays from rooftops? That comes from various Hadith that mandate to take homosexuals to the highest cliffs and throw them from them. If you want to skirt around that by claiming they "misinterpreted" it, by all means, but you're deluding yourself.

I literally asked you, in my last post, what your actual thoughts were - clearly asked for your solutions. I have no idea what you're getting at here.

Is this another example of you addressing me, directly, but not actually addressing me? You responded to me, directly, and said “You see the ridiculousness in my analogy, but not in what the media does every day to Muslims”. This insinuates that I don’t blame the media for their portrayal of Muslims — something I have yet to provide an opinion on. Hence the strawman.

I mean, the Symposium is there for exactly that reason - to discuss solutions to things people disagree on? Feel free to criticise the faith -if I believed everything the Qu'ran said, I would be a Muslim. But I don't see what solutions there are, in regards to Islam, that won't end up attacking the faith, and those who follow it. Because there's a difference between criticising and attacking, that the vast majority of people don't seem to understand. If you have a way to do so, I'd genuinely love to hear it.

Sure, in the most colloquial sense, but as I said in the OP and repeatedly since in my responses to you, I can’t provide my solutions/opinions in a manner in which I feel we can debate them reasonably if you we can’t even agree that religion shoulders some of the blame. Because my solutions are going to account for that, which means they’re going to be side-stepped in defense of the religion in spite of the evidence.

I even said in the OP that this isn’t about attacking religion. It’s about about having an honest discussion about a real world problem that we cannot have any hope of curing if the conversation always begins with obfuscations about the core nature of the issue, which is religious in nature. The religious aspect has to be up for scrutiny, or every effort at problem solving is futile.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Sure, religion is a part of it. Whether or not the terrorists are actually following doctrine is up for debate because some say they are, some say they're not, some say they're using a mix of actual religious doctrine along with some of their own. Regardless of what I believe or don't believe, the terrorists have stated that their faith is one of the key motivating factors and whether it's actual legit Islamic doctrine or not makes no real difference to them.

If the various media reports are true, then a very hefty portion of Islamic extremists are very poor, uneducated and sometimes flat out illiterate people that the higher ups in the organizations actively want because they make excellent grist for the mill, so to speak; these are the sort of people that are easier to indoctrinate because of their lack of education and make great foot soldiers.

A significant percentage of Muslims are poor, uneducated and often illiterate (an estimated 40%), but the evidence actually suggests otherwise regarding extremists (Jihadists and Islamists). They are actually educated and literate and are rarely impoverished. Most come from wealthy families and even attend universities.


This is from 2005, but there are more recent updates that show it still holds true: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/opinion/the-madrassa-myth.html?_r=0

 

[HBK-aholic]

So you quote me in a manner that appears to assign these responses to me, but didn't mean to, and didn't explicitly state that you were addressing statements or issues I didn't make? And I'm supposed to infer all of this correctly, what, by mind-reading?

Surely my response to a point you didn't make is enough for you to infer that I wasn't aiming that specific statement at you? I replied to your post, because you replied to me, but none of my posts are attacking you, they're attacking Islamophobia. I thought we were having a discussion about issues, and were mature enough to not turn it into 'But I didn't say that!' argument. So, disclaimer, this is a discussion, not an attack on you specifically.

I'm not going to get into a scripture war with you here. The texts and passages are quite clear on prescribing violence, and the Hadith are even worse. ISIS throwing gays from rooftops? That comes from various Hadith that mandate to take homosexuals to the highest cliffs and throw them from them. If you want to skirt around that by claiming they "misinterpreted" it, by all means, but you're deluding yourself.

I also don't want to get into a scripture war, partly because I'll admit to not having read a majority of it, but that same Qu'ran also argues for peace, states that no one should be forced to live by Islamic law, calls to love members of other faiths, and expressly forbids killing another soul. As I said, there are hundreds of ways to criticise the religion, it is full of contradictions, and I have no issues with that being said. My issues begin when people state Islam is the cause of terrorism, or when they assume all Muslims are terrorists who hate the Western world. If you don't believe that, then we agree.

Is this another example of you addressing me, directly, but not actually addressing me? You responded to me, directly, and said “You see the ridiculousness in my analogy, but not in what the media does every day to Muslims”. This insinuates that I don’t blame the media for their portrayal of Muslims — something I have yet to provide an opinion on. Hence the strawman.

I specifically asked what your thoughts and solutions were - you quoted it with the phrase "you're erecting to attack instead of actually asking me what my actual positions and opinions are." - When I did just that. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

I however apologise for assuming your thoughts on the media.

Sure, in the most colloquial sense, but as I said in the OP and repeatedly since in my responses to you, I can’t provide my solutions/opinions in a manner in which I feel we can debate them reasonably if you we can’t even agree that religion shoulders some of the blame. Because my solutions are going to account for that, which means they’re going to be side-stepped in defense of the religion in spite of the evidence.

I even said in the OP that this isn’t about attacking religion. It’s about about having an honest discussion about a real world problem that we cannot have any hope of curing if the conversation always begins with obfuscations about the core nature of the issue, which is religious in nature. The religious aspect has to be up for scrutiny, or every effort at problem solving is futile.

Not in defence of the religion. In defence of the billions of Muslim's who do not agree with the extremism yet have their lives tarnished with that brush. You keep saying we need to have a frank discussion about this, without fear of offending - in my OP I agreed, but with so many uneducated people, so many people listening to Fox News, and Donald Trump, you also have to be loud about stating that the vast majority of Muslims do not believe this, do not want this, and disagree completely with the terrorism. And I've yet to see a solution which doesn't vilify them. And you apparently have one, but refuse to share it, because someone might disagree.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Of course the majority of western Muslims don't agree with this shit, but that doesn't mean that the extremism (which more less is actually fundamentalism) isn't based in the religion.

The only difference is how literally one is to take the things in scripture, and go about carrying them out. ISIS points to tons of scripture when if taken literally justifies them (in their mind) . Every faith or ideaology has done this in large numbers at points in their history, and many would right this second if they could get away with it.

If you doubt that, catch a Donald Trump rally or watch the republican primary debates some time

 

[yourdamnluck]

The problem is, even the most liberal and modern muslim treat their women like shit because its in their religion. They tell them what to wear, what to do and what not. muslim women live like slaves with zero choice because islam says so.

Even the most liberal and western muslims don't believe that there is any true religion but The religion of terror.
And of course you can see how well minorities are protected in muslim majority nations.
The most liberal and peaceful muslim nation, Indonesia shoves fingers up women's vagina(virginity test) before recruiting them.

Rapes and forced marriages of hindu minor girls in pakistan are very common and these always goes unpunished because it's legal in islam to rape the minor girl that you forcefully married.

They stick ardently to all their ridiculous customs. Who's to say they won't start killing people en masse because koran says 'kill the non believers'.
Muslims are like the daleks they'll exterminate anything that's not them.
And that scares me.

 

[JGlass]

A few things.

First... they flat out say that the reason they do what they do is because of various tenets of Islam... who the fuck are you to say that they aren't really? I mean damn, how belittling is that to Muslim people that you think you know their religion better than they do.

Second, I've long struggled to understand why it's so important for people to make sure that it is understood that ISIS is Islamic. Yes, this particular group of crazies are using Islam to justify their actions. In Africa there are numerous armies that use Christianity to justify their actions. There are neo-Nazis worldwide that use race to justify their actions. There are Trump supporters that use nationality to justify their actions. Why is it so important to people that EVERYONE KNOWS that ISIS uses Islam as their justification? Is it because so many people deny it and you find it frustrating when people deny facts?

Conversely, I also struggle to understand what about this concept is so upsetting to people. I know that there are idiots (like the one I quote below) who will think all of Islam carries some blame for the actions of ISIS, but that's clearly untrue. Few people blame the entirety of the Catholic Church for the rape scandals, why should it be different for Islamic extremism? Just because idiots (like the one I quote below) might misinterpret ISIS to mean all of Islam is dangerous doesn't mean that we should deny the truth. It means we should educate them on the fact that not all Islam is dangerous, or at the very least that they are acting like idiots (like the guy I quote below).

Yeah, ISIS is influenced by Islam. We all knew that. Even the people who claim it isn't influenced by Islam probably know that.

The problem is, even the most liberal and modern muslim treat their women like shit because its in their religion. They tell them what to wear, what to do and what not. muslim women live like slaves with zero choice because islam says so.

Even the most liberal and western muslims don't believe that there is any true religion but The religion of terror.

Wow, you're a fucking idiot.

The most liberal Muslim people do not treat their women like shit. The most liberal Muslim people behave in a manner indistinguishable from most liberal Americans/British/French/wherever they live.

Don't regurgitate the shit you hear from Rush Limbaugh, you'll wind up looking stupider than he does.

And of course you can see how well minorities are protected in muslim majority nations.
The most liberal and peaceful muslim nation, Indonesia shoves fingers up women's vagina(virginity test) before recruiting them.

Rapes and forced marriages of hindu minor girls in pakistan are very common and these always goes unpunished because it's legal in islam to rape the minor girl that you forcefully married.

Any countries with theocratic governments tend to do seriously fucked up shit in the name of religion. In Uganda they murder gay people without consequence. In the Catholic Church they allow(ed) priests to rape children without consequence.

As long as people in charge believe that what they're doing is justified by religion, they'll do whatever they want.

They stick ardently to all their ridiculous customs. Who's to say they won't start killing people en masse because koran says 'kill the non believers'.
Muslims are like the daleks they'll exterminate anything that's not them.
And that scares me.

Then you're an idiot, a bigot, and above all else, a massive coward.

 

[Xemmy]

It's both. And I don't know why people can't see that. Western Imperialism gives them a reason to be radical. It gives religious extremism a window and a reason for people to turn to them.

This idea that they're not really Muslim is such bullshit. It's no different then Baptists saying Catholics aren't real Christians and vice versa. They read the Holy Book and have their own interpretation of it. It's still the Quran. That doesn't mean all Muslims should be held accountable or anything like that. But ignoring it, pretending it's not what it is, sure as hell doesn't help things. Secularism hasn't always gotten things right. But when it does go wrong, it's due to a state religion that people refuse to acknowledge is really a religion. North Korea is a very good example. There's no religion officially. But they worship their leader like a god. Even coming up with impossible feats that no human could accomplish to bolster his status.

Acknowledge what it is. And then figure out the best way to make it disappear. Education. Military action. Hell if I know. But don't ignore their motivation.

Jesus I hate when people try to paint Islam as a race.

Edit: I do want to clarify, that we are talking about a minority in the religion here. I am not attempting to paint all Muslims in a bad light. Because Islamaphobia is a real thing. (Anyone that says otherwise didn't watch the 2008 election) But pretending the bad apples in your bunch aren't apples just adds the needless confusion of "Why are they fighting us? What are their goals?"

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Surely my response to a point you didn't make is enough for you to infer that I wasn't aiming that specific statement at you? I replied to your post, because you replied to me, but none of my posts are attacking you, they're attacking Islamophobia. I thought we were having a discussion about issues, and were mature enough to not turn it into 'But I didn't say that!' argument. So, disclaimer, this is a discussion, not an attack on you specifically.

If you quote me, and type responses in an accusatory manner, I’m going to assume you are accusing me. It’s only natural. It might seem pedantic, but it’s an important factor in the context of conversation. If you are actually addressing someone directly, it’s natural for them to presume your remarks are directed at them, not beyond them. Why else address them in the first place if the intended target isn’t them?

Additionally, I’m interested in the debate by talking to you, and others. Not in attacking straw men that aren’t actually involved in the debate. It’s silly for you to be attacking “Islamaphobia” that hasn’t been presented, and it’s especially silly for you to attack “Islamaphobia” by quoting me, and then say that you were speaking to some nefarious, nebulous other, even though my post is listed there in direct response to.

I also don't want to get into a scripture war, partly because I'll admit to not having read a majority of it, but that same Qu'ran also argues for peace, states that no one should be forced to live by Islamic law, calls to love members of other faiths, and expressly forbids killing another soul. As I said, there are hundreds of ways to criticise the religion, it is full of contradictions, and I have no issues with that being said. My issues begin when people state Islam is the cause of terrorism, or when they assume all Muslims are terrorists who hate the Western world. If you don't believe that, then we agree.

Yet just a post or two ago you were adamant that groups like ISIS have it wrong. How can you know that if you’ve not read a majority of it, or don’t know the scripture? I think you ought to read it if you are honestly interested in knowing about it.

You say, for example, it expressly forbids killing another soul? You are likely referring to the mythical verse “If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.” I say mythical because it does not exist. Apologists have distorted the fuck out of the actual verse, which reads:

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person - unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.” [Qur'an 5:32]​

Best yet, if you account for the very next verse, you’re presented with:

“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,” [Qur’an 5:33]​

Just another misinterpretation? Certainly not a prescription for violence? You know, except for the whole “they be killed or crucified” bit. Or the whole “their hands and feet be cut off”.

We agree that not all Muslims are terrorists who hate the West. I don’t accept the premise, at least not entirely, that Islam is not the cause of terrorism. So we still have ground to cover there.

I specifically asked what your thoughts and solutions were - you quoted it with the phrase "you're erecting to attack instead of actually asking me what my actual positions and opinions are." - When I did just that. I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

I however apologise for assuming your thoughts on the media.

And like I said, I can’t really provide them in the hopes of us making any headway because we still disagree on the fundamentals. But in the interest of not appearing as though I don’t actually have ideas for solutions, I’ll present them anyway.

Islam needs reform. It needs to be forced into modernity from within. Not from without. This is where the moderates come in. Those who do not take the religion seriously. Who do not believe in Sharia or the prescribed mandates of the Hadith. Those who embrace liberal values and believe in the empowerment of women within Muslim communities and societies. Those who value science, mathematics and evidence, and who embrace church/state separation. These moderates need to be championed and propped up. People like Maajid Nawaz, the ex-Islamist turned founder of the counter-extremist Quilliam foundation. And though not a Muslim, even people like Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, founder of the Global Secular Humanist Movement, have a valuable voice in the conversation as well.

Secular governments need to be established in Islamic nations to wall off religion from government. Democratic and liberal ideals need to be championed, established, and supported, starting with the empowerment of women in Islamic nations where the rule of the land is dictated by the Mullah's who act on devout belief in Sharia and Hadith prescriptions. And all of this can happen provided the reformists are given a wealth of support from countries like the U.S. and Europe as a whole. Especially those with military presences in any of these Islamic nations today.

Not in defence of the religion. In defence of the billions of Muslim's who do not agree with the extremism yet have their lives tarnished with that brush. You keep saying we need to have a frank discussion about this, without fear of offending - in my OP I agreed, but with so many uneducated people, so many people listening to Fox News, and Donald Trump, you also have to be loud about stating that the vast majority of Muslims do not believe this, do not want this, and disagree completely with the terrorism. And I've yet to see a solution which doesn't vilify them. And you apparently have one, but refuse to share it, because someone might disagree.

We disagree again on principle. The majority of Muslims are peaceful. There we agree. The majority of Muslims, however, do hold pernicious beliefs prescribed by the religion. Look at the recent Pew poll data conducted in more than a dozen majority Islamic nations like Egypt, Jordan and Indonesia, Tunisia (who are currently leading the supply of fighting bodies to ISIS), and more. Look at the percentage of Muslims in these countries who favor making Sharia the law of the land. Look at the percentage of Muslims in these countries that support corporal punishment for the crime of theft. Look at the percentage of Muslims in these countries that approve of stoning as punishment for adultery. Look at the percentage of Muslims in these countries who believe death is the appropriate penalty for leaving the religion (apostasy laws). These are not outlier nations, either. They’re major world players in the Islamic world.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/...ligion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

Which is all the more reason that religion has to be subject to criticism in this conversation.

 

[HBK-aholic]

If you quote me, and type responses in an accusatory manner, I’m going to assume you are accusing me. It’s only natural. It might seem pedantic, but it’s an important factor in the context of conversation. If you are actually addressing someone directly, it’s natural for them to presume your remarks are directed at them, not beyond them. Why else address them in the first place if the intended target isn’t them?

My sincerest apologies, in that case. My intention was not to attack.

Additionally, I’m interested in the debate by talking to you, and others. Not in attacking straw men that aren’t actually involved in the debate. It’s silly for you to be attacking “Islamaphobia” that hasn’t been presented, and it’s especially silly for you to attack “Islamaphobia” by quoting me, and then say that you were speaking to some nefarious, nebulous other, even though my post is listed there in direct response to.

Again, apologies if it appeared to be directed at you. However, there has already been an Islamophobic post in this thread, because it is seemingly impossible to discuss this without one. My reply may have been too soon, but, as I said, you have to make it ABUNDANTLY clear that the vast majority of Muslim's are not terrorists, because there is way too much propaganda which the uneducated believe and use as fire for discriminatory attacks against Muslims. (Again, not saying you, specifically, have made that remark).

Yet just a post or two ago you were adamant that groups like ISIS have it wrong. How can you know that if you’ve not read a majority of it, or don’t know the scripture? I think you ought to read it if you are honestly interested in knowing about it.

Reading it is certainly on my to do list. That said, the very vast majority of people who participate in these discussions also haven't read the entire book, either. My strong belief that Islam isn't specifically to blame is based moreso on the testaments of the vast majority of people who follow Islam, yet somehow do not end up committing terrorist attacks, and who expressly forbid them.

You say, for example, it expressly forbids killing another soul? You are likely referring to the mythical verse “If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.” I say mythical because it does not exist. Apologists have distorted the fuck out of the actual verse, which reads:

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person - unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.” [Qur'an 5:32]​

Best yet, if you account for the very next verse, you’re presented with:

“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,” [Qur’an 5:33]​

Just another misinterpretation? Certainly not a prescription for violence? You know, except for the whole “they be killed or crucified” bit. Or the whole “their hands and feet be cut off”.

I concede this to you. I was likely hasty in my 'Absolutely nothing promotes violence' reply. Maybe someone else on here is more educated in the Qu'ran verse by verse, but I'm not one of those debaters who will google and pass it off as knowledge.

Islam needs reform. It needs to be forced into modernity from within. Not from without. This is where the moderates come in. Those who do not take the religion seriously. Who do not believe in Sharia or the prescribed mandates of the Hadith. Those who embrace liberal values and believe in the empowerment of women within Muslim communities and societies. Those who value science, mathematics and evidence, and who embrace church/state separation. These moderates need to be championed and propped up. People like Maajid Nawaz, the ex-Islamist turned founder of the counter-extremist Quilliam foundation. And though not a Muslim, even people like Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, founder of the Global Secular Humanist Movement, have a valuable voice in the conversation as well.

In the Western world, these people are championed; they're major members of their communities, who constantly argue against terrorism and extremism. I think it's difficult when you say 'force them into modernity', because it comes across as telling a couple billion people that their religious beliefs are wrong, and need to change. Which is one of the reasons we have these issues to begin with. I'm not against this, but we have to tread carefully to not make the situation worse.

Secular governments need to be established in Islamic nations to wall off religion from government. Democratic and liberal ideals need to be championed, established, and supported, starting with the empowerment of women in Islamic nations where the rule of the land is dictated by the Mullah's who act on devout belief in Sharia and Hadith prescriptions. And all of this can happen provided the reformists are given a wealth of support from countries like the U.S. and Europe as a whole. Especially those with military presences in any of these Islamic nations today.

Again, no issues with this, but we have to tread very carefully. The US has gotten into a lot of trouble, with a terrible amount of deaths, in the name of democracy in foreign nations.

Which is all the more reason that religion has to be subject to criticism in this conversation. at them, not beyond them. Why else address them in the first place if the intended target isn’t them?

Donald Trump is a fucking loud mouthed bigot who doesn't even have a surface understanding of half of this, but unfortunately for the U.S., he's the only major politician willing to address this as a problem that is exclusive to Islam. Because it is.

Assuming you are referring only to the terrorism by ISIS that Western media presents as the biggest thread to US citizens ever, because you are intelligent enough to know terrorism is not only exclusive to Islam.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Again, apologies if it appeared to be directed at you. However, there has already been an Islamophobic post in this thread, because it is seemingly impossible to discuss this without one. My reply may have been too soon, but, as I said, you have to make it ABUNDANTLY clear that the vast majority of Muslim's are not terrorists, because there is way too much propaganda which the uneducated believe and use as fire for discriminatory attacks against Muslims. (Again, not saying you, specifically, have made that remark).

Sure, I can understand that. And in the interest of clarity, I don’t condone or support or wish for violence or discrimination against Muslims as people, either. I do take umbrage with the term “Islamaphobia”, but not enough to fight you on it. It’s too entrenched in the lexicon of this debate, politically speaking, to move away from anyway.

Reading it is certainly on my to do list. That said, the very vast majority of people who participate in these discussions also haven't read the entire book, either. My strong belief that Islam isn't specifically to blame is based moreso on the testaments of the vast majority of people who follow Islam, yet somehow do not end up committing terrorist attacks, and who expressly forbid them.

I concede this to you. I was likely hasty in my 'Absolutely nothing promotes violence' reply. Maybe someone else on here is more educated in the Qu'ran verse by verse, but I'm not one of those debaters who will google and pass it off as knowledge.

Well, that’s the thing. It doesn’t “expressly forbid” it, at all. Because it’s interpretive, and tends to follow beauty with prescriptions of violence like in the 5:32 and 5:33. Just like the Bible. Just like all the Abrahamic religions. The Bible is actually, statistically speaking, more violent than the Qur’an, but Christianity has largely been forced into modernity. Islam hasn’t. It used to be at the epicenter of scientific and mathematical advancement, but lost it’s way in the 11th century and has never recovered. Algebra, for example, is an Arabic term, and much of the early work done in it was done by Muslim mathematicians.

But Islam is still not specifically to blame. It shares some of the blame. Not all of it.

In the Western world, these people are championed; they're major members of their communities, who constantly argue against terrorism and extremism. I think it's difficult when you say 'force them into modernity', because it comes across as telling a couple billion people that their religious beliefs are wrong, and need to change. Which is one of the reasons we have these issues to begin with. I'm not against this, but we have to tread carefully to not make the situation worse.

They’re championed by Westerners. Not by Muslims. Not nearly enough, at least, and their work at Islamic reform and criticisms of the religion has earned most of them fatwas. People like Ayaan Hirsi Ali now have to travel the world speaking on the need for Muslim reform with personal security to keep her alive. I believe Nawaz was recently issued a fatwa as well.

As to the rest of your post, if we’re talking about things like apostasy laws, the stoning/killing of homosexuals and adulterers, and Sharia law, I don’t care how many of them there are. Their beliefs are objectively wrong, and absolutely incompatible with Western values and modern, liberal society. There are, no doubt, better means to combat this than telling them they’re wrong, but they are wrong. Just like Christians who oppress women’s reproductive rights, and incite or actually kill abortion doctors (to name a few) are also wrong.

Again, no issues with this, but we have to tread very carefully. The US has gotten into a lot of trouble, with a terrible amount of deaths, in the name of democracy in foreign nations.

Because they largely did it alone. They were foolish to try. A much larger global initiative needs to be tried, and needs to be tried in conjunction with the promotion of moderates/reformists within the religion in these nations.

Assuming you are referring only to the terrorism by ISIS that Western media presents as the biggest thread to US citizens ever, because you are intelligent enough to know terrorism is not only exclusive to Islam.

When I say it’s exclusive to Islam, I’m probably slightly over-speaking. What I mean to say is that Islam is the only religion on the planet right now where this is happening this often. There are Buddhist terrorists. There are Christian terrorists. But when we’re talking about religious terror, Islam leads the way by miles. That’s what I mean by “exclusive”. Probably too strong a term to use, but that’s what I mean to say.

 

[ShinChan]

Interestingly, a couple of days ago, I thought about this and had decided to make a thread about in here.

I think that religion isn't directly connected to terrorism but it is indirectly. Now I don't mean that All terrorists follow Islam or vice-versa. That would be dumb to think. One bad apple doesn't convey that the whole set of apples would come out as being bad.

What I believe is that these terrorists have NO religion whatsoever. No religion gives consent to such violence and exploitation of fundamental human rights.

These guys are brainwashed in the way that if you kill these people, you would be loved by God and made to enter heaven. They are assured that their family would be taken care of even after they die doing some terror activity.

Another thing I want to add is that there's a small cause of it too. At many places, Muslims are discriminated based on religion which is wrong enough. This in turn helps the cause of terror heads as they can easily provoke these guys who faced discrimination. I amn't endorsing that terrorism is right, I am just saying that there's a cause which needs to be stopped as soon as possible.

 

[yourdamnluck]

A few things.

First... they flat out say that the reason they do what they do is because of various tenets of Islam... who the fuck are you to say that they aren't really? I mean damn, how belittling is that to Muslim people that you think you know their religion better than they do.

Second, I've long struggled to understand why it's so important for people to make sure that it is understood that ISIS is Islamic. Yes, this particular group of crazies are using Islam to justify their actions. In Africa there are numerous armies that use Christianity to justify their actions. There are neo-Nazis worldwide that use race to justify their actions. There are Trump supporters that use nationality to justify their actions. Why is it so important to people that EVERYONE KNOWS that ISIS uses Islam as their justification? Is it because so many people deny it and you find it frustrating when people deny facts?

Conversely, I also struggle to understand what about this concept is so upsetting to people. I know that there are idiots (like the one I quote below) who will think all of Islam carries some blame for the actions of ISIS, but that's clearly untrue. Few people blame the entirety of the Catholic Church for the rape scandals, why should it be different for Islamic extremism? Just because idiots (like the one I quote below) might misinterpret ISIS to mean all of Islam is dangerous doesn't mean that we should deny the truth. It means we should educate them on the fact that not all Islam is dangerous, or at the very least that they are acting like idiots (like the guy I quote below).

Yeah, ISIS is influenced by Islam. We all knew that. Even the people who claim it isn't influenced by Islam probably know that.



Wow, you're a fucking idiot.

The most liberal Muslim people do not treat their women like shit. The most liberal Muslim people behave in a manner indistinguishable from most liberal Americans/British/French/wherever they live.

Don't regurgitate the shit you hear from Rush Limbaugh, you'll wind up looking stupider than he does.



Any countries with theocratic governments tend to do seriously fucked up shit in the name of religion. In Uganda they murder gay people without consequence. In the Catholic Church they allow(ed) priests to rape children without consequence.

As long as people in charge believe that what they're doing is justified by religion, they'll do whatever they want.



Then you're an idiot, a bigot, and above all else, a massive coward.

You fucking jihadi sympathiser i know about neo nazis and lord's resistance army. I know about the great purge and the holocaust. Even buddhists have extremists amongst them. But does that make the jihadis less evil?
I believe religion was just a lie told to people like the present day jihadis to carve out kingdoms. Religion has always been used to make money or get laid. These jihadis die for their 72 or 74 virgins that are promised to them in jihadi heaven. It has everything to do with religion. The word 'jihad' is used in the context of war against the non believers.

And since you are such a good apologist how'd you explain the fact that all muslim majority countries are undemocratic, have poor human rights record and still follow their backward sharia law. Even though quite a few of them are rich.
You are the bigot not willing to see things for what they are.