Islam - What's your view on it?

[TexRex]

Heh.

 

[UKMikey]

Heh.

Post #5035 in which he states (not "ASKS") that India and France have bigger problems than the US and UK due to their 5% and 12% Muslim minorities was still there last time I checked. Does he act this way every time someone asks for verification?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yes, the number of radical terrorists in the community at any one time can be small. But remember, the agreed to question included the the toleration of the culture to the outrages. I agree worry is not precisely the answer. Neither is protest. Panic is worse. But as you've acknowledged, surprise is no longer available as an excuse.

I'd love to see the figures for the number of white christians in Northern Ireland who tacitly support the idea of armed uprising against the occupying state, or the number of white christians in the southern USA who feel the same way about the Federal government. Trust me, it's not the brown lads who are the big problem for our countries' governments. They're just easier to spot on the bus.

EDIT: Found some figures for NI, similar percentage of supporters to the entire percentage of Muslim population that you quoted. That's interesting, but keep looking the way the news tells you to, not the way that experience suggests.

 

[Imari]

Does he act this way every time someone asks for verification?

Short answer: yes.

You may not question Dotini, nor debate with him. The moment he detects the conversation moving in a direction that indicates that you might not agree with him and therefore there might need to be some foundation provided for his viewpoints, he'll immediately adopt the posture of a victim.

You could actually see him telegraphing it earlier in the thread.

Is the purpose of this forum to promote and tolerate a diversity of opinion, or is it to drive opinion into agreement and consensus?

This is not what someone who is interested in having a discussion for the sake of discussion says. This is someone who sees discussion as something to be won or lost. If you agree with someone else's opinion, you've lost, and therefore having a discussion where it might turn out that you change your mind is simply opening yourself up to "losing".

The thing to do is to stick rigidly to your opinions, and if you don't tell anyone how those opinions were formed it's impossible for them to be undermined. Which is ironically how fake news works, as much as Dotini rails against that as well.

 

[Dotini]

I'd love to see the figures for the number of white christians in Northern Ireland who tacitly support the idea of armed uprising against the occupying state, or the number of white christians in the southern USA who feel the same way about the Federal government. Trust me, it's not the brown lads who are the big problem for our countries' governments. They're just easier to spot on the bus.

EDIT: Found some figures for NI, similar percentage of supporters to the entire percentage of Muslim population that you quoted. That's interesting, but keep looking the way the news tells you to, not the way that experience suggests.

From your source, it seems everybody over there feels some degree of support for paramilitary violence. In my experience, paramilitary violence is seldom seen in the USA. Bottom line, humans are almost exactly the same all around the world. Differences in DNA and basic behaviors is minimal. Sometimes mass atrocities will draw historical attention.

Table 5. Religious differences in public support in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland for the use of paramilitary violence, 1999

Percentages
Republic of Ireland

Republicans:
A lot of sympathy A little sympathy No sympathy
(N)

Loyalists:
A lot of sympathy A little sympathy No sympathy
(N)

Northern Ireland Prot. Cath. Total

0.0 7.4 3.6 10.2 34.6 21.9 89.8 58.0 74.6

(410) (376) (786)

4.6 1.9 3.3 19.5 28.9 24.0 75.9 69.2 72.7

(410) (377) (787)

Prot.

0.4 20.3 79.2

(236)

0.4 24.7 74.9

(235)

Cath. Total

8.8 6.9 36.4 32.8 54.8 60.3

(816) (1,052)

3.2 2.6 31.3 29.8 65.4 67.6

(804) (1,039)

Note: The questions were as follows: ‘‘Now thinking about the reasons why some Loyalist groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don’t condone the violence yourself? And, thinking about the reasons why some Republican groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don’t condone the violence yourself?’’

Source: Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland European Values Study, 1999–2000.

 

[TenEightyOne]

From your source, it seems everybody over there feels some degree of support for paramilitary violence.

No: "Now thinking about the reasons why some Loyalist groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don’t condone the violence yourself? And, thinking about the reasons why some Republican groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don’t condone the violence yourself?".

It's correct to say that a proportion supported the use of violence, not that all supported the use of violence.

 

[Dotini]

No: "Now thinking about the reasons why some Loyalist groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don’t condone the violence yourself? And, thinking about the reasons why some Republican groups have used violence during the troubles, would you say that you have any sympathy with the reasons for violence, even if you don’t condone the violence yourself?".

It's correct to say that a proportion supported the use of violence, not that all supported the use of violence.

It's even more correct to say that some level of support for violence existed on all sides. It was a range, a spectrum. The people on both sides are essentially the same in terms of DNA, daily life ways and so on. They merely have incompatible religio-political ideologies. Same with Muslims/Christians, yankees/cowboys, thieves/philanthropists.

 

[Imari]

Islam and Christianity are not really incompatible, at least from the Islamic side. There are some sects that go hardcore, but generally Islam looks favourably on other Abrahamic religions as they are kind of the older brothers of Islam.

In fact, Islam is one of the few religions that pretty explicitly allows freedom of religion within it's societies, whether a given sect/country chooses to recognise that or not. Remember that when these religions began, there was no difference between church and state; the church WAS the state. Islam was surprisingly progressive for the time.

https://www.academia.edu/35626405/Rights_of_Minorities_under_Islam

God does not forbid you from doing good and being just to those who have neither fought you over your faith nor evicted you from your homes... - Quran 60:8

I think that's a good sentiment for everyone.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I don't see that happening, what I see happening is a reinforcement of the idea that religion en masse isn't an automatic overarching driver of these things. Priests can be in same sex marriages, for example, something which is impossible under the Generalised View Of How All Religion Works.

But how many individual acts have to be occur before people come to a conclusion about a religion's influence.

 

[baldgye]

But how many individual acts have to be occur before people come to a conclusion about a religion's influence.

If we're talking about Islam, probably a lot....

According to a study in 2015, Islam has 1.8 billion adherents...
Wikipedia

 

[HenrySwanson]

If we're talking about Islam, probably a lot....

But then if you put it in context with other religions, just in two days around the festive period (24/25 December) at least 53 people have died from Islamic violence across the world

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Christian-captives-Nigeria-Christmas-Day.html
https://www.voanews.com/africa/7-killed-nigeria-jihadist-attack-christmas-eve
https://news.yahoo.com/jihadists-motorbikes-kill-35-civilians-004024538.html

If we compare that to all other religions for the whole month of December, has anywhere close to that number been murdered in the name of Judaism, Christianity, Sikhism et al?

Likewise if we looked at homosexuality and Christianity, it would be seen as less tolerant on LGBT issues because of the relative amount of actions against the community than say Buddhism (even if there can be gay priests as TenEightyOne said).

 

[baldgye]

But how many individual acts

...in two days around the festive period (24/25 December) at least 53 people have died from Islamic violence across the world

...in 3 acts
So now you don't want to compare acts of violence, but the death toll of said actions?


For the record, I don't think it's meaningful to compare religions by death tolls or the actions of extremists, because all the major religions are generally bad, because people can use any excuse for violence.

You look at how the extremism is disseminated throughout those religions and why...

 

[Dobermann92]

Islam and Christianity are not really incompatible, at least from the Islamic side. There are some sects that go hardcore, but generally Islam looks favourably on other Abrahamic religions as they are kind of the older brothers of Islam.

In fact, Islam is one of the few religions that pretty explicitly allows freedom of religion within it's societies, whether a given sect/country chooses to recognise that or not. Remember that when these religions began, there was no difference between church and state; the church WAS the state. Islam was surprisingly progressive for the time.

https://www.academia.edu/35626405/Rights_of_Minorities_under_Islam

God does not forbid you from doing good and being just to those who have neither fought you over your faith nor evicted you from your homes... - Quran 60:8

I think that's a good sentiment for everyone.

Except Islam taxed christians and jews for their religious beliefs and safety. But you can cherry pick good and bad verses from the Quran all day long (and from the Bible too, just like any "holy" book), it doesn't change the fact that what the polls show and what the general muslim populus thinks about in a muslim country or even in Western Europe. You did not answer to my proposition that we should fight every religion because it promotes superstition whether it is true or not. No matter how peaceful it is (for example jainism is the most peaceful religion I can think of) people should know that they believe false things and should not do actions which are not objectively true (and this should be done by criticism and education, not by force). No religion should avoid criticism because there are peaceful people practising it and it can hurt their feelings.

 

[HenrySwanson]

...in 3 acts
So now you don't want to compare acts of violence, but the death toll of said actions?


For the record, I don't think it's meaningful to compare religions by death tolls or the actions of extremists, because all the major religions are generally bad, because people can use any excuse for violence.

You look at how the extremism is disseminated throughout those religions and why...

OK so if we look at acts instead of casualties are we then suddenly going to see parity between the religions? I think the amount killed is useful in rhetoric (e.g. we all know how many Jews were generally thought to have been killed by the Nazis), but I take your point and then ask how many have been killed in the name of religions other than Islam this month?

Your second point doesn't make sense. Is the real reason you don't want to compare such metrics because you are uncomfortable to see the results....

Surely if all religions are as bad each other with regards to violence, Christianity should have more extremists killing in the name of Jesus/God.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Except Islam taxed christians and jews for their religious beliefs and safety.

And vice versa, of course. Christians even did the same to other sects of Christians and, arguably, still do in some countries.

But you can cherry pick good and bad verses from the Quran all day long (and from the Bible too, just like any "holy" book), it doesn't change the fact that what the polls show and what the general muslim populus thinks about in a muslim country or even in Western Europe.

Exactly, which is why the number of Christians who support armed struggle in the UK should be more concerning - the percentage in support was the same as the entire percentage of the population formed by Muslims. Fascinating.

You did not answer to my proposition that we should fight every religion because it promotes superstition whether it is true or not. No matter how peaceful it is (for example jainism is the most peaceful religion I can think of) people should know that they believe false things and should not do actions which are not objectively true

It's human nature to find supernatural causes. Religions are only part of that, they're not responsible for the underlying phenomenon. Humans is.

No religion should avoid criticism because there are peaceful people practising it and it can hurt their feelings.

Of course not, it's part of a good balanced discussion. That balance isn't always evident here, I have to say.

 

[baldgye]

...how many have been killed in the name of religions other than Islam this month...

So arbritary... why don't we get sERiouS and narrow it down to the last 15 seconds?

 

[Imari]

Except Islam taxed christians and jews for their religious beliefs and safety. But you can cherry pick good and bad verses from the Quran all day long (and from the Bible too, just like any "holy" book), it doesn't change the fact that what the polls show and what the general muslim populus thinks about in a muslim country or even in Western Europe. You did not answer to my proposition that we should fight every religion because it promotes superstition whether it is true or not. No matter how peaceful it is (for example jainism is the most peaceful religion I can think of) people should know that they believe false things and should not do actions which are not objectively true (and this should be done by criticism and education, not by force). No religion should avoid criticism because there are peaceful people practising it and it can hurt their feelings.

I don't see any problem with people believing whatever they choose to believe. If that leads them to problematic actions, deal with those.

You seem like the militant atheist type, who I view as just another form of the door-knocking Mormon stereotype, or perhaps the hysterical anti-homosexuality type. You're so caught up in the righteousness of your own beliefs that you don't stop to consider that maybe it's none of your business to tell other people what to think. Policing behaviour is one thing and is necessary for a well-ordered and considerate society, but personally I draw the line at telling other people what to think. And that includes religion.

If people want out of religion, there are more than enough resources out there for them to do so. Arguably, you don't need any resources at all other than some simple common sense to talk yourself out of any of the major religions. If they don't want out and are happy where they are, why do you want to change that?

Personally, I see religious people doing the exact same things all humans do; adapting to their environments and responding as best they can to try and make life better for themselves. You don't remove the problems by removing Islam, you remove the problems by removing the systemic problems that lead to groups of people that reasonably rationally think that things like war and oppression are ways to make the world better. Because if war and oppression is better, how bad is what they're dealing with beforehand?

You did not answer to my proposition that we should fight every religion because it promotes superstition whether it is true or not.

Okay? It wasn't specifically directed at me, so I felt no particular pressure to answer that specific point. You'll notice that I don't respond to everything that you post.

 

[TexRex]

Except Islam taxed christians and jews for their religious beliefs and safety.

Just how, pray tell, did Islam implement taxation? What I suspect you mean to say is that people taxed Christians and Jews for their religious beliefs and safety. Without people to implement it, taxation is a non-starter.

You did not answer to my proposition that we should fight every religion because it promotes superstition whether it is true or not. No matter how peaceful it is (for example jainism is the most peaceful religion I can think of) people should know that they believe false things and should not do actions which are not objectively true (and this should be done by criticism and education, not by force).

Belief is benign. It takes people to act in a manner that negatively (or even positively*) affects others. That people have demonstrated a willingness to do so in the absence of [insert particular belief system] suggests they should be judged based on their actions and not on whatever they may or may not believe.

*See my earlier quote regarding making heaven for yourself and not making hell for others.

No religion should avoid criticism because there are peaceful people practising it and it can hurt their feelings.

Strawman. The expectation that participants in a discussion demonstrate critical thought and make an effort to substantiate assertions when asked isn't "political correctness".

 

[Dotini]

Islamic State beheads 11 Christians on Christmas Day. It's apparently understandable since it was said to be in revenge for the US killing 2 highest ranking ISIS leaders earlier in the year.
https://www.newsweek.com/isis-execu...s-avenge-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-nigeria-1479341

 

[UKMikey]

Strawmen and miserable distortions aside, this article was linked from the one in the previous post. It suggests that by anti terrorism forces concentrating on one particular ideology, far right terrorism has increased.

https://www.newsweek.com/far-right-...20-percent-4-years-extremism-watchdog-1472642

 

[Dotini]

Strawmen and miserable distortions aside, this article was linked from the one in the previous post. It suggests that by anti terrorism forces concentrating on one particular ideology, far right terrorism has increased.

https://www.newsweek.com/far-right-...20-percent-4-years-extremism-watchdog-1472642

I ask why anti-terrorism forces were concentrating on one particular ideology? I don't suppose it had anything to do with 9/11 or the takeover of major portions of Iraq and Syria by Islamic militants establishing a brutal religious Caliphate in lieu of elected government?

Are you suggesting the anti-terrorism forces lack justification?

 

[UKMikey]

I ask why anti-terrorism forces were concentrating on one particular ideology? I don't suppose it had anything to do with 9/11 or the takeover of major portions of Iraq and Syria by Islamic militants establishing a religious Caliphate in lieu of elected government?

Oh, you're talking to me again? Given the facts set down in the second article I'm asking whether concentrating on one particular ideology and defunding efforts to combat the others was the most effective course of action.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I ask why anti-terrorism forces were concentrating on one particular ideology?

Did the article say that they were? I couldn't see that, perhaps you could quote the section for this elderly reader?

 

[Dotini]

Oh, you're talking to me again? Given the facts set down in the second article I'm asking whether concentrating on one particular ideology and defunding efforts to combat the others was the most effective course of action.

From the article you cited, it seems deaths from Islamic terrorists is running at over 10,000/yr, while deaths attributed to right wing terrorists have zoomed to 77.

Just for the record, I condemn all forms of terrorism. I don't see you condemning or justifying Islamic terrorism, I just see you trying desperately to change the subject. Please demonstrate your critical thought.

Did the article say that they were? I couldn't see that, perhaps you could quote the section for this elderly reader?

I just took Mikey's word for it. It seems he was lying, and I shouldn't have trusted him.

 

[UKMikey]

Did the article say that they were? I couldn't see that, perhaps you could quote the section for this elderly reader?

You're right, maybe I should've said concentrating more. I'll quote the article for those who didn't click through.

Western intelligence and security services have largely focused on Islamist terror over the past two decades, pivoting to face the threat from groups like Al-Qaeda and later ISIS. This has taken the focus off right-wing groups, which in recent years have become more prominent and deadly.

In January 2019, the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism reported that every extremist killing in the U.S. in 2018 was linked to far-right individuals or organizations.

Despite pressure to do more to combat the far-right, President Donald Trump's administration has defunded programs intended to stop the radicalization of young white people.

Steve Killelea, the Founder and Executive Chairman of the IEP, noted that although the growth in right-wing terror was starting from "a low base," the 320 percent increase in such attacks between 2014 and 2018 is cause for serious concern.

He added that most of the deaths in North America, Western Europe and Oceania linked to far-right activity were in the U.S. and Canada. One factor is the easy access to firearms in North America, he explained.

The report noted that over the past four decades, around one-fifth of all mass shootings in the U.S. has been classified as terrorist attacks of some ideology. But in the last 10 years, that figure has risen to one third.

The majority of right-wing terror terrorists are not aligned to any particular group, operating as so-called "lone wolf" attackers—though some experts have argued the phrase "lone wolf" is misleading given the process of radicalization all terrorists go through and the networks they belong to.

Islamist attackers also often act alone—especially since the rise of ISIS—but the predominance of lone right-wing terrorists makes it "hard for a security organization to actually track them down and stop attacks in advance," Killelea explained.

The causes of such a trend are myriad, but Killelea said there is "a rise in people who are disaffected with the system," borne out in a loss of belief in political leadership and democratic ideals and exacerbated by economic inequality and a lack of opportunity.

These problems are not going away, meaning right-wing terror attacks could become more and more common.

"I think the trend for far-right terrorist activity is on is on the increase," Killelea said. "Where that goes two, three years out from now is difficult to determine."

Incidentally I resent being called a liar and I'm pretty sure knowingly posting false information is against the AUP but it's looking increasingly like no accusation is beneath Dotini.

 

[Imari]

I ask why anti-terrorism forces were concentrating on one particular ideology? I don't suppose it had anything to do with 9/11 or the takeover of major portions of Iraq and Syria by Islamic militants establishing a brutal religious Caliphate in lieu of elected government?

Yeah, because those things totally happened out of the blue with no inciting provocation whatsoever.

The west made it's bed with regards to the Middle East some time ago. You think 9/11 would still have happened if the US hadn't created Al Qaeda? If they hadn't overthrown and destabilised countries in the Middle East for their own benefit? You're old enough to know the modern history of the Middle East, you've been around for most of it.

Look, there's an argument to be made for foreign policy by aggressive militarism and "nation building", aka installing puppet governments that are sympathetic. But there are downsides to these strategies as well, and one of them is the potential to create groups that hate you and all you stand for at a fundamental level because they see you as destroying their country. You know, patriotism. Turns out that a lot of these groups are Muslim because the US and it's allies messed with a lot of Muslim nations.

You don't see the same from the Russian Orthodoxy because the US is very careful about how it interferes with Russia, and China as well while we're at it. The majority of the Christian nations are on the same team as the US, and the one Jewish one I suppose.

So yeah, there's a disparity at the moment but it's not because of religion directly. It's because there was a common religion amongst a group of countries who were insufficiently westernised for the US and it's allies to allow them to continue on their own path, fell prey to modernised colonialism, and then their people had the testicular fortitude to feel some pride for their country and culture and do something about it.

You telling me that if China overthrew the White House and installed Chinese affiliated yes-men to run the country, you wouldn't feel aggrieved? I guarantee that there would be thousands of rednecks that would gladly give their lives to fly a plane into Xi Jinping if that happened. Americans are patriotic af, they just somehow often don't recognise that other people might feel the same way.

 

[Dotini]

Yeah, because those things totally happened out of the blue with no inciting provocation whatsoever.

The west made it's bed with regards to the Middle East some time ago. You think 9/11 would still have happened if the US hadn't created Al Qaeda? If they hadn't overthrown and destabilised countries in the Middle East for their own benefit? You're old enough to know the modern history of the Middle East, you've been around for most of it.

Look, there's an argument to be made for foreign policy by aggressive militarism and "nation building", aka installing puppet governments that are sympathetic. But there are downsides to these strategies as well, and one of them is the potential to create groups that hate you and all you stand for at a fundamental level because they see you as destroying their country. You know, patriotism. Turns out that a lot of these groups are Muslim because the US and it's allies messed with a lot of Muslim nations.

You don't see the same from the Russian Orthodoxy because the US is very careful about how it interferes with Russia, and China as well while we're at it. The majority of the Christian nations are on the same team as the US, and the one Jewish one I suppose.

So yeah, there's a disparity at the moment but it's not because of religion directly. It's because there was a common religion amongst a group of countries who were insufficiently westernised for the US and it's allies to allow them to continue on their own path, fell prey to modernised colonialism, and then their people had the testicular fortitude to feel some pride for their country and culture and do something about it.

You telling me that if China overthrew the White House and installed Chinese affiliated yes-men to run the country, you wouldn't feel aggrieved? I guarantee that there would be thousands of rednecks that would gladly give their lives to fly a plane into Xi Jinping if that happened. Americans are patriotic af, they just somehow often don't recognise that other people might feel the same way.

I totally agree the US has been messing with other countries for decades. Blowback in the form of additional terrorism and recently immigration of refugees is inescapable and in this case has been very heavy. In a very real sense, we "have it coming", as do Britain, France and Germany. We messed up a lot of Germany and Japan in WWII, but plenty of them live happily in the US now. They could have taken the path of revenge, but chose more wisely.

 

[Imari]

We messed up a lot of Germany and Japan in WWII, but plenty of them live happily in the US now. They could have taken the path of revenge, but chose more wisely.

Plenty of Germans and Japanese were aggrieved, and no doubt some still are, but 70 years is long enough that there are few left alive now who experienced WWII first hand.

I suspect that in 2070, perhaps all this will have blown over enough that the relationship between the US and the Middle Eastern countries may have been mended. Probably not, as the US seems intent on continuing to stick it's military willy where it's not wanted and so constantly resetting the clock, but if enough time passes without foreign interference then eventually the population may forget that it happened.

 

[baldgye]

I just see you trying desperately to change the subject.

*changes topic title FOr tHe LulZ*

 

[PocketZeven]

I ask why anti-terrorism forces were concentrating on one particular ideology? I don't suppose it had anything to do with 9/11 or the takeover of major portions of Iraq and Syria by Islamic militants establishing a brutal religious Caliphate in lieu of elected government?

Are you suggesting the anti-terrorism forces lack justification?

It isn’t new. During the Cold War “communism” was the enemy. Which resulted in the Vietnam war. “Islam” wasn’t an enemy back then.