Islam - What's your view on it?

[HenrySwanson]

Since I cant go back in time you have more then enough historical record:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..._and_mass_ethnic_and/or_religious_persecution

Why measure since Islam was founded? Why are the deaths in the name of other religions before not relevant?

edit:

Even when you measure from the founding of Islam then it isnt the most violent ideology/religion.

I don't understand how your link proves anything? There's nothing there showing deaths in the name of specific religions..

I'll ask again - have you got facts to back up your claims?

Go back and read when I said, this time without inserting your own words in it.

Your logic doesn't make sense. A murder mystery may have more violent passages but it's not setting out instructions to its readers on how to act.

It means (and it back up by numerous peer reviewed papers) that intelegence us not a genetic trait related to race, as race us an entirely social construct.

No it doesn't! Show me where it debunks the theory that ethnicity and intelligence are related..

Rather simple, they are using it for social purposes rather than one based on science

Isn't it rather social purposes based on science..

I agree, used by the far right.

Wait, what? You're the one who used it..

Actually science does agree on this, it's not caused by race, the papers have been provided to you, you've just refused to read or understand them.

Can you show me some definitive papers that demonstrate it is not caused by ethnicity. If I remember from PC thread I provided some showing that non-biased markers of intelligence were present in early childhood and differed between ethnicities.

Interesting, why do you want to exclude half of the Christian timeline line and the majority of the Jewish one?

I don't want to exclude - you're free to include things before Islam was made up. I am however more interested in comparing like with like, and if you're going to compare a religion that has a 600 year headstart vs Islam I'd wager that it's not the best way to conduct a fair study.

 

[Scaff]

Your logic doesn't make sense. A murder mystery may have more violent passages but it's not setting out instructions to its readers on how to act.

They both set out instructions, how did you miss that?

No it doesn't! Show me where it debunks the theory that ethnicity and intelligence are related..

They have already been provided, repeatedly, you simply keep ignoring them.

You also seem to forget that you are the one making such a claim, as such the burden of proof rests with you.

Isn't it rather social purposes based on science..

You've provided zero evidence of that being the case.

Wait, what? You're the one who used it..

Nope, I used it in rebuttal to your user, to point out the absurdity of it.

Can you show me some definitive papers that demonstrate it is not caused by ethnicity. If I remember from PC thread I provided some showing that non-biased markers of intelligence were present in early childhood and differed between ethnicities.

Again its already been done, and you ignored the fact that plenty of other factors exist in early childhood and focused only on race, despite it remaining a correlation only.

I don't want to exclude - you're free to include things before Islam was made up. I am however more interested in comparing like with like, and if you're going to compare a religion that has a 600 year headstart vs Islam I'd wager that it's not the best way to conduct a fair study.

Then compair the first x number of years of each.

 

[Dotini]

Then compair the first x number of years of each.

It may be as well to simultaneously compare the most recent 100 years.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't understand how your link proves anything? There's nothing there showing deaths in the name of specific religions..

I'll ask again - have you got facts to back up your claims?

I cannot give you an accurate number for various reasons. For example lets look at the holocaust of approx. 6 million deaths. The single biggest genocide known to man. One could argue these deaths were not in the name of christianity, but since it was targeted at people of a certain religion it most definately was motivated because of religion. Would you account that to deaths in the name of religion or not?

Also many anti Muslim groups claim outragous numbers of deaths and attribute them to be in the name of Islam, without any proof at all. For example the muslim conquest of India, which is often cited as having 80 million casualties without evidence or even legitimate sources. Apparantly muslims murdered 80 million without a historical record, all the while still being a minority in India at the time and to this day?

• The Crusades: 6,000,000 Christianity
  
• Thirty Years War: 11,500,000 Catholics vs protestants
  
• French Wars of Religion: 4,000,000 Catholics vs protestants
  
• Second Sudanese Civil War: 2,000,000 Islam
  
• Lebanese Civil War: 250,000 Islam vs Christianity
  
• Armenian Genocide: 1,500,000 Islam
  
• Rwandan Genocide: 800,000 hutu vs tutsi
  
• Eighty Years' War: 1,000,000 vs protestants
  
• Nigerian Civil War: 1,000,000vs Igbo
  
• Great Peasants' Revolt: 250,000 protestants
  
• First Sudanese Civil War: 1,000,000 christianity
  
• Jewish Diaspora (Not Including the Holocaust): 1,000,000 vd Jews
  
• The Holocaust (Jewish and Homosexual Deaths): 6,500,000 vs Jews
  
• Islamic Terrorism Since 2000: 150,000 Islam
  
• Iraq War: 500,000 vs Islam
  
• US Western Expansion :20,000,000 is this motivated by Christianity?
  
• Atlantic Slave Trade (Justified by Christianity): 14,000,000 christianity?
  
• Aztec Human Sacrifice: 80,000
  
• AIDS deaths in Africa largely due to opposition to condoms: 30,000,000 Is this religiously motivated?
  
• Spanish Inquisition: 5,000 christianity

edit:
There is no evidence to back the claim that Islam is somehow more violent then other religions.

 

[Scaff]

Let's just add this in for @HenrySwanson



https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1229310805189054464.html

It calls you scientifically illiterate as well.

 

[Danoff]

but since it was targeted at people of a certain religion it most definately was motivated because of religion

Pretty sure it was race. Jewish is a race as well as a religion. I'm guessing Hitler wasn't interested if you were willing to disavow Judaism.

 

[Scaff]

Pretty sure it was race. Jewish is a race as well as a religion. I'm guessing Hitler wasn't interested if you were willing to disavow Judaism.

It was a combination of both, Mein Kampf also laid out the clear religious background to it at well.

 

[Danoff]

It was a combination of both, Mein Kampf also laid out the clear religious background to it at well.

I'm not super familiar with the contents of Mein Kampf, but I perused the wikipedia page just now. Sure am glad we're not banning access to this information since it's quite interesting. I see your point. It seems the Hitler (like so many others) conflated race with ideology. So to be jewish was to be a member of an inferior race and also simultaneously automatically an inferior ideology.

A similar move was made for the Russians, since their "race" was also mixed with their communist ideology.

I'm still not convinced that Hitler makes the best example as someone who was persecuting religion. It seems like he was just interested in persecuting. But you and @PocketZeven are definitely right that religion was a component.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Jewish is a race as well as a religion.

As an aside to the thread's topic: if anybody has access to David Baddiel's documentary about Holocaust Denial on the BBC iPlayer it's well worth watching. Baddiel is a writer and comedian who is atheist and Jewish. The programme is an entertaining but horrifically sobering watch.

 

[PocketZeven]

Pretty sure it was race. Jewish is a race as well as a religion. I'm guessing Hitler wasn't interested if you were willing to disavow Judaism.

Nope, not a Race. Nazis believed it was though, they defined that there was one "pure" race.

That said, there is only one race, the human race. We all share the same genetics, we have different appearances in skincolour etc. because of ethnicity.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Nope, not a Race.

By the social definitions used to determine "race" it is a race. David Baddiel, who I linked to earlier, makes interesting points that he is an atheist but a Jew. It's a valid racial identifier and one that becomes particularly important if you frame it in contexts like Holocaust study or Nazi history.

 

[Danoff]

Nope, not a Race. Nazis believed it was though, they defined that there was one "pure" race.

That said, there is only one race, the human race. We all share the same genetics, we have different appearances in skincolour etc. because of ethnicity.

To the extent that race exists (which I agree is dubious), "Jewish" is considered one of them, and was considered one by the Nazis. And one of the big motivators behind Nazi.. uh... antics?... was genetics.

 

[Scaff]

Nope, not a Race. Nazis believed it was though, they defined that there was one "pure" race.

That said, there is only one race, the human race. We all share the same genetics, we have different appearances in skincolour etc. because of ethnicity.

Race as a social construct (which it is) as such it can be applied in this case.

 

[PocketZeven]

By the social definitions used to determine "race" it is a race. David Baddiel, who I linked to earlier, makes interesting points that he is an atheist but a Jew. It's a valid racial identifier and one that becomes particularly important if you frame it in contexts like Holocaust study or Nazi history.

That is where I very much disagree with. For a jew to be a different Race, that would mean the human race having subspecies. The word "race" suggest genetical differences between these subspecies.

Race as a social construct (which it is) as such it can be applied in this case.

The english language should correct this. Too many believe humans are different because of genetics aka "races".

edit: I suspect the social defenition was only added later as an afterthought or lack of a better word.. Humans as different races originated from the belief of different genetics.

edit 2:

By the social definitions used to determine "race" it is a race. David Baddiel, who I linked to earlier, makes interesting points that he is an atheist but a Jew. It's a valid racial identifier and one that becomes particularly important if you frame it in contexts like Holocaust study or Nazi history.

We dont define jews as an ethnicity here though.

 

[baldgye]

As an aside to the thread's topic: if anybody has access to David Baddiel's documentary about Holocaust Denial on the BBC iPlayer it's well worth watching. Baddiel is a writer and comedian who is atheist and Jewish. The programme is an entertaining but horrifically sobering watch.

I managed to catch this show last night and it was very sobering, but I feel like the ‘interview’ with the antisemite was very irresponsible.
There is a way you have to approach people like that, research you need to do in order to rubbish their insane conspiracies. Just saying “that’s a lie though” does nothing, these people have been arguing their lies for years and are very well practiced in arguing. It felt like he had done no research into these points in order to make that racist chap seem as ridiculous as he was.

Given the current political climate in the U.K. I think David needed to basically either not interview that person or one like it and debunk the common conspiracies. Or logically debate these people into showing clearly, how ridiculous their conspiracies are. I think the same needs to be done for all racist and or xenophobic conspiracy theories. There is so much sudo science online peddled by these types of people and without clear, straightforward debunking of them, it’s easy for uninformed people to be suckered in.

Edit:
@TenEightyOne his argument that holocaust denial is hate speech is interesting though. While it isn't classed as such in the UK and the US is is in many other nations. Thinking back to this thread, if holocaust denial (on the basis that its designed around spreading hate against Jews) could be considered hate speech, couldn't racist propaganda (like the lie that black people have a lower IQ than white people) also be considered hate speech?

 

[Scaff]

Another one for @HenrySwanson

The lovely end result of an individual who swallows the whole race and intelligence nonsense.

 

[baldgye]

Race as a social construct (which it is) as such it can be applied in this case.

It's funny isn't it how people forget this. These days for example, you'd consider an Irish person part of the 'white races'... yet not so long ago that very much wasn't the case

 

[PocketZeven]

It's funny isn't it how people forget this. These days for example, you'd consider an Irish person part of the 'white races'... yet not so long ago that very much wasn't the case

Somehow the word "race" ignites the belief in some people that there some "races" or superior. Ethnicity prevents that. I dont see how one claims his ehtnicity is superior to the other.

 

[Scaff]

Somehow the word "race" ignites the belief in some people that there some "races" or superior. Ethnicity prevents that. I dont see how one claims his ehtnicity is superior to the other.

We've actually had people on this site attempt to do just that, swapping race for ethnicity in regard to intelegence.

 

[PocketZeven]

We've actually had people on this site attempt to do just that, swapping race for ethnicity in regard to intelegence.

The whole social construct definition of Race is just too closely related to the biological definition of race.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I cannot give you an accurate number for various reasons. For example lets look at the holocaust of approx. 6 million deaths. The single biggest genocide known to man. One could argue these deaths were not in the name of christianity, but since it was targeted at people of a certain religion it most definately was motivated because of religion. Would you account that to deaths in the name of religion or not?

Also many anti Muslim groups claim outragous numbers of deaths and attribute them to be in the name of Islam, without any proof at all. For example the muslim conquest of India, which is often cited as having 80 million casualties without evidence or even legitimate sources. Apparantly muslims murdered 80 million without a historical record, all the while still being a minority in India at the time and to this day?

• The Crusades: 6,000,000 Christianity
  
• Thirty Years War: 11,500,000 Catholics vs protestants
  
• French Wars of Religion: 4,000,000 Catholics vs protestants
  
• Second Sudanese Civil War: 2,000,000 Islam
  
• Lebanese Civil War: 250,000 Islam vs Christianity
  
• Armenian Genocide: 1,500,000 Islam
  
• Rwandan Genocide: 800,000 hutu vs tutsi
  
• Eighty Years' War: 1,000,000 vs protestants
  
• Nigerian Civil War: 1,000,000vs Igbo
  
• Great Peasants' Revolt: 250,000 protestants
  
• First Sudanese Civil War: 1,000,000 christianity
  
• Jewish Diaspora (Not Including the Holocaust): 1,000,000 vd Jews
  
• The Holocaust (Jewish and Homosexual Deaths): 6,500,000 vs Jews
  
• Islamic Terrorism Since 2000: 150,000 Islam
  
• Iraq War: 500,000 vs Islam
  
• US Western Expansion :20,000,000 is this motivated by Christianity?
  
• Atlantic Slave Trade (Justified by Christianity): 14,000,000 christianity?
  
• Aztec Human Sacrifice: 80,000
  
• AIDS deaths in Africa largely due to opposition to condoms: 30,000,000 Is this religiously motivated?
  
• Spanish Inquisition: 5,000 christianity

edit:
There is no evidence to back the claim that Islam is somehow more violent then other religions.

Wait, just looking at the first one....where is the evidence of 6 million killed in the name of Christianity during the Crusades?

Let's just add this in for @HenrySwanson



https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1229310805189054464.html

It calls you scientifically illiterate as well.

That's a lot of words that essentially say....what?

Are you still trying to say there is no confirmed gap in IQ test results between populations? Even the American Psychological Association, which believes such a gap would be explained by environmental factors, still acknowledges that there is a gap:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2998776?seq=1

Another one for @HenrySwanson

The lovely end result of an individual who swallows the whole race and intelligence nonsense.

I need context for this since by itself it doesn't make any sense?

 

[Scaff]

That's a lot of words that essentially say....what?

Are you still trying to say there is no confirmed gap in IQ test results between populations? Even the American Psychological Association, which believes such a gap would be explained by environmental factors, still acknowledges that there is a gap:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2998776?seq=1

I'm still saying what I have always said (and is supported by science) that race and ethnicity are social constructs not genetic ones, that IQ testing is so deeply flawed as to be almost worthless in this regard and that all you have even shown is a correlation and never have come close to showing causality.

Oh and that the gap can be explained by a wealth of other factors that you have repeatedly ignored. Which is odd as the article you just linked to points that out! Did you actually bother to read it past the title?

I ask because I'm going to enjoy seeing you explain this exact quote from your source:

Oh dear, you seem to have self owned!

The article is specifically saying that the gap is not down to race but other factors, it flat out contradicts your position. You may also want to read the final page, as it dismisses the genetic argument in even more detail.

I need context for this since by itself it doesn't make any sense?

Really it makes perfect sense, I'm linking your belief in the cornerstone of eugenics to a murderer who believed the exact same thing!

 

[PocketZeven]

Wait, just looking at the first one....where is the evidence of 6 million killed in the name of Christianity during the Crusades?

That is beside the point. If it was 6 it would not matter for the point you are failing to understand. I cannot provide the evidence to backup that claim (they are always historic estimates) as accurately as you can find evidence that more people have died in the name of Islam then any other religion.

edit: Could be mistake max range to 3 million The crusades were started in the name of christianity so all casualties were a result of that.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm still saying what I have always said (and is supported by science) that race and ethnicity are social constructs not genetic ones, that IQ testing is so deeply flawed as to be almost worthless in this regard and that all you have even shown is a correlation and never have come close to showing causality.

Let me just stop you there....

You're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that population groups don't exist.

And you use the fact that a genotype of a White European being more similar to a Korean than another Asian as evidence?

Sorry for borrowing Nic Cage but....

Let's look at the 100m final for the 2012 Olympics in London:

Notice anything?

Apart from the disproportionate number of garish green track shoes (I have yellow so I can't really complain), the whole field are of African descent. Is it racist to point this out? Would it be racist to say that this was probably down to a mixture of genetics and environment? Not really. It wouldn't be a surprise to find out that the type of muscle fibres found in these athletes will be of stark contrast to the average person, or the average long distance runner (Type 1 vs Type 2).

Let's look at this:

Out of your friends, who is most likely to exhibit that change in appearance after a few alcoholic drinks?

The answer is East Asians, because of a specific allele mutation of genes sequencing aldehyde dehydrogenase (one of the enzymes that breaks down alcohol) found more commonly in....you guessed it, East Asians (incidentally it's the basis for the use of the drug disulfram in alcoholics)

As for general guidance, you might remember @UKMikey and me discussing high blood pressure management, and how this is different between ethnicities. Well I guess ethnicity is important if even NICE base their guidelines on this:

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng...ions#starting-antihypertensive-drug-treatment

When choosing antihypertensive drug treatment for adults of black African or African–Caribbean family origin, consider an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB), in preference to an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor

Or I guess you can take your "scientific" conclusions and present them to NICE or the BMA or whoever at their next conference..



*A word of caution. Medicine is evolving to give us more personalised levels of medicine, and even Watson himself is an anomoly compared to the general white European population in certain regards since they state that with regards to a variant that speeds up metabolism of some toxins:

"It turns out that Watson’s variants are very rare in people of European descent, but very common in China."

but it's definite that the future belongs to individualised treatments that are tailored to our specific genomes rather than a population based guideline.

 

[Scaff]

Let me just stop you there....

You're saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that population groups don't exist.

Nope, not saying that at all.

As such your utter straw man of a post doesn't really need addressing.

What I said, and what is supported by science, is that race is a social construct and that no causality exists between racevand intelligence.

I've said it, numerous others have said it, genetic federations across the planet have said it, your own sources have said it.

To be blunt the only groups that are not saying it are racists.

Oh and the link about Watson you posted, you didn't read it again did you. It clearly explains that you can't just look at some one and assume something, it even mentions that it undermines the concept of making assumptions about race and medic treatment (as does my own rare blood group).

"Their genetic differences underscore the importance of personalized genomics over a race-based approach to medicine."

So you either read that and deliberately quote mined (and in doing so broke the AUP) or you're a racist idiot who failed to understand what it means.

I leave others to pick which one they think most likely.

Oh and running, taje a look at the start line of ultra marathons and see what colour the participants are, you also ignore the fact that all humans as a species are persistence hungers. What about motorsport, are white people more genetically suited to it or is it down to place of birth and money? Once again factors aside from race that you are ignoring.

I mean do you honestly think you're the first to try this line here?

The Nic Cage comparison is nice honever, as you posting and ability to research is about as good as his is in picking scripts.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Nope, not saying that at all.

Huh?

that race and ethnicity are social constructs not genetic ones,

You talk about quote mining, then fail to address my point about the future of medicine

but it's definite that the future belongs to individualised treatments that are tailored to our specific genomes rather than a population based guideline.

 

[Scaff]

Huh?

Are none relevant pictures all you have now.

Race is based on what you look like, ethnicity mixes that with where you are from, both are social constructs.

You need a full genetic profile to now the exact make up of a person, I for example am able to donate blood to treat sickle cell anemia, which in the past was assumed to only be something that you had to be black to do. Why? Because genetics is a **** site more complex that skin colour...

You talk about quote mining, then fail to address my point about the future of medicine

I've not quite mined at all, and not only did I answer and address the point, but once again your source undermines your claim, you just don't seem to realise it. Which would put you in the later of the two options.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Are none relevant pictures all you have now.

Race is based on what you look like, ethnicity mixes that with where you are from, both are social constructs.

You need a full genetic profile to now the exact make up of a person, I for example am able to donate blood to treat sickle cell anemia, which in the past was assumed to only be something that you had to be black to do. Why? Because genetics is a **** site more complex that skin colour...

We're not basing it on skin colour!

Try countering the points raised in my post that you skipped!

We work on the laws of averages for now in medicine, because that's the best we have got! I won't deny you that it's flawed but to base our conclusions on that fact and then surmise that differences don't exist in populations is wrong

I've not quite mined at all, and not only did I answer and address the point, but once again your source undermines your claim, you just don't seem to realise it. Which would put you in the later of the two options.

TBH I don't know what "quote mined" means but the source acutally bolsters my claim that in a perfect system we would treat patients individually but in the mean time we can recognise differences in populations.

EDIT: Wait, the whole "AUP" thing sounds like an end-around to get me banned/sanctioned. Maybe this should go in the Political Correctness thread in future..

 

[Scaff]

We're not basing it on skin colour!

Try countering the points raised in my post that you skipped!

We work on the laws of averages for now in medicine, because that's the best we have got! I won't deny you that it's flawed but to base our conclusions on that fact and then surmise that differences don't exist in populations is wrong

Populations, not race.

You have been quite consistent in your (inaccurate) claim that differences in intelegence exist between races.

You have still failed to demonstrate that.

TBH I don't know what "quote mined" means but the source acutally bolsters my claim that in a perfect system we would treat patients individually but in the mean time we can recognise differences in populations.

No it doesn't, it specifically says that it's a flawed approach because race isn't a good enough tool to use and that it needs to be approached on an individual genetic level.

That quite clearly shows that race is not a genetic factor, as supported by the numerous peer reviewed papers that gave been supplied in this thread and many other threads.

Take sickle cell anemia, that has spontaneously developed in three different places on earth as an evolutionary reaction to malaria. Three different populations that are not the same 'race', and because for decades the flawed 'race' approach to it assumed that you had to be black to have the condition meant that people of a Middle Eastern background or South Asian background were misdiagnosed.

None of which you seem to want to understand as it goes against your assumption that white = smart and black = runner. I would say you need to step into the 21st century, but this was all well known in the later half of the last century.

 

[HenrySwanson]

That is beside the point. If it was 6 it would not matter for the point you are failing to understand. I cannot provide the evidence to backup that claim (they are always historic estimates) as accurately as you can find evidence that more people have died in the name of Islam then any other religion.

edit: Could be mistake max range to 3 million The crusades were started in the name of christianity so all casualties were a result of that.

Shouldn't the first set of data be on those who died from Christian/Muslim expansion?