The Search for Moderate Islam

She wasn't Amish, she was a child.That you thought Boko Haram strapping bombs to little girls is remotely relevant to the girl's religious perspective kind of disgusts me.

Really? That is correct, and exactly my point. Strange that the first three words of your post were

quote:

---

Child suicide bomber

---

given you want me to believe that I was reading your post wrong, can you see how I might be confused into thinking you were calling her a suicide bomber, given that you referred to her as a suicide bomber? The bit where you failed to mention her murderers in the post at all, or that she was murdered, and how it was all about her (a murder victim's) beliefs and that you disregarded the murderer's religious beliefs. But no, you are right. I totally read your post about how a child suicide bomber killed at least 16 and she might have been a Muslim *wink wink* completely wrong. Again, she was a child, not a religious perspective. Her religious perspective could not be less relevant to the story. Unless you are a disgusting person that wants criticize the opinions of a murdered little girl as if they were causative in her murder and that this is somehow her/her opinion's fault. And not the murderous band of violent religious maniacs that probably kidnapped and did - or threatened to do - terrible things to her/her friends/her family. I wasn't calling your post disgusting because you were pointing out demographics. It was the calling a little girl a murderer and making out that she wouldn't have done it if she were Amish (she would, because her religious views were utterly irrelevant to the situation.) Once people like you stop blaming a little girls opinions for another group's murderous campaign maybe we can start having a sensible discussion. Until then, it is going to appear to you as if you are facing religious apologists because you think that pointing out that little girls who have their family and friend's lives threatened, are lied to and so on are somehow blameworthy in this struggle because their parents are most likely to have taught her that Muhammed is the true and final prophet.We know believing in Islam is not causative to violence - otherwise you and I would be in the midst of a total war. I have an Irish friend who who was held at gunpoint by Catholic terrorists on more than one occasion. Incidentally, he was raised a Catholic in a very Catholic area of Ireland. If, as a little boy, he had been threatened, cajoled, manipulated, coerced etc into inadvertently delivering an IRA device...would you be saying 'Well....he was a Catholic...."?The problems are exacerbated by entrenched religious differences, obviously. But both with the IRA and Boko Haram - there are additional factors, without which there would be no violent madness. Those factors were mostly dealt with in Ireland (it took a long time) and unlike when I was a kid, nobody worries about IRA bombs any more. In Nigeria the problems have never been addressed and have been allowed to fester. Incidentally, they are not entirely dissimilar problems in both countries (a split between westernised sections North and South and the resulting conflicts of religious and cultural differences). And most Irish people hated the IRA as much as most Nigerians hate Boko Haram.Nigeria finds itself 50/50 Christian/Muslim, a divide largely based on geography. There are precious natural resources in one part of the nation. One part of the nation is doing OK for itself and is pretty well educated using western methods, whereas the other is less so (Hence Boko Haram meaning 'western education is forbidden'). It is, as in other areas a tension that has built based on relatively recent historical context.The specific religions involved may give a specific flavour to the violence, but the existence of the violence was pretty inevitable whether these people were Catholic/Protestant, Sunni/Shia, Hindu/Sunni or Shia/Catholic.The outbreak of outrageous violence is entirely to be expected in countries whose borders do not match the demographics and essentially have two different people's located in different parts of the country being ruled often by one of those groups of people. It's a recipe for disaster everywhere just ask Ukraine. Or Bosnia. Or Ireland. Or America. Or, well, look at any nation's history and this is likely to come up sometime.So no, people arguing for nuance are not religious apologists. If you had ever read anything I had to say about religion, that should be painfully obvious. The point is that it isn't ISLAM itself that is the problem, it's certain types of dogma combined with certain social/cultural/political contexts.I'm sorry the world is not so simple that we can see a little girl walking into a market and exploding and say 'that child killed herself to murder others and she was likely from a Muslim family (although the region where this occurred does have a significant Christian presence so one can't really have any confidence in such a thing), therefore Islam is not a moderate religion because this little girl murdering people is not moderate" Is today special?Seriously, why use the qualifier 'today'?Is it because Catholics and Jews could conceivably have topped this list in relatively recent history? Have we reached a consensus on the objective difference between freedom fighters and terrorists? Is Islam really a singular source?Is that because it isn't so much about the specific religions but about social and historical context? Nuance? Perhaps? I mean its unlikely the Mormons are going to start a campaign of murder and mayhem any time soon, but they're wealthy and powerful and live in a society which may dislike them, but the hostility is mild, and they're wealthy and powerful. But give them the right social/political context and you get the Mountain Meadows massacre. As for the Amish, they've never really had the numbers or the social context, but they are ultra conservative and ruthlessly conformist - they certainly have the right ingredients there, but the amount of Amish in the world is around the same number of Muslims as there in Japan. It's not enough to expect nationwide conflicts to arise with them.

quote:

---

Today historians attribute the massacre to a combination of factors, including war hysteria about possible invasion of Mormon territory, and hyperbolic Mormon teachings against outsiders which were part of the excesses of the Mormon Reformation period. Scholars debate whether senior Mormon leadership, including Brigham Young, directly instigated the massacre or if responsibility lay with the local leaders in southern Utah.

---

Hrm, the fact that they were Mormon was certainly important to the situation, but apparently there were social and political factors that are considered to be the real causes. I'm sure historians will be looking back at this period and saying 'We attribute {Insert name history gives this series of things} to Islam. Just Islam. It's just awful. We know that there are Muslims today that aren't doing this, and there were Muslims then that weren't. Indeed, we know that throughout history Muslims guilty of these kinds of acts were overwhelmingly in the minority. Nevertheless, in our considered opinion all the border disputes, the ethnic groupings, the historical injustices perceived and real, all of these things and everything besides were not the real factors. They may have made it a bit worse. The perpetrators talk of the damage colonialism has done, their fear and mistrust of further westernization harming their culture and damaging their religion...all distractions sewed by liberal apologists. There was only one cause of the violence of the early 21st Century: Islam. Islam Islam Islam. Totally Islam. "

That isn't the case of the liberals I know. However, most liberals will point out that the kind of religion a person adopts is related to their social position. A wealthy Muslim in a western society is less likely to actually believe radical Islamic dogma than a disaffected teenager made homeless by Israeli military retaliation.So the question isn't why 'why did that individual do action x' but 'why are toxic religious beliefs gaining traction within this society?'And the answer isn't the specific host religion - it's usually a wider issue than that.Now true, some 'liberals' may appear to, or actually, believe that Islam is blameless in this. I think, however, the perception exists that liberals are guilty of this because one side of the argument is saying "Islam is to blame", and the liberals are saying 'No, that's not right'. And the other side interprets this as 'Islam is blameless', rather than 'Islam is not the main culprit for bad things happening, it's just the lens through which grievances being met with vengeance are being viewed as a means to rationalise or justify otherwise unacceptable behaviour. And it really really doesn't have to be Islam. It wouldn't really be appropriate, for instance, to regard the League of Militant Atheists' actions as being 'because of atheism', even if... Yeah, the thing is - they don't just do that do they?Marytydom videos are clearly in the language of religion, but they list temporal grievances such as the location of US military bases, western corruption of children, economic sanctions, political or military interferences, national bullying, drone strikes and so on.So yeah. Now I know Sam knows this, as I've seen him talk about it. I'm addressing you guys though so... Unless, of course, suddenly Estonians started killing their neighbours for their property at a higher frequencies and then we have to ask ourselves - why has the Estonian culture been infected with neighbourcidal robberies? Because almost every jihadist says more than this.

quote:

---

"I'm doing this because the rewards, the big rewards that Allah has promised those who step on his path and Inshaallah [God willing] become martyr and the best of amongst those to me is the guarantee of Jannah [paradise] for myself and my family and those that are close to me.

​

"On top of this is to punish and to humiliate the Kuffar [non-believer], to teach them a lesson that they will never forget.

​

"It's to tell them that we Muslim people have pride, our people of Allah, the people of Islam, we are brave.

​

"We're not cowards. Enough is enough. We've warned you so many times get out of our lands, leave us alone, but you have persisted in trying to humiliate us, kill us and destroy us.

​

"Sheikh Osama [the prosecution say this means Osama Bin Laden] warned you many times to leave our lands or you will be destroyed and now the time has come for you to be destroyed and you have nothing but to expect that floods of martyr operations, volcanoes and anger and revenge and erupting among your capital and, yet, taste that what you have made us taste for a long time and now you have to bear the fruits that you have sown."

​

Ali is asked by a voice off-camera by way of inquiry: "What about the innocent people? Surely just because the Kuffar kill our innocent does not mean that we should, that we should kill theirs? What about this so-called 'collateral damage'? What about it?"

​

"You and show more care and concern for animals than you do for the Muslim Ummah [the Islamic nation].

​

"Those who know me, who really know me, will know that I was the happiest person that they could ever have imagined, and those that know me know that I was over the moon that Allah has given me this opportunity to lead this blessed operation.

​

"Thanks to God I swear by Allah, I have the desire since the age of 15/16 to participate in Jihad in the path of Allah. I had the desire since then to punish the Kuffar for the evil they are doing.

​

"I had the desire since then for Jannah [paradise] for the Koran. I want to go to my prophet and his companions.

​

"Leave us alone. Stop meddling in our affairs and we will leave you alone.

​

"Otherwise expect floods of martyr operations against you and we will take our revenge and anger, ripping amongst your people and scattering the people and your body parts and your people's body parts responsible for these wars and oppression decorating the streets."

​

--ABDULLA AHMED ALI

---

See? He's clearly taking this specific action being to take revenge for oppression, interference etc. He's rationalising that it needs to be done with reference to it being willed by God and part of a Holy action, absolutely.

quote:

---

"This is from Umar Islam, the son of Islam, to the people of the world, to let you know the reasons for this action which Inshaallah [God willing] I am going to undertake. This is an obligation on me as a Muslim to wage Jihad against the Kuffar [non-believers].

​

"We are doing this in order to gain the pleasure of our Lord and Allah loves us to die and kill in his path.

​

"Anyone who tries to deny this, then read the Koran and you will not be able to deny this because this is the words in the Koran and the words of our the messenger of Allah, prayers and peace upon him, who said them and we will not leave this path until you leave our lands, until you feel what we are feeling.

​

"This is revenge for the actions of the USA in the Muslim lands and their accomplices such as the British and the Jews.

​

"This is a warning to the non-believers that if they do not leave our lands there are many more like us and many more like me ready to strike until the law of Allah is established on this earth.

​

"Know that without doubt your dead are in the hellfire whilst the Muslims who died due to your attacks will be in paradise.

​

"Martyrdom operations upon martyrdom operations will keep on raining on these Kuffar until they release you and leave our lands.

​

--UMAR ISLAM

---

quote:

---

All of you so-called moderate Muslims, there's only one way in which to solve this crisis, the problems will not be solved by means of campaigning, big conferences, peaceful negotiations with the disbelievers.

​

"The only solution to this current situation of the Muslims is by fighting Jihad for the sake of Allah until the enemy is fully subdued and expelled from our lands.

​

"America and England have no cause for complaint for they are the ones who invaded and built bases in the land of the Muslims. They are the ones who supply weapons to the enemies of Islam, including the accursed Israelis.

​

"I'm warning these two nations and any other country who seeks a bad end, death and destruction will pass upon you like a tornado and you will not feel it.

​

"You will not feel any security or peace in your lands until you [stop] [we say] interfering in the affairs of the Muslim completely.

​

"I'm warning you today so tomorrow you have no cause for complaints. Remember, as you kill us, you will be killed and as you bomb us, you will be bombed."

​

"I will pray that Allah makes us successful in our actions, may he grant us Jannah [paradise].

​

--WAHEED ZAMAN

---

quote:

---

"Thank God Allah has accepted my duas [prayers] yeah, and provided a means to do this.

​

"You know, I only wish I could do this again, you know come back and do this again, and just do it again and again until people come to their senses and realise, you know, don't mess with the Muslims."

​

"Stop supporting the puppets and helping our enemies. If you do this, we're going to leave you alone. If you don't, you're going to feel the wrath of the Mujahedeen Inshaallah [God willing]."

​

--TANVEER HUSSAIN

---

quote:

---

Our religion is Islam - obedience to the one true God, Allah, and following the footsteps of the final prophet and messenger Muhammad... This is how our ethical stances are dictated.

​

Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters.

​

Until we feel security, you will be our targets. And until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight.

​

---Mohammad Sidique Khan

---

quote:

---

I, the martyr comrade Jamal Sati, was born in 1962, in the small village of Kamed El-Lawz, in Western Bekaa, into a poor hardworking family. I became a member of the Lebanese Communist Party in 1978. After the aggressive occupation of the Israeli Armed Forces in 1982, my village, like the other villages and towns in South Lebanon and Western Bekaa and Rashayyah, suffered a great deal from the aggressive and terrifying treatment. When that great and mighty creature named the Lebanese National Resistance Front appeared on the battlefield, the lost hope for a free land and national dignity again nourished our desperate souls. Then I found myself among the legions of this Front, for it was my sacred duty toward my party as a communist and my country to become a member of this Front. And that’s how I joined this front early 1983. With modestly, I announce that I have participated in many successful operations in my village, Kamed El-Lawz and other neighbouring villages. I am not boasting when I am saying this as everyone knows that we work silently, but for martyrdom, I see that it is my duty to say that for all new generations and heroes.
My happiness was so great when the enemy Israeli forces were forced to retreat and withdraw from my district under the heavy blows of the Resistance ... But my happiness was even greater when the leadership of the Front agreed that I could continue participating in its operations ... and it is much more exciting that I have to perform this suicide operation

---

So yeah, to run with Sam's statement: But when he says, as every jihadist does, that he was driven by a sense of religious obligation and a yearning for Paradise and a sense of deep grievance against political enemies they perceive as oppressive and unstoppable through peaceful means, liberals insist that the motivations can't be simply boiled down to the religious position of the perpetrator. And there is the problem. We're saying that it isn't Islam that is necessarily the problem here, and that perfectly civil and nice versions of Islam exist. When you say the problem is with Islam you create a social situation wherein there is fear and distrust of Muslims. A toxic environment of distrusting and even hating a religious or ethnic group has not historically worked itself out in a healthy way by Westerners. Therefore, there is genuine reason to be concerned with the way this is being discussed. Europe is still fighting against a strong underbelly of Nationalists who would happily deport the Muslims (and more besides I'd wager, but they'd never publicly say it). Remember when a certain religious/ethnic group was being blamed for the ills of the world in an environment of growing nationalistic movements (which didn't even have to be in the majority to cause major problems)? So let's talk about things sensibly:1) There are many factors behind the jihadist movement. Social, political, cultural, historical and so on. This is something we have some degree of control over, but decisions are difficult and fraught with the possibility of exacerbation.2) To the extent that Islam is to blame, it should be noted that it is much the same with Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and Christians who have also engaged in this behaviour. We might hypothesize that some religions have features that make them more vulnerable to toxic variants, but we shouldn't just be looking at it with an air of superiority, but with a view to understanding how we can minimise the ability for those toxic versions to gain traction. They have done in the past, they still do in some places, and they might do so more in the future. It depends on political, social and cultural factors. Islam's doctrine on jyhad is not clear, is not singular, and has no universal consensus. If you find yourself in a region where the idea that martyrs go to paradise and that killing yourself and random civilians is martyrdom is common, you'll probably notice that the education system is corrupt, the land is poor with a history of war, civil and otherwise - has unclear borders probably arbitrarily drawn by a European nation who didn't give them independence until sometime in very recent history. You'll find the people feel oppressed and they feel powerless. Of course, but that's just a rationalization. The reason men oppress women is because they can and by doing so it maximises their power. When they educated and women are not they can manipulate and control women easier, they can get the jobs with power and money and don't have to compete against 50% of the population for those positions. The conditions many women found themselves in 19th Century Britain were not exactly great either, and Scripture was used to justify treating western women like crap for millennia. Patriarchy, even extreme patriarchal societies are not exclusively populated with Islamic nations over all of history.This is a problem. Because we see that many problems are coming from Muslims, it is tempting to blame the easiest to understand common element: their religion. IT is certainly making the situation worse, entrenching it and makes it near impossible to imagine it. And yes, some things do seem to our eyes to be difficult to see how they could ever exist within a peaceful moderate religion.Then again, Christians used to burn and hang and behead heathens and witches with alarming regularity. OFten for political or social reasons of course. For the most part those reasons don't exist now. Christianity still does. Persecuting innocent people for being witches still happens in some minor communities, but it is rare enough, and the communities are insular enough, to make it difficult to detect and investigate.Maybe, despite their seeming strong association now may be a distant notion that seems impossible in the future. Without the need to eradicate Islam or severely reduce it to achieve this end. Feel free to criticise Islam, but you should be criticising Islam, not laying 100% blame for bad things upon Islam. Sure, the reason that woman was flogged, or that blogger was beaten to death, is because of the religious beliefs of the floggers/lynchers buta) those religious beliefs are not 'Islam'. They are Muslims, and their religion is Islam, but Islam is not a single thing with a correct version.b) The question therefore is should be 'why does that version of Islam have the traction that it does to that community/culture/nation?Dismissing this view as dishonest is not a good idea. If the problem is ISLAM an sich, then we're fucked and there's nothing we can do but genocide and total war. We're not going to persuade billions of people to convert. So basically, we're stuck with the shitfest and we just have to wait it out.If, on the other hand, we see the problem as a toxic brand of a certain religion has gained sufficient popularity to be causing misery and violence and low education in certain regions of the world. This is a problem that isn't easy to fix, but it is something we can influence if any of the reasons the toxic brands are flourishing is because of the historical and present relations with the people of those regions.Historically, the latter approach has led to long term resolutions, the former approach simply leads to short-term cessations of hostility. So which is it? Life under the red fear, or export McDonald's?

Good should be in scare quotes here. Unless you personally believe that Wahhabism really is a good Islam. Based on our track record for interfering in the region: Something awful.We can hope for a Turkey over a Saudi Arabia though.

What makes you think it is unsupportable? The video didn't address it.

I've not seen the media refer to Saudi Arabia as 'good', sounds scary if they are. The Saudi's are the proud sponsors of al-Qaeda, who are rivals of IS, so obviously they will say they are superior to IS. Very unlikely. Turkey was able to more or less figure out for themselves and did so coming out of the liberal Islamic world of the 19th Century with the right man was in the right place socially and spatially. Unfortunately, Europe and later the US, fucked up any reasonable chance of it happening anywhere else.

I was talking about being a follower of a radical Islamic dogma, not terrorism. I talked about homeless teenagers, which the video didn't mention. This isn't absurd pedantry, it's an important point.But still, this is a difficult thing to get accurate statistics on, so assuming the video is relevant to what I said which seems easier to get reliable statistics on Muslim Americans Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream - pew shows:

quote:

---

Some people think that suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets are justified in order to defend Islam from its enemies.
Other people believe that, no matter what the reason, this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that this kind of violence is often justified to defend Islam, sometimes justified, rarely justified, or never justified?

---

64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often.
69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 24% sometimes, and 5% thought it could be justified often.
28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% sometimes, and 7% thought it could be justified often.
71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 8% sometimes, and 2% thought it could be justified often.What is true is that someone who engages in or purposefully funds terrorism on Western soil is more likely to be well educated and reasonably affluent. Also I believe they are likely to be a second generation (possibly third) immigrant. There's them social factors again complicating the issue, neh? A Comparative Study of Lebanese and Palestinian Perceptions of Suicide Bombings: The Role of Militant Islam and Socio-Economic Status :

quote:

---

For both populations, support for suicide attacks is more evident among women than men. Among Lebanese, support for suicide attacks is also a function of low income and among Palestinians, a function of residence in camps. For both samples, the most important determinant of support for suicide attacks is attachment to political Islam. The greater the commitment to political Islam the more likely respondents are to endorse suicide activities. It should be noted however, that the impact of political Islam is more evident among Palestinians than Lebanese.

---

Evidence suggests too, that suicide bombers in the Middle East are generally in a better economic position than average, however - this is suicide bombers specifically, not terrorists or other extremists. When compared with other non-suicidal extremists, suicide bombers tend to be of lower status. Indeed then, it is obviously more complicated than a single sentence can portray. Then again, my post was long enough as it is.

I know what I was arguing about because I'm the one that fashioned the argument, so excuse me one moment while I explain it. Here is the quote you pulled from my longer post:

quote:

---

A wealthy Muslim in a western society is less likely to actually believe radical Islamic dogma than a disaffected teenager made homeless by Israeli military retaliation.

---

First of all, the only socioeconomic class mentioned here is that the Muslim living in the west is wealthy. Not affluent. Wealthy. Yet you retorted a point which is only supported if we look at a different group (terrorists rather than extremists) and at affluent rather than wealthy. Nevertheless there are three other factors mentioned merely in this sentence, but which my original post expanded on more considerably.1) Geographic location.
2) Specific personal grievance.
3) YouthThe teenager may or may not be (relatively affluent), it wasn't massively important. The important point is one of a feeling of powerlessness and of being oppressed. Western second gen immigrants might not directly experience this of course, but many feel like they belong nowhere and have no true loyalties. Some of them stay that way forever. Some of them make a choice. Unfortunately the choice they make is sometimes 'balls in' (either way). Not only may they come to sympathize with their homeland, and develop a greater loyalty to them, but to their home culture, and by extension their membership in the Muslim community. This might lead to guilt and anger at their comfortable life while their brothers are oppressed by the nations they are paying taxes too....and thus the slide into radicalization can begin even in the affluent, and especially in the educated.But in the affected countries? Well that's why I posted the stats that you now criticize. They are specifically about terrorism and the attitudes of the inhabitants of various countries (from about 7 years ago IIRC) towards it.If we take Jordan as a reasonable stand-in for Palestine in their attitudes we can see that a quarter of them think it can sometimes be justified (as opposed to rarely or often or never) to target civilians. As opposed to 12% of British Muslims. So merely by living in the Middle East we have doubled one's chances of having pretty extreme views as a Muslim.(For the record, my answer to the question would be 'rarely', assuming the 'in defense of Islam' was removed and the question was thus generalized. I'm an atheist liberal British person).I also posted evidence that suggests of Palestinians, you can see that residing in a camp increases your chances of supporting terrorism 'support for suicide attacks is also a function of low income and among Palestinians, a function of residence in camps'.I also state, quite clearly I thought,

quote:

---

But still, this is a difficult thing to get accurate statistics on

---

Especially when we're looking at such a specific thing as a general Muslim in the West who happens to be wealthy vs a young aggrieved Muslim of non-specific economic background (but probably poorer than the average working class American) living in or around Palestine/Lebanon.Finally, it is my understanding that most suicide attacks are carried out by young people. So if we're talking about terrorism itself, adding that the person affected by Israeli military interventions was a young person piles yet more risk factors towards developing extremist/terrorist views/actions.So your criticism has fallen flat I'm afraid, what weak legs it managed to develop in the womb, wasn't enough to help it stand to scrutiny.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

And yet the point in my paragraph was about social situations, which includes economic and geographic situations.

quote:

---

However, most liberals will point out that the kind of religion a person adopts is related to their social position.

---

Much like Germans aren't intrinsically evil, but in the right social and political context enough of them can participate in, support or turn a blind eye to genocide of their own citizens and those around them.This is in contrast to the notion that Islam is in itself to blame. Rather than the rise of Nationalism or the regular military interventions, the creation of Israel....etc.The bit you quoted was as an introduction to the point I was making, but I could have made it better, let's try this.In a world where Muslims did not perceive themselves as a persecuted people, where economic and political power was equal to or greater than anyone else, there will be less terrorism from Muslims than in a world contrary to this. Additionally, there will be less extremism where there are less power disparities. This can play out on a smaller scale such that there are probably more terrorist Muslims in Nigeria than there are in Turkey. The same likely plays out if we were to compare Palestinian Muslims with German ones.Yes, Islam is a common thread. I think a more constructive perspective however is to look to see why the Islamic world is so extreme right now. What is driving them towards extreme conservatism and traditionalism? Is it the dying grasps of an old way? Is it a reaction to perceived and real offences? Or shall we just blame a diverse collection of religious views because some collections of those views cohere with violence and other extreme behaviours?
More important are various complicated situational and cultural factors. Our choice remains, reduce Islam or change the situation. The former seems less likely to happen and more likely to exacerbate in the attempt than the latter, as fraught with risk as that is. IF we change the situation for the better hopefully this will foster an environment that allows moderate Islam to gain greater traction.And the point of this whole thing, the one you haven't really addressed so far, is: When liberals try to engage in some nuance, their opponents only hear opponents who have a contrary opinion and conclude they are denying Islam has any liability. It seems to me that you are either denying social/political factors are significant factors in the current situation or you are simply arguing the toss over one dimension. If the latter, I don't think it's important enough to continue, if the latter - I believe there is onus on you to provide support of your own.Also do you agree or disagree that scope might be a factor in the disagreements between liberals and their opponents? That is, liberals are looking at a social political context and trying to understand the appeal of violent interpretations of Islamic beliefs, whereas their opponents are looking at individuals who are quite clearly religious and cite their religious understandings heavily in their justifications and assuming its the specific religion of these people that motivates their specific behaviours. Pray 5 times a day? No need to look at social factors, it's their religion. Same with terrorism. Yet the liberals aren't wondering why that guy there did it, but why are so many guys doing it all over the place? And 'Islam' is simply not a satisfying answer, neither is simply saying 'they all have religious beliefs which mandate this behaviour'. Again, you missed the point. I mentioned several factors, and listed them in my previous post in case you hadn't noticed.1) Economic situation
2) Geographic location
3) AgeI'm confident that the soldiers of Boko Haram are in a worse economic situation than I am, or any of the Muslim friends I have who haven't shown an inclination towards pillaging.Also, I am under the impression (correct me if I am wrong) but Boko Haram is primarily made up of Nigerians and perhaps some nearby regions. The same is likely true of Hamas terrorists, Hizbollah terrorists, IS soldiers (though they are doing quite well at drawing in more educated and wealthy westerners) etc. Given the number of confirmed terrorists that have operated or are operating in, for example the UK, I'm confident geographic location is well established as influential in such things.Finally, age. As far as extremism goes this is not entirely supported as we might see for instance in Iran. However, as far as participating in acts of terrorism - that's well established as a young man's game.Now that you have dissected a single sentence, hopefully to your satisfaction, feel free to graduate to the post itself.They are just people, not some abstract beings. Normal people in Europe and America once thought nothing of what would be today called child abuse (heavily beating children for discipline) and would not only justify this with reference to scriptures, but would say they do them because it is mandated in scripture. The same goes for torture, dismemberment for minor crimes, absolutist autocratic dictatorships and numerous other moral outrages.The social and political environment drove the need to punish children, be hard on crime and have a firm singular voice directing government. Religion was more or less invented to regulate all that and make it 'official ' and to highlight that the rules transcended the ruler and the ruled: it was subsequently used and refined by others.Some studies show that we often make moral decisions before coming up with reasons for them. This being true, would strengthen my argument on this matter would you agree?

The French bit has the borders of Syria and Lebanon. The British has regions that would become Iraq, Kuwait and Jordan. Palestine was marked 'Reserved'. Seems pretty clear to me, how is it a lie? Because of the renegotiation of the Syrian/Iraq borders, pushing into French territory after oil reserves were discovered? Seems a little picky. I guess we see different things. It gives us an idea about Iran and Azerbaijan, though identifying the border between them.... It misleads us around the Turkey/Syria border, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen to name some of the easy to spot problem areas. And it doesn't give a single clue about the borders between Sunni countries (which is most of them, obviously). This is not a lie. Most humans want to live in peace, this is universal. Supporting extreme means to fight perceived oppressors is not contrary to desiring peace. I'm pretty sure most Britons were to some degree in support of the strategic bombing of German civillians. Doesn't mean that most Britons didn't want to live in peace, it just meant they were willing to fuck the shit up of any motherfucker that disturbed their peace. Swearing intended to convey that the sentiment was highly emotionally charged, but note how British people today would balk at such behaviour. They are similar enough for a report that is openly a short 4.5 minute intro aimed at ignorant Americans, to give people who probably went to school and learned about the Catholic/Protestant strife, the terrorism, the torture, the executions, the persecutions, the denial of access to certain roles: how sectarian violence between the two carried on until very recently in Ireland. This helps people who were naive coming in of the Sunni/Shia thing to quickly find a way in to understanding how something so seemingly benign as a dispute over leadership of the church can lead to civil wars etc spanning centuries.The only significant different you raise: that a lot of people still care about the Sunni/Shia thing. That doesn't make them dissimilar enough to use as a handy widely understand comparison. Lying for Muhammed?

And some of those places have many Muslims. And some of the places that are filled with violence don't have many Muslims. Sam Harris suggests we should take the terrorists seriously when they inform us why they do what they do. Since they typically point to temporal crimes such as military base location, invasions, drone strikes, funding the Israeli military etc, if we are going by Sam we have to take that seriously.Even if Islam is blameworthy, we can't get rid of it. But since we're sending the drones, we might stop to think that maybe we do have some influence after all. Well that's obviously false. There are lots of villages who attack their neighbours who are not Muslims. Obviously most Saudis who do anything are Muslim, so that's kind of useless. Did you know most Sandal Surfers are Muslim too? Bastards. Have you found any interesting ones yet? I presume if you are interested you've gone and looked over the course of the last week, right?

Wow Jon, you really managed to create a high density of wrong here! They are certainly other words, but if you mean that in its colloquial meaning, then no. what you said was not a reasonable rewording of what I said. I don't find them to be false. I think I made this quite clear so how this serves as 'other words' for my post is baffling. Simplifications are perfectly acceptable in many contexts. Are you disputing this? CBS news is aimed at American audience right? I'm not wrong there?And they open the piece with this

quote:

---

many of us have no idea what the actual difference between the two groups is, and why there is so much friction between them.

​

So let's take a look at some of the history and the geopolitics to get a sense of what is really going on.

---

Looks like the piece is aimed at Americans who don't know the differences between the groups, the history or the geopolitics. Not knowing something makes you ignorant of that something.Thus the piece is aimed at ignorant Americans.Did you think the target audience was well-informed Japanese people?Instead of attempting to clumsily reword what I said so as to impugn it as absurd, why don't you just focus on addressing the points I raised instead? When you really try and look for faults, it's funny the strange things you can come up with in desperation.The piece says that it started as differences within a religion (and face it, more than a religion but a civilization - an empire.) It then says that the continuance of the conflict is more than theology but that geography places a significant role. It points out that IS didn't exist until the Sunni of the area were politically marginalized after the fall of Saddam - so no it isn't saying it is just about religion. You didn't explain it at all. How is arguing that factors other than religion are at play constitute lies that advance Islam?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Like when my friend's business prematurely exploded in 1996?

I've already explained this. Why don't you explain how we westerners can eradicate Islam quickly? Many have tried, and failed, and lots of people died as a consequence. What's your plan?

Stop whining about the obfuscation, and explain it. I already addressed the things you have so far called 'lies' as not being remotely lies. What else? You have failed to meet this requirement in this thread. You even just said that because you are busy your posts have been short just a few moments ago. This reporter had four minutes to explain to an audience who were presumed to come into with no knowledge, only prejudices, without alienating or insulting large swathes of people one of the most complicated geopolitical situations we're tackling today. Show me how you do better. If you succeed, there's probably a career you can make of it (contact the vlog brothers, they might be looking for writers!) So, where's the lie? Same was true of Christianity. Why is it not that way any more? Why is it still that way with Islam? Can the Quranists succeed at changing this? A group of people that live in certain areas of a certain ethnicity and cultural/political background. Just like the Catholics in Northern Ireland were fighting about more than Transubstantiation. No it was done because they are a minority who have for the past few decades enjoyed privileges and protections from Saddam Hussein which no longer exists. And that pisses them off. No. They hate each other for political and social/cultural reasons. Their religion exacerbates this through sectarian conflicts resulting in a cycle of violence and retaliation. Sunnis and Shias are perfectly capable of being friends with one another, and many people have in fact been so. So they aren't religiously obligated to war with one another.They are born into a 'team', and in some social contexts, they had better be seen to hate the other team. The details of the teams are relevant to various specifics - but they could easily be Catholics and Protestants and there'd probably be a shitstorm over who gets to rule what land and people. Which is what the report honestly states, right at the outset. Despite your protestations of their lies. But if you think the IRA was about whether Ireland should be religiously controlled by a King or a Pope, then you are wrong. Do you think that IS is really killing Shia for any other reason than they are very likely enemies who would undermine and fight against them? If so - why are they killing fellow Sunni who don't step in line?Sure, Iqbal a-Sunni-Muslim may be pissed off that Hamad-ShiaIslam does not pray often enough and that might be the kind of thing people use to rile up his anger to get him to execute the prisoner. Religion is great at motivating people to specific actions (Christians have been doing it just as much as Muslims). But why IS, why now, why there? That cannot simply be answered 'Islam'. LOL. Arnaud Amalric wants to teach you a thing or two about how simple theology debates can evolve and how geo-political factors can become significant factors in decision making.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.