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.
Good should be in scare quotes here. Unless you personally believe that Wahhabism really is a good Islam.
Yes; I really didn't mean to call it good by any meaningful measure of morality or ethics, but only wanted to point out that the Saudis try to market it as better than the Islam of IS (which it isn't) and how the popular media often buy into such nonsense, though the BBC report I linked to certainly attempts to call the matter into question in a way few media outlets typically do.
But I don't want to add scare quotes, because there are plenty of people who, by tiptoeing around the matter, enable the image of Saudi Arabia as a Middle Eastern force of Islamic good, which is complete bullshit.
We can hope for a Turkey over a Saudi Arabia though.
The video, the portion linked to, specifically addresses the issue of poverty and destitution as it relates to Islamic extremism.
From what you posted:
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.
From the exchange in the video:
TC:... the poorest places in the world are actually not spawning terrorism; it's western Europe. SH: And there are a variety of studies that back that up, that show that support for suicide bombing, for instance, actually goes up as you correct for literacy and education and economic opportunity.
I'm not sure how anyone could fail to see the relationship between these two claims or notice that they contradict one another.
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.
At issue is which socioeconomic group (if any) is more likely to hold extremist beliefs. I don't think statistics that fail to make these required distinctions are able to address that issue.
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.
Your quote mentioned both economic and geographic situation.
But the only thing you've given evidence to is the difference between western and non-western Muslims.
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.
You might think that, but it's only because you have completely missed the point of the criticism.
First, despite the obvious dissimilarity between the European imposed borders shown on the map (~1:55) and today's countries' borders, the reporter still reports that "these arbitrary borders became the blueprint for today's map". Really? Just what do they have in common?
The map that the political map has the most in common with is not some colonial map, but the map of Sunni/Shiite concentration and distribution.
Second, at the end is the oft-repeated reassurance that the majority of these folks just want to get along and live in peace (despite, as Modulous so kindly pointed out, 57% of Jordanian Muslims feeling the not-so-peaceful-practice of suicide bombing justifiable under at least some circumstances) and compares the difference between Sunnis and Shiites as similar to the now-academic difference between Protestants and Catholics, despite the fact that the Sunnis and Shiites have been at war with one another since the death of their prophet.
But none of this matters to the reporters, because when you're lying for Muhammad no truths are too sacred.
The problem with all this nonsense is that there are many impoverished parts of the world not engaged in perpetual warfare. That don't spew out terrorists like ants from a hole in the ground.
Socioeconomics undoubtedly plays a roleit does in everything, doesn't it?, but whether it plays a role even slightly worth consideration in light of the role played by Islam has yet to be proven. On the flipside, we can find only one point of commonality amongst the middle class Westerners who run off to join IS, the doctorate-holding Saudis who fly planes into buildings, and the lowly villagers who take up arms to terrorize their neighboring tribe. And that commonality is Islam.
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?
I have addressed this in various places; right now I can only find this slightly-related post, though I know there are probably others I can't find right now.
ABE: I found one of my more detailed post on this: Message 7./ABE
In other words, you don't find the falsehoods worth any mention because they are somehow close enough to truth (in your mind) and aimed at learnin' dem "ignorant Americans".
I suppose this is similar to how the reporter plainly describes the rise of groups such as IS as being specifically motivated by religious disagreements and then brushes it all off at the end with her dishonest dismissals.
I've started it at an important portion toward the end, but watching the video in its entirety is worth the 15 minutes.
Qureshi maintains that he is not an extremist, but when asked simple questions about his beliefs, he refuses to answer them.
It's easy to call oneself a moderate; it's not so easy to prove it when you can't even bring yourself to condemn something as extreme as stoning for adultery.
Luckily the other folks recognize what's going on and call him out for what he is: a weasel.
Second, at the end is the oft-repeated reassurance that the majority of these folks just want to get along and live in peace (despite, as Modulous so kindly pointed out, 57% of Jordanian Muslims feeling the not-so-peaceful-practice of suicide bombing justifiable under at least some circumstances) and compares the difference between Sunnis and Shiites as similar to the now-academic difference between Protestants and Catholics, despite the fact that the Sunnis and Shiites have been at war with one another since the death of their prophet.
Catholicism and Protestantism are two different branches of a large religion with some doctrinal differences, which has led to much tribalist conflict between the two. Sunni and Shiite are two different branches of a large religion with some doctrinal differences, which has led to much tribalist conflict between the two. The article's claim that they are similar concepts is not a lie, on account of being true.
Of course, because the Shiite-Sunni split is purely academic.
A lie looks more like this:
despite the fact that the Sunnis and Shiites have been at war with one another since the death of their prophet.
on account of being clearly false. The difference isn't that hard to grasp.
Of course it's not to those who care about these details, which is why I said the opposite, that "has led to much tribalist conflict between the two." Nor is the Catholic-Protestant split academic to those who care about such things - just ask Faith and the hateful Protestant preachers she's so fond of in Northern Ireland.
I don't think you understand the meaning of 'purely academic'.
The Sunni/Shi'a divide has meant very different things in different times and places, just as the Catholic/Protestant one has.
I understand how it's used by most people - to mean 'of interest only from a theoretical point of view and of no practical relevance'. I don't know if you're using it in some odd, idiosyncratic way, since it's always hard to say from the short, vague sentences you use in place of actually explaining what you mean.
That's about what I mean.
When people start shooting one another over the dispute, it is no longer purely academic. As far as I am aware, the Protestant/Catholic dispute is, at present, purely academic.
The split began as a dispute over who was the legitimate successor of Mohamed, if that's what you mean. Or are you asking why the distinction persists?
These are some of those who do not consider the Protestant/Catholic dispute academic:
I know there is crazy everywhere. I'm talking about the large-scale stuff, like was seen between catholic governments and their protestant subjects, for example.
That kind of stuff doesn't happen anymore. But those things still occur between Sunni governments and their Shiite residents (and vice versa).
If we want to put an arbitrary marker on the start of Sunni/Shi'a violence, we could say the Battle of Karbala in 680 - which was more a power struggle for control of the Caliphate that has retroactively gained religious significance by the growth of Sunnis as a sect.
Simplifications are perfectly acceptable in many contexts. Are you disputing this?
Not when simplifications obfuscate the issue and the issue involves people being slaughtered by the thousands.
In that case I think anyone talking about the matter is obligated to discuss it honestly and completely, especially avoiding simplifications that sidestep difficult issues (many people find this a difficult issue because of some deep-seated false belief that all religions are equal, among other confusions).
The piece says that it started as differences within a religion (and face it, more than a religion but a civilization - an empire.)
I believe this has been mentioned here already, if not in the thread, in a couple of sites I've linked to. It is correct to call Islam more than a religion: it is a complete system designed to govern every aspect of its followers' lives, not just in matters of faith and belief, but political organization, banking, relations with others, etc.
So when I refer to Islam the 'religion', you shouldn't take it to mean that I am only referring to faith and belief.
It then says that the continuance of the conflict is more than theology...
Of course, because simple theology disputes typically take place in the dusty basements of university libraries. As I said, though, Islam isn't a typical religion.
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.
What the fuck do you think Sunnis are? The political marginalization of Sunnis wasn't done because of the way they smell!
Shiites hate Sunnis on religious grounds; Sunnis hate Shiites on religious grounds. And the fact that they both use whatever tools they have available to stick it to one another doesn't change the fact that their disagreement stems from the purely Islamic dispute over Muhammad's successor.
How is arguing that factors other than religion are at play constitute lies that advance Islam?
The reporter downplayed and dismissed the religious components of the dispute; she did this for the same reason all reporters downplay and dismiss the specific role of Islam in the conflicts in the middle east: the Multiculturalism beliefs discussed in this thread and the Multiculturalism thread.
™ Version 4.2
