Draginol: Replace Muslim with Nazi and Islam with National Socialism. Does it still sound reasonable? And if not, what is the difference

Comon Draginol, you know better than that. Didn't you read my response? Then you still say that?

You started your article by talking about "the so-called 'Religion of Peace' '", so i told you what that religion say, and you still ignore that. There is nothing else i can really say. The religion speaks for itself through its Book and its prophet. No One, No One can really read what it says and still say it is So-Called "Religion of Peace". And if you also care to know what the main-stream Muslims say and do to fight those fanatics you will realize they are doing much much more than what anyone can ask of them. They are fighting aginst the fanatics, against bias toward (or is it ignorance of) main-stream islam, against dictators supported by foreign powers, against ignorance within their own societies .... they have their hands full and no one is lending a helping hand.

But you know what, main-stream Islam will survive against all that and again as before show the world how peaceful Islam is, not through the fanatic's actions but despite it. This is not the first time Islam was subjected to that. and i dont think it will be the last. But because the intrensic strenght of its values and the logic of its laws the true face of Islam always prevails.

I would like to point out very interesting fact to you and to all who blame Islam for the actions of a very small minority of fanatics. Here is something to think about: Those fanatics only flourished in failed States like Sudan and Afghanistan, and now of course Iraq. why you think that is? It is because they could NOT get any significant number of the people in their own societies to adopt their fanatical version of Islam. They tried and they tried hard but they failed miserably and were rejected by every sane Muslim in their own societies. They escaped and found refuge in the failed States. That should say something about what main-stream Islam is. It rejected those fanatics and subjected them to the laws of Islam, but they escaped to the failed States where there was no one to stop them and where ignorance of Islam and everthything else is rampant.

You really equate Islam with Nazism, Brad? You really think the problems present are inseparable from the religion? How do you validate that with your "universally positive" personal experiences with Muslims? Have your interactions with Christians here at JU been "universally positive"? Would you consider some of the fundamentalist stuff that passes for "religion" down in that section laudable? Given that we far more often see hatefulness and intolerance in our personal lives from Christians, would you equate Christians with Nazis? Come on. This is too easy an answer. I would expect it from the usual fearful suspects around here, but not you. Do you think it is just chance that keeps Christians from acting on the mountains of intolerance and violent sentiment in the Bible while SOME Muslims in SOME places do? Or could it be another factor that is just taking advantage of religion?

Yes. I think that the nature of Islamis such that there will always be a much higher than acceptable percentage of people who will use violence to meet their needs.

I do not agree with your argument that comfortable standards of living will change the ideology.

On paper, Communism is a pretty wonderful thing, don't you agree? But there was something in the ideology that caused enough people to believe that force was necessary to convert the masses to it.  I see Islam as being much the same thing. 

Do you think if you lived in Germany in say 1935 that the average Nazi was some blood thirsty ghoul?  Fascism, on paper, isn't monstrous either.  It's all about the percentages.

Are Muslims in UK not living in relative comfort? The ones who committed the bombings in the UK were middleclass kids.

Anyway, my point being is that I think there is something inherently problematic about Islam. I don't agree that it is an issue of fundamentalism per se but rather how the fundamentalists act out.  There are very poor Christians around the world too. They don't run around beheading people, however.

...and it only took two people to blow up the building in Oklahoma City. We have thousands of militant white supremacists in America, Gid. They claim that they march to the tune of Christianity. Christianity to blame? It isn't the 15 or the 19 or the 19,000 nutjobs that give extremism power. We have those numbers of Christian wackos here, as I said. Terrorism's power is the army of downtrodden, uneducated, miserable people who are willing to blame their misery on whatever scapegoat is handed to them. I feel like I've trolled the conversation here enough, and I am resorting to answering the same points (some terrorists are rich!!) over and over. I tossed my own blog about it, and I'll yield the field to those who need yet another spot to bash Islam. It's understandable from some, but from others I think it is uncharacteristically simple.

In poor countries where Christians are the minority you don't see them committing terrorist acts in any where near the same percentages.

Religious fundamentalists are certainly a problem. The question is, what % of those fundamentalists are becoming violent? And what is the cause? Muslim fundamentalists -- world wide -- are much more likely to become violent. I don't agree it has anything whatsoever to do with poverty. I think it is the way Islam is taught and how people react to it.

ThinkAloud: You may want to check my earlier blog that contained a survey of Muslims that pointed out that near majorities (and in some places majorities) of them consider murdering civilians in the name of Islam is acceptable in various circumstances.

If Bakerstreet is getting tired of having to make his point, so am I. I am tired of people trying to act like the willingness to kill others in the name of their religion is something only present in a "tiny minority". It's not a tiny minority.  Maybe only a tiny minority actually act on their willingness to murder infidels but a significant percentage of Muslims support it -- by their own admission.

And I get what Bakerstreet is saying about it being an issue of poverty. I simply don't agree. The most I'll grant on that is that material wellness may hinder ones likelyhood on acting out on the desire to murder people in the name of Islam.

And I get what Bakerstreet is saying about it being an issue of poverty. I simply don't agree.

As do I not agree.  There is simply no correlation.

"As do I not agree. There is simply no correlation."

You need to learn the difference between correlation and causation.

Where is your correlation? If Islam is a hateful, terroristic religion, why doesn't extremism bloom wherever there is Islam? Why does the US need to import terrorists, or other western nations with a large Muslim population?

Even our home grown Islamic terrorists went to these nations to get training or for indoctrination. Muslim extremism is bleeding out of the Middle East, sure. It only becomes a movement where the people are as hopeless as they are in the middle east.

The minority of exceptions prove true in the West. Wealthy wackos in the US have supported terror all over the world. If you want to discuss hateful ideology that folks in comfortable nations talk up without acting on it... well, lol, you see that even here.

So there is your correlation. You may not believe it is causation, but the correlation is vivid. If people in a nation are healthy and happy, the Muslims there are most often peaceful with a relative number of kooks.

How then is the culprit Islam? There are exceptional kooks in every nation with extremism. Kooks aren't the problem, the movement supporting them is.

Draginol: Maybe only a tiny minority actually act on their willingness to murder infidels but a significant percentage of Muslims support it -- by their own admission.

Bingo ..... that is the point. You don't even condemn people on their thinking or feelings .... especially if they are angry or frustrated.
Havn't you ever say " i will kill that guy if i ever saw him"? but would you actually do that?, Moreover, if people are ignorant of what their religion say, do we blame the religion or the circumstances that lead to that?

Your article started by talking about the religion ITSELF. Then lets' stick to that. at least that is what i am doing. the actions of the whole Muslim world should not and it does not change what the religion itself say and stands for.

As for the Muslims themselves, they are in BIG HUGE MISERABLE TROUBLE, not because of anyone BUT THEMSELVES. I have been telling them that for decades. but as here in this discussion, no use .... no one listens and no one is willing to admit that they deviated so far from the facts. They think i am crazy, and sometimes i think that too since i am like beating a dead horse in trying to get people to look at the religion itself. They refuse ... i dont know why .... i always thought they do that because they didnt want to face the sad fact that they deviated so far from it. BUT what is your execuse Draginol? look at the religion not the followers. that is what you wanted to talk about. Isn't it?

As for the surveys, the facts on the ground and what would people actually do disprove these surveys. As i said look at where those fanatics are .... in failed states only, not where the vast majority of main-stream muslims are. These are the facts, not surveys.

Draginol: there was something in the ideology that caused enough people to believe that force was necessary to convert the masses to it. I see Islam as being much the same thing.

Now you talking about Islam itself. Very well then.

Show me one instance in which Islam support that. even more: if you like i can show you tens of verses in Qura'an and hundreds of actions by the prophet that not only forbids that but explains that this type of action by itself voids the belief in the religion.

Contrary to your point it is the exact opposite that actually lead to the problems in the muslim world.

You see, one of the tenents of Islam is to "Hold on to your unity and do not disagree too much with each other" and "chose a leader and follow him" and if you disagree with him "do not rebel, just keep advising him". Many Muslim scholars say that these tenents over centuries made people somewhat passive and not willing to stand up strongly against their bad dictatorial leaders.

You need a proof of that? Take Iraq or any other country in the area , why in the world they tolerated Saddam Hussain for soo long and the others still tolerating their own dictators? it is bcause the point i mentioned above. Many of them believe that voilence and changing the system by force is against the religion, which is true. their problem is that not many of them are willing to stand up and speak and get jailed or killed to achieve their freedom. In short, they are not yet willing to pay the price for their freedom. when they reach that point things will change. The foreign powers does not help the situation either by supporting those dictators and that is how the fanatics got into the act.

It is really simple cause and effect. The religion say dont be violent and dont rebel and the dictators are being protected by foreign powers. Most Muslims just gave up, some try to explain to them that they can act in a peaceful way, but that doesnt seem very effective. Then came the fanatics who say, we waited too long, we will act with any thing we can including voilence against everyone in this world which is clearly against the religion. The majority didnt buy that, and rejected the fanatics who found refuge in failed states. and that is where we are now.

It is not poverty, comfort or ignorance it is despair and frustration. It is not an execuse but it is a cause.

Now you see the vecious cycle?

Religious beliefs are abstract and open to interpretation. Whether they’re interpretation leans more violent or more peaceful is almost entirely influenced by the environment of the believers. Of course conflict and despair breeds extremism, I’m surprised anyone is arguing differently here. Well actually I’m not surprised to see one religion try to paint a competing religion in a bad light. There can be only one right?

The question here would be is there anything in the Koran that makes it easier to for its believers to excuse violence. I think the answer is yes, however is it enough that in an equally prosperous and comfortable environment the Muslim religion would still spawn more violent elements than Christianity?

Not that any off this matters in the short term, the Muslim religion has become what it has become and we’re going to be dealing with this interpretation for some time. However hope for a bright future for the citizens of Islam is the silver bullet to extremism.

stubbyfinger: The question here would be is there anything in the Koran that makes it easier to for its believers to excuse violence. I think the answer is yes

I fully agree with every point in your statement except this one. Your assumption that the answer to the question is "yes" is not supported by any verse in Qura'an or any action by the Prophet. In fact these two (and only valid references by the way) support the exact opposite. Both clearly say " when in doubt or in disagreement about anything, always chose the less harmful way and don't be aggressors". Fanatics use all kinds of execuse to ignore this order from Allah and His Prophet just like they ignore many many other orders that make them rebels against Islam itself.

I’m not surprised to see one religion try to paint a competing religion in a bad light. There can be only one right?

well, i am surprised. Very surprised in fact.

Islam affirms the unity of the three Abrahamic religions and their origin. Muslims never look at the other two as competing, it looks at them as Part of it. You sure noticed that no matter what the followers of the other two religions say about Islam and its Prophet, you will never find, one, single one main-stream muslim answer the attacks by attacking the Torah or Moses or the Bible or Jesus or any of the other prophets or books. you know why? because doing that Voids the Islam of whoever does that. Muslim always differentiate between the Religion and the Followers. and that is the way it should be.

It is not the same thing of course, but would you blame Einstein and his Special Relativity for the Atomic Bomb?

Of course some people do, but is it really fair or logical to do that?

God clearly made it a major disobediance to kill or harm people but gave everyone the right to defend themselves, by force if necessary (and this exactly the same in the three religions. Islam is not unique in this). If you go and use that to attack people that you just dont like or you disagree with, whose fault is that?

"The question here would be is there anything in the Koran that makes it easier to for its believers to excuse violence. I think the answer is yes"

There's well over a thousand years of Christian extremism, and they all have scriptures to back up their hatefulness, too. Look at the Aryan folks and sickening Phelps people.

btw... re: the urinating on the Bible thing:

"TWO Muslim students have been expelled from an Islamic school in Melbourne for urinating and spitting on a Bible and setting it on fire. The explosive incident has forced the East Preston Islamic College to call in a senior imam to tell its 650 Muslim students that the Bible and Christianity must be respected.

Anxious teachers at the school have also petitioned principal Shaheem Doutie, expressing "grave concern" about an "inculcation of hatred and radical attitudes towards non-Muslims" at the school, including towards non-Muslim teachers...

...a letter to all staff on Monday, Mr Doutie wrote: "The school unconditionally apologises for this horrible act as conducted by some illiterate and ignorant students while under the care of EPIC teachers.

"We regard the desecration of the Bible in a very serious light and therefore we have taken serious action against the offenders.

"The Bible is an important book both for non-Muslims and Muslims and should be treated as a holy book by all religions."

Lets get to the point here: Draginol posted about Muslim hatred and referred us to Michele Malkin. Michele Malkin is enthusing about atrocities committed by Muslims but does not get to the point. Her blog is a quasi Muslim bashing ,publicity seeking , big city tone. I have written to her and will report back.

tk

Lets get to the point here: Draginol posted about Muslim hatred and referred us to Michele Malkin. Michele Malkin is enthusing about atrocities committed by Muslims but does not get to the point. Her blog is a quasi Muslim bashing ,publicity seeking , big city tone. I have written to her and will report back.

Okay. It's a Muslim bashing blog. Very easy to bash Muslims these days given world events. It doesn't make her points incorrect though.

The problem I have with the framing of debate is when being anti-Islam is somehow equated with racism or something.

It would be like people saying being anti-Communist means being anti-Russian or anti-Nazi being anti-German.

I realize that many people do not agree that Islam is an ideology as well as a religion and that is a point that can be debated. But those who don't agree still have to accept that there are people who do see it as an ideology and therefore are against Islam because of what is done in its name rather than because of some particular bigotry against a race or religion.

To me it is like a doctor working on a sick patient. He finds that the patient has the "Islam" gene. He's tempted to blame it, but when he looks closer he finds that millions of people walk around with that gene and aren't sick.

So, he looks deeper. He finds that a virus interacts with that gene, and sometimes Christian genes and Sikh genes and every other kind, and makes people sick. He may or may not be able to cure the sickness, but at least he's pinned down the real cause.

To me, blaming Islam is stopping at the first step. You don't proceed further and find what the real catalyst for the problem is, you just use the shotgun, wide-net method and make the Islam gene the scapegoat.