Does that figure not seem unlikely to you?
Yes ,but this “teaching” is pretty common I fear. I think the Moderate Muslims are literally outgunned, sadly.
https://www.facebook.com/CarlPearsonUK/videos/2160516624190605/UzpfSTE0MDMwODE4MDAzNzI2NTozMTc2OTgwMjIyOTgyNzk/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN7AV8U3EY4
There are thousands of similar videos. It is not an Islamaphobic view to identify hate…I would decry the same views from Christians. . Moderate Islamists and everyone else should be stamping this out. Anyway.
Yes. I think it may be far higher 
What number is an acceptable one?
An accurate one.
Seriously, people talk about liberal left identity politic bs pushing people to extremes. But you’re almost making me pro Islam. Are you a sleeper?
Depends. If it is to mean that many would be ok with some muslims killing kafirs then maaaybe? But if it is taken as that many would actually go through with killing innocent non-believers then a firm no.
Hang on. I’m getting taken for a ride here. Judaism is ethnoreligious. Islam clearly isn’t.
I guess this is like a cost and benefits analysis.
Yes I know many Muslims are good and even extraordinary people. I’ve met a few. They aren’t all radials, extremists, terrorists, etc. It isn’t even the majority that are radicals. It is a small but still considerably alarming percentage.
Now you might say the benefits outweighed the cost maybe because you’re not the one getting gun down and ran over in Paris. The one getting thrown off the roof and burned alive or beheaded. Maybe some of you are that forgiving and positive that even while filmed getting beheaded you still don’t think Islam is a problem when jihadi John cuts down your head.
Ok fine, but be honest on what you mean. That you think it’s a acceptable cost that once in a while some Muslim shouting allah akbar blows something up because most of them are not like that. You’re willing to take that for whatever the benefits of Islam is to you.
I think some of you are taking for granted that most of us live in places where we can even have this conversation. In all of the Muslims countries off the top of my head, we could not be doing this in the open without legal or public repercussions going all the way to death. I say this over and over again. We are debating the nature of Islam when we could not do this is Muslim countries is enough for me to not be so high on it.
2 Likes
I mean let’s break down facts.
Muhammad is the LAST and FINAL prophet of Islam.
- Was a warlord
- Founded a empire
- Went to war often and conquered territory
- Took multiple wife’s
- Took child brides
The Koran is the direct word of God
- Was very violent
- There are more violent versus than peaceful ones
- Pretty much any peaceful versus is superseded by violent ones. It actually contradicts itself so much there’s a concept that Mohammed’s later word supersedes his earlier word.
- Has versus that calls for the death of non Muslims
Historically
- Was one of the largest empires ever
- Conquered territory through military operations
Today
Too many to list. When they aren’t bombing none Muslims they bomb each other. War torn, lack of human rights, atrocities against human dignity, women are treated like 2nd class citizens in many countries. Forced to cover themselves. Even in a moderate Muslim country, in Malaysia it’s actually still common to have female genitalia mutilation in for Muslims as religions traditions. Things like that.
While I hate trying to make people soften their stance on Islam, you are making this way too black and white. Much of what you have problems with was very much common throughout the world mere decades ago.
The wierdest argument is the conquering thing. So what? Up to ww2 literally all nations attempted to control as much land as they could. It wasn’t just Islam.
Roman and chinese empires had way worse (and I can’t over-emphasize this) human rights, militarism, etc. record.
Same with child bride thing, everyone did it.
These things don’t make mohammad evil. They make him a ruler from 1500 years ago.
A legit argument would be why most (not all) other countries have moved on from these stupid traditions and mindsets. Muslims, on the hand, are, generally speaking, taking their time to do so which is at least partly attributable to Islam.
1 Like
I’m making a point that when your religious foundations are inseparable from governance, it’s problematic. You don’t see how a war lord prophet your religion is based on has probably resulted in the attitudes of Muslims today? You don’t see how the fight to return to the caliphate is rooted in that?
You sound like you’re trying to say morality is relative to the time period and attitudes at the time. I’m not of that school of thought. I recognize attitudes towards things can be different from time and culture. But slavery was just as wrong 200 years ago as it is today. Just because it was legal, prevalent and not generally frowned upon by the majority doesn’t change the fact that it is morally wrong. Same with anything else like taking children as a grown man as your wife.
I think you’re not understanding my point and you’re seeing it as black and white. My point has nothing to do with Mohammed being evil. It’s that if you’re religious founder and prophet was a ruler of territory, perhaps your religion might also be shaped that way in the none separation of “church and state” as they say. If your last and final prophet was a war lord who’s life and words have a lot to do with war. Perhpase your religion would also be shaped in the idea of being in war times. If the word of god is mostly during war times, maybe that’s also causing the interpretation of using violence. If your religious prophet and founder is taking child brides, taking multiple wives and commanding women having to dress modestly. Perhaps it would also lead to the poor attitudes towards women.
Saudi govt beheads people on street corners.
1 Like
What does 'innocent ’ mean?
Is drawing a cartoon of a dead guy an excuse for assasination and terrorism?
Yep we would be on a deathlist in many of those Islamic countries.
Local population wouldn’t care because we aren’t Muslims. We are kafirs.
Which empire was the nastiest by modern standards (or by the standards of any era) is an interesting question. Napoleon and JC for example still tend to get lots of praise from Christian and secular westerners, despite the whole war crimes / genocide thing…
And I’ll say it again, because for some strange reason people keep forgetting: the USA still has child brides, legally!
This is just a mental exercise, of course; it’s not something I’m actually saying. I need to cut it off before it gets to the part about the death penalty for blaspheming against 2A, because that doesn’t exist in law. There is a law in at least one part of Texas that you must be armed in public iirc, but I assume the punishment for breaking that law would a mere fine. Outside of what the law says, if you look around, you can find videos Americans using physical violence in response to mere words that strike them as un-American, which is not equal to the death penalty but is still disturbing.
That doesn’t necessarily mean gun ownership is a problem in itself. It doesn’t make up for any problems in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. But if doing a cost-benefit analysis makes sense for one problem, in general it should make sense for other problems, and hopefully we all want these analyses to be as unbiased as possible. 
True in most countries around the world for most of recorded history, and it is frequently claimed that despite recent legal changes, it’s still true culturally, everywhere. The modern concept of gender equality can be very distressing, as you’ve explained in other threads.
(Btw did you hear that Canada’s military is supposed to be 25% female by 2025 and eventually 50-50? I wonder if we’re supposed to congratulate them or protest against the Feminazism of it… 
)
Ridiculous and inhumane punishments
Also true in many parts of the world until recently, and still true in some non-Muslim countries. That doesn’t excuse the punishments, but context is important. It’s like what I say about the recent obsession with carbon among environmentalists: if we focus too much on carbon, we forget about all the other problems and let them get worse when we could be doing something about them.
Attitude towards science and truth
Dude, I thought you were American… 
Not Being able to freely practice whatever religion or beliefs they may have
True in some Muslim countries. Also true in most of Christendom for most of its history…
And many more reasons on why they would possibly cause many Muslim countries to be shit holes and stay as shit holes. Also on why they tend to not make the best immigrants to almost any western and modern countries.
I repeat: I don’t deny for a moment that problems exist. And I never said all of your arguments were unreasonable.
My point about reasonable arguments is that you don’t need to be or even seem unreasonable when discussing this topic. If you repeat echo chamber mantras like Muslims push gays off buildings that are objectionable the same way that statements like Catholics are child molesters or gun owners are mass murderers are objectionable, that tends to be unhelpful in these polarized times.
Consider the difference:
-
Islam has a problem with alcohol. The details are disputed, but the fact is that Muslim countries tend to restrict alcohol severely, and many Muslims around the world are teetotalers.
-
Muslim countries: you drink, you die!
Or:
-
Islam has a problem with sex. There is a tendency among Muslims to view homosexuality, premarital sex, and adultery as sins, and some countries even have severe punishments for these actions.
-
Muslims are gay-killers!
See the difference? One opens the door for serious discussion; the other shuts it.
And even when the arguments are presented reasonably, there may be reasonable (or humorous) criticisms of those arguments which do not constitute praise for Islam.
- Non-Muslim countries also have problems with alcohol. (See earlier post.) Plus, the “leader of the free world” is a teetotaler, so, like, what if he’s a closet Muslim?
Or:
- Other religions and secular movements also have problems with sex. Non-Muslims, including Americans, have also been known to kill gays for their gayness, even in modern times. Adultery is also illegal in secular Taiwan…
And none of those is necessarily meant to excuse any legitimate complaint, but as with carbon vs. plastic and so on, we should try not to be myopic.
If you stick to the echo chamber mantras, you end up missing the point when a question like this comes up:
It was in response to the claim in the previous post that “SJW’s” are hypocrites because they support gay marriage and have “wholesale support” for Islam. Eventually we got to a conclusion that didn’t miss the point, but I had to protest first that SF was putting words in my mouth.
It’s complicated. Religion and ethnicity have this tendency to correlate, despite the many examples of non-correlation. Over the millennia many governments have passed laws to decrease, preserve or increase correlations (or for other reasons but with the side effect of decreasing, preserving or increasing correlations), and we still see some of this today, in various countries.
It has been claimed that Islam is (theologically) supposed to be “the Arab religion”, but afaik it’s not a widely held view among scholars.
1 Like
1 Like
Wonderful places all.
Absolutely nothing to do with Islam…
1 Like
New book out that may be of some interest:
Most religions have an ethnic dimension, though they are too complex to be reduceable to that. Islam is associated with numerous ethnic groups–for example, in Malaysia, being “Malay” is defined in part with reference to Islam–as are other religions. Non-Muslim are welcome to convert, of course, but they and their descendants will be seen as “new Muslims” for centuries. Much the same is true of Judaism, where “convert” status persists for three generations according to the Orthodox reading.
Many Armenians define “Armenian-ness” in part through the Armenian Apostolic Church (although some Armenians are Catholic, Presbyterian, or atheist), and would be confused by the notion of a Muslim Armenian (even though “Hamshen” Armenians in Turkey may outnumber the Christian citizens of the Republic of Armenia). Bhutanese tend to define themselves around Buddhism, although Lhotsampas (“Southerners,” Nepali-speaking Hindu Bhutanese) fundamentally disagree with this. Taiwan (like Japan) is interesting in that religion tends not to play much of a role in group identity here, but functions more as a hobby or specialty interest (like fortune telling).
So peaceful, as long as you don’t denounce Islam (punishable by death according Islamic scholars) spread other religions, be gay, not cover yourself as a women, work in the World Trade Center, walking around in Barcelona, go to the wrong mosque, go to a church, be a Jew.
How many times do these guys got to scream allah akbar before blowing themselves up before it gets into people heads it is about Islam.
The only case you can make about it not being about Islam is why they aren’t doing anything about the CCP rounding up Muslims and putting them into camps and ethnically cleaning them? They just hate western civilization. The only other reason I believe is true.
One could make much the same rant about Chinese people. Nuance matters.
Not Much nuance about Islam .
Chop chop.