The problem is, most people that make this distinction fail to admit (or maybe even recognize) that when it comes to Islamic doctrine, it is the “radical Islamists” or “radical jihadists” that hew most closely to its tenets. If Muhammad were somehow revived from the grave, ISIS would look to him like the keepers of the faith.
So when I hear that Muslim terrorists are practicing a “perversion of a peaceful faith” my eyes roll *way *back in my head. Like, painfully far back there.
Nobody likes those who claim to murder in the name of Islam. We differ in that some of us use these murders as an excuse to slander all those who practice a religion and seek to demonize all of its followers.
Case in point.
I shoulda also mentioned that Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which contemporary anti-Semitism, from Henry Ford’s “International Jew” to Nazism and beyond, was based on, is a popular book in the Muslim world. Mein Kampf has also seen a surge in popularity in sectors the Muslim world too.
Bullshit. It’s all interpretation – Muslims who interpret their text in a peaceful way are no more or less correct then those who interpret it in a hateful way.
There’s no perfect or correct understanding of a religious text. It always requires interpretation.
Me too, but I do the same when Christians say that abortion bombers, or other Christian extremists, say the same kind of thing. Any religious text can be interpreted in any way the followers please.
This is troubling, but still no reason to slander all Muslims for the crimes and views of some.
Slandering all Muslims is bad. It’s also bad to act as if it’s a “tiny minority” when it isn’t. A minority, to be sure, but doesn’t seem to be all that tiny given the number of people ISIS has under arms and how many ally themselves with them. Not to mention whole countries run on extremely strict and oppressive forms of Islam, with those states also supporting international terrorism with millions upon millions of dollars.
It’s time to get real, and that goes for people trying to accuse an entire religion as well as those who want to pretend it’s just a few people. I know why the second group lies, it’s because they think if they do that the radical Muslims who aren’t yet violent might be assuaged, but it will never work. It also completely fails to avoid the radicalization of Westerners, who see all this backwards crap about female circumcision, beheading gays, forcing women to marry their rapists, and then get sold a bill of goods about how only a “tiny minority” believe in this interpretation of Islam. So they figure if Democrats are lying, then Donald Trump must be telling the truth. So it’s time to stop the whitewashing.
touche!
But forgetting whether it’s slander for a second, we are talking about immigration. I’ve used this analogy before: Most of us accept blood agencies refusing donations from certain groups of people. That doesn’t mean we think all gay people and Haitians have AIDS or everyone who visits Britain catches mad cow. We are just lowering the risks. So isn’t it reasonable to focus immigration in the same way and only allow it from countries we deem sufficiently enlightened/westernized/whatever?
Whenever I read a recommendation to Democrats from one of our Usual Wingnut Suspects, I resolve to do 100% the opposite.
Thanks for your concern, guys! Do you really think you’re fooling anyone?
That is absolutely 100% untrue. But it does identify one of the things that seems to motivate a lot of the attitudes like yours on this issue: fear that your cultural/religious dominance in America will be upended. It’s just another battle in the Christmas War.
But here’s the thing (if that is true); they’re not that far behind us. It’s pretty self-righteous to point at Muslims and say, “look at how anti-women/gay they are. Not like us!” We are well less than one lifetime away from an era when rights and safety for gays, black people, and women (to name a few significant disenfranchised populations) were far from secure.
My grandfather, who is still alive, was born before women had the right to vote in this country.
We (in general) are not as morally advanced as you imagine, and Muslims (in general) are not as extreme as you think they are. The line you want to draw in the sand is impossible.
Anybody who believes Donald Trump is telling the truth is too fucking stupid to reason with. A few thousand or even tens of thousands of ISIS fighters is still a tiny fraction of the billion plus Muslims. Sure, there are states enforcing pretty backward laws. It’s too bad they have the ability to enforce some of this stuff. We’re lucky here in that the likes of Sarah Palin aren’t presiding over a Christian Taliban. The way to change other nations or cultures isn’t to insult them and isolate them, it’s to encourage the free flow of ideas. Some things take generations, as much as you may wish that other cultures were more like ours, there are right and wrong ways to work with that thought.
That’s why triangulation is a good thing in this case. Republicans are all about “Muslims! Muslims! Muslims!” and then Hillary Clinton posts the stupidest tweet ever saying, “Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism.” Who is the average American more likely to believe? The one who exaggerates the problem, or the one who denies a problem exists in the first place?
While Republicans are trying to blame 1.6 billion people for the actions of a minority, Democrats could at least acknowledge that there’s a civil war in the Muslim world pitting say, 200 million radicals vs. 200 million moderates wtih the other 1.2 billion waiting to see who wins.
That statement has all the maturity of a 9-year old’s understanding of politics. This is the Straight Dope, I’m not trying to trap anyone or play a political game with you. Personally, I’d prefer it if Republicans were the ones who got real on the issue, but that’s apparently not going to happen so someone’s party should.
Even you have to acknowledge that actively trying to even deny a link between Islam and terrorism is stupid. It’s stupid politically and it’s stupid as a reflection of reality.
It’s not stupid, it’s actually entirely logical.
YOu walk down a street every night. One person tells you, “That street is perfectly safe, muggings are extremely rare, only a tiny minority of people on that block are muggers.”
Another person tells you, “Don’t walk down that street! Everyone who lives there is a rapist or murderer!”
So you get mugged. Repeatedly. Who would you feel came closer to telling you the truth?
But who’s saying “tiny minority”? Numerically, perhaps a tiny minority actually physically conduct terrorist operations; a larger minority perhaps expresses some level of support for terrorist operations; an even larger group (don’t know if it’s minority or majority) expresses some negative feelings against the west; and a larger group (perhaps a majority) holds views (anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-freedom-of-religion, etc.) that we find very negative. But still not “all Muslims”, and it’s important to note that all of these sorts of feelings are much, much lower within American Muslims then elsewhere.
Somehow, America has done a pretty damn good job of assimilating Muslims into broader American society in a positive way. It’s absolutely vital that we maintain and continue to improve this.
Six killed in Sikh temple by white supremacist who predicted an imminent “holy war”.
That’s certainly different then banning all Muslim immigration, but I’d still oppose it. Rather, I support reasonable questioning and “vetting” of prospective immigrants to minimize this possibility. Since 9/11, most terrorism in America has been home-grown, and not from immigrants.
how long did it take you to dig that up? And do you have no answer to not just the other examples that I mentioned, but a monster litany of more of them?
I get it; progressives believe in equality so much that to them, it can ever supersede physical safety or the truth, if lying protects a minority. What’s wrong with a happy medium?
A tiny minority plan overseas terrorist attacks. However, a rather large minority hold extremist views about women, gays, apostates, Jews, and Western values in general. It’s not safe to import large numbers of such people. This would be true even if none of them were violent.
This is true, but we don’t do that by importing a huge number of them with 7th century mentalities and letting them form ethno-religious enclaves as they do in Europe where they can reinforce each other’s backwardness and become hotbeds of extremism and violence.
I’m not against bringing Syrian refugees into this country, but vetting needs to be better and it needs to cover their personal views on values we consider important.