Not real sure what your purpose is in this post (and in the others you keep making that are identical in content). Are you trying to persuade people, to refine your rhetorical skills, to insult people? What are you aiming for?
Extremism occurs in a vacuum?
I read Johnny Ace as saying pretty much the opposite. Context matters.
Obviously religion does not occur in a vacuum. Much like political ideology, economics, gastronomy, philosophy and any other human field of interest.
So it does matter whether the ideology in question fosters or even encourages violence to further its cause.
So everything but religion? Seems unlikely.
“Everything” what “but religion?” It would be helpful to understand with which part you’re disagreeing? I certainly, in my short reply, did not exclude religion as a factor (of indeterminant importance) in any potential extremist’s personal context. Nor do I exclude religious thought or practice as vulnerable to influence from extremist actors.
To produce any sort of meaningful conclusions, any discussion regarding the question of the influence of religious affiliation on extremist/terroristic activities has to examine those activities not only in their broader contexts so that the influences can be judged with some relativity, but also with more granularity in the details of their specific manifestations. Otherwise, it’s just an exercise in broad brushing and stereotyping, and has little utility beyond reinforcement of prejudices.
Even the Left-wing, self proclaimed Muslim, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (on The Wright Stuff) recently admitted that “We are entering a new dark age of Islam”.
By the way, we may be concerned about terrorism but it is worth remembering that Pakistan, for example, has had an average of two terror attacks a week over the past few years.
Milli Vanilli, obviously.
The problems are many (and have been well covered over the years - if not absorbed by “liberals”).
I have had problems with individuals who follow Islam, Christianity, etc. Religions aren’t a direct problem for me … it’s people who are under their influence that I have to be careful of. People who are under the influence of Islam are far more of a problem for me than Christians ever were.
These type of content free posts are hard to distinguish from trolling. Please take note of this in the future as whether a person falls on one side of that interpretation or the other can have different outcomes.
[/moderating]
Yeah, that should be obvious to even liberals.
It was a documentary a few years ago. I can’t help any more than that.
Documentaries are notoriously propagandic. I’d recommend against them as a source of information.
How so?
Not even going to bother to answer Jefferson’s nonsense. Extremism doesn’t occur solely in a particular religion. There are plenty of Christian extremists right here in the good ol’ US of A. Witness the multiple militia, the KKK, and other examples that have already been given in this thread. Plenty of extremism to go around. Claiming that it’s all those big, bad Islamists is beyond disingenuous, it’s flat-out false.
As an aside, given his clear anti-liberal bias, is Jefferson not the most ironic handle in the history of this board?
Intelligent people, whether liberal or conservative, recognize that mass immigration from disparate cultures presents challenges to both the immigrants and the existing residents. Doug Saunders, in The Myth of the Muslim Tide: Do Immigrants Threaten the West? analyzed the actual immigration to Europe from Muslim dominant cultures and demonstrated that the anti-Muslim rhetoric was nothing more than the same anti-immigrant rhetoric that has always followed any large immigration that had pretty much nothing to do with Islam, per se. Without denying the occasional, localized disruptions caused by specific small groups, (generally ghettoized by the majority population), he noted that Muslims have been assimilating in Europe, the U.S., and Canada and that most of the problems were caused, not by their religion, but by the standard xenophobic reactions to their presence.
Let’s leave this sort of cheap shot for The BBQ Pit. Keep personal attacks out of Great Debates.
[ /Moderating ]
So, you apparently watched some sort of polemic that you cannot even cite and you think that that contributes to a reasoned discussion?
Clearly, there is an aspect of radical Islam that is, indeed, particularly violent.
Asking whether it is the religion that causes this, (allowing one to then move toward claiming that all of Islam will be affected/infected by the same beliefs, making Islam more prone to such violence), is simply a polemic tactic that has little to do with understanding Islam, radical Islam, or the rest of the world.
There are a number of issues that are generally not understood, (or deliberately ignored), in these discussions. Muslims, for example, recently have been or are being persecuted in several regions of the world–by Christians in Cote D’Ivoire and the Central African Republic, in the Philippines, and in Lebanon, by Orthodox Christians in the former Yugoslavia, by Hindus in several regions of India, by Buddhists in Sri Lanka and Burma/Myanmar, by (supposedly) non-religious (not sure how much of a role Orthodox Christianity played), in pre-revolt Chechnya and other former Soviet reublics, and “secular” Muslims in Iran and Indonesia. The Salafist/Wahhabist movement in the Arabian peninsula lucked into a significant source of funds with the development of the oil fields and began to export their particular brand of extremism–much as Marxists exported their brands of extremism to various places throughout the 20th century. And, just as the “communist rebels” developed their own ideologies that had nothing to do with anything written by Karl Marx, the Wahhabist movement has developed its own ideas separate from Islam as it was practiced anywhere prior to the late 18th century, (when the first Wahhabist ideology was created).
European colonialism disrupted a most Muslim societies and as the colonial powers lost their grips following WWII, the leaders of the Cold War were quite willing to step in and impose their own order–whether (usually authoritarian) “democracy” or (typically totalitarian) “people’s socialism.” When the Cold War ended and the First and Second World nations stopped funding efforts to suppress movements of self-determination (including Islam) in various places, the Wahhabist movement was more than happy to provide the funds to ensure that any Muslim movements would follow their directions.
Among the various aspects of the Wahhabists are the extreme religious conservatism espoused by Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab along with his particular views regarding governance. Wahhabism has also picked up the notion of reviving the Caliphate, which appeals to people who regard themselves, (often correctly), as having been oppressed. This is not much different than Hitler’s plan for a Third Reich or Mussolini’s Venezia Giulia, in which Italy claimed ownership of much of the Ancient Roman Empire. It is a way to promote unity by appealing to a glorious past that has no bearing on current reality. (Let’s make America great, again.)
As to the violence, itself, it varies by numerous factors. Suicide bombing, for example, was not invented by Muslims, but by Hindu Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka. Such things as honor killings, often described as Muslim tradition, have occurred in one place or another in Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist societies. The current widespread violence in much of the Muslim world is more closely related to the way that Wahhabism is promoted as an empowering movement, much as exported marxism resulted in the Khmer Rouge and Sendero Luminoso or the way in which Fascism spread to various countries with local black shirt movements.
There is clearly a religious element to the current violence, but it is a religious element that has very specific cultural, political, and historical aspects that render “religion” a simplistic, (i.e. wrong), answer to complex political and social issues.