I doubt it. Islam has some structural strengths that should enable it to compete successfully with other ideologies.
The fact that you have “no meaning for” jihadist Islam does nothing to alter the fact that Islamic terrorist organizations operate in practically every nation on Earth. You are arguing over semantics without addressing the core problem: Groups like Al Qaeda, Daesh, and Boko Haram are dominating the Islamic narrative. The fact that you personally do not approve of them does nothing to alter that fact.
Further, I am confused as to what you think I am fabricating. Do you think I am fabricating the PRC’s research? Or that the research itself is a fabrication? Taking the 2012 survey as an example, 8-15% of Muslims surveyed expressed sympathy towards Islamic terrorists and their actions (depending on the particular wording of the question). If the survey can be generalized to the global population of 1.7 billion, even the lower figure of 8% implies that 136 million people sympathize with Islamic terrorist actions. What part of this is a fabrication? I’m not saying that means 136 million active combatants, but rather many millions of people who share their view of Islamic supremacism and the belief that jihadist-inspired violence is justified.
Finally, the fact that you so quickly resort to ad hominem attacks indicates to me that you have neither the interest (nor, perhaps, the ability) in separating your emotions from the real topic of the discussion.
I was being sarcastic, and I disagree about it not jibing with my previous comment. Let’s review:
First, bump commented that there’s no Islam-wide organization that denounces Islamic terrorism. Then Ramira chides him (well, she chides “you people”) for only paying attention when it’s in English and “packaged for your consumption.” Ramira struggles to express herself coherently in English, but it sounds like a bullshit complaint, because of course “us people” (I assume that means Americans, but who really knows) only pay attention to stuff in English, because that’s the only language understood by the majority of Americans. Then you chimed in that I should expect “[my] own news agencies” (again, presumably American news agencies) to report on these denunciations packaged in other languages, which is of course true, but misses my point, which is criticizing Ramira’s bizarre expectation that Americans become Islamic scholars fluent in Arabic, or something.
They dominate your news. They do not dominate Islamic discourse.
The number of “jihadists” and the substitution of the concept of sympathy (however loose this is) with the actual actors - the “jihadists” you asserted. But then as it was suspected, new meaning was invented.
By such illogical standards, the millions of the American Irish sypmathising with the IRA were the Terrorists just like the actual IRA terrorists.
this is of course an illogical and stupid analysis no matter if we are looking at the IRA or the DAESH or some other subject. By this non logic it would be logical to say that there are millions of Terrorists now in the USA as of course there are the anti-abortion terrorists and then there are the millions who sympathize… (or we can be conservative and we say hundreds of thousands…).
There are some tens of thousands of the actual actors in the takfiri Salafiste organizations like the Al Qaeda and the DAESH and the similar. These are the “jihadists”
The real topic is the incessant promotion of the half truths based on the half or less understandings and the slipperyness of the bait and the switch between the concepts. But since this is a conversation where it is without shame asserted that the actions of a non-islamic, secular, socialist group, led by a Christian can be associated with the actions of an Al Qaeda in the image of Islam…
Since in fact there was no expectation and this is your distortion, the criticism is a failure.
The only bizarre expectation I have is that on a board like this, that a commentator who in fact only knows his own language will avoid making ignorant broad statements like that I commented on, that is “But when Islamic terrorists blow stuff up, there’s no large Islamic organization denouncing it- just usually a handful of Western imams in the US and UK.”
as was already shown to you to no effect, but so is the futility of the pretended purpose of the site.
I know I never try to make the broad statements about what is the discourse of the Russian language Orthodox and their position about the Russians, I have no idea and I have no illusion that there is any great insight from the language medias I can consume.
I never wrote that there are not muslims who are terrorists, and never have denied the existence of the DAESH, and the evil of the takfiri Salafistes.
But it is not a straw man to point out that in these conversations it is seen again and again statements like this - where the commentator drags out the acts of Habash’s group and similar and lays this on the Muslims and Jihadists, since … Arab!
The inability to differentiate even between a secular Christian origin socialist terror group and the DAESH shows clearly the huge confusion that is these perceptions.
If your expectation is actually that Americans as a whole will stop forming and expressing opinions about Islam, too bad, not going to happen. You could play a small role in helping to make those opinions more fact-based, but you’ve already made it clear you can’t be bothered.
Your complaint is odd (at best) and non-factual at minimum.
Ramira frequently posts on the topic, describing factual differences between groups in the Muslim world, their philosophies and histories. That she also expresses herself in anger that causes some to ignore her has as much to do with sheer number of times she has has to present the same facts, (often to the same posters who ignore those facts).
You may disagree with her points or dismiss her points as you react to her anger, but the claim that she is making no effort to instruct people outside Islam or outside the Middle East are simply unfounded nonsense that is contradicted by her posting history.
Somehow I’ve missed every single one of these threads, which I fully admit is possible. My reading of this board is best described as sporadic. Usually what I see from her is much like this thread - lashing out at posters she disagrees with, accusations (to be fair, often accurate accusations) of ignorance, but never any patient explanations of why someone’s POV is incorrect or cites to interesting follow-up material. Perhaps you could point me to one of these threads?
By defeating and marginalizing Islamic extremism, forcing various factions to move onto a new official enemy.
To recap: Is the world wide global image of the world’s fastest growing religion beyond repair?
Considering Islam already has 1.6 billion adherents, and is expected to reach 2.8 billion and overtake christianity within the next 40 years, can you please define what you see as a successful global image?
Americans? since I wrote of this Board and its cultural pretension to fighting ignorance and the posters here, it is hard for me to understand how this is deformed into “Americans” and any expectation about Americans in general.
In any case, in over ten years, I have not seen any effect from ‘educating’ for fact and so I have not any more any desire or patience. The same people, present here since 2000 or more, come back with the same half-information and distortions, again and again and again no matter what information is presented.
Aisha is more fresh, she can do that.
I think it is sufficient to note that on a Board with its pretensions to fighting the ignorance, that the posters on ANY subject - the Islam or not - should be ashamed to make the sweeping statements when they should be expected to know they do not have the information.
I know enough not to pretend to make the sweeping statements about similar things (like pretending to know what the Russians or the Chinese discourse is)… it is not being expert in the Islam or in Arabic, it is basic reasoned thinking.
Did you even read the OP? It’s perception to outsiders, and who cares if it’s the biggest religion primarily by birthrate, they’re not converts.
so in fact you mean by ‘global’ perception is “what Anglo-Americans think and mistake this for ‘the world world thinks’.”
Conversion to Islam in the sub-Saharan Africa remains at minimum at the net positive, to take one example only.
Indeed your own link says at bottom
It’s not my link. As for Global perception, again, like Gary,** if you actually read my OP**, I was watching about the Uighurs being oppressed in China, and how the global narrative is that Muslim = Terrorist, how this has damaged Islams image globally, but whatever, you keep your racist assertions and just blame ‘Anglo-Americans’.
From the link;
The main reasons for Islam’s growth ultimately involve simple demographics.
This, but I really do marvel at your willingness to keep trying to explain this to people who don’t want to hear it.
Global narrative? Would you care to define that phrase you like to throw around so much.
Ah yes, my mistake, it is Kumquat’s - it would be greatly unexpected to have a relevant and coherent data otherwise.
I di
It’s the latest Chinese narrative to spin for the Anglosphere. A recent development, to fit into the Anglosphere narrative and take advantage.
GLOBAL of course means not just in English and not just about what you anglophones read.
I am unaware that the Anglo-Americans are a race.
Not is there blame of Anglo-americans - there is a blame on a certain kind of poster here who mistakes their narrow consumption, limited to the Anglosphere medias or the Euro medias, and information for Global.
from the same link, the full quote again since you avoid it
So it is hard to see a logic which is saying the Islamic world is suffering specifically in this area having net positive on conversion unlike the major competing religions…
that most growth is by demographics is the effect of large numbers and does not say anything by itself on your ostensible topic. It is the comparative I quote that provides that.
Doubtless the bad effects of the evil distortion that is the Takfiri movement and generally the Saudi supported Salafiste movements on the image of the Islamic religion (and beyond the image) in the Western world do indeed hurt any expansion of the islamic religion and conversion to the Islam.
This is not the same as Global although the navel regarding mistake that.
I guess my big problem is that she appears to be denying that there is even a problem. What I get from her posts above is that she is incapable or unwilling to admit that Islamic terrorism and jihadist ideology are real issues or that they represent systemic faults in Islam itself. Further, the very idea that Americans would have reason to disrespect Islam appears to baffle her, and she blames our ignorance rather than the very real and damaging outrages terrorist groups have inflicted on the world.
The fact that she responds with anger, insults and racism just makes it worse. And, for the record, “Anglo” specifically means someone English or from England, where the Angles originated. To use it pejoratively is just as racist as saying you hate “All Germans” or “All Italians.”
Why it appears I am denying anything I can not understand. I am pointing out the errors and ignorance… and the willful distortions such as the prejudicial mixing, like the substitution of ‘sympathetic to’ for ‘jihadist’ or the attribution of the actions of a non-muslim group to the muslims because… Arab Sand people all the same.
Since I have Identified even here the evil that is the Takfiri movement as a problem, this is a gross and willful distortion.
But no, these are not “systematic faults in Islam itself” any more than the Lord’s Army or the US anti-Abortion Christianist Terrorists are systematic faults in the Christian religion itself - these would be grossly ignorant and stupid statements to make.
The objection I make is to the gross, willful distortions.
Racism?
Anglo is a language term, we say in French the anglos the anglo saxons and we mean the English speakers. There is no racial component in this idea at all, unless you somehow believe speaking English is some kind of race.
The only pejorative is the extreme myopia of a certain set of the anglophone posters who make sweeping conclusions about they “only” see denunciations by English speaking Western muslims … Well DUH the monolinguals of course are only accessing this.
So unless it monolingual myopia is a Race, there is no racism but I do admit prejudice against the aggressive ignorance and the pig-headedness of those who make the sweeping claims based on myopic ignorance.
Of course I find it noticeable that rather than admit error it becomes complaining that I am too angry about the errors…
- Do you feel that Christian terrorism reflects a systematic fault in Christianity. Would you be surprised if Christians disagreed with that logic
- Has the west committed terrorist attacks in the middle east, in particular in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Iraq. If not, why not
Anglo:
"a white English-speaking person of British or northern European origin, in particular (in the US) as distinct from a Hispanic American or (in Canada) as distinct from a French-speaker.
“they brought in Mexican workers to replace the Anglos on war duty”
Her usage is neither pejorative or racist.