Nope. “Islam” has many varieties, and only some of those varieties practice hateful rhetoric.
It’s difficult to rebut someone’s own personal experience, but I don’t think this can be correct. Islamic citizens in the west don’t practice female genital mutiliation, slavery, amputation of the limbs of thieves, imprisonment of homosexuals, etc. Islamic citizens in the west are, on the average, not much different from any other large subset of the citizenry.
Social unification can occur without uniformity of language or customs.
Predicting the future is notoriously fallible. I’ll venture to say that, via trade organizations and other voluntary treaties, the world will, indeed, see more than 10% gain in unification in the next 40 years. Look at how quickly China became integrated into the world economy.
Completely true.
Untrue. Malaysia, for instance, has a 9% Christian minority, which is fairly well tolerated. Saudi Arabia isn’t so nice, and doesn’t permit open Christian worship. It isn’t all beer and skittles…but it isn’t all shackles and chains, either.
Even Iran has legally recognized religious minorities (including the 2nd largest Jewish community in the Middle East). Granted they’re more tolerated than protected & subject to all kinds of discriminations, but it’s still a lot better than in Saudi Arabia.
What is it, specifically, that you are seeing that we are allowing the US government to do that is going to ultimately lead to an Islam-controlled USA? Please be specific.
Indonesians as a general matter consider JI to be extremist, still functional due more to the incompetence of security forces than because wide swathes of the population support it.
Look at what the OP said:
“Huge chunks of Indonesians about to go to holy war with the west…striking as many deadly blows as possible”? Sorry, that just doesn’t describe Indonesia at all. Even Aceh, the most Islamic region, is generally more concerned about internal matters than it is attacking the outside world.
I have lived in Indonesia for nearly 13 years, have traveled widely in the country, and have yet to experience that “palpable antipathy” against the west.
It’s election time here - religion plays a role in party maneuvering, that’s for sure. But no one is running on anything remotely like a “holy war” platform.
That footage we sometimes see of scores of people screaming “death to America” breeds fear, but often without context.
I recently watched a series of reports from Iran. In one they briefly examined the “death to America”-shouting. It the Friday prayer on a square, and small groups of men flocked to the camera to jostle in front of the lens a shout the singular message.
Then the camera panned to the other side of the square, where families were walking and girls were sitting around chatting. The crew approached a group of girls wearing stylish clothes and with their scarves just casually draped over their heads. The reported asked about the shouting of “death to America”. One of the girls said “Oh yeah, it’s just something they say because that’s what they’re supposed to say. My family is there now too, they have nothing against America, but their boss made them go to the square today to participate.”
They also interviewed Iranian Jews and Christians, who also said pretty much said “meh”. They indicated they just shout that stuff on Fridays and it’s pretty meaningless.
But those images are usually seen by us without the more nuanced perspective of the general population. We should bear in mind that they probably see our psychos on the news in the same way, the preacher who wanted to burn the Quran or Geert Wilders chanting for Maroccans to get out of the Netherlands. And so you start a cycle where each thinks the other side is all crazy radicals. IME the vast majority of the world is preoccupied with the wish to see big fat grandchildren and their arsehole neighbour’s car parking habits, the hating of the West or the Quran taking a backseat if it’s present at all.
Just this Thursday I was at the market, and a little girl ran ahead of me full speed towards a tiny blue bicycle, screaming “grandpa! grandpa!” The old gentleman, typically dressed in the old-fashioned suit and taqiyah and with a walking stick, caught up and smilingly asked how much the bike cost. The stall owner put the bike on the ground and plopped the thrilled little girl on top. At that point the mother caught up and started arguing that the little girl was far too young for a bicycle.
This is what the majority of the world is up to. Grandfathers indulging their little granddaughters, wanting them to integrate into Dutch society, mothers arguing that they are spoilt. The OP asks about the Muslim man on the street: this is he.
(And for those awaiting the end of the story with bated breath: mother won, of course, as the little girl was indeed to young for a grown up bicycle. But grandpa flashed a sneaky smile at the little girl and I’m pretty sure she will soon have her bicycle.)
Islam is generally not a pacifist faith and traditions do make attempts to outline conditions for just war, though within that (and in the conduct during said just wars) there is a lot to be debated. When it comes to values, there are traditions that dovetail well into what you could call modern western values, and traditions that most Westerners would find abhorrent. Making the case for one set over the other is not always easy.
So if there are Muslims who are angry at the West or at a neighboring sect or at political leaders etc., and want to use violence, they do have religiously valid traditions to turn to, and saying “that isn’t real Islam” as many people do is not really productive.
That said, those traditions are not the only religiously valid traditions within Islam, as can be seen by the many Muslims who make the effort to justify their non-violent lifestyles. Islam (any form of it) is also not a completely immutable characteristic, and people change and even abandon their beliefs all the time.
You can answer your questions yourself, by reading books by Muslims, listening to podcasts, watching YouTube, reading interviews, watching their media, studying their history and religion, visit mosques, go to panels and talks on multiculturalism, and of course, talking to them in person. Start here. Or here.
Short summary though: Muslims are just like all other people. In every single way.
It only took a few to change our national outlook after 9/11, didn’t it?
So I’m wondering who President Obama thinks is going to plant that suitcase bomb in Manhattan he was talking about last week.
I truly am confused. First we’re told that there is no more significant threat and then we are told differently.
As far as separation of church and state New York has just implemented serving halal meals for its Muslim students. I imagine taxpayer money is paying for that. And there are the prayer rooms set up in school. I suppose a person could view that as steps toward allowing an encroachment.
**Marley, **Second Stone said that the majority of Muslims are peaceful. (I would add from his perspective.) People here often make blanket statements which they can’t really qualify.
My response was that it only took a few of them to throw our country into disorder after 9/11.
Your idea of encroaching on separation of church and state in exchange for spying on them is a polite idea but last I knew that hasn’t been the way government is supposed to operate.
My point is that I don’t know whether a sufficient number of Muslims are hostile enough to the US to do significant damage or not. The messages are mixed. Wouldn’t you agree?
I only know that they have done so at least twice in the last thirteen years so I do perceive an element of animosity and willingness to cause the death and disfigurement of large numbers of Americans.
My personal contact with local Muslims has been friendly during my volunteer efforts. But when I encounter Muslims on the street and smile or speak I am not acknowledged. I don’t know enough about their personal reasons for this to decide if it is hostility or not.
No, it isn’t supposed to work that way. But I’m responding to some nonsense about the government potentially being controlled by Islam, a religion practiced by a tiny minority of very unpopular people. If you’re going to say that halal meals represent a step in that direction, I’ll mention spying on mosques and drone bombings. It does put a different light on the “endorsement” you are alleging.
The Second Stone didn’t say anything about “significant damage.” That’s what I was talking about earlier. And no, I don’t think the signals are mixed. There are never more than a tiny minority of people willing to kill themselves (or others) for a cause, and we’ve seen plenty of evidence for that over the last decade. It helps, of course, that the fanatical Muslims you are talking about are more likely to kill other Muslims than infidels. It hasn’t done much for their popularity.
I’m not alleging “endorsement.” I said using taxpayers money to provide prayer rooms and halal meals could be perceived as an encroachment on the separation of church and state.
Frankly you don’t seem to be making much sense in your rebuttals. But you’re making more sense right now than Trinopus.
You’re right that you said encroachment and not endorsement, but we’re talking about the same concept here. Do you actually think that’s going to lead where GusNSpot says it will?
What does that have to do with the subject at hand?
Sigh. And now I find myself agreeing with Donald Rumsfeld. Trained apes could, if trained in logic, figure this out. Now, remember, homo sapiens are apes. Some of us are trained in logic, some better than others. Here’s the deal. A certain percentage of homo sapiens are screwed up violent assholes looking for an excuse to kill and maim. They are psychopaths. What religion they happen to choose has nothing the fuck to do with their desire to kill. Every religion that is large enough is going to have some violent assholes. See both sides in Ireland from the long running and currently quiet conflict there. Not all terrorists are religious. Timothy McVeigh was certainly not Muslim, now was he? These people are not violent because they are religious, they happen to be violent and religious and in their very disturbed minds use one as justification of the other. They are psychopaths. The correlation between religion and violence is very tiny, not enough to infer causation. IMHO.
Somebody who paints all Muslims as terrorists for the actions of a few psychopaths also has a few screws loose. We call people who fit that description “ignorant bigots”.
