As is the cheap posturing by persons who are sitting far away and always seeking excuses.
What does the “Muslim world” do about two mad criminals with machetes? Two persons committed a grotesque murder. It is now the job of the Bangledeshi police.
It is always the two faced statements - oh we fear speaking out - oh when they speak out they are not doing enough - oh if they do something it is only to pretend…
What do you do personally about the american christian pastors promoting death for gays in East Africa?
Nothing one must think.
And this shows of course you understood not one thing I said, for example about the secular history of government or your complete ignorance of this history - no you take one phrase to distort so you can cover up your ignorance and gross factual errors.
Abstractions do not look in mirrors, no?
You are an ignorant hate mongering bigot, and we have no use for you.
But perhaps you can go back to trying to find other complaints about Muslims, like why we don’t have naming conventions like white american protestants.
If you believe that imperialism and interventions by the West ended a century ago, you are too ignorant to post here. If you are simply pretending to believe that, you are dishonest.
I did not in any case assign a primary responsibility to the colonial imperialism at all - my main point was his idiocy about secularism showed the gross ignorance of the actual historical dominance of secular systems. Of course this has some colonial system roots, history does not disappear even if one is a reactionary with a attention span of the fox news.
Of course he siezes on the phrase so he can try to stereotype and distort my comment as the typical Left radical, which is ridiculous as in my world I am an ultra liberal considered too radically free market and against government intervention.
I don’t believe Western interventionism put the machetes in the hands of the men who killed Roy for writing criticisms of Islam.
Islamists killing an Islamic apostate over the latter’s criticism of the state of the religion says a lot of Muslim culture in that region of the world and little of what the Western interventionist powers do or want.
This is an example, and quite an easy one at that, of inter-Muslim strife. Blaming whitey is a cop-out for those who wish to deny the cultural clash that is occurring. The only contribution the West made to this tragedy was to give Roy the platform to express his views.
But a history lesson of evil white imperialism is always a fun distraction.
Please, tell us all about the “heavy lifting” that you personally are engaged in to “root out” Islamophobic extremist violence and intolerance in your own society. Participating in protest demonstrations against anti-Muslim hate crimes? Volunteering in neighborhood watch organizations in Muslim communities?
Sure. (I was searching for spoiler tag, somehow couldn’t find at the time)
_-----------
Based on what has happened in many states/countries, the below appears to be the trend:
Muslim minority ----> Secularism, and equal rights for minorities
Muslim majority ----> Islamic state (or demand for it. For e.g. why do many in Kashmir not want to be a part of a secular Ind?); The non-Islam minorities would “officially” be discriminated against in the name of laws of Islamic states (In Kashmir, Pandits were forced to move out of the state, same for hindus in Pakistan, in Bangladesh)
I mentioned this very fact in my OP as evidence of the secular struggle I am describing. Did you miss it so you could jump straight to attacking me and misrepresenting what I said?
For what it’s worth, I support the cause of the young protesters who want secular tolerance and free speech. I did not fly to Bangladesh to be there in person. If that delegitimizes my argument to you then your standards of debate are irrational.
But based on what has happened in other states/countries, that is not the trend. (Especially if one rules out your weaseling overgeneralization “demand for it”, which allows you to disingenuously lump all states where any kind of Islamist political movement is active together with actual Islamic states.)
For example, Turkey, with a 99.8% Muslim population, has a secular government whose constitution specifies freedom of religion. Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, recognizes six official religions and constitutionally decrees freedom of religion. Azerbaijan, with around 95% Muslim population, also has no official governmental religion and its major political parties are secularist. Burkina Faso, with about 60% Muslim population, is a secular state, as are Gambia and Guinea.
The political, religious and cultural issues surrounding radical Islamist extremism are very complex, and they’re not interchangeable from one country to another. Trying to argue that having a Muslim majority intrinsically causes theocracy and oppression is like looking at obesity rates in the US and UK and trying to argue that having a Christian majority intrinsically makes people fat.
Not exactly, they just had a different religion. The Dialectic = God, the Revolution = the Apocalypse/Millennium, Marx = Moses, Lenin = Christ, the KGB = the Inquisition, Stalin = the Pope, Trotsky = Martin Luther.
Nope, I simply happened to notice that you carefully omitted it in your scoldy moralizing about the alleged “laxness” of “Muslim culture” in general.
You evidently need to work on your reading comprehension. I did not ask what you’re doing to combat violence and intolerance in Bangladeshi society. I very clearly asked you what you’re doing to combat violence and intolerance in your own society, especially violence and intolerance against Muslims.
If you hold Muslims in general responsible for terrorist murders by radical-Islamist extremists, then I’m entitled to hold you partly responsible for anti-Muslim hate crimes such as mosque burnings and street assaults on men in turbans. Get off your lazy self-righteous keyboard-warrior ass and go do some of the “heavy lifting” to “root out” the “violent intolerant sectors” of your own society before you complain that moderate Muslims aren’t pulling their weight in that regard.
Oh, come on, BG. That’s a totally feeble No-True-Scotsman attempt to define secular fanaticism out of existence, and even a lifelong atheist like me can see it’s complete bullshit.
Just because a secular group happens to uphold an irrational destructive ideology doesn’t make that ideology a religion in the theistic sense. If every fervently propounded ideological framework counts as a “religion”, then the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are religious too.
@Kimstu
you miss the point bro. Religion of peace is the cancer for 21st century. 99% of extremists happen to be followers. Even the non-extremists followers are far far less tolerant on average than kaffirs.
There is hope that every kid in future has access to a smartphone and cheap internet connection and knows basic english language. So that he/she focuses on his personal development, not on upholding the religion of peace.
No, of course not, but it can make it a religion in the behavorial and intellectual sense. Respect for, e.g., science is not a religion because scientific theories are not dogmatic and are always open to modification in light of new data. An unquestionable, unalterable, epistemically closed body of doctrine like Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist Communism closely resembles religious doctrine. The distinction is important, because the Bolsheviks thought their system was correct to a scientific degree of certainty, therefore they owed no more tolerance to dissenters than astronomers owe to flat-Earthers. Of course, astronomers 1) actually have a science and 2) in any case do not have the power to censor or arrest flat-Earthers. The Bolsheviks’ behavior in that regard closely resembles the Inquisition (or the Puritan “Rule of Saints” in the English Commonwealth period), and that they were psychologically able to do it depended on their absolute faith in their doctrine.