Others have responded with more articulate vehemence than I could achieve over your mischaracterization of Islam as a bloc. Consider that responded to.
For a sec, let’s just say it was lazy word choice. Let’s say there is a slightly larger % of the global Muslim population engaged in some form of violence than all other religions (I don’t know this one way or the other), such that you are right, “Islam” wins the title of- let’s call it “craziest religion today” instead of “too crazy to be allowed int he modern world”- this is America, we believe in religious freedom, mmmkay?
Allright. Assuming Islam is by some metric the craziest religion, it is still the case that it doesn’t have an especially large presence in America. By contrast, the evangelicals Do have a rather large presence in America. So even if evangelicals overall are less crazy, when someone commits a crazy crime for religious reasons in America, or tries to warp the law in America to suit their religion, or makes whole American communities uncomfortable for people who are not in the club, it is far, far, far more likely that these kinds of acts will be committed by evangelicals than Muslims. Since I am more-or-less confined to Amercia, I am therefore more worried about evangelicals than Muslims, and I think other non-international Americans should share my view.
In the part of world where I am from, kaffir(kafir), kuffar are used interchangeably for non-believers. Its not a racist term here which is why I wasn’t aware its racist somewhere else.
Yes, its a nasty term. And it is frequently used by Islamic preachers and others on main stream media. Imagine how it affects minorities.
It’s fairly easy. Freedom of religion requires a secular state, as a religious state by definition favors their own religion over others. And freedom of religion is an inalienable human right.
I don’t agree with the tone of the OP, but, allowing for the anti-Islam bias, the post is largely correct. Intolerant Muslims all over the world are having to come to terms with the fact that they will not be able to hold on to their intolerance.
And, note, this doesn’t mean the people of the state can’t be religious. Just that the government itself can’t be religious, as that would entail favoring one religion and thus denying freedom of religion.
Well said. While some religions have reformed, few others are undergoing reforms. RoP is some distance away from even the start of reform. Let’s hope in this age of information highways that we are living in, better sense will ultimately prevail. Till then, people like me will continue to feel the need to expose the RoP for what it truely represents.
Your rush to denounce anyone who objects to murder and religious tyranny as an the dreaded “Islamophobe” is indicative of precisely one problem, namely your sympathy for murder and religious tyranny.
More silly strawman stuff. Obviously, I have no problem with objecting to murder and religious tyranny, since I just said some pretty nasty things about murderers and religious tyrants myself in my previous posts.
The (main) problem with Islamophobes is that they aren’t even slightly interested in objecting to murder and religious tyranny unless they can manage to work in a blanket condemnation of all Muslims and Islam in general.
Naxali-Maoist insurgency has nothing to do with any religious agenda.
[/quote]
Oooh, just look at those goalposts move!
First you claim (more than once, and without any evidence) that 99% of ALL “extremists”, unqualified, are Muslims. Then when you get called on repeatedly pulling numbers out of your ass with no evidentiary support, you backpedal into the claim that you’re only talking about extremists with a specifically religious agenda.
More non-data pulled out of your ass. As a matter of fact, as other posters on these boards with whom I’ve discussed translations can attest, I can read some Arabic (MSA) and some Urdu, and have spent a couple years living in various places in India where Muslims are a sizeable part of the population.
I certainly don’t pretend to have the abundant personal and/or academic background in the languages and cultures of Muslim populations that other posters such as Ramira, Johanna, Tamerlane etc. can claim. But it doesn’t need much expertise to be able to critique the sort of simplistic bigoted gibberish spouted by Islamophobes like you and Haberdash.
So, you’re admitting you believe that the appalling crimes of a very small minority of Muslims, namely violent Islamic extremists, are sufficient justification for indiscriminately shit-talking all Muslims and Islam in general?
And that the ethical principle of rejecting religious bigotry and vilification of innocent people is only valid as long as it’s not “getting interrupted” by any violent extremist fanatics committing atrocities?
Yeah, that was pretty apparent already, but it’s just as well you’re coming out into the open with it. In other words, you’re saying that it’s unreasonable to expect Islamophobic bigots to stop hating all Muslims as long as there are any Muslims anywhere doing anything wrong. Sad, but not particularly surprising.
The thread is about religious extremism, but the smart guy must bring Naxal insurgency (which is a movement against perceived exploitation by Govt. of poor people and has nothing to do with religion obviously) . The smart guy things I didn’t know about Naxal insurgency when I said ‘99% of extremists are followers’. It was obviously meant that among terrorists who are killing people to uphold their religion, 99% are Muslims.
‘Paki’ is a racist term in 1.5% part of the world (UK+Canada). For rest of the world, its a natural short form of ‘Pakistani’. One time I used ‘Paki’ (short form obviously) here to refer to a Pakistani in Pakistan. The other smart guy thinks I am racist due to this despite telling him ‘n’ number of times tht it wasn’t meant to be racist . (Myself and a Pakistani are same ‘race’ anyways)
In India, Muslims are a minority. Pakistan and Bangladesh were formed out of undivided India due to Islam. Scores of people die in several hundreds of communal incidents in India every year to this date.
If one said, every Muslim is non-tolerant, then that would obviously be a horrible generalization. But the fact is that even non-extremists Muslims on average are way less tolerant than followers of other religions. ‘On average’ is the key part.
I have a dozen examples in my mind right now of celebrated people ( from sports, politics, entertainment etc) spouting religious poison on main stream media.
See the situation of people ‘accused’ of blasphemy and apostasy.
Even the constitution in many countries wont allow a non-Muslim to be the head of state.
Above all, its about mentality of people. That must undergo a sea change.
Except that it wasn’t obvious. The posts just before you introduced your (still completely unsupported) ass-ertion that “99% of extremists are followers” had been discussing all kinds of ideological extremists, including anti-theistic Stalinists.
No, you were trying to make a sweeping overgeneralization about all extremists and then backed off a bit when you were called on it.
[QUOTE=truthSeeker2]
‘Paki’ is a racist term in 1.5% part of the world (UK+Canada). For rest of the world, its a natural short form of ‘Pakistani’
[/QUOTE]
Wow, you really are pretty lousy at numbers, aren’t you? The UK and Canada constitute much more than 1.5% of the part of the world that actually recognizes and uses the term “Paki”.
Yes, I know. “A sizeable part of the population” and “a minority” are not mutually contradictory expressions.
[QUOTE=truthSeeker2]
But the fact is that even non-extremists Muslims on average are way less tolerant than followers of other religions. ‘On average’ is the key part.
[/quote]
If you want to discuss cultural differences among particular adherents of various faiths in a given historical moment in an accurate and specific way, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m very well aware that there’s a strong streak of “fundamentalist” zeal in a lot of religious movements within modern Islam, and I think analyzing and critiquing the various causes and effects in the evolution of such movements is a perfectly fine thing to do.
But when you start using broad-brush condemnations like “Islam is cancer of the 21st century”, you’ve moved out of the realm of discussion and critique into Islamophobic bigotry.
[QUOTE=truthSeeker2]
Above all, its about mentality of people. That must undergo a see change.
[/QUOTE]
Well, no one could disagree that there are definitely many things about the mentality of many people that need to undergo a sea change to make the world a better place.
Um, that’s a bit like saying the (U.S.) Civil Rights Act was passed “due to black people”.
Even if that were true (and you’re noticeably light on evidence)…it’s not like Muslims are randomly distributed around the globe. What you attribute to Islam could be, and probably is, instead a result of political and economic factors in some majority-Muslim countries.
Forefathers of a vast majority of Muslims of south Asia are Hindus. The one state in India which is Muslim majority right now (Jammu Kashmir) has a separatist movement. Over a 100 thousand Hindus and Sikhs have been forced to move out of Kashmir valley due to massacres. Partition of India left a million dead. That all would be forgotten if there was harmony today, but there are several 100s of communal incidents every year. ( you can check the stats through Google)