Yeah, it’s not “due to Islam”, but rather “due to conflict between Hindus and Muslims”. “Muslims existing” can’t be said to be the cause of a problem.
That situation can be just as bad for moderate or rationalist Hindus at the hands of their extremist “Hindutva” compatriots as it has been for some rationalists at the hands of Muslim extremists, such as the subject of the OP.
Most of it is due to the regressive mindset, intolerance and violent extremism embedded in Islam.
Absolutely abhorable. But its part of the 0.1-1% of overall religious extremism of the world, the part that is not related to Islam.
So what? Their descendants have a right to be Muslims if they want to.
Similarly, the forefathers of a vast majority of the approximately 36 million Christians of south Asia were Hindus. But their descendants have a right to be Christians if they want to.
And it’s definitely not okay when mobs of Hindu extremists in India beat up, rape and murder Christians and vandalize and burn churches.
Oh, only “most” of it? How charitable of you.
It’s sad that you believe this junk, and far sadder that you aren’t alone. Not just in your particulars, but the conception of whole classes of other people as lesser than yours, so as to justify their ill-treatment.
What’s the source for that figure, again?
Given their response to Charlie Hebdo, that’s the only possible conclusion, yes. Maybe not all “non-Muslims” – those who submit to good dhimmi status and never question the principle that Muslims must rule and all others must serve will survive. But, you most certainly support the murder of those who criticize any part of Islam.
I think everyone her would agree you’ve made a sufficiently loud call to arms. Now, what are your proposals for action? Please be specific.
Nope. The response is the same as you’re seeing here: resistance to the demonization of all Muslims because of the atrocities of a few. That said atrocities are atrocious is obvious, and oft remarked upon. If you’re unable to grok that “Muslims” and “violent, extremist Muslims” are not the same people, I can see how it’d be confusing. So, work on internalizing that.
Given that there are, at a very conservative estimate, about 120 violent attacks a year on Christians by Hindu extremists in India, and if, again at a very conservative estimate, each such attack on average involves only ten such violent Hindu extremists (making about one Indian Hindu in every 100000 a violent extremist)…
… then those 1200 anti-Christian-violence Indian Hindu extremists alone already constitute nearly 0.1% of the 1.6 million figure we very generously estimated for all the world’s Muslims (if one in every thousand Muslims were a violent extremist).
It seems plausible that the ratio of violent extremists to regular people is somewhat smaller than the (very liberal) one in a thousand for Muslims worldwide and somewhat larger than the (very conservative) one in a hundred thousand for Indian Hindus.
So that would make your estimate of religious extremists being 99-99.9% Muslim pretty seriously skewed: and that’s not even counting religious extremists among other faiths. I think a higher proportion of Hindus (and, e.g., Christians and Jews) and a smaller proportion of Muslims indulge in religious-extremist violence than you might like to believe.
The Muslim religious extremists are doubtless more numerous (though I’m still skeptical of the claim that they’re anywhere near a 99-99.9% level of “more numerous”, and you still haven’t provided jack shit in the way of quantitative evidence to support that claim), and they’re also more likely to be involved with international terrorist networks instead of just good old-fashioned lynching the folks next door. But I doubt they’re as distant an outlier on the world religious-violence scale as you want to imagine.
Islamophobic trolling couldn’t be any more obvious.
If the best argument you can muster in favor of ignorant bigotry is to falsely accuse those who oppose it of advocating murder, then you’ve already disqualified yourself from participating in rational discussion.
Is anyone even a Muslim in this conversation? The constant casting of the “Islamophobia” magic word isn’t going to suddenly start working when it hasn’t thusfar.
I’ve said nothing about Muslims and only condemned murder. That you consider this “Islamophobic” (oooOOOOoooOOOO) says it all.
You know what is Islamophobic? Saying the Islam shouldn’t “be allowed in the modern world”, as it is “too crazy”. get lives said exactly that, Kimstu objected and your response was to…
…That’s right, complain about someone saying that “Islam” and “radical-Islamist extremism” are different things. Is there a reason for that, other than you believing that they aren’t, in fact, different things?
My beliefs don’t matter, since I don’t kill people over them.
Do you agree that it is a human right to criticize any religion using any level of rancor or vulgarity, and that the people who do so must be protected by their governments from any and all reprisals?
No one here is killing over beliefs, but you’re posting about them, so it plainly matters to you.
Yeah, no shit. Murder is wrong, the sub-set of murders that are motivated by ideology are wrong, and governments are obligated to prevent, investigate, and prosecute murders. If you think people in this thread are claiming otherwise, re-read it and/or ask people for clarification. That’s not at all what they are saying.
As has already been pointed out, it’s possible (easy, even) to both object to the murders, and object to bigoted remarks about Muslims issued in response to the murders.
Most victims of Islamist ideology are themselves Muslims – reformers, members of unapproved sects, Muslim women. The constant “no no la la la never talk about this, I cast ‘Islamaphobe’ on you” attempt to drown out discussing this problem victimizes Muslims more than anyone else.
If that’s what was happening, you’d have a point. The “discussion” in question is, in actual fact, Islamophobic. Re-read posts 107-109 for a sampler. When one set of people has settled on the (billion-strong) religion of Islam - not particular interpretations of it, not socioeconomic conditions, not weak and corrupt governments, not foreign meddling - as being the problem, that’s worse than useless.
No one is saying Muslim extremist violence can’t be discussed; it should be, and is.
That’s setting the bar pretty fucking low for having your beliefs exempted from criticism on the grounds that they “don’t matter”.
You don’t kill people who disagree with you? Congratulations! Neither do I. Neither do the vast majority of people. But that doesn’t mean that nobody’s allowed to call you out on your beliefs when they reveal ignorance, bigotry, or sloppy thinking.
If you’re talking about illegal and/or rights-violating reprisals, then yes, absolutely. Nobody should be murdered or assaulted or deprived of liberty or property, etc. etc., because they badmouthed a religion, no matter how scathing or vulgar (or even wrong or stupid) their criticism may have been.
But people sure as shit should not expect immunity from “reprisals” in the sense of “people disagreeing with them” or even “people who disagree with them thinking they’re a bad person”.
And if you’re going to exercise your human right to criticize an entire religion with rancor and vulgarity on the illogical grounds that a small minority of that religion’s adherents are guilty of heinous atrocities and oppressions, then you sure as shit better be prepared to have other people point out the flaws in your critique. And we’re allowed to be just as rancorous and vulgar as you, especially here in the Pit.
You left out the parts where you also said a bunch of ignorant trolling bullshit, such as accusing people who rejected your bigoted broad-brush stupidity of literally advocating for the murder “of those who criticize any part of Islam”. Idiot gibbering cumstain that you are.
If all you really want to do is “condemn murder”, then you’ll find lots of support and agreement from the rest of us around here. But you have to actually confine yourself to condemning the specific things that deserve condemnation, and not using them as a cover to try to sneak in additional condemnation of people who haven’t done anything wrong just because they happen to be in the same large group as the murderers.
Very true, and very abhorrent. But you don’t seem to give two shits about any of those atrocities except as they give you an excuse to trash-talk Islam in general.
If you really wanted to have a serious discussion or even just a cathartic rant about the specific individuals and/or ideologies that are actually responsible for the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, that would be perfectly fine. Great, even.
But people like you always seem to lose interest in arguing and ranting when other people call you out on sloppy terminology or bigoted broad-brushing. Apparently there’s something about using specific accurate descriptors like “violent Islamic extremists” or “radical Islamist fundamentalism” instead of misleading generalizations like “Muslims” or “Islam” that makes your poor little hateboners go all floppy. And then you get mad at us for deflating your fun.