More murderous was too broad. I’ll amend the claim to more religiously motivated murder. The murder rate between gangs in Chicago might be higher than some middle eastern city, but the proximate cause is not their christian theology. When some Sunni muslim blows themselves up and takes out some shia muslim target, those murders are clearly religiously motivated.
You don’t see much of that kind of murder in the Christian world or Jewish world. You see some in Burma with the Buddhists against the muslim population, but the counter examples do not hold a candle to what we see from the Islamic world.
You have to meet people where they are. Not everyone is going to assume there is no god, or stop believing in some creator that dictates what is and is not good. If they were then trying to undermine the legitimacy of a cosmic dictators moral commandments would be unnecessary.
How about we classify someone shouting Allah u akbar before they blow themselves up as being at least somewhat religiously motivated, as if God sanctions their suicide bombing activities.
Is that too much of a stretch for the people here?
Who cares if it’s intrinsic to Islam or not, it’s an epidemic that needs to be neutralized. And you all keep talking about the glory days of Islam, for all we know one of the reasons things have not advanced as much in the Muslim world is that most people being illiterate a thousand years ago was a benefit, now that Muslims can actually read the violent shit and example of their founding prophet and his blood soaked history, it turns out some actually follow through on the instruction manual on how to live a life.
And behavioral observations are not meaningless and completely detached from reality just because they are not part of some scientific study. You keep asking for ever higher levels of scientific proof claims at the same time ignoring actual attitudinal evidence like that multi national pew poll of views from the Muslim world that clearly showed far stronger illiberal sentiments and impulses than any proper liberal should be comfortable with. I wish I had the same poll results from non Muslims living in the same country so we could directly see the differences with one religious variable altered. I wonder, if country after country consistently showed stronger illiberal attitudes among the Muslim population, even after controls for income and ethnicity where applicable, would That be enough for you and others to suspect that there was something about Islam that was more rotten and cancerous to the soul compared to other faiths?
And if not then I ask you, what would it take? Because all I am hearing are dishonest dodges made in bad faith.
I don’t know you, and you don’t know me, so I don’t know what you’re getting at here. That you can’t answer the most basic of questions about your ideas is troubling, to say the least.
Is this what you do when you’re worried about losing a debate, you frantically poison the well?
If you want to talk about ISIS, we can talk about ISIS, but only if you’re prepared to be coherent, and only if you let me stake out my position instead of dismissing me based on what you think my position might be.
We have different standards of acceptable evidence on the ill effects of Islam. Mine takes into account observations around the world and the pew research poll of Muslim attitudes and, apparently controversially, what Jihadists say.
When these are offered up you pretend they are meaningless and are still looking for an acceptable bit of evidence. You clearly have different standards of evidence than I do and frankly I have no idea what evidence you would consider valid. Is there any? I’m asking.
I think what you’re missing is the chicken-egg question. There is a ton of violence in the middle east at present, in nations that are predominantly muslim. I’ll agree with that statement, even though it will usually get one lectured on what is and isn’t the ME, and then we end up bickering because Lybia is in Africa… But come on, let me have the shorthand. Furthermore, many of those who perpetrate this violence do so in the name of Islam.
However, we all know that holy books say a lot of stupid, violent, reprehensible shit. For a long time the Bible was used as justification for slavery and segregation. There’s some crazy shit in there about how to treat women and wearing of mixed cloth. One could easily engage in terrorism and find plenty of Biblical justification.
The ME is in an immense amount of turmoil with lots of repressive governments that are only too happy to use religion as a means of control and influence over the populations. Sub-governmental Warlords and clerics often have similar motivations. In many of these nations the people are poor, uneducated, and have little hope. That makes them ripe for this kind of control.
And that’s why we shouldn’t blame the religion- it’s full of crazy shit, just like all the rest of them. But I suspect it’s the environment that results in the particular means of practicing it
Are you sure you are posting in the correct thread? That bigoted hate site got dis(cus)sed over here. Feel free to “contribute” there so one may respond properly to you.
I’m not sure there’s only one recognized way to spell it since it’s a name from a language that doesn’t use the Roman alphabet.
There are lots of names and words which when transliterated using the Roman alphabet have multiple spellings. Quran v. Koran, Muhammad v. Mohammed, Saul v. Sol, and even Yeltsin v. Eltsin.
That said, you may be right.
He’s from Pakistan, I’m sure he’s forgotten more about the India-Pakistan conflict than you or I know and I’m not sure why you would possibly think he sees that partition as a bad thing.
Beyond that Muslims in Pakistan do not have the fond memories of Gandhi that westerners like yourself have.
I won’t presume to speak for AK but I suspect he’d argue that Gandhi’s insistence on a united India rather than recognizing that for many if not most Muslims “home rule means Hindu rule” made the eventual and inevitable breakup vastly worse than it could have been and that things like blessing the Nawab of Maler Kotla when he gave orders to shoot ten Muslims for every Hindu killed in his state wasn’t something that would create interfaith harmony.
It is more relevant to say we must classify the actions of the American troops who in the combat or the stress swear to the Jésus / Jésus Christ as being motivated by the Christian religion…
If a person in question is an Arabic native speaker it is a similar stress expression, that even a secular person will say. Of course the specific case of a DAECH suicide bomber is one thing but as I recall some argument about a video of the Syrian rebels, a secular group and it was being asserted that because some exclaimed Allah akbar during the video of combat this was proof if in fact they were jihadist, in ignorance of the native speaking habits.
Since the OP freely cites biased and hate sites, the actual knowledge is of course not of any concern.
But the mere use of the phrase by someone of a native Arabic background does not say too much, any more than the American soldier in the Iraq swearing to Jésus is proof of the Crusade intentions of the Americans…
In the Arabic it is written with grayn so at least for us in using the Latin alphabet we have the tendency to use a transliteration that starts Gh as this is usual for ghayn.
I’m posting to note my agreement with this statement. Looking around the world there is a lot of variation of what is acceptable within the largest religions. What the Christians of Egypt think is acceptable behavior would be quite different than the Christians of Spokane for example. Arguing about religion misses the mark. It would be a much more fruitful debate to talk about local culture and tribalism.
Because those people that you’d like to stop killing everybody?
God didn’t tell them to do jack, just like God didnt tell some idiotic Pope to send every sword swinging moron to invade the middle east and kill every muslim, jew, and non european christian they came across.
How do you get someone to “defy” something that they are already defying?
Destroy religion? How when the people you are angry about have already done so for you?
You want to fix a problem by doing what the people in the problem have already done
and punish all the rest of the people who are not the problem in the process, which is going to open up a much bigger problem
I don’t know you, and you don’t know me, so I don’t know what you’re getting at here. That you can’t answer the most basic of questions about your ideas is troubling, to say the least.
Are you thinking of a different poster? I haven’t mentioned standard or evidence at all, I’m still trying to agree on some basic terms.