Antitheist Ex-Marine To Hold Draw Muhammad Rally in AZ Friday

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, let me explain it in more detail and let's use a non-religious example. 

Let's say you're on a game show. You have to predict the political views of two people. The only information you're given is one proudly says he's a "radical libertarian" and the other says he's a "moderate libertarian". You are then asked a series of questions pertaining to their views on various issues of government involvement with the economy, regulation, education, civil liberties or the "safety net". 

The radical you can pretty well predict. He might surprise you in a few ways but you can fairly confidently predict that he'll tow the line when it comes to anything that pertains to libertarian ideology. 

With the "moderate" you might as well be blindfolded and throwing darts at a board. He could believe anything. For example, maybe he thinks that "some" government safety net is a good thing, just not too much, and your guess is as good as anyone else's as to how much that is. Those who self-identify with "moderate" labels tell you next to nothing about what they believe.

In sum:

• Radicals believe wholeheartedly. 
  
• Moderates kind of believe "...but..." 
  

Hence, show me the radicals of any ideology and I'll show you what that ideology in its purest form teaches. Radical Muslims are Muslims. Moderate Muslims are sort of Muslim ...ish. 

They're all Muslims. Just as you don't like someone else doling out your self-identity, you shouldn't do it for others.

The fact is, some moderates can be very intense believers about some things, say the requirement for hajj, others can be much more concerned about being purelyl halal, but they're both moderate Muslims in the sense that they're not willing to kill non-Muslims over their differences.

Just because they're not radical by your Western definition doesn't mean they're not Muslim. This is simply you practicing a No True Scotsman: [/i]All[/i] true Muslims are radicals. You wouldn't accept this logic from a Christian asserting that WBC demonstrators aren't True Christians. Why are you then pushing the same fallacy?

Because it supports your own narrative, that's why.

This is why "oh, don't worry, those are just the tiny fringe of radicals" falls flat with me. Even if we assume that they really are only a tiny fringe of the ideology, that only tells me only those who really take their Islamic faith seriously will turn into homicidal maniacs. Thanks but that's not a comfort. 

I don't care whether or not you're comforted. I think you're entirely missing a kep issue in the matter, which is the use of religion as a fig-leaf to cover what are already mentally unstable thoughts and actions. In other words, you're confusing cause and effect, in my opinion; you have no way of konwing that radicals are radicals because they've read the Koran and take it seriously, of if they've read the Koran and cherry-picked the [i]suras which support and strengthen their mental instability.

And Capt.Awesome makes a refreshingly astute point to ask what Muslim-majority country represents these "moderate Muslims"? Indonesia, perhaps? I've been to this country and trust me, you don't want to be a non-Muslim, a non-believer or gay in this country.

Unlike Indonesia, most Muslim-majority countries aren't democratic. The one which you've chosen to highlight is ... and you know what? That government, democratically elected, is co-operating with American efforts to crack down on Muslim extremists:

While the extremists have been largely marginalized by Jakarta’s bare-knuckle counterterrorism efforts over the past decade, they have posed a nagging threat since being bolstered by foreign fighters returning from jihad missions in Afghanistan in the late 1990s.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014.../?page=all

See also:

http://blogs.wsj.com/indonesiarealtime/2...extremism/
http://blogs.wsj.com/indonesiarealtime/2...ys-report/

Now, the country may well have backwards laws regarding human rights, no doubt -- but that doesn't speak, necessarily, to the attitudes of the people therein. And although Indonesia is the most populous Islamic country, it is far from the only one.

I lived in Iran for four years. The Muslim majority there is much larger, percentage-wise, than that of Indonesia. I was a non-Muslim. Your argument from personal experience doesn't impress me. We're talking about people, not governments.

---

First of all, I was addressing your reasoning. Your logic was "only 2% of terrorist attacks are inspired by Islam" so I assume your point was that since 98% of terrorism is inspired by other things, that means Islam is not so bad. Am I correct? If not, what is your point? If so, this "logic" is akin to Fox Noise saying "sure people have died in the Iraq War but a lot more people died from car crashes, so it's not so bad" or the cigarette executive saying "sure, people die from smoking but people also die from eating apple sauce, so it's not so bad." 

Hey, since we're talking about percentages and what they do or don't represent, what percentage of all the Muslims in the world do you think have been implicated in terrorist attacks over the years? Out of all the Muslims, how many have attacked others for the "sin" of being non-Muslim, do you think?