Is the ''Only a minority of Muslims are radical'' true?

[TheMessiah]

[long reply redacted]

I'm still waiting for you to support your implied claim that the majority of Muslims are radicals. This conversation will move forward when you either do that, or acknowledge that you're talking out of your ass.

Essentially you're not reading into my posts. My argument was challenging the idea that only a fringe minority of Muslims are radical, whereas the statistics illustrate that entire majorities in the Muslim World hold radical beliefs; or even in the UK, where majorities of the Muslim demographic hold radical beliefs.

I very specifically made this clear in my early posts; the meme that people are sold is that ''Very few Muslims are radical'' --- that narrative is flipped on it's head once Muslims are actually polled on the extent to what they believe of Sharia.

[TheMessiah]

It is most certainly a global threat; that's why Islamic terrorism dominates America's foreign policy right now. His foreign policy is dominated by his inability to beat ISIS, it's also why China, a communist country is going to extreme lengths to get Muslims out of their country, and not allow any religious influx.

No, America's foreign policy is not "dominated" by Islamic terrorism. It is dominated by the concern of China claiming the South China Sea. That is the crux of Obama's "pivot" policy. America is lending aid to Iraq to contain ISIS not out of strategic considerations, but because we know that if the American-installed regime in Baghdad were to be toppled by ISIS, the futility of our entire policy in Iraq dating back to Hussein's removal will be shown to the world as bankrupt. And that is all it is.

Obama's failure to control ISIS has drew severe criticism, even from within his own party. His choice of pulling troops from Iraq which left the power vacuum for ISIS to take power has also been criticized. One of the reasons his foreign policy is no longer held in a positive light is the dilemna between non-intervention and ISIS gaining more power/killing more people.

Hussein's power in the Middle-East was effective at punching down terrorist groups, Bush's decision to go to war clearly ruined his foreign policy, and Obama's policy of removing the troops backfired, and gave leeway to a larger, stronger ISIS.

[Dystopia]

Europol and FBI statistics sing a different tune. 4 (Europe) and 6 (USA) percent of all terrorist attacks are motivated in any way, shape or form by religion. That's not even exclusively Isam, but all religious motives, Brejvik included. I posted links to the reports in different threads and they are in the public domain. Easy to check.

But of course, they only deal in facts and realities instead of bigoted assumptions and blanket statements about a group.

So yes, if it wasn't fucking disgusting, it would be something to laugh about.

Saying terrorism, especially from the likes of ISIS or Al-Queada is not motivated by religion is willful ignorance. It is wishful thinking to think Islamic terrorism is not motivated by religion; especially considering they justify their violence with verses of the Qu'ran and attempt to enforce their Sharia on other people. Most ISIS recruits from the West were university educated.

Hell, the most infamous Islamic terrorist was a millionaire; major terrorist groups have sourcing from the elite Muslims. Saudi Arabia has been long-known for funding terrorism. So has Pakistan.

You, like many others who love to use the term ''Islamophobe'' struggle to separate criticism of the Islamic doctrine from bigotry towards Muslims as people. I don't hate Muslims, but I do hate their ''holy'' book.

So the evidence that ''poverty drives terrorism'' despite the fact that the bulk of terrorist groups are made up of middle to upper class privileged Muslims in addition to the funding they get from rich Muslims really destroys this laughable meme of ''poverty drives terrorism''.

Poverty doesn't drive terrorism, Islam drives terrorism. The ideology and belief-set in Islam is a key drive; the promise of Matyrdom in Islam is especially dangerous. There are Muslims, privileged ones who truly believe that killing people for their ''holy'' book will lead them to an eternal paradise; you may laugh at the idea, but people truly believe this nonsense --- and it's why Islam is especially more dangerous than other Abrahamic faiths.

And? Simply comparing Alcaida with ISIS is stupid. Those terrorist groups are not the same. Some groups hate others and consider them apostates. I never said religion does not motivate terrorism and violence - It does and it's quite obvious - But it's not the only variable in play, nothing is determined by a single variable, no exceptions... You can't play the "hate the belief, not the believer" - It's like telling me you hate my country but not its citizens, it just doesn't work that way.

You can't say that objectively Islam drives terrorism otherwise all Muslims would be terrorists in the same group. The mere fact there are so many terrorist groups with specific goals and member composition shows us there is no consensus among Muslims. Holy books are just books, unless someone is pointing a gun at your head and telling you "Go kill for Allah right now!" there's no way it will force you to do terrible things. You can pick up the Quran and see it in a 1000 different ways. There's no law saying one interpretation is more valid than the other, there are no objectively correct scholars. It's not scripture that determines your behaviour, but the believer that uses scripture as he pleases. Charlie Hebdo attackers had girlfriends and smoke weed so they didn't follow the entire Quran, they cherry picked - No one follows the QUran 100% literally, there's always exceptions, loopholes and mistakes.

Criticising religion is not Islamophobia, but thinking Muslim immigrants are a threat to national security and should be kept in conditions you could not keep serial killers is bigotry and honestly quite conspirational.

[TheMessiah]

Saying terrorism, especially from the likes of ISIS or Al-Queada is not motivated by religion is willful ignorance. It is wishful thinking to think Islamic terrorism is not motivated by religion; especially considering they justify their violence with verses of the Qu'ran and attempt to enforce their Sharia on other people. Most ISIS recruits from the West were university educated.

Hell, the most infamous Islamic terrorist was a millionaire; major terrorist groups have sourcing from the elite Muslims. Saudi Arabia has been long-known for funding terrorism. So has Pakistan.

You, like many others who love to use the term ''Islamophobe'' struggle to separate criticism of the Islamic doctrine from bigotry towards Muslims as people. I don't hate Muslims, but I do hate their ''holy'' book.

So the evidence that ''poverty drives terrorism'' despite the fact that the bulk of terrorist groups are made up of middle to upper class privileged Muslims in addition to the funding they get from rich Muslims really destroys this laughable meme of ''poverty drives terrorism''.

Poverty doesn't drive terrorism, Islam drives terrorism. The ideology and belief-set in Islam is a key drive; the promise of Matyrdom in Islam is especially dangerous. There are Muslims, privileged ones who truly believe that killing people for their ''holy'' book will lead them to an eternal paradise; you may laugh at the idea, but people truly believe this nonsense --- and it's why Islam is especially more dangerous than other Abrahamic faiths.

And? Simply comparing Alcaida with ISIS is stupid. Those terrorist groups are not the same. Some groups hate others and consider them apostates. I never said religion does not motivate terrorism and violence - It does and it's quite obvious - But it's not the only variable in play, nothing is determined by a single variable, no exceptions... You can't play the "hate the belief, not the believer" - It's like telling me you hate my country but not its citizens, it just doesn't work that way.

You can't say that objectively Islam drives terrorism otherwise all Muslims would be terrorists in the same group. The mere fact there are so many terrorist groups with specific goals and member composition shows us there is no consensus among Muslims. Holy books are just books, unless someone is pointing a gun at your head and telling you "Go kill for Allah right now!" there's no way it will force you to do terrible things. You can pick up the Quran and see it in a 1000 different ways. There's no law saying one interpretation is more valid than the other, there are no objectively correct scholars. It's not scripture that determines your behaviour, but the believer that uses scripture as he pleases. Charlie Hebdo attackers had girlfriends and smoke weed so they didn't follow the entire Quran, they cherry picked - No one follows the QUran 100% literally, there's always exceptions, loopholes and mistakes.

Criticising religion is not Islamophobia, but thinking Muslim immigrants are a threat to national security and should be kept in conditions you could not keep serial killers is bigotry and honestly quite conspirational.

Did I say Muslim immigrants should be kept in conditions as serial killers? No. I think however, that militant Muslims should be; they can be homegrown or immigrant, either way, it doesn't matter.

I can play the *hate the belief, not all believers* because most Muslims don't act out on terrorist acts; I don't hate Southern Christians who despise gay people, but I would hate them if they were violent. Obviously there are many variables, however the poverty one has been consistently debunked as drivel, ideology plays a much bigger role, hence why so many Muslim terrorists are well-educated and middle-class. 

The terrorist version of Islam, is the most valid one if we follow the text literally; obviously I think more Muslims shouldn't interpret in that way, but Islam, along with the other Abrhamic texts are barbaric - what ISIS are doing now is no different to what Muhammad did during his conquests and spread of Islam.

[Aaran]

It's an important question. Is the extremists' literal reading of the Koran the authentic one, or can a better claim to authenticity be made by the moderates and their metaphorical reading? I think radical Muslims are reading the Koran in the only possible way it should be, given the context of its dissemination.

According to the fictitious narratives of Muhammad's life (which are of perilously unreliable provenance) the people to whom Muhammad directed his sermons were largely illiterate and uneducated, the prostrate plebeians of Arabian society. It is extremely difficult to believe that such unlettered people could have been capable of discerning allegories or alternate meanings in any of the things they heard (the Koran was transmitted exclusively by word of mouth in Muhammad's lifetime). All that they heard they would have taken literally, at face value.

Muhammad/ Allah would have been aware of this. If they had meant any of the things in the Koran to be taken for anything other than what they appeared to be, they would have elucidated these segments somewhat. But they didn't. So when Muhammad commands his devotees to 'Kill all the unbelievers', the only thing he could possibly mean by that is 'Kill all those fucking unbelievers".

That is why I can't help but feel irked when Muslim apologists insist that the Islam of Bin Laden and of ISIS, is but an interpretation of Islam, and moreover, a skewed one. Interpretation, literally speaking, is the action of discerning a meaning in something. But that isn't what the fundamentalist Muslims are doing. They're taking what they read simply at face value. The only ones doing any 'interpreting' are the so called moderate Muslims, who read a passage which enjoins them to 'destroy all the unbelievers wherever you may find them' and then sit around scratching their heads and asking "well, what on earth could be meant by that?”

Moderate Muslims aren't really Muslims in any meaningful sense of the word.

[FatAndFaithless]

I agree with you that they are the ones that are actually taking their books at their words, and that the moderates are the ones that skew and cherry-pick passages. However, I'd be wary of deeming people as "not Muslims or Christians in any meaningful sense of the word". It's not our job to decide who is and isn't a 'true Christian' or 'true Muslim', as there isn't really a definite standard code that would define a 'true believer'.

[Aaran]

I agree with you that they are the ones that are actually taking their books at their words, and that the moderates are the ones that skew and cherry-pick passages. However, I'd be wary of deeming people as "not Muslims or Christians in any meaningful sense of the word". It's not our job to decide who is and isn't a 'true Christian' or 'true Muslim', as there isn't really a definite standard code that would define a 'true believer'.

Now that you mention it, I can see how an atheist telling a Muslim or a Christian that they aren't a good Muslim/Christian, is sort of ridiculous. We should leave it to them to say that to one another.

[FatAndFaithless]

Right, it's more honest and, really, far easier.