The Myth Of The Tiny Radical Muslim Minority

[Munch]

The racist label is used to shut people up.

Islam is not a race, it is an ideology.

And since people of many colors and ethnicity's are joining this toxic ideology, the label is not only inaccurate, it is logically absurd.

The answer is to the person using this label is to "define racist".

Tell that to Ben Affleck

[Hakurei Reimu]

Hakurei Reimu wrote:

...

Miko, find yourself a hobby, stop following me!

(Is it an OCD, or something personal? In either case you need counseling.)

For fuck's sake, you call this "following?" Where were you when I was taking Casperov to task about his bullshit? Just because you're my current forum project doesn't make you the only object of my waking thoughts.

And I already have a hobby. It's called Minecraft, thank you very much.

Your quoting the bible is a tu quoque. Christians do not act on it. But Muslims do follow their scriptures.

The hell it is. Christians do, in fact, take actions based on thier scriptures. You might not see this in the UK, but every day fundamentalists in the US try to ram their religion down the throats of Americans. The only difference is that fundamentalist Christians are far savvier than their Mulsim counterparts, but the game is precisely the same.

BTW, you forgot to mention the crusades, inquisition, witch hunts, burning at the stake. -

Since you were quoting the Quran, I quoted the Bible.

FYI, Muslims and Islam apologist use the same arguments.
It does not make Islam look any better. It only serves as a diversion, not a defense.

And yet you believe that these passages in the Quran is proof positive that Muslims are some kind of unified army of conquest and not to be trusted, but when Christianity has the exact same kind of thing in their holy book, you spin up your apologism that Christianity doesn't do that kind of thing anymore. No, spud, I don't think they ever stopped; they're just playing smarter.

The bible stories are   descriptive, while the Quran is prescriptive, i.e. a divine command, the immutable word of Allah, valid for all times.

Bullshit. Deuteronomy (a part of which I quoted) is a list of proscriptive rules for what a person of the book should do. Christians had 2000 years to get rid of it, yet it remains in the Bible. The Ten Commandments are a set of Mosaic laws that fundamentalists in my country occasionally try to ram down our throats. Commandments can only laughably be called "descriptive."

It's also laughable that there exists this sharp division in your mind between "description" and "proscription" â€" especially when the "description" is a description of what was done when someone broke the laws, and as such serve as proscriptive examples of what is to be done in similar circumstances.

Furthermore, Jesus was no figure of peace. He was a political subversive. His Kingdom of God was going to be in the real world, which meant that some other kingdom was going to yeild to it, probably violently.

"Do not think that I come to bring the peace upon earth: I came not to send peace but the sword. For I come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and the man’s enemies shall be they of his own household. He, who loves father or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me; and he, who loves son or daughter more than Me, is not worthy of Me. And he, who does not take up his cross and follow Me, is not worthy of Me" (Mat 10: 34-38).

And remember that the Bible has had 2000 years to get rid of the Old Testiment and it didn't, and it added the omnicidal snuff porn that is the book of Revelations. Christianity is no religion of peace, but of death, suffering and conquest.

But, and this is the point, you in the UK are absolutely soaking in Christians. How is it that you haven't had a nervous breakdown yet being surrounded in these potentially violent assholes who take seriously a holy book with such violent stuff in it? I'll tell you why: you've gotten to know them as people and not as cardboard cut-outs. You know that they're more complicated than the brainwashed robots following the instructions in a book that you would otherwise make them. So it is with Muslims. I've gotten to know a number over my life, and if I didn't know they were Muslim they would be indistinguishable from the Christians that surrounded me.

What I'm starting to see in Islam is the same reinterpretive warping of literal Christianity that transformed it into a less offensive religion. Islam will either adapt to the modern age, or it will die.

[Solitary]

On a side note, if the people elect a republican president there will be another Crusade against Islam. Be back in a second.

This quote from Reza Aslan provides a fascinating look into how apologists think:

    “People don’t derive their values from their religion â€" they bring their values to their religion. Which is why religions like Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, [and] Islam, are experienced in such profound, wide diversity. Two individuals can look at the exact same text and come away with radically different interpretations. Those interpretations have nothing to do with the text, which is, after all, just words on a page, and everything to do with the cultural, nationalistic, ethnic, political prejudices and preconceived notions that the individual brings to the text.”

By Ali A. Rizvi

What Aslan is saying here is pretty extraordinary. He is asserting that sizeable percentages of Muslims around the world â€" many of whom have said in multiple polls that they support killing apostates and stoning adulterers to death â€" don’t get these views from their religion, but their attitudes are somehow inherent in them as people.

Think about that for a second. Aslan isn’t being equivocal here â€" he is using absolute terms. He’s saying interpretations of the Quran have “nothing” â€" nothing â€" “to do with the text,” and “everything” â€" everything â€" to do with people’s “prejudices and preconceived notions.” In his New York Times op-ed, he wrote, “If you are a violent misogynist, you will find plenty in your scriptures to justify your beliefs.” The fault, according to Aslan, lies with people, not the scriptures.

As my friend Christopher Massie points out: “The conclusion that disproportionate numbers of intrinsically violent and misogynistic people reside in a certain region of the world could not be more bigoted or racist.”

Recall also when Ben Affleck referred to criticism of Islam as “racist.” By saying that, he implied that Islam or its adherents are all of a particular race. This, of course, is a remarkably racist assertion in itself.

Here’s the thing: there is good reason to believe that neither Aslan nor Affleck is racist or bigoted. Why, then, would they make such bigoted statements demonizing large groups of people?

***

This is the consequence of conflating criticism of ideas with bigotry against a people.

Aslan says that these “prejudices and preconceived notions” can be “cultural, nationalistic, ethnic, political” â€" but never religious. Really? So every time a jihadist yells “Allahu Akbar” and severs the head of a non-Muslim from his body with a knife, citing verses like 47:4 and 8:12-13 from the Quran, you can blame every possible factor for his actions except the one source that literally contains the words, “Smite the disbelievers upon their necks”? And these words have nothing to do with an action that is completely consistent with them?

The apologist’s inevitable response will be that these words are being read too “literally.” And there’s a good reason that reading holy books “literally” â€" or exactly the way they’re written â€" terrifies religious apologists. I’m with them on this. It terrifies me too. It is for this reason that Aslan insists that approaching these holy books the way most people approach most books â€" by reading the words on their pages precisely as they are written and assuming that the author actually meant what he wanted to say â€" is somehow “unsophisticated.”

He is partially right about one thing: thankfully, the vast majority of Muslims don’t derive all of their morality from the Quran. But he is wrong to completely dismiss those who do â€" those who don’t just dismiss scriptural passages as “words on a page,” but take them seriously.

Words have power. Aslan acknowledges this when it comes to the role of politics, culture, and nationalism in shaping people’s “prejudices” and “preconceived notions.” But he doesn’t acknowledge this when it comes to religion. This doesn’t make any rational sense, considering the incredible influence these holy books have held over billions of people for millennia, despite a plethora of scientific discoveries and advancements that have successfully countered virtually all of their claims.

Apologists like Aslan will often go to unreasonable lengths to protect inhuman ideas at the expense of real-life human beings. They will also label criticisms of ideas, books, and beliefs “bigotry” or “racism” in the absence of any substantive counter-argument.

As a brown-skinned man with a Muslim name and family who grew up in Muslim-majority countries well into my twenties, I think it is an injustice and an insult to genuine victims of anti-Muslim bigotry to exploit their pain and struggle by using it to stifle any legitimate criticism of Islam. This is precisely what umbrella terms like “Islamophobia” do.

***

Since the Maher/Harris/Affleck dust-up, this conversation has finally broken into the liberal mainstream in a big way. Moderate Muslims of the “this has nothing to do with religion” variety like Aslan are finally being called out and held accountable for their claims by their fellow liberals. Many of them are now re-evaluating their own views.

Despite the initial reflexive backlash, this is a welcome development in the long run. It is a valuable opportunity for atheists of influence to engage with a fast-growing community of reformers and secularists from the Muslim world. Sam Harris is co-writing a book with Muslim reformist and ex-jihadist Maajid Nawaz, and engaging with Irshad Manji. Brave new voices emerging from within countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are demonstrating value for honesty and introspection despite great risk to their lives. Ex-Muslims and atheists from Muslim backgrounds are coming out and organizing at unprecedented rates. These are the voices we need in our discourse, not those of disingenuous apologists like Aslan.

Ali A. Rizvi is a Pakistani-Canadian writer, physician, and musician who resides in Toronto. He is currently writing his first book, The Atheist Muslim.

[pr126]

Hakuret Reimu wrote:

…

I am your "forum project"? Get a life! 

[Berati]

“People don’t derive their values from their religion â€" they bring their values to their religion. Which is why religions like Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, [and] Islam, are experienced in such profound, wide diversity. Two individuals can look at the exact same text and come away with radically different interpretations. Those interpretations have nothing to do with the text, which is, after all, just words on a page, and everything to do with the cultural, nationalistic, ethnic, political prejudices and preconceived notions that the individual brings to the text.”

This is just totally messed up. The rebuttal from Mr. Rizvi just demolishes this. I completely understand why believers in other faiths fall for this garbage. It's clear they have their own violent ideologies to defend. Their own clear cut calls to violence to excuse away. The real issue is why atheists fall for this nonsense.
I think it's a reaction to perceived prejudice. It's compassion without reason to guide it. No matter how often it is pointed out that ideologies are not people... it FEELS like they’re people and after all, people believe them and feel insulted when the ideology they have total faith in is insulted or ridiculed just for being ridiculously violent/sexist/xenophobic/etc...

[Cocoa Beware]

I'm not trying in any way to be confrontational. I really would like to hear the motivation/reason behind defending Islamic violence with Christian violence.

I would love to hear that myself.

If we profess that both faiths deserve no respect, why does it matter if one is singled out and disrespected more then the other? What twisted sense of political correctness do people think we should we be catering to in this instance, and why?

Whatever happened to trying to see things as they are?

Christianity does not have the same crippling yoke on people that is used to. No longer is there such a thing as Christendom, where Theocrats held sway.

Islam is a much different story.

Ill readily admit that Islam still has a very long way to go to match the horrible atrocities Christians have already committed, but thats not really a practical way of looking at it.

[pr126]

There is one comparison already.

If a Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist etc. wants to leave his religion, he can do so without fear for his life. Not a Muslim.
How many of you received death threats from Christians for leaving the faith?

There are some atheist here who are trying to prove that Christianity presents a greater danger to the world than Islam.
While demonstrable evidence shows otherwise.

Christians do, in fact, take actions based on thier scriptures. You might not see this in the UK, but every day fundamentalists in the US try to ram their religion down the throats of Americans. The only difference is that fundamentalist Christians are far savvier than their Mulsim counterparts, but the game is precisely the same.

Really?  Are you sure? 24286 and counting.
Where do Christians hide the corpses in America?

How soon do you expect slave markets  by Christians in America?

Any of this by Christians in America?

... every day fundamentalists in the US try to ram their religion down the throats of Americans.

Islam would never do that!

Islamizing the Public Schools

Stop the Madrassa: A Citizen’s Guide to Islamist Curricula in Our Public Schools

Islam In Our Schools

And of course da'wa everywhere. Also called "Interfaith dialog, outreach, MESA.

Not that anyone would notice.

[Berati]

What twisted sense of political correctness do people think we should we be catering to in this instance, and why?

I believe I know the answer. It's caused by a conflation of ideology with people. You criticize islam... they defend muslims.
It's well meaning, but ultimately a betrayal of secular liberal morals that do not allow a free pass to any ideology.

Having said that, I can totally see the conflation problem working in the opposite direction. For instance, while it is perfectly OK to criticise, and insult communism(ideology), it is NOT ok to go on a communist (person) witch hunt. And yet this is exactly what happened in the past, so the same danger is still present.

However, this danger is still not reason enough to place islam or any other deeply held ideological belief on an unassailable pedestal and give it the same protections we would give to "race" for instance.

[pr126]

It is the "Vast Majority of Moderate Muslims" ^TM that are being protected by all and sundry.
I believe that it is just a wishful thinking, there is no proof of that. There cannot be.

There are Muslims who are inactive but the belief in the ideology is there, and they can be activated instantly by "radicalization, i.e made aware of their religious duties as Muslims. An offer they cannot refuse.

Look at the Muslims flocking to the killing fields of ISIS from all the countries, be it Islamic or Western.

There is no sure way to distinguish between radical and moderate.
The narrative purports a billion moderate Muslims, (Ben Affleck and Co.) without providing any evidence.

Again, wishful thinking, otherwise the reality is too frightening to contemplate.

To say it bluntly, the non Muslim world is scared witless from the "Tiny Minority of Extremist ^TM
That is why the meme of "the Vast Majority of Moderate Muslims" is spread.

Of course the Moderates do nothing at all to stop the Radicals. How can they?

BTW, the Tiny Minority of Extremist need logistics, money, weapons (courtesy of the USA), support and safe places which are provided by the Vast Majority of Moderates ^TM and of course us, the non Muslims.

They could not have metastasized this far without infidel help.


Here is a thought,  anybody ever heard the term Vast Majority of Moderate Christians,  Jews, Hindus, Buddhist, Sikhs, Shintos, Jains,  Animist?  Do they exist?

[Solitary]

Why now? This has been going on for years with our governments approval while kissing the Saudis asses.

ISIS Beheadings Are Repugnant â€" As Are Those Carried Out In Great Numbers By Our Pious Saudi “Friends”

Newsweek asks a good question: Why, if Americans are so horrified by the ISIS beheadings, do we collectively shrug about the beheadings carried out by Saudi Arabia, our so-called ally?

Since the beginning of the year, 59 people have had their heads chopped off in the Islamic paradise, in cases that wouldn’t pass judicial muster in a halfway enlightened nation.

    The Saudi legal system is based on Islam’s Sharia law. Some countries that use Sharia possess a penal code, but Saudi Arabia does not.

This is what awaits the condemned.

    If you are a prisoner in Riyadh, the capital, you might be taken to the ocher-colored Deera Square, which has acquired a macabre sobriquet: Chop Chop Square. Before you arrive, police and security forces will have prepared the area. It may have been cordoned off to keep curious spectators at a distance, but they will congregate nonetheless.

    You will be led to the center of the square, on the bare earth. According to one of Saudi Arabia’s state executioners, Mohammed Saad al-Beshi, who was interviewed in the Saudi newspaper Arab News in June 2003, your energy is likely to fade at this point, from sheer exhaustion and fear. You will not fight for your life, nor protest against your restraints.

Also because usually there’s Valium or another sedative coursing through your system â€" a pill that the regime touts as a kind offering to calm the convict’s nerves, but which is also to the executioner’s benefit: less chance of fear, panic, and writhing.

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/16/isis-beheadings-are-repugnant-as-are-those-carried-out-in-great-numbers-by-our-pious-saudi-friends/#ixzz3IJ9GO1Z3

    The executioner â€" always a man â€" is not allowed to talk to his victim. He reads your charge and some verses from the Quran. You are blindfolded, which is extremely important, and not for humanitarian reasons. If, when the sword is coming down, you turn in fearful anticipation, things could get messy. The blade might not sever with a single chop, or the executioner could miss his mark. The blood won’t be neatly caught by the plastic bags, and the head might not be so easy to scoop up…

    Even in death, you are not liberated. Your murder is meant to be a sign to the people in the crowd that Saudi Arabia does not tolerate dissent. A loudspeaker announces your crime. Your body may be taken away to be buried immediately. But if you were accused of banditry or drug smuggling, like seven Yemenis who were beheaded last year, your corpse will also be crucified.

Mohammed Saad al-Beshi’s most productive day so far was when he beheaded seven prisoners. He told Arab News, “It doesn’t matter to me: Two, four, 10 â€" as long as I’m doing God’s will, it doesn’t matter how many people I execute.”

    Al-Beshi started his trade in Jeddah in 1988, but many of the beheaders [there is currently a shortage of them] come from a long line of executioners, an occupation passed from generation to generation, like a cherished heirloom.

They’re nothing if not versatile.

    In Saudi Arabia, at least, the executioner isn’t limited to separating bodies from heads. He also cuts off other body parts â€" hands, legs â€" depending on the crime.

Newsweek notes that the most recent beheading victim was convicted of â€" no joke â€" sorcery. Some Saudi prisoners are put to death for political dissent.

Also, last year a Saudi defendant who’d caused another man to become paralyzed was ordered to undergo the same fate, reportedly by having the executioner sever his spinal cord.

Through it all, the silence from the West is deafening.

George W. Bush, for one, made it clear that he would rather hold hands with the Saudi King â€" and repeatedly kiss him, see the video below â€" than ask the despot to stop the head-chopping barbarity. That attitude continues: Last month, Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Saudi Arabia to strategize about ways to stop the human-rights violations perpetrated by ISIS. As expected, Kerry gave the Saudi executions a free pass, never raising the subject.

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/16/isis-beheadings-are-repugnant-as-are-those-carried-out-in-great-numbers-by-our-pious-saudi-friends/#ixzz3IJ9lM17s