[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50644784]Yeah I can see how sad you are shitting on the religion they believed in.
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, even fucking Buddhism. Tell a lie enough times and it wil become the truth. All sorts of people exist, which means there will be people who will use ignorance of others to manipulate them to do what he/she wants. This, plus decades long Colonialism, Warfare, ideologically extremists fucking established and recognized states (hint: SA) fuel it, and you have it.
Do you even know how many Sikh, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu extremist groups exist? 2 things:
1) Nobody cares about them in Spain. Press.
2) They don't have the funding and background and right conditions like IS. There are Muslims being cannibalized by Christians in Central Africa, drop there several million tops of military equipment and a 10 year war. I doubt much good would happen.[/QUOTE]
Exactly this. Nobody knows a single militant Buddhist group because the west imagines Buddhists as a bunch of peaceful meditating monks up in a mountain somewhere. Even though Myanmar had Buddhist rioting against Muslims 3 years ago that killed and injured over 100. Even though the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army almost certainly carried out multiple assassinations in Myanmar. Even though the 969 Movement resulted in 200 people murdered by Buddhists and 100,000 displaced. Even though Sri Lankan Sinhalese Buddhists had several armed conflicts and massacres with Hindu and Christian Tamils.
Extremism exists in every religion. It exists in every political system. It isn't a symptom of a religon being inherently terrible in some way. Extremist violence is a result of political and social unrest and poor infrastructure and education. Unless Buddhism is also an intolerant and violent religion incompatible with western society, because it has a history of extremism and persecution against religious minorities. Don't let any of them in!
I don't think the argument is that it is "inherently" violent and that it will always be violent. I think the argument is that the way Islam is now, at least in the middle east, is violent and backwards.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50645144]I don't think the argument is that it is "inherently" violent and that it will always be violent. I think the argument is that the way Islam is now, at least in the middle east, is violent and backwards.[/QUOTE]
And most would agree that that's a fair assessment. Fundamentalist Islam (which still isn't even a majority of Middle Eastern Islam) is absolutely violent and backwards. Traditionalist Islam, as seen in most established Islamic governments, is arguably backwards, but rarely violent.
The argument I see is that the violent verses of the Quran necessitate that the religion itself is violent. That couldn't be further from the truth. Many modernist Muslims look at fundamentalist groups and think they're interpreting texts incorrectly, and vice versa. Like the Bible, the Quran and the Hadiths contradict themselves. "There is no compulsion in religion," but apostates are to be put to death. It becomes an issue with interpretation and what value is placed on which verses. Strictly literally, yes, the Quran is violent, as is the Bible and any other text written in that era. But Islam has rarely been interpreted literally in history and it's dishonest to assume that the literalist version is the "real" Islam, especially when history shows that's wrong. Plus the literalist fundamentalists ignore it anyways and kill those of other religions explicitly protected by the religious texts they're supposedly interpreting literally.
It's interpretative, not absolute. Islam can be (and has been) a tolerant and pluralistic religion. People who assume that the modern fundamentalism is the real proper interpretation and that Islam is therefore a violent religion are ignoring centuries of tradition and history and reform and shit. It's ignorance of how religion operates to say that it's a violent religion - even though it absolutely is [i]among certain fundamentalist groups in one of many subsets of Muslim populations across the globe[/i].
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50644784]Yeah I can see how sad you are shitting on the religion they believed in.
Christianity, Judaism, Islam, even fucking Buddhism. Tell a lie enough times and it wil become the truth. All sorts of people exist, which means there will be people who will use ignorance of others to manipulate them to do what he/she wants. This, plus decades long Colonialism, Warfare, ideologically extremists fucking established and recognized states (hint: SA) fuel it, and you have it.
Do you even know how many Sikh, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu extremist groups exist? 2 things:
1) Nobody cares about them in Spain. Press.
2) They don't have the funding and background and right conditions like IS. There are Muslims being cannibalized by Christians in Central Africa, drop there several million tops of military equipment and a 10 year war. I doubt much good would happen.[/QUOTE]
Hey boy, uno. I'm an americunt get it rite
Duos. I can hate the psychotic Muslims while feeling sad for civlians caught in the crossfire
Tres. I know of those extremist groups, I pay attention to the news with Buddhist terrorist groups etc etc
Jesus Christ, assumptions make an ass out of u and me matey.
[QUOTE=Tools;50641189]"Islamic State" has nothing to do with Islam anymore.[/QUOTE]
Because Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi who holds a doctorate in Islamic Studies wouldn't have a grasp of what Islam is.
[QUOTE=orgornot;50641540]You mean: muslims. (those are the two main muslim groups so you basically mean all muslims)
And you are correct. The "moderate" muslims are just regressed. When asked how they really feel:
[IMG]https://31.media.tumblr.com/3dbde8d5a74e6a433b9741da74e9e528/tumblr_inline_nhto8nLUTx1shhsz2.jpg[/IMG]
Good luck filtering out the majority of them when they are pouring into your country.[/QUOTE]
I'm curious, since that links leads to a 404 page not found. How did they get those survey results?
[QUOTE=Pops;50643172]why aren't we all voting for someone who will just nuke the middle east and be done with it, then?[/QUOTE]
Is this sarcasm or do you really not know that nuking these kinds of groups don't really help at all? They just reband in splinter groups.
A nuke can't kill an ideology.
[QUOTE=polarbear.;50645534]I'm curious, since that links leads to a 404 page not found. How did they get those survey results?[/QUOTE]
It's from [URL="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/07/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/"]Pew[/URL] - they're largely considered a reliable polling organization, but there's been plenty of fair criticisms about how that particular poll was conducted. It's also [I]easily[/I] misrepresented and the picture itself is incorrect.
In Jordan, 71% of polled Muslims want Sharia law, and 82% of those 71% think there should be a death penalty for apostasy. Clearly, you can't have 82% wanting the death penalty while 71% don't even want Sharia - the mistake that the image makes. If you actually calculate it, which most sites neglect to do, you get [B]58.2%[/B] of all Muslims in Jordan want a death penalty for apostasy. This is still stupid high, but [i]much[/i] lower than the 82% that most sites report.
94% of Jordan is Muslim, and it has a population of 6.459 million, so when you calculate out non-Muslims, and actually pay attention to the wording of the Pew poll, 54.73% of the entire population of Jordan wants death for leaving Islam. That's about 3.5 million. If you calculate it correctly, which the image you quoted didn't, it's much lower than the 584 million quoted. I'd have to redo it individually by each country, which I really don't have time to do, but that image isn't calculated correctly as far as I can tell. Overestimates by over 20% at some points - 82% of Jordan instead of the proper 58.2%.
I'm gonna recalculate it to see if I'm right, because they might have taken that into account, but I don't think they did.
[editline]4th July 2016[/editline]
Plus, the people who made that graphic ignored Pew polls that show a totally different side to Islam:
[t]http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/gsi2-overview-16.png[/t]
[t]http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/gsi2-overview-6.png[/t]
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50644642]We overthrew a progressive and put in religious fundamentalists. That was the start of the downfall of the Middle East. It is almost undeniably the US's fault.[/QUOTE]
Are you deliberately omitting the step there where the guy we put in (a moderate by all accounts) was [I]overthrown[/I] by a violent revolution led by religious fundamentalists? We didn't 'put in religious fundamentalists', they rebelled and destroyed the government- your claim is akin to saying the US overthrew Hussein and put in ISIS.
Blaming the state of the Middle East on the US requires some serious contortions of logic given that the social and political forces that were leading to ethnic conflict and violent civil wars were already underway long before the US got involved in Iran. Wind the clock back to the outcomes of both world wars and the haphazard way the region was divided without regard to ethnic or tribal lines if you want to get a little closer to the truth.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;50641175]Isnt this the most anti-islamic thing to do this month?[/QUOTE]
Muhammad fought a couple battles during Ramadan, it's okay you are still safe to call them true Islamics and not just punks.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50645984]Are you deliberately omitting the step there where the guy we put in (a moderate by all accounts) was [I]overthrown[/I] by a violent revolution led by religious fundamentalists? We didn't 'put in religious fundamentalists', they rebelled and destroyed the government- your claim is akin to saying the US overthrew Hussein and put in ISIS.
Blaming the state of the Middle East on the US requires some serious contortions of logic given that the social and political forces that were leading to ethnic conflict and violent civil wars were already underway long before the US got involved in Iran. Wind the clock back to the outcomes of both world wars and the haphazard way the region was divided without regard to ethnic or tribal lines if you want to get a little closer to the truth.[/QUOTE]
The country was democratic and relatively secular. The US overthrew their democracy and installed a dictator who was friendly to western interests. This dictator fucked the country, and the people eventually rose up and overthrew them with the help of radical Islamists, who then gained support and took over because of widespread anti-western sentiment. This is why many people regard the United States as the greatest enemy of freedom and democracy in the rest of the world.
[QUOTE=catbarf;50645984]Are you deliberately omitting the step there where the guy we put in (a moderate by all accounts) was [I]overthrown[/I] by a violent revolution led by religious fundamentalists? We didn't 'put in religious fundamentalists', they rebelled and destroyed the government- your claim is akin to saying the US overthrew Hussein and put in ISIS.
Blaming the state of the Middle East on the US requires some serious contortions of logic given that the social and political forces that were leading to ethnic conflict and violent civil wars were already underway long before the US got involved in Iran. Wind the clock back to the outcomes of both world wars and the haphazard way the region was divided without regard to ethnic or tribal lines if you want to get a little closer to the truth.[/QUOTE]
Shah Pahlavi might've been a moderate, but the very fact that he cooperated with US demands after the US and the UK subverted the democratic process and deposed of a popular democratically-elected secular leader was enough to make him unpopular among a lot of people. Where Mosaddegh's reforms succeeded, Pahlavi's... didn't.
The US sowed the seeds for revolution against the Shah by giving him a (fair) reputation as a foreign-planted leader. Conservative Islamic religious leaders took advantage of that and initiated the 1978-79 revolution.
Yeah, you can trace it back all the way to the world wars and say that the West should have paid more attention to ethnic boundaries when dividing the Middle East, and that's a fair argument, but there's little doubt that the US's meddling in Iranian democracy gave enough credence to make the Shah unpopular among certain groups, and that was enough to initiate a revolution over time. The Shah fucking moved the calendar from Muhammad's migration to Mecca to the conquest of Babylon and started it on the date his own reign began, pissing off religious leaders. He was antagonistic towards huge sections of the populace, especially religious conservatives, which was his downfall.
[QUOTE=Omilinon;50644313]Wow, I just can't believe this thread. Such blind hatred and ignorance from the first few posts, and I'm just laughing so hard. Are you serious right now?
My god. Maybe join us in the real world, folks?[/QUOTE]
The same blind hatred and ignorance that gave birth to this conflict in the first place.
Also didn't help that most of us in this thread were born yesterday
[editline]5th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50646516]
He is an Ulema, basically. There are all sorts of Ulemas around the world, corresponding to al sorts of Muslims. ISIS has Ulemas too.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't go around and raise people as Ulema/Islamic scholar as easily nowdays.
Currently almost everybody who can chant one or two verses or pre-meal prayer and had turban on their had will demand to be called Ulema.
The only ones that might even hold some credibilities are the earlier generations after prophet Muhammad.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50644642]I know a Kosovar Albanian Muslim girl. She goes to my college and I've had loads of conversations with her.
[/QUOTE]
Not to devalue what you're saying, but Kosovar Muslims are quite probably the most progressive on Earth and have done loads to help limit the spread of Wahhabism in (Eastern) Europe. If all European Muslims were like Kosovar Muslims, we wouldn't be having any of the problems we are.
I recommend reading this article:
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/world/europe/how-the-saudis-turned-kosovo-into-fertile-ground-for-isis.html[/url]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.