Sorry, but that doesn't absolve Islam as a religion for its faults. 1 act of violence in the name of religion is too many, and they all deserve to be pointed out.
Nothing excuses violence against innocents or people expressing free speech and expression. But to only focus on one group's violent acts and ignore all the other groups, and the non-violent deeds by vast majority in that group is an odd obsession, and not really rational. It is an obsession because it is beyond the limits of reason.
It is a current problem in our society, the majority of the terrorism is in the name of Islam. There should be some focus as to why that is.... DD
Is this supposed to be an accurate number? Because 10 % of 1.5 billion would be 150 million. I think you might be overstating the amount of violent Muslims. Fact of the matter is that there are more Christians in the world than Muslims, and you have significantly less "honor killings", stonings, beheadings (except in Mexico...), plane bombings, discrimination of women (putting them in mobile jails aka burkhas (or equivalent), killing of apostates, etc. etc. etc. - all in all, less violence in the name of the religion. Just to be clear: I am talking about whether intolerance is somewhat more inherent in Islam, and I am talking about Islamists. I am not talking about moderate Muslims who pick the good parts of the ideology and who do not harm others in any way (those are the large majority). I have no problems with these people at all. What?
Like I said in the post to DD, there is nothing excusing violence against innocents and those exercising free speech. Not any religion, or anything else. But to look so narrowly at something and miss the bigger more accurate picture isn't helpful in addressing what's wrong with the violence.
I was just using the 90 - 10 ratio as an example of nice round figures. It isn't the result of any scientific study. And as you mentioned is probably high in terms of violent Muslims. But even if it was accurate the problem is condemning 9 peaceful people in an effort to lash out at 1 violent one. It mischaracterizes a great number of folks.
No, that isn't true, and I've posted the statistics about where the majority of terrorism comes from. In the US it's less than 5%, and in the world the majority of terrorism comes from nationalists, and not in the name of religion.
I'd say you're not looking narrowly enough. There's quite a bit of compelling evidence that is very centrally focused on the dogma of Islam. We have quite a few posters around here who like to gloss over this fact, though, and are quick to spread the blame around elsewhere while ignoring the heart of the issue. I used to be this way too, was always afraid of being labeled racist or bigoted, but quite frankly, I got tired of tolerating violence, abuse, and hatred that is somehow protected by divinity in some cultures.
When ten people share a religion and nine of them upright citizens and 1 is violent, but you come out and say the problem is the religion then you are being irrational in looking at the problem.
But there is your misunderstanding: I am not condemning the 9 peaceful people at all! Plus, my effort is not directed at lashing out at the 1 violent one. The question that, as some may put it, haunts me and that I am slightly "obsessed" with, is that I am trying to understand how much of the root cause of the statistically evident fact that more acts of violence and intolerance are currently committed in the name of Islam than in the name of any other major religion is inherent in Islam. So, if anything, I question and criticize the particular ideology (religion), but once again, that does not mean that I condemn its moderate and peaceful followers (who manage to get to an interpretation of the ideology/religion that is acceptable).
No, that is wrong. If you have three comparable monotheistic religions and for two of them, let's say, 1 out of 100 followers is violent and 10 out of 100 are intolerant, but for the third religion, 10 out of 100 followers are violent and 30 out of 100 are intolerant, then it is absolutely not irrational to look at the religion as a potential cause of the problem.
I'm happy you aren't condemning the 9 at all. That's fantastic. If you are trying to question if Islam is at the route of the violence then you appear to be taking an unbalanced approach in your search for the answer. I think that's where the "misunderstanding" comes into play. If you want to find out if Islam is inherently a cause in the violence then you should look at both the violent and non-violent instances and practices of Islam. Yet you never do. If you were trying to understand if race played a role in crime in the US, and only investigated when African Americans did something criminal, you'd be missing out on the vast majority of the population and vast majority of activities that happen. In order to really discover that you'd need a broader selection of examples to study.
That's true only if looking at comparative religion and ignoring the evolution of the different religions. If you really wanted to look at the one religion itself, you'd need to get the broader perspective I mentioned.
Then you are saying the 9 peaceful people who have more experience and study of the religion than you are wrong, and the one person who believes the f'd up **** should result in violence is correct in the way they see read the religion.
Race and religion are a terrible comparison to make here. It is silly to say that race predisposes someone to any sort of behavior or thinking. Meanwhile, religion, as part of its very core and existence, is meant to influence or alter people's thoughts, perceptions, behavior, etc.
Heh, "more experience and study", I like how you snuck that in there. And no, that's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm saying that the religion is flawed.
I agree it's terrible to say that race plays any role in behavior or way of thinking. I would also say that if a vast majority of people believing in something aren't violent and a small minority use a religion to justify violence, the problem might be in the small minority who are twisting the religion for the violent goals, and not the belief that a huge majority can follow without it leading them to violence.
It is kind of strange how a guy who has only been here for 8-9 months seems to have such a rich breadth of knowledge about all of the ins-and-outs of the BBS, including posters histories and backstories, and has already managed to develop blood feuds with several of them. Strange indeed.
If I'm wrong and the followers of Islam don't have more experience and study of the religion than you, then I withdraw it. It seems only natural that people that are part of the religion have both more experience with it, and study of it. I didn't mean it to be insulting just factual. An outsider is less likely to be familiar with the intricacies, details, and subtleties of something than someone who has grown up and studied in some degree as part of the religion. I'm not a Muslim, and disagree with plenty of things in Islam.
