We have to fight the extremists, not put 1.6 billion people who's help we need in fighting the extremists on the defensive. The goal of these nut cases is to create a clash of civilizations by turning this into an Islam vs. the West war. Let's not make that the reality.
Who is "we" and what role do the 1.6 billion people have to play in this? Surely it would have to start with them figuring out how their beliefs and opinions actually differ from those of the extremists, and making that clear to the world? So you suggest to keep turning the other cheek, ignoring the fact that Islam by now shows its ugly side with a mass murder like that pretty much every week (at least) somewhere in the world?
Then why are we even having a debate? Never suggested we turn the other cheek. I simply don't think the actions of groups like ISIS should be assigned to the totality of Islam. You can certainly criticize Islam for things like the pew poll for death for apostasy. But to say all of Islam is to blame for ISIS and Al Qaeda is to me, going too far.
Since you have not read the teachings of Islam and thus do not understand them, then you probably shouldn't be having the debate. Educate yourself and come back.
Your argument seems circular. 1) Are you saying an ideology draws its legitimacy from the amount of people that are following it? Something must not be criticized because a lot of people believe in it? 2) Are you saying IS and Al Qaeda have nothing to do with Islam as a whole? Have you done an analysis of what percentage of what IS and Al Qaeda believe in and what "mainstream Islam" promotes is actually the same? Again, nobody is saying 1.whatever billion Muslims are all just like IS and Al Qaeda. Obviously, the vast majority of them is not as violent as IS and Al Qaeda. But other than refraining from the violent means, how much overlap is there in the rest of the ideology?
What a despicable post and you are a despicable poster. The West needs to ban people like you, I'd be all for it.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr"><a href="https://t.co/bRExu2Om5m">pic.twitter.com/bRExu2Om5m</a></p>— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) <a href="https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/749574510052007936">July 3, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Hate to interrupt another cost/benefit of Islam thread, but on the original topic, Bangladesh is claiming this was not ISIS, for whatever that's worth. http://abcnews.go.com/International/bangladesh-refutes-isis-role-terror-attack-domestic-group/story?id=40310319 Says it was purely domestic (maybe still Islamic though, so let's continue).
Child, I might disagree with Islam. I also might agree that some of the doctrine in Islam is akin to Nazism however the largest difference between the two ideologies that makes you a bigot for stating such a thing is that Islam is an 'opt-out' ideology while Nazism is a 'opt-in' ideology. Most Muslims were simply born into the religion and just practice it culturally(only performa all the ritualistic aspects of the religion and uses common sense and empathy for moral decisions). Someone who is a Nazi made a clear and conscious decison to be an asshat.
Well, seeing as the terrorists only killed those who couldn't read a Quran, yes, it is still Islamic related. Ironically, I think I would have passed their test as most South Asian Muslims learn how to 'read' Arabic as a child. When I mean 'read' I mean just being able to pronounce the transliteration of the Arabic words.
Maybe? What other possibilities are you considering? Mormon? The logic of this Mr. Khan is "if they are Bangladeshis and from rich families with a good educational background, it can't be IS". Of course it can be IS. The myth from the Left that "if they had jobs and money, they wouldn't be radicalized, so it's really all the USA's and capitalism's fault" is just stupid. Agreed.
Exactly, I really don't get where people get the narrative that poor uneducated Muslims only resort to Islamic extremism? Look at the majority of Muslim terrorists that attacked the U.S. Most of them attended college or were attending college at the time in a nice cozy western university.
There are many things to criticize about the way Islam is practiced in many countries. I've already stated that. I am stating that ISIS & Al Qaeda do not represent Islam as a whole. Mainstream Islam does not promote terrorism or violence against non-Muslims. When ISIS commits a terrorist attack and Islam gets the blame for it instead of ISIS and extremism, people go down the path of Bennie Anders: ISIS = Islam. ISIS = Nazism. Therefore Islam = Nazism and we must fight all of Islam. ISIS is a part of Islam, but Islam is not synonymous with ISIS.
Nobody ever said Islam is synonymous with ISIS. You are totally arguing a strawman. What I am arguing is that "ISIS has nothing to do with Islam" is a lie, propagated by politicians like Obama.
While you aren't condemning all 1.6 billion Muslims there are many people that are. There are many people - an increasing number - who want to say we are at war with Islam. Obama is trying to avoid a war between the west and Islam - that's why he makes that statement. Of course there is a connection between ISIS and Islam. But ISIS does not represent the mainstream of the religion. They do however want to be viewed they way. They do want people to fear Islam and think that any Muslim could be a terrorist - that is part of the aim in terrorist attacks. Their stated goal is to start the final war and create a clash of civilizations. My feeling is that you guys are playing a bit into their hands. And I am not trying to attack you or anything, just saying how it comes across to me. Which is why I resist your approach. I don't see Islam as the enemy. Plenty of Muslims identify with Islam and are peaceful. The problem is extremism and how do you stop Islamic radicalism. I wish people spent more time discussing that.
