Reply With Quote
if you want a good lesson about western morals read up on the history of marital rape laws in the US
I assume you re taking about right to life proponents as it relates to abortion.
There is a huge distance from that to beheading people for having premarital sex or even somehow "insulting Islam" in their speech.
if you want a good lesson about western morals read up on the history of marital rape laws in the US
relating to many things, not just abortion. i didn't say we are as extreme here, there's a reason i'm glad i live in the US
I assume you re taking about right to life proponents as it relates to abortion.
There is a huge distance from that to beheading people for having premarital sex or even somehow "insulting Islam" in their speech.
saudi arabia is the only country that uses beheading in punishment
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/0...ull-report.pdf
p.55 covers apostasy
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-religion-and-politics/#suicide-bombing
Suicide Bombing
In most of the 21 countries where the question was asked few Muslims endorse suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets as a means of defending Islam against its enemies. But in a few countries, substantial minorities believe suicide bombing can be often justified or sometimes justified.
Muslims in some countries surveyed in South Asia and the Middle East-North Africa region are more likely than Muslims elsewhere to consider suicide bombing justified. Four-in-ten Palestinian Muslims see suicide bombing as often or sometimes justified, while roughly half (49%) take the opposite view.
In Egypt, about three-in-ten (29%) consider suicide bombing justified at least sometimes. Elsewhere in the region, fewer Muslims believe such violence is often or sometimes justified, including fewer than one-in-five in Jordan (15%) and about one-in-ten in Tunisia (12%), Morocco (9%) and Iraq (7%).
In Afghanistan, a substantial minority of Muslims (39%) say that this form of violence against civilian targets is often or sometimes justifiable in defense of Islam. In Bangladesh, more than a quarter of Muslims (26%) take this view. Support for suicide bombing is lower in Pakistan (13%).
In the countries surveyed in Central Asia and Southern and Eastern Europe, fewer than one-in-six Muslims consider suicide bombing justified in Turkey (15%), Kosovo (11%) and Kyrgyzstan (10%). Elsewhere in these two regions, even fewer say this tactic can be justified.
In Southeast Asia, Malaysian Muslims are more likely than Indonesian Muslims to consider suicide bombing justifiable (18% vs. 7%).
ah, thanks, the apostasy term was slipping my mind
brussels attacker, ibrahim el bakravi, was deported by turkey to belgium in july 2015. but was released as belgium did not establish terror links with the suspect despite turkey warnings.
Not only that, but just a basic thing you can take from this, and any other kind of statistic really that tries to say something about a trend or whatever and quantifies it against the % of the population at large, is that you have to figure that a ton of the people accounted probably can't even tie their shoes, so to speak. Let alone have any legitimate feelings about ISIS. The numbers in the graph, which I'm not sure how reliable or remarkable they are in the first place (I've looked at other graphs/statistics that tell a different story, I'll paste & link one below), are skewed at least a little from the start, in a very basic way. Not sure exactly by how much, but I'm sure if I bothered to research it, by looking at population numbers of certain age groups, we could come up with a fairer & more telling graph.
(Here's the graph I referred to ^, the link to the site it comes from is after it.
http://i0.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-co...nk-of-isis.png.
I'm not sure if this graph includes non-Muslim people in the populations within those countries or not. Assuming they don't hold favorable opinions of ISIS to the extent that Muslims do, if they are it might skew the graph to some extent. Also, I assume it includes the entire population number as opposed to just adults (like how I said the other one did).
There are other things my and the other graph don't bear out. The most obvious and probably the most significant being that, adolescents and young adults are more likely to sympathize with Muslim extremism. For several reasons, but probably mostly because they're exposed to it via the Internet, ISIS & other groups' main recruitment tool, more than older generations. I can't at the moment easily retrieve the several articles I've read that talked about it, but they showed a pretty dramatic difference b/w the different age groups in their respect feelings toward extremism in the Muslim populations of France & Great Britain, respectively.
I think any way you look at it, one thing that no graph can quantify, and why it's more than just about the numbers, is the who & what. Muslim Extremism--as ANY other kind of ideology, but esp. in terms of religion--is a form of zealotry. But because it is believed to have the definitive answers to morality, the fidelity to which salvation is dependent, it can inspire just a relative small number, or minority, to affect society to an extent that isn't reflected in numbers, graphs, etc. IOW, people can get caught up in the numbers and ignore the belief system. Generalizing is dangerous, but so is acting like it's Unremarkable that only "a few million" agree with them.
the real question is should we fear people who hold certain beliefs or should we fear the people who are acting violently and blowing things up?
if i'm a in the US, im not going to fear some farmer from kansas who thinks gays should be killed. i'm going to fear hate groups who are actually taking matters into their own hands and being violent
I'm waiting to hear what, if any methods were used to get punk ass Abdeslam to talk.
I understand what you're saying, but those Brussels bombers just looked like regular dudes pushing luggage carts.
isis claimed credit for the attacks. if true, these fellas would fit into the small isis bubble in that graphic i posted. whether or not they "looked like" regular dudes is irrelevant. they were isis... which is far beyond just being some muslim guy in his house who has some harsh beliefs but does't actually kill people or act on those beliefs
The two notions are not mutually exclusive. False dichotomy. Many hadith encourage violence. Christianity is much the same but they pick and chose out leviticus and much of what paul said.
The schism is apparent in Islam with a minority who says the Quran is whole and complete and reject hadith and then the 80% majority who believe in the Hadith as indicated by their support of Sharia law. If you pick and choose in the Muslim world you get the sword.
what is mutually exclusive is if said muslim
a) acts on those beliefs, ie killing people, beheading people, suicide bombing
or
b) doesn't act on those beliefs - particularly with violence (vast majority)
Fair enough. Tell me how I should distinguish an ISIS suicide bomber from a moderate Muslim.
by appearance alone? you can't really. same way you can't distinguish somebody who's about to watch a movie from somebody who's about to shoot up the theater
its not a comforting answer, but profiling puts innocent people at risk, too. that shouldn't be something the government endorses (putting innocents at risk)
Just because both are not present in all cases doesn't make it any less a false dichotomy.
As far as I'm concerned much like with Christians who claim the Bible is the revealed word of God, Muslims who say the Quran and Hadith are literally the revealed word of God are part of the problem.
I'm not advocating punitive remedies but its there nonetheless.
Is a vote an act? If you vote in support of Sharia law you are assenting to violence and oppression.
it's not a false dichotomy even if you keep saying it is. there are people who act on their beliefs with violence, and people that don't
a vote is not violence. again, to an example i used earlier, should a gay man in the US fear for his safety when it comes to an individual who believes gays should be put to death (and might vote accordingly), or should he fear an individual who actually kills gays? sure, the potential effects from voting patterns are there, but i'm speaking of imminent danger, which is what we refer to in the context of isis/terorrists
You distinguish by knowing where you are. If you're in America, you are most likely surrounded by people who are more likely to be criminals than that Muslim you're skeptical of.
Turkey now claiming it gave Belgium warnings that one of the Buttf Bombers was with ISIS.
Israel taking it a step further claiming:
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Wednesday that Belgian security services, as well as other Western intelligence agencies, had “advance and precise intelligence” of the pending terror attacks prior to Tuesday. The newspaper said authorities had specific warning the attacks were coming soon and would take place at the airport and in the subway system.
It was not clear how authorities were allegedly warned of the attacks in advance,....
Faux News link
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03...l?intcmp=hpbt1
Bizzare
and there are people who act violently because of their beliefs.
I get that you want to separate violence and belief but belief can and does cause violence. Every vote for Sharia law does as much.
What about voting for candidates that want to continue having robots drop bombs on Muslim countries? We're all guilty of that.
Bible humpers harass violently, murder PP and other women's health clinic people, because they believe that's what their God wants. Same with Christian violence against LGBT.
Just getting started
The Associated Press @AP 2h2 hours ago BREAKING: The Islamic State group has trained at least 400 fighters to target Europe in deadly waves, the AP has learned.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
