Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't think that people have a long history of getting defensive when people criticize "Islamic extremism".

People get defensive when stupid statements get thrown around like "Islam is not compatible with the west" because at this point the criticism is no longer about the extremists but against an entire religion that is mostly peaceful.

d... let's try a different tact.

Which religion has adherents that are using their holy text to destabilize and entire region, murder innocent civilians, take hostages, take sex slaves, rape and pillage, and are attempting to set up a religiously exclusive state?

What the death toll is from Islamic terrorists versus Christian terrorists?

One team is clearly the junior varsity squad. The other is in the pros.

EDIT: dammit, ninja'ed by others.

PhantomViper wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't think that people have a long history of getting defensive when people criticize "Islamic extremism".

People get defensive when stupid statements get thrown around like "Islam is not compatible with the west" because at this point the criticism is no longer about the extremists but against an entire religion that is mostly peaceful.

Except that that is not a stupid statement. Islamic values are not compatible with western liberal values, you just need to read the Koran to realize that.

Segregation of women is not compatible with western liberal values.

Like Christian churches that continue to segregate women in their congregation and refuse women any leadership roles?

Abolition of freedom of religion is not compatible with western liberal values.

Like Christian communities that banish all members that don't follow their religion?

Abolition of freedom of expression is not compatible with western liberal values.

Like Christian communities that banish freedom of expression and physically hurt anyone that is critical of their ideology?

The death penalty and or / mutilation for minor crimes are not compatible with western liberal values.

The death penalty isn't compatible with western liberal values period, yet Christians in the US still advocate in its favor, often quoting the Old Testament in their support.

The joining of church and state is not compatible with western liberal values.

Like the US passing law after law that because "the Bible says this thing is bad"?

To be fair, most of those issues can also be found on the Bible, but Christianity during the dark ages also wasn't compatible with western liberal values, but Christianity has developed away from those times while Islam hasn't, yet.

You can't have your cake and eat it too, and saying "their religion is bad because their holy book says all that but this other religion is not bad even though their holy book says the same thing" just makes you look silly.

Islam and Christianity have developed away from these times, radical Islam and radical Christianity haven't.

That modern Muslims, mostly those living in western democracies, choose to ignore those aspects of their holy book and live peacefully in their communities is no indicator if the religion itself is peaceful or not and least of all, the fact that Islam seems to breed much more violent extremists than any other religion should be discussed and analysed, especially when people start sprouting this "religion of peace" nonsense.

The stupid approach is to go "many extremists are Muslim, so therefore Islam must be extreme". It's intellectually lazy and factually inaccurate.

The intelligent approach would be to recognize the very fact that you already shared in your post and try to find out the cause of it: Muslims in the western world don't become violent extremist in a much larger number than Christians in the western world. So what is the difference between Muslims in this part of the world and Muslims in that part of the world that drives members of one group to extreme violence even though both groups follow the same teachings? Then we might look and see that Muslims in the middle east face a large amount of sectarian violence, ethnic and tribal conflicts, poverty, lack of education, and other contributing elements that can turn people to violence.

If millions of Muslims manage to be peaceful and modern members of society while following Islam, then Islam is by definition not the problem.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If you ask a Londoner if he thinks Islam is "largely peaceful", then ask the same question of an Eqyptian Coptic Christian, or a Yazidi christian, or any minority living in an Islamic theocracy, I expect you'll get very different answers.

And Egyptian Coptic Christians know that there is a difference between Muslims and Muslim Extremists, that's how we ended up with things like this:



Maybe Egyptian Coptic Christians are smarter than some Westerners.

Didn't your country have bombs planted and shootings between different Christian sects not too long ago?

If millions of Muslims manage to be peaceful and modern members of society while following Islam, then Islam is by definition not the problem.

But they don't follow Islam, not really. There are large parts of the Koran that a Muslim living in the West has to ignore, or they'd be arrested.

Islamic doctrine is the problem, and is what we are saying is incompatible, not individual Muslims.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

The death penalty and or / mutilation for minor crimes are not compatible with western liberal values.

The death penalty isn't compatible with western liberal values period, yet Christians in the US still advocate in its favor, often quoting the Old Testament in their support.

Which simply puts the USA on a par with Islamic theocracies. The factIt doesn't disprove our point.

I know Americans sometimes like to think they're the centre of the Universe, but "The West" includes more countries than just the USA. A lot of your counter points are unique to the USA, and simply wouldn't fly in Europe.

The stupid approach is to go "many extremists are Muslim, so therefore Islam must be extreme". It's intellectually lazy and factually inaccurate.

Good thing we're not saying that then. We're saying that Islam in its purest form IS extreme.

Because really, what could be more extreme than child marriage; executions for apostasy, blasphemy and homosexuality; amputations for Theft, caning and whipping/lashing for adultery?

 d-usa wrote:

And when thousands of Islamic religious leaders (aka: the vast majority) tell you over and over again that this is not real Islam it's pretty easy for folks to think otherwise.

Ehh... I think it;s more like dozens to hundreds (if we're pushing it) of Islamic leaders. The various US news media outlets do seem to rotate through the batting order of "leaders" they have on the air. I also seem to recall they keep having to change up leaders, because after being "good" on the news, they will turn hypocritical and do or say something less than peaceful

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I don't think that people have a long history of getting defensive when people criticize "Islamic extremism".

People get defensive when stupid statements get thrown around like "Islam is not compatible with the west" because at this point the criticism is no longer about the extremists but against an entire religion that is mostly peaceful.

d... let's try a different tact.

Which religion has adherents that are using their holy text to destabilize and entire region, murder innocent civilians, take hostages, take sex slaves, rape and pillage, and are attempting to set up a religiously exclusive state?

All of them?

Let's try a different tact.

How many Muslims are terrorists and how many people are Muslims?

ISIS has ~32,000 members. Al-Qaeda has 10,000 if we give them a very generous estimate. Let's be extra generous and throw in another 8,000 from various tiny splinter groups around the world to make it an even 50,000.

There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. That means 3% of them are extremists, and if we go down the "they are only terrorists because they are Muslims and not because of any other regional factors" route than 3% of them turn out extremists because of their religion.

It's a pretty gakky violent religion if it only manages to convert 3% of adherents to actually follow the violent teachings it apparently promotes.

Hell, the British National Party has 4,200+ members, which means that 6% of people in the UK are members of an extremist group. It appears that the UK is twice as likely to turn people extreme than Islam!

On the US front 3% of the US population belongs to the KKK (and the percentage of Christians that belong to the KKK would be even higher),

If you include the various other extremist groups in the US that include "christian teachings" in their violent bs then you will find out that a larger percentage of Christians do violent crap than Muslims.

And that just includes actual groups and ignores the idiot that beats his wife because she is his property and her church that tell her that she has to stay with him because she promised God that she would.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Good thing we're not saying that then. We're saying that Islam in its purest form IS extreme.

You are saying that Islam in the narrow-minded bigoted and inaccurate form that exists in my head is extreme.

 d-usa wrote:


ISIS has ~32,000 members.

That number seems awfully low to me, where did you come up with it?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


ISIS has ~32,000 members.

That number seems awfully low to me, where did you come up with it?

Went with Wikipedia, other sources are always welcome but I'm pretty confident that in the wake of 1,500,000,000 worldwide Muslims it isn't going to shift the percentages much.

Edit: actually it was this: http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/11/world/meast/isis-syria-iraq/

 d-usa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Good thing we're not saying that then. We're saying that Islam in its purest form IS extreme.

You are saying that Islam in the narrow-minded bigoted and inaccurate form that exists in my head is extreme.

No, I'm not. I'm saying the Islam that exists in the fething Koran is extreme.

but don't let that stop you. Do continue putting words in people's mouths, beating up straw men and using ad hominem, it only makes you look even more of a prat.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Good thing we're not saying that then. We're saying that Islam in its purest form IS extreme.

You are saying that Islam in the narrow-minded bigoted and inaccurate form that exists in my head is extreme.

No, I'm not. I'm saying the Islam that exists in the fething Koran is extreme.

You also admit that everything that you listed in the Koran is also listed in the Bible.

But of course then you turn around and go "just because it's in the book doesn't mean it's part of the religion anymore"

but don't let that stop you. Do continue putting words in people's mouths, beating up straw men and using ad hominem, it only makes you look even more of a prat.

The UK must be getting to you, if you are not careful the radical teachings of the United Kingdomism will drive you to join the 6% of your fellow folks. No wonder the UK is twice as likely to breed extremists than Islam.

 d-usa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Good thing we're not saying that then. We're saying that Islam in its purest form IS extreme.

You are saying that Islam in the narrow-minded bigoted and inaccurate form that exists in my head is extreme.

No, I'm not. I'm saying the Islam that exists in the fething Koran is extreme.

You also admit that everything that you listed in the Koran is also listed in the Bible.

But of course then you turn around and go "just because it's in the book doesn't mean it's part of the religion anymore"

Dude...I'm a fething atheist. If you think you're gonna goad me into defending Christianity so you can cry "Gotcha!", think again.

Next straw man?

but don't let that stop you. Do continue putting words in people's mouths, beating up straw men and using ad hominem, it only makes you look even more of a prat.

The U must be getting to you, if you are not careful the radical teachings of the United Kingdomism will drive you to join the 6% of your fellow folks. No wonder the UK is twice as likely to breed extremists than Islam.

...you're starting to sound unhinged.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Good thing we're not saying that then. We're saying that Islam in its purest form IS extreme.

You are saying that Islam in the narrow-minded bigoted and inaccurate form that exists in my head is extreme.

No, I'm not. I'm saying the Islam that exists in the fething Koran is extreme.

You also admit that everything that you listed in the Koran is also listed in the Bible.

But of course then you turn around and go "just because it's in the book doesn't mean it's part of the religion anymore"

Dude...I'm a fething atheist. If you think you're gonna goad me into defending Christianity so you can cry "Gotcha!", think again.

Next straw man?

I mixed up PhantomViper's post with yours, he was the one who made that statement.

Sorry about that.

And you're clearly not bothering to read what I say, so at this point I'm just going to quote myself ad nauseam.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Again, you're making the fallacy of equating a Religion, with its adherents.

Criticizing aspects of Islam that are intolerant and indeed quite bigoted, and coming to the conclusion that a religion which advocates such things is incompatible with... [The West] does not equate to saying "All Muslims are incompatible with the West and therefore are not welcome".

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Good thing we're not saying that then. We're saying that Islam in its purest form IS extreme.

You are saying that Islam in the narrow-minded bigoted and inaccurate form that exists in my head is extreme.

No, I'm not. I'm saying the Islam that exists in the fething Koran is extreme.

You also admit that everything that you listed in the Koran is also listed in the Bible.

But of course then you turn around and go "just because it's in the book doesn't mean it's part of the religion anymore"

Dude...I'm a fething atheist. If you think you're gonna goad me into defending Christianity so you can cry "Gotcha!", think again.

Next straw man?

I mixed up PhantomViper's post with yours, he was the one who made that statement.

Sorry about that.

ok.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And you're clearly not bothering to read what I say, so at this point I'm just going to quote myself ad nauseam.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Again, you're making the fallacy of equating a Religion, with its adherents.

Criticizing aspects of Islam that are intolerant and indeed quite bigoted, and coming to the conclusion that a religion which advocates such things is incompatible with... [The West] does not equate to saying "All Muslims are incompatible with the West and therefore are not welcome".

But saying "Islam is not compatible with the west" is different than saying "certain passages of the Koran are not compatible with the west" and acknowledging that for the vast majority of Muslims these teachings are not part of "Islam".

It's like saying that "The UK is not compatible with the west" instead of "6% of UK citizens follow an ideology that is incompatible with western standards" while acknowledging that for the vast majority of folks in the UK the BNP is not representative of their ideology.

If you want to focus on the extremists, who by all accounts should be eliminated and prosecuted with all the power available, then focus on them. But we don't need to use language that throws the 90%+ of normal peaceful and "west-compatible" Muslims out with the bathwater.

 d-usa wrote:
If you want to focus on the extremists, who by all accounts should be eliminated and prosecuted with all the power available, then focus on them. But we don't need to use language that throws the 90%+ of normal peaceful and "west-compatible" Muslims out with the bathwater.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And you're clearly not bothering to read what I say, so at this point I'm just going to quote myself ad nauseam

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Again, you're making the fallacy of equating a Religion, with its adherents.

Criticizing aspects of Islam that are intolerant and indeed quite bigoted, and coming to the conclusion that a religion which advocates such things is incompatible with... [The West] does not equate to saying "All Muslims are incompatible with the West and therefore are not welcome".

I'm criticizing Islamic theology, not Muslims.

If 90% of Muslims do not subscribe to those tenets and doctrines that I dislike, wonderful. I'm not talking about them, only you are. They're irrelevant to this conversation, which is about ISLAM, not MUSLIMS.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
When I say "Islam is incompatible with the West", I'm talking about Islamic doctrine as a whole. Not individual Muslims. If Muslims want to come to this country (UK), and they obey the law and are tolerant of things and other social groups whole violate Islamic tenets (e.g. homosexuality) then thats wonderful. They're welcome to come here and be productive members of society like anyone else.

But that means abandoning/ignoring certain tenets, and doctrines, and commandments, and outlooks within Koran that are incompatible with Western secular laws and values. At which point they're not really practicing Islam, they're practicing a narrow, selective interpretation of Islam. (And as an atheist I applaud them, the more Islamic tenets they ignore the better).

So when you say "What about Christianity? Its not compatible with the West either!". You're absolutely fething right. Christianity too, in its purest form, is not compatible with Western values. But Christianity in the West is not the issue here. Christianity has been largely neutered in the West (well, except for the USA perhaps, which is a special case) through decades and centuries of secularism and liberalization. It has been forced to reform and adapt to changing social attitudes. Islam on the other hand has not.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If you want to focus on the extremists, who by all accounts should be eliminated and prosecuted with all the power available, then focus on them. But we don't need to use language that throws the 90%+ of normal peaceful and "west-compatible" Muslims out with the bathwater.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And you're clearly not bothering to read what I say, so at this point I'm just going to quote myself ad nauseam

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Again, you're making the fallacy of equating a Religion, with its adherents.

Criticizing aspects of Islam that are intolerant and indeed quite bigoted, and coming to the conclusion that a religion which advocates such things is incompatible with... [The West] does not equate to saying "All Muslims are incompatible with the West and therefore are not welcome".

I'm criticizing Islamic theology, not Muslims.

You keep on criticizing radical Islamic theology which is different from mainstream Islamic theology. It's like using some sermon from a Southern Baptist preacher to criticize Catholic Ideology.

Islam is fractured, just like Christianity, and there are many different sects. The majority of which don't follow your idea of Islamic theology.

If 90% of Muslims do not subscribe to those tenets and doctrines that I dislike, wonderful. I'm not talking about them, only you are. They're irrelevant to this conversation, which is about ISLAM, not MUSLIMS.

When you talk about "Islamic theology" then you are also talking about these 90% of Muslims. When you are criticizing Islamic theology (wrongfully so) then you are criticizing all members of the Muslim faith.

If you want to talk about the radical idiots then talk about their radical ideology.

It's not rocket science.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
. At which point they're not really practicing Islam, they're practicing a narrow, selective interpretation of Islam..

There is really only one person right now with a narrow selective interpretation of Islam...

 d-usa wrote:


You keep on criticizing radical Islamic theology which is different from mainstream Islamic theology. It's like using some sermon from a Southern Baptist preacher to criticize Catholic Ideology.

Islam is fractured, just like Christianity, and there are many different sects. The majority of which don't follow your idea of Islamic theology.

When you talk about "Islamic theology" then you are also talking about these 90% of Muslims. When you are criticizing Islamic theology (wrongfully so) then you are criticizing all members of the Muslim faith.

Now you're contradicting yourself. First you say "Radical Islamic theology is different to mainstream Islamic theology" and then you're saying "if you criticize Islamic theology then you're criticizing all members of Islam".

Which is it?

If you want to talk about the radical idiots then talk about their radical ideology.

It's not rocket science.

Do radical Muslims have their own special Koran, distinct from that used by mainstream Muslims?

Think your looking for "verses"

It's not a condradiction, it's a basic crasp of the English language.

If you use the words "Islamic theology" then by using that language you are including all followers of any branch of the Islamic faith. When you keep on using "Islamic theology" to criticize a narrow sect of Muslims then you are wrongfully including every Muslim in your criticism of the minor branch.

Here is your argument:

I'm not Muslim, but I know how to Muslim and Musliming isn't compatible with the west. Anybody that Muslims differently from how I think people should Muslim if they are Muslims is not really Musliming and is only following a narrow selective version of Musliming.

I don't know if that helps you realize how stupid your argument sounds, but I'm not holding my breath. It appears that I fell into a "some atheists know more about all religion than the actual followers of those religions" cycle.

Do radical Muslims have their own special Koran, distinct from that used by mainstream Muslims?

They have their own interpretation and teachings, yes.

The West has adopted a belief in the equality of the sexes and strives to bring about laws that promote equality for all.

Islam is inherently misogynist and intolerant towards other faiths and beliefs. The more people talk about tolerant muslims and tolerant muslim states, the more they are, in fact, referring to people and nations who do not adhere to the letter and commandment of their own religious scripture.

The same could be leveled against Christianity, if it weren't for the whole New Testament Jesus vs Muhammad bit, wherein Jesus was a Holy hippie socialist and Muhammad was a military leader and conqueror.

The foundations of Islam are aggressive, assimilating and intolerant, they really are not compatible with the Western democratic beliefs in tolerance, acceptance and inclusion.

 d-usa wrote:
I don't know if that helps you realize how stupid your argument sounds, but I'm not holding my breath.

I don't know if you realize how stupid your characterization of my argument sounds but I'm not holding my breath.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And you're clearly not bothering to read what I say, so at this point I'm just going to quote myself ad nauseam

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Again, you're making the fallacy of equating a Religion, with its adherents.

Criticizing aspects of Islam that are intolerant and indeed quite bigoted, and coming to the conclusion that a religion which advocates such things is incompatible with... [The West] does not equate to saying "All Muslims are incompatible with the West and therefore are not welcome".

Let's try this then: people who follow UK values are racist homophobic bigots.

Is there a problem with my statement? Is it going to get a mod-alert? If it does get a mod-alert it is clearly the fault of everybody else who assumes that my statement about "UK values" includes everyone that isn't actually a bigoted racist homophobe.

I refuse to believe that you are actually unable to understand the difference between using your words in a way that makes a blanket statement about all adherents of a religion and using your words in an intelligent manner to actually narrow your criticism to the people that criticism actually applies to.

 d-usa wrote:
Let's try this then: people who follow UK values are racist homophobic bigots.

Lets not. I'm tiring of your hyperbole and straw men.

Is there a problem with my statement?

Yes. Its factually incorrect.

1. define "UK values".
2. prove that these values are racist and homophobic.

Is it going to get a mod-alert? If it does get a mod-alert it is clearly the fault of everybody else who assumes that my statement about "UK values" includes everyone that isn't actually a bigoted racist homophobe.

Not from me. I'm not in the habit of trying to shut down opposing opinions by grassing people up to the mods.

I refuse to believe that you are actually unable to understand the difference between using your words in a way that makes a blanket statement about all adherents of a religion and using your words in an intelligent manner to actually narrow your criticism to the people that criticism actually applies to.

<Sigh>

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
And you're clearly not bothering to read what I say, so at this point I'm just going to quote myself ad nauseam

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Again, you're making the fallacy of equating a Religion, with its adherents.

Criticizing aspects of Islam that are intolerant and indeed quite bigoted, and coming to the conclusion that a religion which advocates such things is incompatible with... [The West] does not equate to saying "All Muslims are incompatible with the West and therefore are not welcome".

It's almost like you try to pretend that you don't say "Islamic theology" when those are the words you used...

In view of the way this thread is moving watch this vid


And then think, Is the way you view things the result of media spin.

 d-usa wrote:
It's almost like you try to pretend that you don't say "Islamic theology" when those are the words you used...

Its almost like you're still deliberately misconstruing what I say.

I'm talking about Islamic religious doctrine, not Muslims. There are certain aspects of it that I dislike and regard as bigoted and intolerant, and therefore incompatible as a whole, with "The West". Its entirely possible for individual Muslims to ignore those bad parts of Islam in order to live peacefully in a Western nation. In which case, wonderful, as an atheist I'd applaud them. But that doesn't change the fact that they're practicing a watered down version of Islam that would probably be described as heresy or even apostasy in Saudi Arabia, the birth place of Islam.


You think that any criticism of certain aspects of Islamic doctrine is a criticism of any and all Muslims. Its not. Its only a criticism of the ones who actually practice those doctrines.

Wow, big text. How could anyone argue with that...

 d-usa wrote:
Wow, big text. How could anyone argue with that...

No, I'm highlighting the parts that I want you to specifically acknowledge instead of ignoring them and arguing against some imaginary comment made by an imaginary person that isn't me.

I'm highlighting them because I want you to argue against them.

Mind if I print out the post with the big letters to take to the local mosque to help them realize that they are not really following Islam because some random bloke on DakkaDakka said so?

 d-usa wrote:
Mind if I print out the post with the big letters to take to the local mosque to help them realize that they are not really following Islam because some random bloke on DakkaDakka said so?

Only if you then visit Saudi Arabia, or any other Islamic theocracy, and contrast Islam there with Islam in the West.

Oh, and I can't help but notice how you're still not addressing what I actually say, and are instead just deflecting my points with mockery.