How peaceful is Islam?

[Mutter Merkel]

Here is a great critical review of Ayan Hirsi Ali's new book by Max Rodenbeck. I haven't read Hirsi Ali's book and don't plan to, but Rodenbeck get every major point in this review spot on, it's a must-read - http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/dec/03/ayaan-hirsi-ali-wants-modify-muslims/

By the way Rodenbeck's book on Cairo is one of the best books on the Middle East you'll read.

The biggest problem with all of this is that it focuses on the traditions of men rather than the Qur'an and the hadith themselves. Most in the west now seem to be ignorant of what the reformation actually was; it was not designed to ignore "ugly" parts of scripture, but to return to the teachings of Christ and the apostles. I have no interest in the proposed reformation of Islam as a result; it needs to be fought ideologically, and people need to come out of it.

 

[Amethyst]

To be fair, there was a pew poll a couple of years back that interviewed thousands of Muslims from just about every Muslim-majority nation in the world, and many of them had rather worrying views. The only countries that did well were former Ottoman empire countries where Islam is followed in the same way Christianity is here. A lot of these countries have a way to go, really.

I posted some of the results from that poll earlier in the thread.

 

[Mozza]

And vice versa. Can we agree not to derail this thread? - we can beat each other up elsewhere.

How are we derailing this thread? The Palestinian and Israeli conflict ha little to do with Islamism

 

[Danny1982]

The recent terrorist attacks in Paris shook up the whole world. One of the most popular opinions circulated was that Islam as a whole is peaceful, however there is a very small violent minority. Personally I'm an Atheist, but I have a close family member who is Muslim and is a very nice person who cannot hurt a fly, but to be fair he is not very religious.

I'm starting to doubt the notion about the peacefulness of Islam, especially among the people who take their religion seriously. I did some research and compiled the following stats:

Number of world's armed conflicts active during 2015: 55
Number of these conflicts involving Islamists: 40
Number of people killed in Islamic conflicts in 2015: 133,400

So 73% of world's armed conflicts in 2015 involve Islamists, usually fights between different factions of Islam. That's a huge number, especially considering that Muslims are only 22% of the world's population.

I found another, even more chilling statistic:
Victims of terrorism during 2015: 6,200
Victims by Islamic terrorists: 6,100

So, all the crazies around the world, including white supremacists, pro-Russian, or pro-Ukrainian rebels, Korean separatists, etc. killed 1.6% of terrorism victims, while Islamists killed 98.4%. In 2015 there were Islamists terrorist attacks in 32 different countries in all corners of the world. It's really hard for me to accept anymore that it is a very small minority causing these problems.

It's Wahhabism/Salafism, not Islam. And it's not that difficult to figure out really, just check how many of those 6100 victims were Muslims, and how many of those were killed by terrorists following the Wahhabi/Salafist ideology.

And by the way, Wahhabism/Salafism is already identified as the root of terrorism in the world, but nobody wants to talk about it (or do anything about it) because they don't want to piss off Saudi Arabia (the root of Wahhabism) who is a major ally for the US and the West. Which is why they just dodge that "little" detail, and just go on about Islam in general, which in fact helps Saudi Arabia recruit more Wahhabis from the Muslim world.

Here is a good read.

European Parliament identifies Wahabi and Salafi roots of global terrorism

It is not merely the faith or oil that flows out of Saudi Arabia. The oil-rich Arab state and its neighbours are busy financing Wahabi and Salafi militants across the globe.

A recent report by the European Parliament reveals how Wahabi and Salafi groups based out of the Middle East are involved in the "support and supply of arms to rebel groups around the world." The report, released in June 2013, was commissioned by European Parliament's Directorate General for External Policies. The report warns about the Wahabi/Salafi organisations and claims that "no country in the Muslim world is safe from their operations ... as they always aim to terrorise their opponents and arouse the admiration of their supporters."

The nexus between Arab charities promoting Wahabi and Salafi traditions and the extremist Islamic movements has emerged as one of the major threats to people and governments across the globe. From Syria, Mali, Afghanistan and Pakistan to Indonesia in the East, a network of charities is funding militancy and mayhem to coerce Muslims of diverse traditions to conform to the Salafi and Wahabi traditions. The same networks have been equally destructive as they branch out of Muslim countries and attack targets in Europe and North America.

Despite the overt threats emerging from the oil-rich Arab states, governments across the globe continue to ignore the security imperative and instead are busy exploiting the oil-, and at time times, blood-soaked riches.

The European Parliament's report though is a rare exception to the rule where in the past the western governments have let the oil executives influence their foreign offices. From the United States to Great Britain, western states have gone to great lengths to ignore the Arab charities financing the radical groups, some of whom have even targeted the West with deadly consequences.

While the recent report by the European Parliament documents the financial details connecting the Arab charities with extremists elsewhere, it is certainly not the first exposition of its kind. A 2006 report by the US Department of State titled, International Narcotics Control Strategy Report - Money Laundering and Financial Crimes, reported that “Saudi donors and unregulated charities have been a major source of financing to extremist and terrorist groups over the past 25 years.” One of the WikiLeaks documents, a cable from the US Consulate in Lahore also stated that “financial support estimated at nearly 100 million USD annually was making its way to Deobandi and Ahl-e-Hadith clerics in the region from ‘missionary’ and ‘Islamic charitable’ organisations in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ostensibly with the direct support of those governments.”

The European Parliament’s report estimates that Saudi Arabia alone has spent over $10 billion to promote Wahabism through Saudi charitable foundations. The tiny, but very rich, state of Qatar is the new entrant to the game supporting militant franchises from Libya to Syria.

The linkage between Saudi-based charitable organisations and militants began in the late 70s in Pakistan. A network of charitable organisations was setup in Pakistan to provide the front for channeling billions of dollars to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Since then the militant networks have spread globally, emerging as a major threat to international security. Charlie Wilson’s War, a book by George Crile that was made into a movie, details the Saudi-militancy nexus as well as Ahmed Rashid’s Taliban.

While ordinary citizens in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries have suffered the deadly consequences of militancy supported by the Wahabi and Salafi charitable organisations, the Saudi government had remained largely dormant. This changed in 2003 when militants attacked targets in Riyadh. Since then, the Saudi government has kept a close watch on the domestic affairs of charities, making it illegal to sponsor militancy, but the government has done precious little to curtail activities by Saudi charities abroad. In fact, evidence, as per the European Parliament’s report, suggests that Saudi and Qatar-based charities have been actively financing militants in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Mali, and Indonesia.

Pakistan has suffered tremendously over the past three decades from domestic and foreign inspired militancy. The Soviet invasion in Afghanistan and the US-backed Afghan militancy forced Pakistan into a civil war that has continued to date. The faltering Pakistani economy did not help. Successive governments have rushed to Saudi monarchs asking for loans and free oil in times of need. However, Saudi money comes bundled with Saudi propaganda and a license to convert Pakistanis to a more 'puritan', read Wahabi, version of Islam.

In late the 70s, Iranians also intensified their influence in Pakistan. While hardline Sunnis were being radicalised by the Wahabi influences from Saudi Arabia, Iranian influence on Pakistani Shias was also increasing. And whereas Pakistan did not need any further radicalization of its people, the Saudi-Iranian tussle spilled into the streets of Pakistan with devastating consequences for religious minorities and liberal streams of Sunni Islam.

At the same time, the economic collapse in Pakistan forced many to find jobs abroad. Millions of Pakistanis left for the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia. While the remittances kept their families and the Pakistani government afloat, the migrant workers returned to Pakistan after being radicalised during their stay in Saudi. They became the brand ambassadors for the Saudi-inspired Wahabi flavours of Islam, thus expediting the pace of radicalisation in Pakistan.

Pakistan was equally vulnerable to foreign influences after the devastating earthquake in 2005 and floods in 2010 and 2011. The European Parliament’s report revealed that these disasters provided Saudi and other Arab charities to channel millions of dollars in aid, of which an unknown amount was used to fund militant organisations who have broadened their reach in Pakistan resulting in over 45,000 violent deaths in the past few years alone.

Pakistanis have a very strong spiritual link with Saudi Arabia. However, they are suffering for the unbound devotion to the oil-rich state, which has done a poor job of curbing the financial support for militancy in Pakistan. Seeing the plight of violence stricken Pakistanis, one hopes that Saudi charities could be more charitable.

 

[Momochiru]

It's Wahhabism/Salafism, not Islam. And it's not that difficult to figure out really, just check how many of those 6100 victims were Muslims, and how many of those were killed by terrorists following the Wahhabi/Salafist ideology.

And by the way, Wahhabism/Salafism is already identified as the root of terrorism in the world, but nobody wants to talk about it (or do anything about it) because they don't want to piss off Saudi Arabia (the root of Wahhabism) who is a major ally for the US and the West. Which is why they just dodge that "little" detail, and just go on about Islam in general, which in fact helps Saudi Arabia recruit more Wahhabis from the Muslim world.

Here is a good read.

European Parliament identifies Wahabi and Salafi roots of global terrorism

Interesting read, thanks. I was starting to get the idea, that the Wahhabism is behind a big portion of the cases.

 

[MDFC Manager]

Admit it, he's the best thing going for religion threads since Herman graced our pages.

They're two different people?

 

[berbatrick]

I study the things I criticise.

Ya, for sure, your sources refuting evolution are top-notch

 

[Organic Potatoes]

The issue with Islam isn't so much the religion itself, but rather the circumstances of the religion currently.

At one point, Islam was the progressive, tolerant, enlightened and forward thinking religion (for 10-11th century standards) while Christianity was the radicalized militant kid on the block looking to get even.

It's a bit of a complex situation but I will try to explain it as best as my education in history will allow me to.

The primary issue is the issue of secularization. If you look at the Bible (old and new) and the Koran, they both have some very dark, and by modern standards, evil forms of justice in them. What's the difference? We in the west for the most part don't take that stuff in the bible seriously anymore. In the Islamic world they do? Why? Secularization. Through the renaissance and the enlightenment the Christian World embarked on a period of secularization, to the point now where while Christianity is the dominant religion, it has absolutely no bearing on the political, or justice systems of the Western democratic world.

So what happened? Why did the Christian world in the 10th and 11th centuries arguably at its most militant and radicalized levels turn about face and move to a less radicalized version which ultimately led to secularization while the Islamic world (speaking primarily about the middle-east here) went in largely the opposite direction from their own point of greatest tolerance?

Simply put, general prosperity. Radicalization occurs when people are struggling to make ends meet. Look no further than Germany in the interwar period. It took a about a decade for radical militarism to take hold in Germany. It happened very rapidly in Germany, and that was a predominantly Christian state. Religious values don't preclude this sort of thing from happening.

So what happened with the Islamic world? Well let's blame the Portuguese first! I'm kidding of course, but the Portuguese were the first in a long line of European naval powers that took a large portion of trade away from the great Islamic land empires (Ottomans and Mughals) starting at the very tail end of the 15th century. The Middle-East owed its prosperity to that East to West trade from China via the Silkroad and its tributaries trade routes. One of the most important of these was the India Ocean trade hub and the Portuguese and later Europeans asserted domination over these areas, diverting huge chunks of trade from the Islamic world....

Eventually we see virtual global European economic and cultural hegemony, as the Mughal Empire and the Ottoman Empires floundered and began to fail or outright failed there were no Islamic states among the worlds great powers to create any sort of check or balance to Christian European supremacy.

This is a very brief overview, keep that in mind, we're talking about a period from the end of the 1400's right up to the start of the 20th century with WW1 and its aftermath..

The current Islamic radicalism, isn't really about religion. It's about political self determination and economics. The problem we face however is religious. This is because the Islamic world never had the opportunity to go through a period of secularization and there is nothing to indicate that it couldn't have happened. So now we have a war being fought for political and economic issues being fought in the name of religion. Using religious justification and whatnot.

Simply put, if religion wasn't the rallying cry, it would be something else, probably a form of nationalism. There is nothing unique about Islam other than it survived in its medieval form largely intact to the modern world.

What about the Mongols? If they hadn't bulldozed through large sections of the Muslim world, would those societies/economies still had the same trajectories relative to their European counterparts? I've heard it argued that those events set the stage for Western European dominance, New World riches notwithstanding.

 

[Mutter Merkel]

Ya, for sure, your sources refuting evolution are top-notch

What a strange response. I rejected the molecules-to-man idea central to Darwinian evolution when I was an atheist years ago. I read a lot of literature over that time, 99% of it from the likes of Dawkins and innumerable articles/peer-reviewed papers online. I also own a textbook on molecular biology, but it's not a big interest of mine any more. Once I'd decided I couldn't believe the claims based on the evidence, I moved on.

I agree with the scientific arguments for intelligent design, and I am a creationist. I am not perturbed by those who pour scorn on my intelligence as a result, usually because it's coming from somebody who's significantly less intelligent than I am.

 

[Adebesi]

The issue with Islam isn't so much the religion itself, but rather the circumstances of the religion currently.

At one point, Islam was the progressive, tolerant, enlightened and forward thinking religion (for 10-11th century standards) while Christianity was the radicalized militant kid on the block looking to get even.

It's a bit of a complex situation but I will try to explain it as best as my education in history will allow me to.

The primary issue is the issue of secularization. If you look at the Bible (old and new) and the Koran, they both have some very dark, and by modern standards, evil forms of justice in them. What's the difference? We in the west for the most part don't take that stuff in the bible seriously anymore. In the Islamic world they do? Why? Secularization. Through the renaissance and the enlightenment the Christian World embarked on a period of secularization, to the point now where while Christianity is the dominant religion, it has absolutely no bearing on the political, or justice systems of the Western democratic world.

So what happened? Why did the Christian world in the 10th and 11th centuries arguably at its most militant and radicalized levels turn about face and move to a less radicalized version which ultimately led to secularization while the Islamic world (speaking primarily about the middle-east here) went in largely the opposite direction from their own point of greatest tolerance?

Simply put, general prosperity. Radicalization occurs when people are struggling to make ends meet. Look no further than Germany in the interwar period. It took a about a decade for radical militarism to take hold in Germany. It happened very rapidly in Germany, and that was a predominantly Christian state. Religious values don't preclude this sort of thing from happening.

So what happened with the Islamic world? Well let's blame the Portuguese first! I'm kidding of course, but the Portuguese were the first in a long line of European naval powers that took a large portion of trade away from the great Islamic land empires (Ottomans and Mughals) starting at the very tail end of the 15th century. The Middle-East owed its prosperity to that East to West trade from China via the Silkroad and its tributaries trade routes. One of the most important of these was the India Ocean trade hub and the Portuguese and later Europeans asserted domination over these areas, diverting huge chunks of trade from the Islamic world.

Before we go further, let me just say, I firmly believe in "all is fair in love and war" and this isn't an apologist account. I apologize for nothing, but we can be honest about what did happen and why it happened to the best of our current understanding.

The next major blow to the Islamic world was the exploitation of the New World. The Islamic world was simply not located in a region that allowed it to get in on the spoils, and it was a combination of growing European naval supremacy and ergo trade supremacy from China through the Indian Ocean with the wealth of the New World (plus the fallout from the black death and the general depopulation of Europe a couple centuries earlier giving peasants more rights) which went onto fuel the general prosperity that fueled the renaissance and the later enlightenment.

Eventually we see virtual global European economic and cultural hegemony, as the Mughal Empire and the Ottoman Empires floundered and began to fail or outright failed there were no Islamic states among the worlds great powers to create any sort of check or balance to Christian European supremacy.

This is a very brief overview, keep that in mind, we're talking about a period from the end of the 1400's right up to the start of the 20th century with WW1 and its aftermath.

We see Muslim states becoming imperial possessions of this European power or that. In practical terms this is part of the Imperial model, with mercantilism or in better terms general economic exploitation. In the preceding 4 or 5 centuries, Europe had grown to be the preeminent cultural and economic force in the world. The countries in general terms were very prosperous. These prosperous conditions fostered the renaissance and the enlightenment, Europe became more secular as a result. The Islamic world however, went from being the center of the world from a trading perspective and wealthy and prosperous to increasingly marginalized economically. Things went from bad to worse, and when people are struggling to find food, they are not thinking about broad and grand topics like the rights of men.

These are optimal conditions for radicalism. In fact it is rather astonishing that widespread radical militarism didn't erupt in the middle-east sooner. It's really only come to a head in the last century or so maybe from well intentioned but ultimately terrible policies. Modern geopolitics also help account for the emergence of this radicalism. We help keep dictators and royal families in power that have vested interests in keeping their populations impoverished despite in some of these areas having tremendous wealth from petroleum. It's in the wests best interest to keep these groups in power because it is in the best interests of these groups in power to pump as much of the stuff out of the ground as possible as quickly as possible (within some reason) to enrich themselves to the maximum.

I want to touch back on the 11th-12th century really quickly. The first crusade. Most people who are not scholars will tell you that it was a religious war fought for religious reasons. It wasn't. It was a political/economic war fought with religious language. Pope Urban II used the language of religion to inspire a political and economic war of conquest. The purpose of the first Crusade had very little to do with religion insofar as religion can be separated from the day to day life of Christians and Christian kingdoms in the 11th and 12th centuries.

The purpose of the Crusade wasn't about killing Muslims, or reclaiming the Holy Land for religious reasons as much as it was to get the Christian world to stop slaughtering each other, and to engage in good old adventurism so the second and third sons could stop cocking Europe up with their claims and petty wars and have some land of their own. The Holyland was the convenient outlet for such an adventure and the times made religion the logical tool to incite such a war.

The current Islamic radicalism, isn't really about religion. It's about political self determination and economics. The problem we face however is religious. This is because the Islamic world never had the opportunity to go through a period of secularization and there is nothing to indicate that it couldn't have happened. So now we have a war being fought for political and economic issues being fought in the name of religion. Using religious justification and whatnot.

Simply put, if religion wasn't the rallying cry, it would be something else, probably a form of nationalism. There is nothing unique about Islam other than it survived in its medieval form largely intact to the modern world.

Great post mate.

 

[Shamwow]

Ya, for sure, your sources refuting evolution are top-notch

To be fair, some people refute evolution simply by existing.

 

[PedroMendez]

Here is a great critical review of Ayan Hirsi Ali's new book by Max Rodenbeck. I haven't read Hirsi Ali's book and don't plan to, but Rodenbeck get every major point in this review spot on, it's a must-read - http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/dec/03/ayaan-hirsi-ali-wants-modify-muslims/

By the way Rodenbeck's book on Cairo is one of the best books on the Middle East you'll read.

Just a heads-up: I haven't read any of ayaan hirsi ali´s books.


The article is well argued and I don´t have the necessary knowledge to object to any of his points. His narrative is convincing, but I also get the feeling that he is (deliberately) avoiding an issue, that might be worth discussing. Let´s ignore ISIS, AQ, Saudi Arabia or any other rather extreme elements for a moment. Major parts of the Muslim world seems to be deeply conservative. Conservative to a point, where it is at odds with a modern understanding of basic individual rights. That seems to be the world, in which Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born and raised. She didn´t experience extreme sect like ISIS or Al-shabaab, but circumstances, that are much more common in Muslim societies. She seems to argue, that the religion, that is practiced under those “normal” circumstances is already very problematic (for members of this society; not for anyone else). So the problem, that she seems to talk about isn´t that extreme sects like ISIS exist, but that the mainstream itself is (and was)way too conservative. Now I am fully aware, that you can´t generalize her experience, but I also wouldn´t brush it aside.

What is your take on that?

 

[Adebesi]

Just a heads-up: I haven't read any of ayaan hirsi ali´s books.


The article is well argued and I don´t have the necessary knowledge to object to any of his points. His narrative is convincing, but I also get the feeling that he is (deliberately) avoiding an issue, that might be worth discussing. Let´s ignore ISIS, AQ, Saudi Arabia or any other rather extreme elements for a moment. Major parts of the Muslim world seems to be deeply conservative. Conservative to a point, where it is at odds with a modern understanding of basic individual rights. That seems to be the world, in which Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born and raised. She didn´t experience extreme sect like ISIS or Al-shabaab, but circumstances, that are much more common in Muslim societies. She seems to argue, that the religion, that is practiced under those “normal” circumstances is already very problematic (for members of this society; not for anyone else). So the problem, that she seems to talk about isn´t that extreme sects like ISIS exist, but that the mainstream itself is (and was)way too conservative. Now I am fully aware, that you can´t generalize her experience, but I also wouldn´t brush it aside.

What is your take on that?

I havent read this latest one about Islam needing a reformation but I read an earlier one of hers, Infidel. And what youve said there is entirely consistent with what she says in that book. Actually, her conclusion to that book is more or less the title of the later one: Islam needs a reformation.

 

[berbatrick]

I agree with the scientific arguments for intelligent design, and I am a creationist. I am not perturbed by those who pour scorn on my intelligence as a result, usually because it's coming from somebody who's significantly less intelligent than I am.

You brighten up dull days, have you considered that you might be an agent of god sent to spread merriment among atheists?

 

[Mutter Merkel]

You brighten up dull days, have you considered that you might be an agent of god sent to spread merriment among atheists?

I don't mock others while using comma splices.

 

[Nighteyes]

What a strange response. I rejected the molecules-to-man idea central to Darwinian evolution when I was an atheist years ago. I read a lot of literature over that time, 99% of it from the likes of Dawkins and innumerable articles/peer-reviewed papers online. I also own a textbook on molecular biology, but it's not a big interest of mine any more. Once I'd decided I couldn't believe the claims based on the evidence, I moved on.

I agree with the scientific arguments for intelligent design, and I am a creationist. I am not perturbed by those who pour scorn on my intelligence as a result, usually because it's coming from somebody who's significantly less intelligent than I am.

 

[Silva]

Once I'd decided I couldn't believe the claims based on the evidence, I moved on......
I am not perturbed by those who pour scorn on my intelligence as a result, usually because it's coming from somebody who's significantly less intelligent than I am.

And here was me thinking the scientific community was made up of smarty pants.

 

[Mutter Merkel]

And here was me thinking the scientific community was made up of smarty pants.

The scientific community has plenty of idiots, including its loudest voices on the internet.

And, by the way, that should be: "And here I was, thinking the scientific community..."

 

[berbatrick]

And here was me thinking the scientific community was made up of smarty pants.

But we splice our commas
Thus. Argument invalid.

 

[Mutter Merkel]

But we splice our commas
Thus. Argument invalid.

A comma splice is the division of two independent clauses by a comma. While it doesn't invalidate an argument, it does make the person who is guilty of using it look foolish when he is attempting to mock another. So unless you have an answer for the question posed in the thread title, and unless you want me to continue cocking a snook at you, how about you leave the discussion for those who do?

 

[Phurry]

A comma splice is the division of two independent clauses by a comma. While it doesn't invalidate an argument, it does make the person who is guilty of using it look foolish when he is attempting to mock another. So, unless you have an answer for the question posed in the thread title, and unless you want me to continue cocking a snook at you, how about you leave the discussion for those who do?

Fixed that for you.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

 

[LeChuck]

@Mutter Merkel - some people don't have English as their first language and don't grasp all the grammatical nuances of the English language. It doesn't make their argument any less valid.

@berbatrick - Chor doh yeh ajeeb insaan.

 

[Mutter Merkel]

Fixed that for you.

A comma isn't necessary there.

 

[Phurry]

A comma isn't necessary there.

Parenthetical elements require a comma. Now, how about you shove your condescending attitude up your arse and realise that many people on this forum don't have English as a first language (this includes Americans).

 

[Mutter Merkel]

Parenthetical elements require a comma. Now, how about you shove your condescending attitude up your arse and realise that many people on this forum don't have English as a first language (this includes Americans).

It isn't parenthetical. If you would read the posts here, you would see I am the one being mocked. I have asked that the thread be brought back to the topic at hand. If you want to continue the debate on grammar, I am happy to do it, but don't complain about it while you continue to point out what you think are flaws in my own.

 

[VidaRed]

In nations with significant Muslim populations, much disdain for ISIS

Recent attacks in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad linked to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have once again brought terrorism and Islamic extremism to the forefront of international relations. According to newly released data that the Pew Research Center collected in 11 countries with significant Muslim populations, people from Nigeria to Jordan to Indonesia overwhelmingly expressed negative views of ISIS.

One exception was Pakistan, where a majority offered no definite opinion of ISIS. The nationally representative surveys were conducted as part of the Pew Research Center’s annual global poll in April and May this year.

In no country surveyed did more than 15% of the population show favorable attitudes toward Islamic State. And in those countries with mixed religious and ethnic populations, negative views of ISIS cut across these lines.

In Lebanon, a victim of one of the most recent attacks, almost every person surveyed who gave an opinion had an unfavorable view of ISIS, including 99% with a very unfavorable opinion. Distaste toward ISIS was shared by Lebanese Sunni Muslims (98% unfavorable) and 100% of Shia Muslims and Lebanese Christians.

Israelis (97%) and Jordanians (94%) were also strongly opposed to ISIS as of spring 2015, including 91% of Israeli Arabs. And 84% in the Palestinian territories had a negative view of ISIS, both in the Gaza Strip (92%) and the West Bank (79%).

Six-in-ten or more had unfavorable opinions of ISIS in a diverse group of nations, including Indonesia, Turkey, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Malaysia and Senegal.

In Nigeria, there was somewhat more support for ISIS (14% favorable) compared with other countries, but attitudes differed sharply by religious affiliation. An overwhelming number of Nigerian Christians (71%) had an unfavorable view of ISIS, as did 61% of Nigerian Muslims. However, 20% of Nigerian Muslims had a favorable view of ISIS when the poll was conducted in the spring of this year. The group Boko Haram in Nigeria, which has been conducting a terrorist campaign in the country for years, is affiliated with ISIS, though the two are considered separate entities.

Only 28% in Pakistan had an unfavorable view of ISIS, and a majority of Pakistanis (62%) had no opinion on the extremist group.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

 

[LeChuck]

In nations with significant Muslim populations, much disdain for ISIS

Recent attacks in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad linked to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have once again brought terrorism and Islamic extremism to the forefront of international relations. According to newly released data that the Pew Research Center collected in 11 countries with significant Muslim populations, people from Nigeria to Jordan to Indonesia overwhelmingly expressed negative views of ISIS.

One exception was Pakistan, where a majority offered no definite opinion of ISIS. The nationally representative surveys were conducted as part of the Pew Research Center’s annual global poll in April and May this year.

In no country surveyed did more than 15% of the population show favorable attitudes toward Islamic State. And in those countries with mixed religious and ethnic populations, negative views of ISIS cut across these lines.

In Lebanon, a victim of one of the most recent attacks, almost every person surveyed who gave an opinion had an unfavorable view of ISIS, including 99% with a very unfavorable opinion. Distaste toward ISIS was shared by Lebanese Sunni Muslims (98% unfavorable) and 100% of Shia Muslims and Lebanese Christians.

Israelis (97%) and Jordanians (94%) were also strongly opposed to ISIS as of spring 2015, including 91% of Israeli Arabs. And 84% in the Palestinian territories had a negative view of ISIS, both in the Gaza Strip (92%) and the West Bank (79%).

Six-in-ten or more had unfavorable opinions of ISIS in a diverse group of nations, including Indonesia, Turkey, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Malaysia and Senegal.

In Nigeria, there was somewhat more support for ISIS (14% favorable) compared with other countries, but attitudes differed sharply by religious affiliation. An overwhelming number of Nigerian Christians (71%) had an unfavorable view of ISIS, as did 61% of Nigerian Muslims. However, 20% of Nigerian Muslims had a favorable view of ISIS when the poll was conducted in the spring of this year. The group Boko Haram in Nigeria, which has been conducting a terrorist campaign in the country for years, is affiliated with ISIS, though the two are considered separate entities.

Only 28% in Pakistan had an unfavorable view of ISIS, and a majority of Pakistanis (62%) had no opinion on the extremist group.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

@everyone

 

[berbatrick]

While it doesn't invalidate an argument, it does make the person who is guilty of using it look foolish when he is attempting to mock another.

Since you like stating your opinion as fact, I'll do the same. Mocking minor grammatical errors only makes sense if your position on a serious topic (say, evolution) has been exposed as having no basis in fact.

Also, I just noticed your line: "I have a molbio textbook"


Finally, I wasn't mocking you, I was mocking your belief that you have studied the things that you criticise.

unless you want me to continue cocking a snook at you?

It was fun while it lasted.


@LeChuck ajeeb halka shabd hai iske liye.


Fwiw, I think that humans have always been tribalistic, and religion, like nationalism, deepens those instincts.
In the ME you have a terrible political situation (either brutal theocracies or brutal secular dictators), a history of western intervention that fuels resentment, and added to that verses from the Quran that can easily be interpreted as calls to violence. On top of that a growing number of European Muslim youth feeling alienated and deriving meaning in their life through the worst possible parts of their religion. (it's scary how many of these killers were just sulky teenagers who "wanted a purpose")

 

[Kaos]

In nations with significant Muslim populations, much disdain for ISIS

Recent attacks in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad linked to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have once again brought terrorism and Islamic extremism to the forefront of international relations. According to newly released data that the Pew Research Center collected in 11 countries with significant Muslim populations, people from Nigeria to Jordan to Indonesia overwhelmingly expressed negative views of ISIS.

One exception was Pakistan, where a majority offered no definite opinion of ISIS. The nationally representative surveys were conducted as part of the Pew Research Center’s annual global poll in April and May this year.

In no country surveyed did more than 15% of the population show favorable attitudes toward Islamic State. And in those countries with mixed religious and ethnic populations, negative views of ISIS cut across these lines.

In Lebanon, a victim of one of the most recent attacks, almost every person surveyed who gave an opinion had an unfavorable view of ISIS, including 99% with a very unfavorable opinion. Distaste toward ISIS was shared by Lebanese Sunni Muslims (98% unfavorable) and 100% of Shia Muslims and Lebanese Christians.

Israelis (97%) and Jordanians (94%) were also strongly opposed to ISIS as of spring 2015, including 91% of Israeli Arabs. And 84% in the Palestinian territories had a negative view of ISIS, both in the Gaza Strip (92%) and the West Bank (79%).

Six-in-ten or more had unfavorable opinions of ISIS in a diverse group of nations, including Indonesia, Turkey, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Malaysia and Senegal.

In Nigeria, there was somewhat more support for ISIS (14% favorable) compared with other countries, but attitudes differed sharply by religious affiliation. An overwhelming number of Nigerian Christians (71%) had an unfavorable view of ISIS, as did 61% of Nigerian Muslims. However, 20% of Nigerian Muslims had a favorable view of ISIS when the poll was conducted in the spring of this year. The group Boko Haram in Nigeria, which has been conducting a terrorist campaign in the country for years, is affiliated with ISIS, though the two are considered separate entities.

Only 28% in Pakistan had an unfavorable view of ISIS, and a majority of Pakistanis (62%) had no opinion on the extremist group.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

Well considering the biggest victims of daesh terrorism are Muslims themselves, this is hardly surprising.

What's with the Pakistani figure though - 62% have no opinion?

 

[Silva]

Well considering the biggest victims of daesh terrorism are Muslims themselves, this is hardly surprising.

What's with the Pakistani figure though - 62% have no opinion?

tbh I'm more curious about this: An overwhelming number of Nigerian Christians (71%) had an unfavorable view of ISIS

Who the feck are the other 29%?

 

[Mutter Merkel]

Since you like stating your opinion as fact, I'll do the same. Mocking minor grammatical errors only makes sense if your position on a serious topic (say, evolution) has been exposed as having no basis in fact.

Also, I just noticed your line: "I have a molbio textbook"

Finally, I wasn't mocking you, I was mocking your belief that you have studied the things that you criticise.

I have and do study the things I criticise. I am an autodidact on many subjects. Unlike you, I have no need to introduce red herrings, or to assume things about others, since I only deal with the content of members' posts.

Your two cents of anthropology (which you tacked on as a mere footnote to your primary motivation which is to attack me) are as shallow and meaningless as your comments about me.

 

[berbatrick]

since I only deal with the content of members' posts.

your primary motivation which is to attack me

Aww

So unless you have an answer for the question posed in the thread title, and unless you want me to continue cocking a snook at you

Fwiw, I think that humans have always been tribalistic, and religion, like nationalism, deepens those instincts.
In the ME you have a terrible political situation
...

Your two cents of anthropology (which you tacked on as a mere footnote to your primary motivation which is to attack me) are as shallow and meaningless as your comments about me.

You betrayed me



Anyway, I wasn't sure I should have replied to this post, and now I'm done with this infantile nonsense. Still, it was fun while it lasted.

 

[2cents]

Just a heads-up: I haven't read any of ayaan hirsi ali´s books.


The article is well argued and I don´t have the necessary knowledge to object to any of his points. His narrative is convincing, but I also get the feeling that he is (deliberately) avoiding an issue, that might be worth discussing. Let´s ignore ISIS, AQ, Saudi Arabia or any other rather extreme elements for a moment. Major parts of the Muslim world seems to be deeply conservative. Conservative to a point, where it is at odds with a modern understanding of basic individual rights. That seems to be the world, in which Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born and raised. She didn´t experience extreme sect like ISIS or Al-shabaab, but circumstances, that are much more common in Muslim societies. She seems to argue, that the religion, that is practiced under those “normal” circumstances is already very problematic (for members of this society; not for anyone else). So the problem, that she seems to talk about isn´t that extreme sects like ISIS exist, but that the mainstream itself is (and was)way too conservative. Now I am fully aware, that you can´t generalize her experience, but I also wouldn´t brush it aside.

What is your take on that?

Good question. I don't think he's deliberately ignoring it or would deny it, he's a journalist with long experience of the Arab world but he's never written with an apologist agenda or a romantic outlook. I think in this case he's just responding to the 'solutions' which Hirsi Ali has made the central point of the book, and correctly assessed that they're based on a simplistic and incoherent view of Islamic history and modern-day society.

I've read her other two books, Infidel deals primarily with her personal story as far as I remember while The Caged Virgin is a pretty standard anti-Islam trope which are dime a dozen these days. I think as you note there are two separate issues, but they're entwined, since modern-day Islamists also regard much of the way of life of the 'rural masses' in places like Pakistan and Somalia (both rather extreme cases obviously but anyway) to be steeped in ignorance, superstition and unIslamic practice.

So for example members of the preaching organization the Tablighi Jamaat, which avoids involvement in politics altogether but adheres to the quite strict Deobandi interpretation of the Hanafi creed, spend their time touring the South Asian countryside trying to put an end to practices they view as derived from purely Indian (by which they mean Hindu) sources. When Deoband was founded, one of the big issues the madrassa campaigned on was for better treatment for widows, who were generally shunned in the rural parts of Uttar Pradesh where the school is based.

So there is certainly an awareness among influential sections of Muslim society of the conservativeness of much of Muslim society. And they have a point in noting the pre-Islamic origins of much rural custom, although disentangling that element from the Islamic element is extremely difficult if we're looking across the Islamic world from Morocco to Indonesia.

I guess my point is that Islamists believe change is possible in these areas, and obviously these areas are receptive to change on some level. Is that only because the solution thry present is a return to 'authentic' Islamic practice? I really doubt that, I think under the right circumstances there are potentially many sources of progressive change which could impact on these societies. The diversity of life across the Morocco-Indonesia world is just too obvious to suggest otherwise.

Not sure if that answered your question, it's an interesting topic that I need to think about a bit more probably.

 

[PedroMendez]

Good question. I don't think he's deliberately ignoring it or would deny it, he's a journalist with long experience of the Arab world but he's never written with an apologist agenda or a romantic outlook. I think in this case he's just responding to the 'solutions' which Hirsi Ali has made the central point of the book, and correctly assessed that they're based on a simplistic and incoherent view of Islamic history and modern-day society.

I've read her other two books, Infidel deals primarily with her personal story as far as I remember while The Caged Virgin is a pretty standard anti-Islam trope which are dime a dozen these days. I think as you note there are two separate issues, but they're entwined, since modern-day Islamists also regard much of the way of life of the 'rural masses' in places like Pakistan and Somalia (both rather extreme cases obviously but anyway) to be steeped in ignorance, superstition and unIslamic practice.

So for example members of the preaching organization the Tablighi Jamaat, which avoids involvement in politics altogether but adheres to the quite strict Deobandi interpretation of the Hanafi creed, spend their time touring the South Asian countryside trying to put an end to practices they view as derived from purely Indian (by which they mean Hindu) sources. When Deoband was founded, one of the big issues the madrassa campaigned on was for better treatment for widows, who were generally shunned in the rural parts of Uttar Pradesh where the school is based.

So there is certainly an awareness among influential sections of Muslim society of the conservativeness of much of Muslim society. And they have a point in noting the pre-Islamic origins of much rural custom, although disentangling that element from the Islamic element is extremely difficult if we're looking across the Islamic world from Morocco to Indonesia.

I guess my point is that Islamists believe change is possible in these areas, and obviously these areas are receptive to change on some level. Is that only because the solution thry present is a return to 'authentic' Islamic practice? I really doubt that, I think under the right circumstances there are potentially many sources of progressive change which could impact on these societies. The diversity of life across the Morocco-Indonesia world is just too obvious to suggest otherwise.

Not sure if that answered your question, it's an interesting topic that I need to think about a bit more probably.

I usually try to differentiate between the influence of Islam in the Muslim society itself and the role of Islam in relations to others. Both are obviously entwined, but otherwise the complexity of the issue is getting out of hand.

The whole discussion about reforming Islam is IMO pretty misleading. It creates the idea that change happens abrupt similar to other reformations, where a religious authority comes, claps his hand and changes the dogma of a religion. I have my doubts that these kinds of incidence could happen nowadays. Rather than influencing the mainstream, believers who push for radical reformations usually create obscure sects in the modern day. (Maybe those events actually never happened this way.)
In contrast to those incisive events, religion is always subject to gradual change. Muslims all over the world have very different ideas depending on factors, that have little to do with religion and most Muslims, who are successfully socialized in western societies don´t see any contradiction between their faith and secularism/human rights/individual freedoms etc.pp.
So demanding, that Islam has to make fundamental changes in its “core-dogma” seems both unrealistic and unnecessary.

To come back to the first paragraph: In societies religion often seems to operate as “conservative anchor”. It is one important variable/force/idea that slows down change/progress and promotes a conservative worldview by codifying morals/ethics/ideas from the past, while other factors (like technological advancement) create new realities. The USA is actually a pretty good example for that.
Some reactionary bible belters desperately try to hold on to/return to very conservative values, while in the long run the country becomes more and more (social) liberal and embarrasses modern/tolerant values.
The same happens imo in Muslim societies with the big problem that the status-quo is way off-the-charts conservative to a point that huge parts of those societies suffer from it. There is no short-cut to change this, but that doesn´t mean we should sweep it under the carpet. It is important to scrutinize bad ideas and at the same time it is important to understand that Islam is probably not that different from other religions in the role that it plays in its communities of faith.

 

[2cents]

I usually try to differentiate between the influence of Islam in the Muslim society itself and the role of Islam in relations to others. Both are obviously entwined, but otherwise the complexity of the issue is getting out of hand.

The whole discussion about reforming Islam is IMO pretty misleading. It creates the idea that change happens abrupt similar to other reformations, where a religious authority comes, claps his hand and changes the dogma of a religion. I have my doubts that these kinds of incidence could happen nowadays. Rather than influencing the mainstream, believers who push for radical reformations usually create obscure sects in the modern day. (Maybe those events actually never happened this way.)
In contrast to those incisive events, religion is always subject to gradual change. Muslims all over the world have very different ideas depending on factors, that have little to do with religion and most Muslims, who are successfully socialized in western societies don´t see any contradiction between their faith and secularism/human rights/individual freedoms etc.pp.
So demanding, that Islam has to make fundamental changes in its “core-dogma” seems both unrealistic and unnecessary.

To come back to the first paragraph: In societies religion often seems to operate as “conservative anchor”. It is one important variable/force/idea that slows down change/progress and promotes a conservative worldview by codifying morals/ethics/ideas from the past, while other factors (like technological advancement) create new realities. The USA is actually a pretty good example for that.
Some reactionary bible belters desperately try to hold on to/return to very conservative values, while in the long run the country becomes more and more (social) liberal and embarrasses modern/tolerant values.
The same happens imo in Muslim societies with the big problem that the status-quo is way off-the-charts conservative to a point that huge parts of those societies suffer from it. There is no short-cut to change this, but that doesn´t mean we should sweep it under the carpet. It is important to scrutinize bad ideas and at the same time it is important to understand that Islam is probably not that different from other religions in the role that it plays in its communities of faith.

As usual I totally agree with you. Good post which has me thinking again.

I do think 'subaltern' elements in modern Islamic societies such as liberal bloggers, feminists, etc., are having an impact, albeit one with unforeseen consequences. No better illustration of that than the 'Arab Spring' where, despite their visible prominence in urban protests, they totally underestimated the Islamists' hold on the masses. But with the right combination of circumstance the day may come when they can splay a greater role in shaping these societies. Nothing inevitable about the Islamists' triumph in the long-term.

 

[LeChuck]

@2cents - I'm unsure what your point about Tablighi Jamaat is. Are you saying the likes of IS would not accept that?

 

[2cents]

@2cents - I'm unsure what your point about Tablighi Jamaat is. Are you saying the likes of IS would not accept that?

No I wasn't thinking of IS at all. I was just using them as an example of a group attempting to bring what they see as progressive change to regions of South Asia steeped in social backwardness, with the broader point being that it is acknowledged within Islamic society that change does need to happen and is possible.

 

[Danny1982]

In nations with significant Muslim populations, much disdain for ISIS

Recent attacks in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad linked to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have once again brought terrorism and Islamic extremism to the forefront of international relations. According to newly released data that the Pew Research Center collected in 11 countries with significant Muslim populations, people from Nigeria to Jordan to Indonesia overwhelmingly expressed negative views of ISIS.

One exception was Pakistan, where a majority offered no definite opinion of ISIS. The nationally representative surveys were conducted as part of the Pew Research Center’s annual global poll in April and May this year.

In no country surveyed did more than 15% of the population show favorable attitudes toward Islamic State. And in those countries with mixed religious and ethnic populations, negative views of ISIS cut across these lines.

In Lebanon, a victim of one of the most recent attacks, almost every person surveyed who gave an opinion had an unfavorable view of ISIS, including 99% with a very unfavorable opinion. Distaste toward ISIS was shared by Lebanese Sunni Muslims (98% unfavorable) and 100% of Shia Muslims and Lebanese Christians.

Israelis (97%) and Jordanians (94%) were also strongly opposed to ISIS as of spring 2015, including 91% of Israeli Arabs. And 84% in the Palestinian territories had a negative view of ISIS, both in the Gaza Strip (92%) and the West Bank (79%).

Six-in-ten or more had unfavorable opinions of ISIS in a diverse group of nations, including Indonesia, Turkey, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Malaysia and Senegal.

In Nigeria, there was somewhat more support for ISIS (14% favorable) compared with other countries, but attitudes differed sharply by religious affiliation. An overwhelming number of Nigerian Christians (71%) had an unfavorable view of ISIS, as did 61% of Nigerian Muslims. However, 20% of Nigerian Muslims had a favorable view of ISIS when the poll was conducted in the spring of this year. The group Boko Haram in Nigeria, which has been conducting a terrorist campaign in the country for years, is affiliated with ISIS, though the two are considered separate entities.

Only 28% in Pakistan had an unfavorable view of ISIS, and a majority of Pakistanis (62%) had no opinion on the extremist group.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

This would have been very good news if not for a little 'catch'. The question was specifically about ISIS itself, and not its ideology. I'm pretty sure you'll get similar results even if you interviewed Al-Nusra fighters...

Unfortunately the problem is bigger than what the article is trying to suggest. We have to admit that to be able to solve the real problem. I'd be more interested in hearing the result of the survey when they're asked about the Wahhabi/Salafist ideology, rather than a specific name.

"Yeah I'm totally against ISIS!................. Al-Nusra is the way to go!"...

 

[Wolverine]

http://www.post-gazette.com/local/c...alls-attack-a-hate-crime/stories/201511290154

Pittsburgh police are investigating the Thanksgiving Day shooting of a Muslim cab driver in Hazelwood that the victim and leaders of the Islamic Center of Pittsburgh are describing as a hate crime.

The driver, a 38-year-old Moroccan immigrant who has requested anonymity out of fear for his safety and who has not been identified by police, said he picked a man up outside Rivers Casino at about 1 a.m. Thursday. During the trip to a residence on Second Avenue in Hazelwood, the driver said, the passenger began asking him about his background.

“He started the conversation and began to ask questions like, ‘You seem to be like a Pakistani guy. Are you from Pakistan?’ ” the driver said in an interview from his bed at UPMC Mercy, where he is being treated for a bullet wound in the upper back. “And I said, ‘No, I’m from Morocco. But I’m an American guy.’

“Then he continued the conversation. He began to speak about ISIS killing people. I told him ‘Actually, I’m against ISIS. I don’t like them.’ I even told him that they are killing innocent people. I noticed that he changed his tone and he began to satirize Muhammad, my prophet, and began to shift to his personal life. He mentioned that he has two kids and was in prison for some time.

“So it was this kind of stuff until we got to his destination. He asked me to wait for a little bit because he forgot his wallet in the house. I waited for just five minutes, I think, and I noticed that he came out of the house carrying a rifle in his hand. I noticed him coming toward me. I didn’t hesitate. I [made] a fast decision to leave and drove my taxi away because I felt he was going to do something. There is danger. He would shoot me or something. I felt like he had the intention to kill me.”

I am in my final year of medical school. Because of the issues around junior doctor contracts in the UK I am also sitting the USMLE. What's weird is that my overly concerned Pakistani parents always tell me they worry about things like this happening to Muslims living in western countries and I always tell them they're overreacting but these kind of things getting more and more commonplace, I'm not so sure.