]Quote: Harry Marks
I'm well aware of the problem passages in the Koran and that currently Islam is undergoing a dangerous and threatening phase on the part of a significant number of its adherents. We simply need to avoid letting emotions ruin an analysis of the larger picture. This is especially important in not playing into the hands of ISIL, which wants us to marginalize Muslims in general so that more will be driven into the radical ranks and will flock to the IS, which will then be the scene of Armageddon.



Quote D.B.Roy
I would say that Muslims have largely isolated themselves. That's generally what happens when you speak an argot and impose on yourself a dress code that runs counter to the prevailing fashions of the society in which you live--you marginalize yourself. If that's what you want to do, that's fine, just don't turn and complain about being marginalized.[/quote]

DB Roy wrote:It's not based solely on that and that's a surprisingly stupid thing to say. My racist prejudice again "Middle Easterners" is based more on data as this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1993321/posts

I think we need a better understanding of history. How did France come to have so many Algerian immigrants and how have they treated them?
You lambaste George W.Bush for his invasion of Iraq under a false pretext D.B. and rightly so. But you can't have it both ways. If U.S. intervention in Iraq and discriminatory sectarian mis-governance by the Shia rulers promoted radicalization of
of Sunnis then it's not just something produced out of thin air.
It's not good enough to blame the Muslims and particularly all Muslims generally for all these things as if the west had no hand act or part in any of this.

For sure Isil and it's ideology are a dangerous threat as their actions show and unfortunately the likely 'solution' in Syria of maintaining Assad's regime in power will just confirm the view of many Arabs that the non Arab superpowers have no real interest in justice.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 41146.html

Gnostic Bishop wrote: If you act free, even if forced to by law, eventually you start to believe you are free and you become free.

That's a very hopeful reading of the Zimbardo experiment. Good luck finding examples beyond a few individuals under the influence of a charismatic "Captain."

Harry Marks wrote:Gnostic Bishop wrote:
If you act free, even if forced to by law, eventually you start to believe you are free and you become free.



That's a very hopeful reading of the Zimbardo experiment. Good luck finding examples beyond a few individuals under the influence of a charismatic "Captain."

It does have an Orwellian ring to it.

Flann 5 wrote: I think we need a better understanding of history. How did France come to have so many Algerian immigrants and how have they treated them?

That's not something that can be answered in a couple of sentences. I'm sure you're not interested in me giving you a 10 paragraph answer, so why don't you tell me? Clearly, you have a point you wish to make so you need to make it.

You lambaste George W.Bush for his invasion of Iraq under a false pretext D.B. and rightly so. But you can't have it both ways. If U.S. intervention in Iraq and discriminatory sectarian mis-governance by the Shia rulers promoted radicalization of
of Sunnis then it's not just something produced out of thin air.

So are you saying that radicalization of the Muslims is the result of France mistreating Algerian immigrants?? France was far more involved in the affairs of Vietnam and I don't see even the most radicalized Vietnamese communists wanting to blow up the world over it.

It's not good enough to blame the Muslims and particularly all Muslims generally for all these things as if the west had no hand act or part in any of this.

My above statement shows why you're wrong. Your rationale is like when a serial killer is apprehended after killing 50 women and it is discovered that he suffered an abusive childhood. And you say, "He's not entirely responsible for his actions because of the abuse he suffered. He had all the love and compassion squashed out of him at a young age." I say bunk. Lots of people were raised in abusive families and don't resort to murdering innocent people. He's entirely responsible for his own actions. Likewise, lots of countries and peoples have suffered abuse at the hands of colonizers and don't act like the Muslims do--it's just bunk!

Look at American blacks. If anyone had a reason to be radicalized and set off bombs and go on shooting sprees, it would be them. And yet how often do you see it? Yes, there is a sizable dysfunctionality in part of the black-American society but other blacks suffer mostly from it. They haven't turned the whole of America into a warzone although they could if they wanted to. So, no, it's just bunk that the West radicalized the Muslims but I'll agree that it did not come out of thin air. It comes from the Koran which teaches exactly what the radicals themselves expound. You either become a Muslim or you die. Now, the bible has its share of insanity that Christians and Jews could use to turn this country into another Syria but they don't. It's peculiar to Islam.

There is no credible reason that Muslims couldn't have responded to any persecutions from the West in a reasonable, civilized manner. The West persecuted us = Global Islamic Totalitarianism doesn't compute with me. One way to observe this was during America's occupation of Iraq when Sunni and Shia went to war in the streets of Baghdad. With no Americans or Israelis handy, they turned their hatred on one another. At one point, Shiites set up check points and when a car stopped at one, the guards asked the names of the occupants. Anyone with a "Sunni name" was dragged out and shot right then and there. It has not lessened but is growing worse. This is simply not civilized behavior. It is this same sectarian split that has caused the war in Syria--not Israel, not the United States. It would have happened even the US or Israel didn't exist. It's violence that didn't need to happen, it wasn't forced on them but entirely self-imposed.

For sure Isil and it's ideology are a dangerous threat as their actions show and unfortunately the likely 'solution' in Syria of maintaining Assad's regime in power will just confirm the view of many Arabs that the non Arab superpowers have no real interest in justice.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 41146.html

That would be the case no matter what because radical Islam has a vested interest in keeping the conflict going. It is radical Islam that has no interest in justice and certainly not in peace. Bad for their business. They are like the NRA, they want to keep people in fear and full of hate because that's what serves their purposes. There will be no peace as long as they exist because they will make sure of it.

Mao Zedong said the guerrilla moves among the people like a fish in the sea. Today, the Islamist fish is supported by a climate of extreme opinion among regular Muslims. Veils in the street are a signal to the errorist that "you are in the sea".

Anyone who leaves Islam should be killed, according to most Muslims in Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even Malaysia who responded to a Pew Research Center 2012 survey. Islam has to reform these medieval attitudes to apostasy. But providing those who wish to leave the faith with a superior alternative is not simple. Both secularity and Christianity struggle for coherence and do not appeal to Muslims.

In this context, it is misguided and strategically wrong to vilify anti-Muslim populist movements. Broad community involvement in the critique of Islam is essential to give strength to any more moderate dialogue.

Robert Tulip wrote:Mao Zedong said the guerrilla moves among the people like a fish in the sea. Today, the Islamist fish is supported by a climate of extreme opinion among regular Muslims. Veils in the street are a signal to the errorist that "you are in the sea".

Anyone who leaves Islam should be killed, according to most Muslims in Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even Malaysia who responded to a Pew Research Center 2012 survey. Islam has to reform these medieval attitudes to apostasy. But providing those who wish to leave the faith with a superior alternative is not simple. Both secularity and Christianity struggle for coherence and do not appeal to Muslims.

In this context, it is misguided and strategically wrong to vilify anti-Muslim populist movements. Broad community involvement in the critique of Islam is essential to give strength to any more moderate dialogue.

Hi Robert. The essentially 'theocratic 'nature of Islam is certainly a problem. There may be disagreements among clerics and different strands of Islam on interpretations of the Quran and it's laws but it's generally thought desirable among them that it should be implemented in some form.
The idea though that all Muslims are zealots is hardly more true than that all Christians are. Nominalism exists under both names. And both Iraq under Saddam and Syria were far more secular in governance than Islamic though of course they were dictatorships.
The extreme forms of Islam do seem to thrive under oppressive conditions where jihad is seen as a solution legitimized by the political realities as a just cause.

Undoubtedly the jihadists in Syria see themselves as liberators against an oppressive regime and that's not entirely false though the Caliphate they want to implement is even more tyrannical and nightmarish if that's possible.

I take your point about these realities shown in the survey but I still think it's a serious mistake to make no distinction between Muslims in general and the Wahhabi strain that is embraced by many jihadists.

Shias certainly have no desire to live under the rule of Islamic state.

I agree with Harry Marks here that it's a serious mistake to push all Muslims into the extreme camp. Everything is black and white for Isil and Fisk thinks they are intent on fomenting civil war between the Algerian Muslims in France and the ruling secular elite.

He's probably right, and the representation of 'civilization' versus monolithic Islam is just the black and white reverse of the same coin.
I do agree though that the problems highlighted in the survey are real ones.
I'm not an apologist for Islam. I just think we need to try to understand these things in a broader context if we are to react in the best way and not just get dragged by emotions into exacerbating things.

DB Roy wrote:My above statement shows why you're wrong. Your rationale is like when a serial killer is apprehended after killing 50 women and it is discovered that he suffered an abusive childhood. And you say, "He's not entirely responsible for his actions because of the abuse he suffered. He had all the love and compassion squashed out of him at a young age." I say bunk. Lots of people were raised in abusive families and don't resort to murdering innocent people. He's entirely responsible for his own actions. Likewise, lots of countries and peoples have suffered abuse at the hands of colonizers and don't act like the Muslims do--it's just bunk!

I don't say that the killers in Paris are not responsible for their actions. They are .And I do agree that the ideology of Isil claims to be based on the Quran. Is it the view of the majority of Muslims that the Paris murders are justified by Islam?
I don't think so.
And most Muslims consider Isil extreme whether you like it or not.
Just who were the abusing "colonizers"? Why it was the 'civilized' secular French government and they didn't get their ideology from any holy book.
Political realities never excuse cold blooded murder but they do shed light on factors that promote extreme reactions.
Whether the Quran supports the actions of Isil or not is hotly debated within Islam. Maybe it does but many Muslims disagree and actually do condemn the barbarity of Isil.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/fra ... 36901.html

Allow me to clarify some facts about Muslims nowadays :

1) Muslims are hugely influenced by modern ways of living so this created two main categories of muslims : the extremists and the ones who are not fully interested in religion .

2) Muslims misunderstood their own religion so as a consequence some of them are becoming vulnerabe to invitations to JIHAD which is entirely a different thing

3) The media for some reason are trying to make muslims seem like dangerous people who are threathening humanity and are living just to kill

It's obvious that no religion would invite people to destroy others , muslims are too against what happened in Paris and other countries before ; but why would such thing as hijab be a reason to judge the woman wearing it ? hijab has a high purpose that has nothing to do with such barbaric acts , its meant to make a woman special and protected who is meant for only one man ; and she is taught to respect other people from other religions , so i don't see why should hijab be banned !

Personally I am glad my religious beliefs don't require me to wear anything close to this. But I definitely would never judge someone who was wearing these items. I have had a friend who wore these items, and another who had westernized the look while staying covered as required in that religion. I find that most people are reasonable about such things, if they have been educated and raised to treat others respectfully. As for the media they usually sensationalize things, especially when there have been tragic events such as in Paris. I guess a better question would be would you even wish to live in a place that would put such a law in place.

Robert Tulip wrote: In this context, it is misguided and strategically wrong to vilify anti-Muslim populist movements. Broad community involvement in the critique of Islam is essential to give strength to any more moderate dialogue.

The trouble I have with your formulation is that populist critiques of Islam are not against violence in the name of religion, but against violence in the name of someone else's religion. What I now think of as Trumpism is not critiquing oppression of women, it is critiquing "allowing" "them" to kill "us".

I think pointed questions about rights, majoritarianism and violence have long since persuaded most university-educated Muslims. Now those elites need the breathing room to formulate the links between humanist ideals and Islamic piety. Tunisia has done it and continues to lead that shift.