Je Suis Charlie

[chikusho]

He is not misappropriating the facts, though he may have made a mistake in reading them.

I too can google, and if we wikipedia the 2011-2012 parliamentary election, we can see the following statistics - 36,3% voted on the muslim brotherhood, and 28,8% voted on the salafist islamists. Now that is not exactly what Jomshof said - BUT, when the parties were given seats in the parliament, the Muslim Brotherhood got 48%(!) of the seats, and the salafists got 28%. That's probably what Jomshof was referring to. ( If you want to check on your own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_parliamentary_election,_2011%E2%80%9312 )

Even if he made a small mistake in qouting these statistics, 36% + 28% is more than enough for a majority.

So what you're saying is basically that even though his statement had 1. Mistaken the entire population for voting population, 2. mistaken voting population with seats in parliament, 3. mistaken which election it was that had any sort of relevance to those numbers, 4. neglected to consider any of enormous amounts of circumstances that lead to that result, and 5. provide the numbers only as a way to insinuate that muslims are generally terrorist supporters.

Yeah, truly a solid point.

Regarding the rest of the world, I'll just leave this here: http://fof.se/tidning/2013/7/artikel/asikter-i-den-muslimska-varlden

Not sure what point you're trying to make with this report that clearly states Islam is not and can not be considered a problem.

Please refer me to an instance where Jomshof labels the entire religion of Islam and all Muslims as violent.

Honestly, he doesn't need to. All he needs to do is paint a narrative with strong insinuations, and then paranoia and confirmation bias will do the rest. He just needs to present islam and extreme islamist organizations to be interchangeable and never bothers with making a distinction. Or selectively grab facts out of the air without considering context to shape a negative image of the people he's targeting. And he's doing both quite regularly.
But then again, he also has a juicy history of defending blatantly racist statements such as that rape is a form muslism expression, and that people who don't 'act swedish' by some arbitrary standard are somehow not swedes.

The World has a problem with Islamist Extremism, that is true. But you know what? The world has a problem with it, because Islam has a problem with it. 100% of islamist extremists are muslims. That means that islamism is specific to muslims, and that makes it, by extension, "their problem". It is of course our responsibility to help them on their way - but it is in the end up to muslims to change their culture so that fewer of these nutjobs appear.

Simply not true. 100% of islamist extremists are not muslims. 100% of islamist extremists are islamist extremists, and are probably created by a number of factors, one of which is other islamist extremists.
A majority of the racist and fascist parties in Europe also openly identify as christians, but I have a hard time seeing you repeat that argument for the church.

 

[awesomeClaw]

He is not misappropriating the facts, though he may have made a mistake in reading them.

I too can google, and if we wikipedia the 2011-2012 parliamentary election, we can see the following statistics - 36,3% voted on the muslim brotherhood, and 28,8% voted on the salafist islamists. Now that is not exactly what Jomshof said - BUT, when the parties were given seats in the parliament, the Muslim Brotherhood got 48%(!) of the seats, and the salafists got 28%. That's probably what Jomshof was referring to. ( If you want to check on your own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_parliamentary_election,_2011%E2%80%9312 )

Even if he made a small mistake in qouting these statistics, 36% + 28% is more than enough for a majority.

So what you're saying is basically that even though his statement had 1. Mistaken the entire population for voting population, 2. mistaken voting population with seats in parliament, 3. mistaken which election it was that had any sort of relevance to those numbers, 4. neglected to consider any of enormous amounts of circumstances that lead to that result, and 5. provide the numbers only as a way to insinuate that muslims are generally terrorist supporters.

Yeah, truly a solid point.

Regarding the rest of the world, I'll just leave this here: http://fof.se/tidning/2013/7/artikel/asikter-i-den-muslimska-varlden

Not sure what point you're trying to make with this report that clearly states Islam is not and can not be considered a problem.

Please refer me to an instance where Jomshof labels the entire religion of Islam and all Muslims as violent.

Honestly, he doesn't need to. All he needs to do is paint a narrative with strong insinuations, and then paranoia and confirmation bias will do the rest. He just needs to present islam and extreme islamist organizations to be interchangeable and never bothers with making a distinction. Or selectively grab facts out of the air without considering context to shape a negative image of the people he's targeting. And he's doing both quite regularly.
But then again, he also has a juicy history of defending blatantly racist statements such as that rape is a form muslism expression, and that people who don't 'act swedish' by some arbitrary standard are somehow not swedes.

The World has a problem with Islamist Extremism, that is true. But you know what? The world has a problem with it, because Islam has a problem with it. 100% of islamist extremists are muslims. That means that islamism is specific to muslims, and that makes it, by extension, "their problem". It is of course our responsibility to help them on their way - but it is in the end up to muslims to change their culture so that fewer of these nutjobs appear.

Simply not true. 100% of islamist extremists are not muslims. 100% of islamist extremists are islamist extremists, and are probably created by a number of factors, one of which is other islamist extremists.
A majority of the racist and fascist parties in Europe also openly identify as christians, but I have a hard time seeing you repeat that argument for the church.

So of the 100% that give a fuck about politics and how the land is governed, over 60% supports Islamists, and that is somewhow not proof that islamism has wide popular support?

The article doesn't state Islam isn't a problem, Leif Stenberg does. And I disagree. The statistics clearly show that at least 20-40% of muslims support anti-democratic islamists practices, depending on the region. Islamism stands in the way of progress. The only way to get rid of islamism, is to change the islamic culture so that fewer people turn to it. A first step could be deemphasising the importance of religion, which was what happend in Europe during the Enlightenment. Before, religious extremism(burning witches, inquistions, religious conflicts etc) were common. Afterwards, these problems disappeared fairly quickly.

This is preposterous. He doesn't "grab facts out of the air", he made a slight mistake when compiling all the statistics.

Muslims are not a race. Get it right. Also, the statement wasn't that "rape was a form of expression" it was, "rape is deeply rooted in islamic culture". And it is. Just like it's deeply rooted in our culture. Not that long ago women were considered possesions of men. Those things stick. But it's much more disconcerting in the muslim world, because again, no enlightenment.

Wut? Being fascist and racist has nothing to do with being chrisitan? What kind of comparison is that? All fascists are not christians. All islamist extremists are muslims. The most important ingredient of an islamist extremist, is Islam. You cannot be an islamist extremist, if you are not a muslim.

If christians in Europe were running around saying that the bible needed to be made into law and joining the "Lord's Liberation Army", I would be the first to admit that christian extremism was a serious problem. And it, for example in America, where women's bodies are controlled with religious scripture as motivation. That is bullshit. But that's not as big a problem as the islamists.

 

[tzimize]

Its not so much about being a human being, as being sane. And its not so much about being insane, as it is about being religious. There is not a single reason in the world that can justify acting like this other than religion. I wish people would wake up and smell the coffee. Religion is BAD. PERIOD. It contributes NOTHING to society. Its full of hatespewing intolerant bullshit, and even worse, its immune to criticism because some skyman laid down the rules.

The people that did this are bad. But their religion is ALSO bad. Its BAD. I wish people would get it through their heads. Thats whats so important about freedom of speech. We HAVE to be able to critique and mock this madness, how else would we be able to point out the madness of it? Rationality doesnt work on these people, and rationality even works on my dog, as long as I explain it in a language she understands. You cant argue with religion, so it should be destroyed. Slowely but surely. I dream of the day when we can finally be rid of this bullshit.

I just love how you jumped on the same bandwagon on alot of ignorant young people who think they are smart today jump on. Religion=insanity. Makes me think you have read nothing on religion or indeed any religious texts.

So let's throw out a big question out there: How many of you have read the Bible? How about the Quran? The Baghavad Gita? Because if you haven't, then kindly shove your Religion=bad, you are in no position to say anything. Now me, I've had time. I've followed some smart advice in my life and actually read the books I mentioned. And you know what? Religion is about as far away from bad as you can get. Christianity is a religion built around the central idea of forgivness and moral behaviour. Islam, while different at first, shares so many comon themes with christianity, especially when it comes to the ideea of divine forgiveness and leading a moral life, that makes you wonder why the crusades ever happened when the 2 religions are so similar (except the crusades were anything but wars about religion when you learn your history right ... they were waged for the same reason all wars are waged: greed). See, if you are actually smart and dont want to sound like an "edgy" and "mature" 12 year old and you bother reading before spewing hate, you would know religions at their core have only ever been a force of good and sanity. It's the people who twist religion to their own needs, the fundamentalist asshats, that are the problem. People who, by all rights, stand against everything their religion is about, yet claim to be it's champions.

And you want to know something even funnier? Those idiots who claimed to be defending Islam and Muhammad by killing cartoonists? They would get the death sentence if someone is to follow the Quran to the letter. Because the Quran and Muhammad never stood for hatred, murder, forced conversions, war or indeed anything the so called "Islamists" of today stand for. Even calling these wastes of existence "Islamists" is actually insulting to a religion that stands for morality and forgiveness. So maybe next time, instead of acting like a close minded bigot who didn't bother to even skim the wikipedia article on something he is about to bash, maybe go out there and read a book. You'd be amazed just how much sensible and sage advice can be found in religious texts when you bother to read them, and not base your opinions entirely on the mad ravings and actions of idiots who are actually standing in antithesis to the religion they claim to represent.

Well. I can turn this quite easily on the head. You say they "claim" to represent the religion. And what the hell does other people (maybe yourself?) claim to do? There is no RIGHT way to be a muslim. There is just OPINIONS of right ways. The same way as there is no RIGHT way to be a christian. They felt they were doing JUSTICE. The right thing! And who the hell are you to tell them otherwise? Sorry, you've misunderstood? Its all about peace? What the hell makes YOU the one that has "understood" a religion. Maybe everyone BUT the terrorists get it wrong. Thats the problem with religion. If you want to claim Islam is about planting terror into the hearts of your enemies, you can, with no problems at all, find support for that. If you want to claim Islam is a religion of peace, you can most likely find that too. The problem is, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY for you to argue that YOUR understanding is the correct one. Thats the main difference between facts and religion.

If I claimed that gravity is bullshit, I'd have to give some pretty damn compelling evidence to that. If I were to claim that Islam is about sowing terror in your enemies...how would you go about proving me otherwise? If I find verses backing me up, and you find verses backing you up, we are at an impasse at best. Its just that if I'm the terrorist, I can blow you up to end the argument.

I dont know if you are a creationist, but for arguments sake, lets say you are not. The world/universe has been around for a pretty long time. Humans, and religion have been around for a very short one. If you believe just SOME of the stuff in the holy books...god has for example eradicated a couple of whole cities for not living the way HE meant was right. Even the "righteous/god fearing" people he let get away, one of the ladies turned around to watch...SORRY YOU ARE SALT BABY! How about Noahs ark? Killing more or less the entire human race? Its insanity. THIS is who you are looking to for sage advice?

Also, I have to say. Christianity and forgiveness....yeah. You are forgiven as long as you believe. If not....well there is an eternity of hellfire and damnation for you just 'cause. Yeah. All about forgiveness that one.

If on the other hand you look at religion as the current secular lifestyle of a lot of people, its not religion. Its a way of life. The main thing is not that people believe in jesus (which I'm sure a lot less do than say they do, when thinking about the stigma of atheists in the US) but that they treat each other decently. If you think the only reason people treat each other decently is the bible...you are absolutely deluded, and anything I have to say becomes meaningless to you.

 

[Alatar The Red]

Fear and hatred towards a a billion people, also bad.

Fear and hatred of every muslim is obviously wrong, everyone is an individual. However no one can honestly deny that there isn't a big (as in hundreds or tens of millions, sometimes even a billion+) number of muslims who hold extreme views that go against a lot of the human rights that most of the west believes in.

Here, have a quote:

World Public Opinion: Attitude toward Osama bin Laden: Egypt: 44% positive, 17% negative, and 25% mixed feelings Indonesia: 14% positive, 26% negative, 21% mixed feelings (39% did not answer) Pakistan: 25% positive, 15% negative, 26% mixed feelings (34% did not answer) Morocco: 27% positive, 21% negative, 26% mixed feelings Jordanians, Palestinians, Turks and Azerbaijanis. Jordanians combined for: 27% positive, 20 percent negative, and 27 percent mixed feelings. (Palestinians 56% positive, 20% negative, 22 percent mixed feelings). http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf
Pew Research (2010): 49% of Nigerian Muslims have favorable view of al-Qaeda (34% unfavorable) 23% of Indonesians have favorable view of al-Qaeda (56% unfavorable) 34% of Jordanians have favorable view of al-Qaeda 25% of Indonesians have "confidence" in Osama bin Laden (59% had confidence in 2003) 1 in 5 Egyptians have "confidence" in Osama bin Laden http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/
Pew Research (2011): 22% of Indonesians have a favorable view of al-Qaeda (21% unfavorable) http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/
Gallup: 51% of Pakistanis grieve Osama bin Laden (only 11% happy over death) 44% of Pakistanis viewed Osama bin Laden as a martyr (only 28% as an oulaw) http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/05/majority_of_our_pakistani_alli.html
Zogby International 2011: ?Majorities in all six countries said they viewed the United States less favorably following the killing of the Al-Qaeda head [Osama bin Laden] in Pakistan? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/arab-worlds-views-of-us-president-obama-increasingly-negative-new-poll-finds/2011/07/12/gIQASzHVBI_blog.html
Populus Survey: 18% of British Muslims would be proud or indifferent if a family member joined al-Qaeda. http://www.populuslimited.com/poll_summaries/2006_07_04_Times_ITV.htm http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist
Policy Exchange (2006): 7% Muslims in Britain admire al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/246.pdf http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist
9/11 Attacks
al-Arabiya: 36% of Arabs polled said the 9/11 attacks were morally justified; 38% disagreed; 26% Unsure http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/09/10/166274.html
Gallup: 38.6% of Muslims believe 9/11 attacks were justified (7% "fully", 6.5% "mostly", 23.1% "partially") http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2008/05/that-tiny-percentage-of-radical-muslims.html http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1154
Pew Research (2011): Large majorities of Muslims believe in 9/11 conspiracy http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2066/muslims-westerners-christians-jews-islamic-extremism-september-11
Pew Research (2006): Only 17% of British Muslims believe that Arabs carried out the September 11th attacks. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/23/uk.religion
Violence in Defense of Islam
40% of Indonesians approve of violence in defense of Islam. http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailweekly.asp?fileid=20060728.@03
Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. http://cnsnews.com/node/53865 (Pew Global Attitudes Project September, 2009)
Center for Social Cohesion: One Third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/pdf/IslamonCampus.pdf
Policy Exchange: One third of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf
NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06 http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY
NOP Research: Hardcore Islamists comprise 9% of Britain's Muslim population; Another 29% would "aggressively defend" Islam; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...ate=2011-04-06 http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY
Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam 86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam 30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam 76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam 51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/
ICM Poll: 11% of British Muslims find violence for religious or political ends acceptable. http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Poll%20Nov%2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Nov04.asp http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist
Terrorism Research Institute Study: 51% of mosques in the U.S. have texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% have texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% have no violent texts at all. http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/sharia-adherence-mosque-survey/html
Sharia (Islamic Law)
83% of Pakistanis support stoning adulterers 78% of Pakistanis support killing apostates http://www.realcourage.org/2009/08/pakistan-78-percent-call-for-apostate-deaths/
Center for Social Cohesion: 40% of British Muslim students want Sharia http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...haria-law.html http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/pdf/IslamonCampus.pdf
ICM Poll: 40% of British Muslims want Sharia in the UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
GfK NOP: 28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf
NOP Research: 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06 http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY
MacDonald Laurier Institute: 62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada (15% say make it mandatory) http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/01/strong-support-for-shariah-in-canada http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/much-good-news-and-some-worrying-results-in-new-study-of-muslim-public-opinion-in-canada/
World Public Opinion: 81% of Egyptians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country 76% of Pakistanis want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country 49% (plurality) of Indonesians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country 76% of Moroccans want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf
World Public Opinion: 64% of Egyptians said it was ?very important for the government? to ?apply traditional punishments for crimes such as stoning adulterers.? http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf
Pew Research (2010): 77% of Egyptian Muslims favor floggings and amputation 58% of Jordanian Muslims favor floggings and amputation 36% of Indonesian Muslims favor floggings and amputation 82% of Pakistanis favor floggings and amputation 65% of Nigerian Muslims favor floggings and amputation http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah//
Pew Research (2010): 82% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers 70% of Jordanian Muslims favor stoning adulterers 42% of Indonesian Muslims favor stoning adulterers 82% of Pakistanis favor stoning adulterers 56% of Nigerian Muslims favor stoning adulterers http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/
Honor Killings
Turkish Ministry of Education: 1 in 4 Turks Support Honor Killings http://www.realcourage.org/2009/03/turkey-war-on-women/ http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?load=detay&link=170502&bolum=100
Civitas: 1 in 3 Muslims in the UK strongly agree that a wife should be forced to obey her husband's bidding http://www.imaginate.uk.com/MCC01_SURVEY/Site%20Download.pdf http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf
BBC Poll: 1 in 10 British Muslims support killing a family member over "dishonor". http://www.expressandstar.com/blogs/peter-rhodes/2011/12/28/honour-killing-%E2%80%93-a-stain-on-our-nation/
Middle East Quarterly: 91 percent of honor killings are committed by Muslims worldwide. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/43207
95% of honor killings in the West are perpetrated by Muslim fathers and brothers or their proxies. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/21/barbara-kay-continue-calling-honour-killings-by-its-rightful-name/
A survey of Muslim women in Paris suburbs found that three-quarters of them wear their masks out of fear - including fear of violence. http://www.nugget.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3402230
Two-thirds of young British Muslims agree that 'honor' violence is acceptable. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117003/More-thirds-young-British-Muslims-believe-honour-violence-acceptable-survey-reveals.html

ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY
People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.
http://people-press.org/report/206/a-year-after-iraq-war
YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/06/32-of-palestinians-support-infanticide/
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4053251,00.html
Populus Poll (2006): 12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall) believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified. 1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops.
http://www.populuslimited.com/pdf/2006_02_07_times.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist
Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60
Federation of Student Islamic Societies: About 1 in 5 Muslim students in Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack.
http://www.fosis.org.uk/sac/FullReport.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist
Center for Social Cohesion: 40% of British Muslim students want Sharia
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/pdf/IslamonCampus.pdf
ICM Poll: 40% of British Muslims want Sharia in the UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
GfK NOP: 28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf
NOP Research: 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06 http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY
MacDonald Laurier Institute: 62% of Muslims want Sharia in Canada (15% say make it mandatory)
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/01/strong-support-for-shariah-in-canada
http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/much-good-news-and-some-worrying-results-in-new-study-of-muslim-public-opinion-in-canada/

The "religion of peace", "only a few extremist groups" etc. rhetoric is just plain wrong. Yes there are peaceful muslims who believe in western human rights and there are a lot of them, however there is also an extremely alarming amount of muslims who do not hold these views, and those millions of people are dangerous.

 

[geizr]

This is pretty much where I fall in. It sounds like these people were making pretty tasteless and xenophobic work. That disgusts me.

No they weren't. You've no idea what you're talking about. They had petitioned to have the main French far right party banned for being a threat to democracy, FFS. The murdered guys were leftists and for some deeply anti-military. They just crapped on everyone because they hated self-aggrandizing jerks and treacherous politicians - and there isn't a shortage of those in France.

When you do or say something about someone else, you just need to be accounting for that simple fact and be prepared for their responses. It would be ideal to not have people murdering each other over a bit of criticism, but the reality is that there are people who do. You just need to be careful.

They had done this for 50 years, literally. They went against De Gaulle when France was closer to dictatorship than to democracy, they went after the military - when there were ex-OAS goons who could've well been able to shoot them -, they went after the Church - when Catholics actually burned down a theatre for showing Last Temptation of the Christ. They weren't going to stay quiet because a few Muslims went apeshit in some Middle-Eastern countries. Besides, it would've been utterly cowardly. They just couldn't do it because it would've been a complete betrayal.
And that's France, who fought for a very long time against the power of Catholic Church. There's a reason why it's a heavily secular country now. Don't expect people to take kindly to Islamism replacing the Church as the new Inquisition, they'll fight against it, and sooner or later, it won't be pretty.
Actually, I don't think they really thought they'd get attacked. That's because this NEVER happened in France. That's taboo. When people who actually got away with murders knew they shouldn't kill them, groups of nuts who were truly dangerous and numerous, no wonder it comes as a big shock when another group actually acts on it. Specially since it's French-born people, who are therefore supposed to know how French society works, what can be done, what shouldn't really be done, and what can't be done under any condition.

Really, this is a huge shock and that will leave a massive trauma in the French psyche. I'm not sure people realise it know, and I'm not sure they'll be able to consciously notice it, but I expect a definitive shift.
As unfair as it sounds - and as unfair as it IS -, basically the Muslim community will now be seen as having broken a core tenet of French society, and has basically now lost the core of French society's trust, something which will take decades to be fixed. I don't mean this as a racist opinion or as xenophobic propaganda, just as cold hard detached analysis, and it's not a nice conclusion for me, really; and it took me until this morning to fully see it, because this is so messy it's hard to get a clear picture right away. But from now on, I really suspect that the bulk of French people will have, somewhere in their subconscious, the weird notion that a (quite massive) group of people is potentially freedom-killing, and I fear that for most, it'll now only be on an individual basis, once they know the person, that they'll be fully able to consider them as an equal and legitimate member of their society. It's also clear to me that, from now on, the only real valid immigration for the bulk of French society will be "assimilation or bust" - despite any official position any government could take. France never was big on multi-culturalism, and it was usually quite criticised, but now, it's dead, totally dead, and won't be considered worthy of a try before the 2nd part of this century.
As I said, that won't be a conscious decision/behaviour, but this is how big this horrible affair, this horrendous execution, this hateful political assassination (because it's as much these as a terror attack, truthfully) actually is; it willl leave its mark in the general psyche of the country - and that's terrible because it'll take an insane amount of work, time and goodwill to overcome.

This doesn't negate my overall thesis; it just demonstrates that it also applies to the murderous, Islamic extremists in that they should have been more careful with THEIR ACTIONS in regard to how the French people would react and perceive to generalize the event to other Muslims. 100%, this act of murder was unconscionable, unwarranted, completely criminal, and horrific. 100%, the perpetrators should be found and brought to justice. This is the consequence of the actions THEY took. 100%, if the extremists took issues with the publications of Charlie Hebdo, there were many better, more civilized paths available for them to redress their grievances. However, the extremists did not take those paths, and, thus, do not merit the consequences as would occur from those paths. Instead, they took a very different path, one of murder, and, thus, they must reap the consequences of THAT path.

But Charlie Hebdo also took a path, a risky path, based on what I saw. From what I saw, that path was not necessarily the best approach to criticizing another group, particularly one known for extremely violent, murderous responses to sardonic criticism. No group is or should be beyond criticism, but there are good ways and bad ways of going about that criticism.

No matter our ideals or however we may strive to achieve them, we have to remember that reality always steps into view. In a manner, you are admitting to that in some of your final words. The more ideal response of the French people in regard to multi-culturalism would be to recognize that these actions are representative of a select few and not characteristic of the group as a whole. Unfortunately, the reality is that human beings just don't work that way; as you imply, a subconscious thread of prejudice and hatred is very likely to precipitate from this event, regardless of any other laws or ideals that may be in existence. The extremists should have thought more carefully on that before they proceeded with their own actions. However, by the same token, I can say that Charlie Hebdo should have thought more carefully about how provocative its own actions might have proven to be.

You can say that one should not give in to terrorist extremists, and I agree. However, the reality is that it is extremely dangerous and risky when one tries to deal with them. You have to go into that with no idyllic preconceptions about the likely outcomes. You're dealing with a bunch of murderous, psychopathic, crazies; expect them to act accordingly, and don't expect that they are going to change their minds about anything just cause you say. They've already disregarded anything you have to say to them long before you've even said it. If you are cognizant and accepting of the likely outcomes and still feel justified in your course, by all means proceed; just be knowingly prepared for that outcome.

 

[chikusho]

So of the 100% that give a fuck about politics and how the land is governed, over 60% supports Islamists, and that is somewhow not proof that islamism has wide popular support?

Talk about an over-simplification. Need I remind you that this was the first sort-of democratic election held in Egypt in.. ever? And that the very same power that was voted in to power that year was ousted just a few years later? There are so many variables included in that situation that it's impossible to draw any such conclusions and have them mean what you think they mean.

Islamism stands in the way of progress. The only way to get rid of islamism, is to change the islamic culture so that fewer people turn to it.

I'm sorry, but that's a load of bollocks. Here's another thing to think about: maybe fewer people would turn to militant islamist extremism if fewer nations were bombing their homes and killing their families. Giving people weapons, military training and a reason to hold a grudge is a very good recipe for conflict.

Either way, if you're going to make blanket statements like that, let's be fair here. If we assume that the islamic culture is solely to blame for islamic extremism, islamic culture is equally solely responsible for creating:

Malala Yousafzai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai

Fawzia Koofi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawzia_Koofi

Malcolm X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X

Shirin Ebadi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirin_Ebadi

Mohammed ElBaradei
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei

Tawakkol Karman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawakkol_Karman

And organizations like

The Quilliam Foundation
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/about/

Alliance for Iranian women
http://allianceofiranianwomen.org/

Muslim Aid
https://www.muslimaid.org/

Islamic relief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Relief

Which turned up quickly with some cursory googling. Basically, Islam is kicking all sorts of ass. By this metric, Islam should just keep up the good work!

A first step could be deemphasising the importance of religion, which was what happend in Europe during the Enlightenment. Before, religious extremism(burning witches, inquistions, religious conflicts etc) were common. Afterwards, these problems disappeared fairly quickly.

Except for that guy a couple of years ago who went out and invaded countries on a self professed mission from god.
You know, George W. Bush. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

This is preposterous. He doesn't "grab facts out of the air", he made a slight mistake when compiling all the statistics.

He literally got every aspect of the statistics wrong, and used them for a disingenuous misleading and islamophobic purpose. What's preposterous is that you defend him for it.

Muslims are not a race. Get it right.

I'm fully aware. And yet it's used interchangeable to discuss the population of entire nations, which is what makes the islamophobic rhetoric so incredibly inane. You included, you say that muslim culture needs to change, yet "muslim culture" can mean a million things. And many things that have nothing at all to do with Islam.

Also, the statement wasn't that "rape was a form of expression" it was, "rape is deeply rooted in islamic culture". And it is. Just like it's deeply rooted in our culture. Not that long ago women were considered possesions of men. Those things stick. But it's much more disconcerting in the muslim world, because again, no enlightenment.

First of all:
"Självklart är våldtäkt ett uttryck för muslimsk kultur, det måste bero på något att män från muslimska länder är överrepresenterade i den här typen av brott. Det är en följd av den kultur som genomsyrar de här länderna."
http://www.blt.se/karlskrona/jomshof-islam-en-forklaring-till-valdtakt/

Shoddy translation: Of course rape is an expression for muslim culture, that men from muslim countries are overrepresented in this type of crime has to be because of something. It comes from the culture that permeate these countries.

If he wasn't deliberately trying to create an image of the 'muslims savage', why didn't he just say: "Rape is an expression of all culture"?

Secondly, "no enlightenment" is also inaccurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Wut? Being fascist and racist has nothing to do with being chrisitan? What kind of comparison is that? All fascists are not christians. All islamist extremists are muslims. The most important ingredient of an islamist extremist, is Islam. You cannot be an islamist extremist, if you are not a muslim.

Pedophilia has nothing to do with being christian, yet pedophile priests are all christian. No, the most important ingredient of an islamist extremist is extremism.

If christians in Europe were running around saying that the bible needed to be made into law and joining the "Lord's Liberation Army", I would be the first to admit that christian extremism was a serious problem. And it, for example in America, where women's bodies are controlled with religious scripture as motivation. That is bullshit. But that's not as big a problem as the islamists.

There are all kinds of people running around saying that the bible needs to be made in to law, and using religious scripture as motivation for controlling womens (and mens) bodies.
Here's a handy list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_anti-LGBT_hate_groups

 

[Erttheking]

This is pretty much where I fall in. It sounds like these people were making pretty tasteless and xenophobic work. That disgusts me.

No they weren't. You've no idea what you're talking about. They had petitioned to have the main French far right party banned for being a threat to democracy, FFS. The murdered guys were leftists and for some deeply anti-military. They just crapped on everyone because they hated self-aggrandizing jerks and treacherous politicians - and there isn't a shortage of those in France.

When you do or say something about someone else, you just need to be accounting for that simple fact and be prepared for their responses. It would be ideal to not have people murdering each other over a bit of criticism, but the reality is that there are people who do. You just need to be careful.

They had done this for 50 years, literally. They went against De Gaulle when France was closer to dictatorship than to democracy, they went after the military - when there were ex-OAS goons who could've well been able to shoot them -, they went after the Church - when Catholics actually burned down a theatre for showing Last Temptation of the Christ. They weren't going to stay quiet because a few Muslims went apeshit in some Middle-Eastern countries. Besides, it would've been utterly cowardly. They just couldn't do it because it would've been a complete betrayal.
And that's France, who fought for a very long time against the power of Catholic Church. There's a reason why it's a heavily secular country now. Don't expect people to take kindly to Islamism replacing the Church as the new Inquisition, they'll fight against it, and sooner or later, it won't be pretty.
Actually, I don't think they really thought they'd get attacked. That's because this NEVER happened in France. That's taboo. When people who actually got away with murders knew they shouldn't kill them, groups of nuts who were truly dangerous and numerous, no wonder it comes as a big shock when another group actually acts on it. Specially since it's French-born people, who are therefore supposed to know how French society works, what can be done, what shouldn't really be done, and what can't be done under any condition.

Really, this is a huge shock and that will leave a massive trauma in the French psyche. I'm not sure people realise it know, and I'm not sure they'll be able to consciously notice it, but I expect a definitive shift.
As unfair as it sounds - and as unfair as it IS -, basically the Muslim community will now be seen as having broken a core tenet of French society, and has basically now lost the core of French society's trust, something which will take decades to be fixed. I don't mean this as a racist opinion or as xenophobic propaganda, just as cold hard detached analysis, and it's not a nice conclusion for me, really; and it took me until this morning to fully see it, because this is so messy it's hard to get a clear picture right away. But from now on, I really suspect that the bulk of French people will have, somewhere in their subconscious, the weird notion that a (quite massive) group of people is potentially freedom-killing, and I fear that for most, it'll now only be on an individual basis, once they know the person, that they'll be fully able to consider them as an equal and legitimate member of their society. It's also clear to me that, from now on, the only real valid immigration for the bulk of French society will be "assimilation or bust" - despite any official position any government could take. France never was big on multi-culturalism, and it was usually quite criticised, but now, it's dead, totally dead, and won't be considered worthy of a try before the 2nd part of this century.
As I said, that won't be a conscious decision/behaviour, but this is how big this horrible affair, this horrendous execution, this hateful political assassination (because it's as much these as a terror attack, truthfully) actually is; it willl leave its mark in the general psyche of the country - and that's terrible because it'll take an insane amount of work, time and goodwill to overcome.

They did? Well then I'm gonna have to look into that.

 

[Pepep Popep]

Not even close to being Charlie. Charlie exercised its right to blasphemy and paid for it dearly. So I'm not terribly impressed by all this "solidarity". Murder and hate aren't cool, thanks for the insight. But being as politically correct as possible, afraid of offending, won't make you Charlie.

 

[Random Gamer]

They did? Well then I'm gonna have to look into that.

Well, that's what I can dig up, though it'll be in French:
http://ecrans.liberation.fr/ecrans/1996/09/12/les-173-704-signatures-de-charlie-hebdo_183854
Basically, FN was against several core articles of the Constitution / Human rights charter. (not sure they would qualify as much nowadays, at least with their public stances)
Of the 3 guys behind this, 1 died some years ago, the other went quite right-wing, arguably islamophobe (some people's opinions might evolve with time), decided to republish the Danish cartoons and eventually left, the last one was executed this week. The fucking tragic irony is that the few who could be suspected of having kind of racist/xenophobic tendencies had left the magazine years ago, and the others got hit.


Whatever, hopefully things will go back to normal now that all is over...

If you are cognizant and accepting of the likely outcomes and still feel justified in your course, by all means proceed; just be knowingly prepared for that outcome.

Well, their boss had said he wasn't going to kneel before scum to live but would die standing.

 

[DeaDRabbiT]

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

It doesn't matter. I don't even have to click your link to know it doesn't matter.

You don't kill someone because they are "racist" You don't kill someone because you disagree with what they say.

You DO however ignore them, or you DO however engage them and attempt to sway their opinion.

You should be ashamed of yourself for not knowing this inherently, in your soul.

 

[MrMan999]

Not even close to being Charlie. Charlie exercised its right to blasphemy and paid for it dearly. So I'm not terribly impressed by all this "solidarity". Murder and hate aren't cool, thanks for the insight. But being as politically correct as possible, afraid of offending, won't make you Charlie.

Are you implying that Charlie deserved to be killed for expressing his views? If so thats low.

 

[CaitSeith]

Not even close to being Charlie. Charlie exercised its right to blasphemy and paid for it dearly. So I'm not terribly impressed by all this "solidarity". Murder and hate aren't cool, thanks for the insight. But being as politically correct as possible, afraid of offending, won't make you Charlie.

But stating their solidarity in any way they wish to does. You don't get to decide what makes them Charlie.

 

[webkilla]

snipped

Sunday off ...

HA!! That's a nice wish.

Anyway, you go right on a head and keep poking that bear in the hopes the bear gets over being poked, see how long it takes before the bear turns around and mauls the guy with the stick again.

I'll make sure to have the popcorn and a comfy chair ready when it happens again though, cause next time. I'm laughing at the victims.

I pity you. You say you will laugh at the next westerners who get murdered for expressing their free speech in a way that offends someone from quite possibly halfway across the world?

To think such a thing - let alone say it on a public forum like this. I pity you. You must live a very sad existence if that's the kind of amusement you hope for.

I also hope you live in a primarily muslim country - because I can assure you: Expressing that kind of opinion IRL in any western country will not earn you any favors. But then again, that's what you got your online grandstanding for. I hope you feel good about it. Make your parents real proud.


I for one stand by my opinions and will keep on exercising my free speech every may 20th. I doubt any gunmen will come for me due to my online galleries.

 

[faeshadow]

The amount of anti-Muslim bigotry (Muslim, not "Islamist". What are you guys, Fox News?) in this whole thread is disturbing to the point where I just... have nothing more to say on the matter except that.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

Before I deluge farther into this thread I'm going to lay down some facts for all of you.
1. Islam is a religion not a race.
2. There are currently more than 1.6 billion people that follow/believe in the Islamic faith world wide.
3. The Islamic faith is a religion mainly practiced by people of Muslim or Arabian decent.
4. The quran calls to kill anyone who insults the prophet Mohammad. Bukhari (4:241)

Now as far as this shooting and killing of twelve people go over a damn cartoon/comic, it's horrible. I don't have to like what the cartoonist was publishing. The fact is he was killed for running, drawing and doing a satirical news paper. You do not have to like what he was doing but no-one deserves to loose their life over it.

 

[Random Gamer]

1. Islam is a religion not a race.
3. The Islamic faith is a religion mainly practiced by people of Muslim or Arabian decent.

Huh?
Muslim is basically a believer of Islam, so that's not a race or an ethny either.
Then, Arabs make 20% of all Muslims - though they can be considered to be the plurality. But ironically, the largest Muslim populations don't even live in Arab countries - Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh have way more Muslims than even Egypt, the heavy-weight Arab country.

 

[Pepep Popep]

Are you implying that Charlie deserved to be killed for expressing his views? If so thats low.

No, I'm not saying they deserved death for what they said, but saying it was what got them killed. They had the courage to risk their safety to speak openly and a lot of us (of course I'm including myself) simply lack that.

But stating their solidarity in any way they wish to does. You don't get to decide what makes them Charlie.

I don't get to decide that, the meaning of word does. Being Charlie makes you Charlie, most of us, remember them. And some newspapers join the je suis Charlie train, but republish their cartoons censored.

 

[cathou]

Not even close to being Charlie. Charlie exercised its right to blasphemy and paid for it dearly. So I'm not terribly impressed by all this "solidarity". Murder and hate aren't cool, thanks for the insight. But being as politically correct as possible, afraid of offending, won't make you Charlie.

Are you implying that Charlie deserved to be killed for expressing his views? If so thats low.

no, i think what he say is that a lot of people say today "Je suis Charlie", but saying it, doesnt make you Charlie. When news papers say that they are all with Charlie, but yet refuse to publish any of the front pages of Charlie with Mahommet on it ( NY times i'm looking at you) because it's not politically correct, you are approving the views of the extremists, not the views of Charlie Hebdo

 

[awesomeClaw]

So of the 100% that give a fuck about politics and how the land is governed, over 60% supports Islamists, and that is somewhow not proof that islamism has wide popular support?

Talk about an over-simplification. Need I remind you that this was the first sort-of democratic election held in Egypt in.. ever? And that the very same power that was voted in to power that year was ousted just a few years later? There are so many variables included in that situation that it's impossible to draw any such conclusions and have them mean what you think they mean.

Islamism stands in the way of progress. The only way to get rid of islamism, is to change the islamic culture so that fewer people turn to it.

I'm sorry, but that's a load of bollocks. Here's another thing to think about: maybe fewer people would turn to militant islamist extremism if fewer nations were bombing their homes and killing their families. Giving people weapons, military training and a reason to hold a grudge is a very good recipe for conflict.

Either way, if you're going to make blanket statements like that, let's be fair here. If we assume that the islamic culture is solely to blame for islamic extremism, islamic culture is equally solely responsible for creating:

Malala Yousafzai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai

Fawzia Koofi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawzia_Koofi

Malcolm X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X

Shirin Ebadi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirin_Ebadi

Mohammed ElBaradei
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_ElBaradei

Tawakkol Karman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawakkol_Karman

And organizations like

The Quilliam Foundation
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/about/

Alliance for Iranian women
http://allianceofiranianwomen.org/

Muslim Aid
https://www.muslimaid.org/

Islamic relief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Relief

Which turned up quickly with some cursory googling. Basically, Islam is kicking all sorts of ass. By this metric, Islam should just keep up the good work!

A first step could be deemphasising the importance of religion, which was what happend in Europe during the Enlightenment. Before, religious extremism(burning witches, inquistions, religious conflicts etc) were common. Afterwards, these problems disappeared fairly quickly.

Except for that guy a couple of years ago who went out and invaded countries on a self professed mission from god.
You know, George W. Bush. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

This is preposterous. He doesn't "grab facts out of the air", he made a slight mistake when compiling all the statistics.

He literally got every aspect of the statistics wrong, and used them for a disingenuous misleading and islamophobic purpose. What's preposterous is that you defend him for it.

Muslims are not a race. Get it right.

I'm fully aware. And yet it's used interchangeable to discuss the population of entire nations, which is what makes the islamophobic rhetoric so incredibly inane. You included, you say that muslim culture needs to change, yet "muslim culture" can mean a million things. And many things that have nothing at all to do with Islam.

Also, the statement wasn't that "rape was a form of expression" it was, "rape is deeply rooted in islamic culture". And it is. Just like it's deeply rooted in our culture. Not that long ago women were considered possesions of men. Those things stick. But it's much more disconcerting in the muslim world, because again, no enlightenment.

First of all:
"Självklart är våldtäkt ett uttryck för muslimsk kultur, det måste bero på något att män från muslimska länder är överrepresenterade i den här typen av brott. Det är en följd av den kultur som genomsyrar de här länderna."
http://www.blt.se/karlskrona/jomshof-islam-en-forklaring-till-valdtakt/

Shoddy translation: Of course rape is an expression for muslim culture, that men from muslim countries are overrepresented in this type of crime has to be because of something. It comes from the culture that permeate these countries.

If he wasn't deliberately trying to create an image of the 'muslims savage', why didn't he just say: "Rape is an expression of all culture"?

Secondly, "no enlightenment" is also inaccurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Wut? Being fascist and racist has nothing to do with being chrisitan? What kind of comparison is that? All fascists are not christians. All islamist extremists are muslims. The most important ingredient of an islamist extremist, is Islam. You cannot be an islamist extremist, if you are not a muslim.

Pedophilia has nothing to do with being christian, yet pedophile priests are all christian. No, the most important ingredient of an islamist extremist is extremism.

If christians in Europe were running around saying that the bible needed to be made into law and joining the "Lord's Liberation Army", I would be the first to admit that christian extremism was a serious problem. And it, for example in America, where women's bodies are controlled with religious scripture as motivation. That is bullshit. But that's not as big a problem as the islamists.

There are all kinds of people running around saying that the bible needs to be made in to law, and using religious scripture as motivation for controlling womens (and mens) bodies.
Here's a handy list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_designated_by_the_Southern_Poverty_Law_Center_as_anti-LGBT_hate_groups

I suppose you're right. Can't draw any conclusions about underlying sympathies or feelings, nope, none at all. Just like you can't claim that there was underlying anti-semitism in Germany when the nazis were voted into power. I mean, it was like, their third or fourth election? No conclusions can be drawn. Too many variables.

Of course Islam can inspire some people to power through hard times and help people. Just as it can inspire people to take up the sword and slay the infidels. Things are not always all bad or all good. Islam has potential for good - but it (currently) has far more potential for harm.

George W. Bush was/is a fucking lunatic, and so are all religious extremists, everywhere. And yes, America has really, really serious problems with religious extremism and religion still being too big a part of society. You have me there.

Muslim culture = how religion is viewed in society, how the holy scripture is interpertated, how non-muslims are viewed... That may not be constant across all muslim nations(far from it!) but most have serious enough problem(20-99% support sharia) that a culture change is neccesary.

What's preposterous are your wild accusations. He got one number wrong, a number that's very easy to get wrong if you're compiling statistics. He used those numbers, combined with many others, to prove that the issue is not related "to a small minority", because IT ISN'T.

There are many thing that permeate almost the entire muslim world. The approval of Sharia, for example. And the like of Muhammed. And the importance of god, etc etc.

The reason he didn't say that, was because they were talking about Islam, and that Islam still hasn't fully abandoned the whole "women below men" thing(not that we have), but in muslim countries it's more pronounced. That's what he means.

The Islamic Golden Age is not at all comparable to the Enlightenment. Where, in the Islamic golden age, did they arrive at the conclusion that secularism is the best? Point me to a muslim philosopher from 1000 B.C who said that women should be equal to men, that religious influence in the civic life needed to be limited, and that democracy was a superior system of government.

Pedophilia and christianity is not related. That seems to be difficult to understand.

Being against abortion and being a christian, IS related. Being an islamist and being a muslim, IS related.

There sure is. Those people are dumb. Tell me an organisation in Sweden which has a similar motive, and consists of more than 1% of the population. And no, saying "Those dang racistfascistislamophobe Sweden Democrats", isn't going to cut it.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

1. Islam is a religion not a race.
3. The Islamic faith is a religion mainly practiced by people of Muslim or Arabian decent.

Huh?
Muslim is basically a believer of Islam, so that's not a race or an ethny either.
Then, Arabs make 20% of all Muslims - though they can be considered to be the plurality. But ironically, the largest Muslim populations don't even live in Arab countries - Pakistan, Indonesia, India, Bangladesh have way more Muslims than even Egypt, the heavy-weight Arab country.

Thank you for correcting me on those 2 key points, I should've realized this but I made a mistake.