Are radical Muslims a minority?

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Other than learning from the past, in how we conduct ourselves in the present, per our policies, etc., we can't do a dang thing to change our past. Handwringing and blame, assertions and accusations past actions justify Islamists (and other) groups' present and ongoing hatreds and present committed horrors over their anger over their version of the past - clueless and total waste of time to keep blathering on about it or even listening to it. And those who use it as an excuse for such groups' ongoing plots of evil and mayhem have ZERO credibility! Those who want us to do more than learn from our past have a totally wrong focus. I believe precisely what these evil groups say they intend to do to us (and long have) as long as they exist. Meaning, we must do everything in our power to prevent them, and to eliminate them wherever necessary. If they will renounce terror, reach out in sincere peaceful overtures, then we can talk (and verify). Until then, they are forcing our hands. The cause of the conflict TODAY, is the ongoing horrors and naked aggressions of terrorist actions. People need to face that fact and stop insisting some altruistic actions and policy changes of the West would change such groups. That is an enormous fantasy! To deny these Islamist terrorist groups are evil people following evil beliefs - totally clueless. Such people will continue to try to kill us, no matter WHAT things we might do differently. Again, those willing to commit the kinds of atrocities groups like ISIS and Al Queda have sick sensibilities - don't try to rationalize their actions or figure them out with our society's best moral sensibiliities. They will hate and try to kill us regardless of our best treatment.

Yes sometimes war is needed, even though we would rather not do it.
Making peace with violent radicals like ISIS is like making peace to a mad dog. Speak softly and carry a big stick, er, drones.

[PaulSacramento]

Rick's point is that while Christianity was used as excuse for colonial expansion, Islam calls for it.
Christians may have conquered much of the world but that was IN SPITE of what Christ taught and preached not because of Him.

Muslims do so because they are TOLD to and BECAUSE of what the Koran says.

I'm not impressed with this argument. What the hell difference does it make what Christ says about anything if, when push comes to shove, his supposed followers consistently ignore his teachings, or worse yet, use a selective reading of the Bible to justify slavery, imperialism, and wars of conquest? And what does it matter if Mohamed advocated expansionist policies if his followers generally mind their own fences?

The other way to look at it is that we should be more concerned about what is going NOW rather than 500 years ago.

This is the kind of comment that I'm talking about when I start ranting about history and context.

I'm not talking about events 500 years ago. The British relinquished control of their colonies in the aftermath of World War II. The French hung on until the 1960s. Portugal didn't give up on Mozambique and Angola until 1975. As I said, who do you think drew the current boundaries of many Middle Eastern and African countries? For example, Iraq has Sunni, Shi'a, and Kurdish populations jammed uncomfortably into one country because the British drew the borders. That decision and many like it, made by Western Christians who didn't give a [love] about local history, religion, ethnicity, or politics, directly impact the world we live in today.

What's happening NOW is rooted in what's been happening for the last few hundred years. It cannot be separated. History matters.

Ok, yes History matters and the REASONS must matter too, yes?

Well, the reality is the NOWHERE in the teachings of Jesus, the NT or the Gospel, is there any call or acceptance of forced conversions, acceptance of mass killings for religious reasons, calling on followers to slay infidels and so forth BUT in the Koran there is such a thing and it boggles my mind that YOU do not see the HUGE difference here.
By you view, all the atrocities committed by atheist regimes should be blamed on atheism even if atheism itself doesn't advocate mass murder as was done in China, Russia, Cambodia, Romania, etc.

It seems that you are not seeing what is actually happening NOW and has been happening since 700 AD ( or later really).
Muslim expansion and conversion via force has been a constant TO THIS DAY in Islam BECAUSE the religion demands it.

Do you not see the difference between people killing because their religion tells them to and people killing ( like they always have done) IN SPITE of what their religion tells them to?
If you really don't see the difference, don't understand it, then we truly have nothing more to discuss.

And bringing up western colonization is NOT relevant to this issue since everyone agrees that it is a huge part of the problem, you just don't see other religions of people that were also colonized killing people in terrorist attacks, do you?

And IF you wan tot bring up colonization, lets not forget that ISLAM STARTED expansion WAY BEFORE the west ever did.

[PaulSacramento]

Also , since history matters then we should learn from history, no?
And what has history taught us about Islamic expansion?

[Stu]

It's so bizarre listening to you going on and on about how Muslims want to conquer the world while somehow overlooking the fact that Christians did, in fact, literally conquer the world. Why do you suppose English is an official language in India? Why do you suppose people speak English in North America, Spanish in South America, and French in much of Africa? Who do you think drew up the borders for all of these African and Middle Eastern countries where the population is made up of competing ethnic groups? Why do you imagine there are American, French, and British troops deployed all over the East but no Muslim troops in the West? Nothing happens in a vacuum. History matters.

That wasn't Christianity that was the British Empire.
The crusades were in response to the Muslims spreading Islam through wars throughout the Africa and the Middle East.

Did you know much of the Middle East was Christian before the Muslims tore through it with war spreading Islam or death.

[PaulSacramento]

It's so bizarre listening to you going on and on about how Muslims want to conquer the world while somehow overlooking the fact that Christians did, in fact, literally conquer the world. Why do you suppose English is an official language in India? Why do you suppose people speak English in North America, Spanish in South America, and French in much of Africa? Who do you think drew up the borders for all of these African and Middle Eastern countries where the population is made up of competing ethnic groups? Why do you imagine there are American, French, and British troops deployed all over the East but no Muslim troops in the West? Nothing happens in a vacuum. History matters.

That wasn't Christianity that was the British Empire.
The crusades were in response to the Muslims spreading Islam through wars throughout the Africa and the Middle East.

Did you know much of the Middle East was Christian before the Muslims tore through it with war spreading Islam or death.

Ed knows that wasn't Christianity doing that but the various western empires.
There is NO central tenet in Christianity that advocates conquering the infidel and there IS in Islam.

[edwardmurphy]

That wasn't Christianity that was the British Empire.

It was the British, Spanish, Dutch, French, and Portuguese mainly, although other Western powers carved out slices of their own, as did Japan.

The part about it not being Christianity is an oversimplification, though. For most of the Colonial Era there was no separation of Church and State. Political, military, and religious leaders were all drawn from the same aristocratic families and generally worked toward common goals. So when the Conquistadors hit South America they represented both Spain and the Church. Spreading the word of God always went hand in hand with conquering, pillaging, and exploiting anyone too weak to protect themselves.

The crusades were in response to the Muslims spreading Islam through wars throughout the Africa and the Middle East.

Sure, Muslim pressure on the Byzantine Empire was part of the motivation for the eastern Crusades (as opposed to the northern Crusades, which were called to solidify the power of the Catholic Church by slaughtering European heretics and pagans), but it was hardly the only motivation. Islam wasn't really spreading at that point; it had been well established along the southern Mediterranean from the the Levant to Spain for hundreds of years. The great lords and merchants wanted to open trade and pilgrimage routes to the fabled East. The Church wanted to extend its influence and increase its prestige. The knights were offered a chance to rape and pillage in God's name and earn forgiveness for their sins in the process. And so on and so forth.

As it happened, the supposedly noble and Godly Crusaders were anything but. They pillaged their way across Europe, and when they liberated Byzantine territory they typically kept it for themselves. During the 4th Crusade they even sacked Constantinople.

Did you know much of the Middle East was Christian before the Muslims tore through it with war spreading Islam or death.

A few things here. First off, we're talking about an area that changed hands at least a dozen times over the centuries, ad the Muslim armies didn't come storming into some peaceful utopia that had never known the horrors of war.

Second, sure, some of the Middle East was Christian - mainly to the east - but a lot of it was Jewish, Zoroastrian, and pagan as well.

And Islam or death? Let's make a comparison here. In 614 the Jews of Jerusalem revolted against their Byzantine Christian overlords and gained independence for themselves. In 629 the Byzantines took Jerusalem back and massacred the Jews. In 637 the Muslims came along and took Jerusalem from the Byzantines and the remaining Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. The Muslims then rules Jerusalem for 400 years, until the Christian Crusaders took the city in 1099 and slaughtered the Jewish and Muslim citizens. Hmmm...

The fact is that the Crusaders were far more likely to slaughter everybody than the Muslims. Typically the Muslims just made the unbelievers pay higher taxes and left it at that. There's a reason that the Jews of Jerusalem manned the walls alongside the Muslim defenders when the Crusaders came knocking.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

Yes quite strange for Christians to go around killing Jews like that. But, it happened.

[PaulSacramento]

Sure Christians did bad things, horrific things, so did everyone else.
No one is saying that Christians were better people, only that they should have been better, which we all agree.
War drives people to do what they want, drives the "end justifies the means" mentality that is so very wrong.
Should the Christians have acted better? of course.
Should they have know better? of course.
And why do we KNOW that? why do we KNOW that they should have known and acted better?

[Hortator]

If you have to point out another group's bad behavior to justify your own, then you are implicitly admitting you are either no better, or only a little better.

I'm calling it: Ed is secretly Islamic. Come out of the palace, Ed.

[edwardmurphy]

I wasn't calling out bad behavior to justify other bad behavior. A massacre by Christians in 1099 does not excuse a suicide bombing by a Muslim in 2017. Stu some things about Islam and the Crusades that were inaccurate. I was attempting to set the record straight.

[PaulSacramento]

It is important to read BOTH sides of the argument ( crusades) to get the closet to what really happened.
There is too much revisionist history there, just like the myth of the so-called "dark ages".

[edwardmurphy]

True enough. I've never read a single Muslim, Byzantine, or Armenian, or northern European account of the events.

[Philip]

Anyone trying to define the dynamics of today, or to seek blame per the distant past - so pointless. Usually, looking for excuses to justify today's behavior and attitudes - by looking selectively and imperfectly at the past. I care about how people today think about and treat their fellow man living today.

[B. W.]

Anyone trying to define the dynamics of today, or to seek blame per the distant past - so pointless. Usually, looking for excuses to justify today's behavior and attitudes - by looking selectively and imperfectly at the past. I care about how people today think about and treat their fellow man living today.

Great point Philip, and true as well. It is the old equivalency argument strawman at work when folks bring up the past...

From what I understand about Islam is from the polling data...

https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org ... iah-jihad/

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the- ... ut-sharia/

From interviews and polls it is clears that Islam changes the meaning of the words. For example, peace means submission to Islam/Sharia law and not as how the majority of humanity defines peace. Likewise, the words radical or extremist in Islam when referenced to those like ISIS etc mean those that give Islam bad name by acting too fast to reach the goal of Global Sharia.

Get that, act too fast and thus taint Islam's slow infiltration and future overthrow of a foreign country by the slow but steady conquest by migration and political/cultural stealth. Polls show a large population of Muslims do indeed support Sharia but disagree on the method of implementing it either too fast ie Radical.... or just slow and steady...stealthy...

The World cannot afford to be naive...
-
-
-

[edwardmurphy]

Nobody is making an equivalency argument. I mentioned colonialism because it's relevant, and Stu brought up the Crusades.