The problem of Islamic radicalism

[Berkut]

Sure Berkut, what you think you are talking about, only you can know.  We can but read your words and make comment about what you say.  And what you are saying has some significant flaws.

Is all he is saying is that Islamic terrorism is Islamic? Seems pretty straightforward. I have no reason to believe the KKK didn't think they were doing God ordained holy work as well.

Yeah, I made that point up thread.  If all Berkut was doing is commenting on the fact that Islamic terrorists happen to also be Islamic then there would be no need for a stand alone thread.   But he argues that further conclusions should be drawn about the causes of terrorism (in the case of his argument the cause of terrorism).

Fuck off CC.

I've *explicitly* denied that I make any claim that Islam causes terrorism, and yet you repeat it again as if I said exactly the opposite.

Really?  Maybe you should go read your OP again.  If you are not trying to say that radical muslim religious belief is the cause of the terrorism then you have not communicated what it is you are thinking very well.

Radical Muslim religious belief is what drives radical Muslim terrorism - that is not even remotely the same as saying that terrorism is caused by religion. Your dishonesty is tiresome.

[crazy canuck]

Sure Berkut, what you think you are talking about, only you can know.  We can but read your words and make comment about what you say.  And what you are saying has some significant flaws.

Is all he is saying is that Islamic terrorism is Islamic? Seems pretty straightforward. I have no reason to believe the KKK didn't think they were doing God ordained holy work as well.

Acccording to many on the left, the KKK were probably motivated by a hundred different reasons, none of which had anything to do with religion.

Now, in this particular instance I think you can make good arguments that religion was more of a secondary justification for their actions, whereas with Islamic extremism it seems to be much more of a primary factor.

Those guys lining people up and machine gunning them into ditches (and yes, Minsky et al I am perfectly aware that they did not invent the idea of shooting large numbers of people lined up in ditches)? They really do believe that this is necessary in order to establish Allah's version of the "correct" state.

You tell me to "fuck off" and then you badly mischaracterize the argument  the "left" (a handy label you seem to use as a pejorative) is making.  At times like this you come across as a small minded small man (not in the sense of size of course).  Of course human behavior is influenced by a large number of factors.  Of course Islamic Terrorists are not terrorists just because of the form of religion they identify with and of course people didn't join the KKK just because of their particular brand of Christianity.

And yet you still insist in saying what they "really do believe" - as if you have some kind of special incite into what is really motivating those people.   

[crazy canuck]

Sure Berkut, what you think you are talking about, only you can know.  We can but read your words and make comment about what you say.  And what you are saying has some significant flaws.

Is all he is saying is that Islamic terrorism is Islamic? Seems pretty straightforward. I have no reason to believe the KKK didn't think they were doing God ordained holy work as well.

Yeah, I made that point up thread.  If all Berkut was doing is commenting on the fact that Islamic terrorists happen to also be Islamic then there would be no need for a stand alone thread.   But he argues that further conclusions should be drawn about the causes of terrorism (in the case of his argument the cause of terrorism).

Fuck off CC.

I've *explicitly* denied that I make any claim that Islam causes terrorism, and yet you repeat it again as if I said exactly the opposite.

Really?  Maybe you should go read your OP again.  If you are not trying to say that radical muslim religious belief is the cause of the terrorism then you have not communicated what it is you are thinking very well.

Radical Muslim religious belief is what drives radical Muslim terrorism - that is not even remotely the same as saying that terrorism is caused by religion. Your dishonesty is tiresome.

What is the difference between saying their religious belief "drives" terrorism and saying it "causes" terrorism?

Your failure to accept that life is more nuanced then your simplistic view that a particular religious belief is the cause, or driver, of terrorism is not only tiresome it is dangerous as it seems to be what is informing the political reaction of your country. Can't let those untrustworthy Muslims in don't you know. 

[Razgovory]

As evidenced by this contingent, who (as an example) were just insisting that radicalism is a small fraction of the Islamic community, which we shown to simply be untrue. When majority populations of large countries believe that Sharia law (to include the death penalty for apostasy and adultery) is the way the state should be organized, you cannot possibly argue that the issue is a minor problem of some small minority of view "like Fred Phelps".

Yet nobody who made that analogy has even acknowledged how terrible flawed it is...

A majority of Syrians voted for Assad, just like a majority of Iraquis voted for Saddam and a majority of Koreans approve Kim Jong Un.

Look at Raif Badawi:

Secularism respects everyone and does not offend anyone ... Secularism ... is the practical solution to lift countries (including ours) out of the third world and into the first world.

I'm not in support of the Israeli occupation of any Arab country, but at the same time I do not want to replace Israel by a religious state ... whose main concern would be spreading the culture of death and ignorance among its people when we need modernisation and hope. States based on religious ideology ... have nothing except the fear of God and an inability to face up to life. Look at what had happened after the European peoples succeeded in removing the clergy from public life and restricting them to their churches. They built up human beings and (promoted) enlightenment, creativity and rebellion. States which are based on religion confine their people in the circle of faith and fear.

For saying this, he was gound guilty and condemned to 1000 lashes, 10 years in prison and a huge fine.
How many people do you expect to answer truthfully how they feel about sharia law in such states?

I don't think we can derive that much deep meaning from a few polls conducted in non free arab worlds.  I know Saudi Arabia is a wet dream of a State for people like Raz and Jacob who believe secularism is bad, but you should not be confused as to the consequences of expressing an opinion in a poll that differs from the current laws.

These are polls being conducted in states where there is no particular reason to believe that the results are not broadly accurate.

The Pew Poll, for example, found that in Egypt 64% of respondents support the death penalty for apostasy. That means that about a third of the respondents apparently did not feel that their answers would get them in trouble.

So I guess we can argue the numbers, but frankly I find them alarming whether it is 64% or 50% or 40%.

I wonder how many people in the US want to deport all Muslims regardless of citizenship.  Or France.  Or Britain.

[Berkut]

Sure Berkut, what you think you are talking about, only you can know.  We can but read your words and make comment about what you say.  And what you are saying has some significant flaws.

Is all he is saying is that Islamic terrorism is Islamic? Seems pretty straightforward. I have no reason to believe the KKK didn't think they were doing God ordained holy work as well.

Acccording to many on the left, the KKK were probably motivated by a hundred different reasons, none of which had anything to do with religion.

Now, in this particular instance I think you can make good arguments that religion was more of a secondary justification for their actions, whereas with Islamic extremism it seems to be much more of a primary factor.

Those guys lining people up and machine gunning them into ditches (and yes, Minsky et al I am perfectly aware that they did not invent the idea of shooting large numbers of people lined up in ditches)? They really do believe that this is necessary in order to establish Allah's version of the "correct" state.

You tell me to "fuck off" and then you badly mischaracterize the argument  the "left" (a handy label you seem to use as a pejorative) is making.  At times like this you come across as a small minded small man (not in the sense of size of course).  Of course human behavior is influenced by a large number of factors.  Of course Islamic Terrorists are not terrorists just because of the form of religion they identify with and of course people didn't join the KKK just because of their particular brand of Christianity.

And yet you still insist in saying what they "really do believe" - as if you have some kind of special incite into what is really motivating those people.   

I don't think it takes any special insight at all into what motivates them - they've been telling us in no uncertain terms what motivates them all along.

It takes special insight, that apparently I lack, to deny that and come up with Ali Baba 1,001 Reasons Other Than Religion for what motivates them.

I am taking them at their word.

And I tell you to fuck off because I am tired of you just straight out lying about what I say, when you know you are lying, but you simply do not care.

[Berkut]

Sure Berkut, what you think you are talking about, only you can know.  We can but read your words and make comment about what you say.  And what you are saying has some significant flaws.

Is all he is saying is that Islamic terrorism is Islamic? Seems pretty straightforward. I have no reason to believe the KKK didn't think they were doing God ordained holy work as well.

Yeah, I made that point up thread.  If all Berkut was doing is commenting on the fact that Islamic terrorists happen to also be Islamic then there would be no need for a stand alone thread.   But he argues that further conclusions should be drawn about the causes of terrorism (in the case of his argument the cause of terrorism).

Fuck off CC.

I've *explicitly* denied that I make any claim that Islam causes terrorism, and yet you repeat it again as if I said exactly the opposite.

Really?  Maybe you should go read your OP again.  If you are not trying to say that radical muslim religious belief is the cause of the terrorism then you have not communicated what it is you are thinking very well.

Radical Muslim religious belief is what drives radical Muslim terrorism - that is not even remotely the same as saying that terrorism is caused by religion. Your dishonesty is tiresome.

What is the difference between saying their religious belief "drives" terrorism and saying it "causes" terrorism?

The difference is between saying that specific religious beliefs drive specific acts of terrorism (what I said) and saying that religion in general drives terrorism (which is your lie you made up, since I sure as hell never said it).

Your failure to accept that life is more nuanced then your simplistic view that a particular religious belief is the cause, or driver, of terrorism is not only tiresome it is dangerous as it seems to be what is informing the political reaction of your country. Can't let those untrustworthy Muslims in don't you know

And here you repeat the lie AGAIN, despite me now disavowing it explicitly at least three times in the last hour.

And for the record, I have (as you of course know) consistently supported allowing refugees, and lots of them, into the US.

Don't let what I say stop you from lying out your ass about it though.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think it takes any special insight at all into what motivates them - they've been telling us in no uncertain terms what motivates them all along.

And that is the problem.  The unthinking reaction of the right as to the causal factors of terrorism is the real problem here.  Unfortunately it is the dominant view of the nation on earth that is also the most powerful.

Since you demand a simplistic explanation for things here it is.  JR's view = double plus good.  I wish more Americans were like that. 

[crazy canuck]

The difference is between saying that specific religious beliefs drive specific acts of terrorism (what I said) and saying that religion in general drives terrorism (which is your lie you made up, since I sure as hell never said it).

Interesting back pedal.  My claim is that your view that a specific religious belief is the driver or cause of terrorism is overly simplistic and itself dangerous.   If you go back to my first post responding to you, you will see you are the one dishonestly characterizing my argument.   

[Jacob]

Alright Berkut, *these* particular people commit terrorist violence because their god tells them to, as you say.

Well no, I say they do it because they believe that their god tells them to - personally, I don't buy it. But I believe them when they say that they do...

What do we do with this conclusion?

Not sure - the "correct" response is not easy to figure out, and lots of people smarter than myself have tried, and are trying.

What I do know though is that your odds of coming up with a workable solution are greatly diminished if you insist on pretending that the motivations of the people we are trying to influence are something other than that they actually are...

Okay, accepting those qualifications then, you contend that the best approach for dealing with radical Muslim terrorists is to accept that their motivation is that they genuinely believe they're doing their god's work. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying this is the single most significant factor, and we should base our response on that.

Given that, I'm curious about your view on a number of things that potentially follow.

For example, does the fact we hold that it's primarily an issue of Islam affect how we approach the conflicts in the Middle East? Does it change how we assess and address public safety domestically? Or is it more of an academic issue that does not have practical consequences?

There are people who agree with the basic premise you postulate, who then conclude that since Islam inherently carries danger within it, it then justifies forbidding the building of mosques/ dressing like a Muslim, or then justifies closing the door hard on Muslim refugees, or then justifies a registry of Muslim citizens since they are suspect due to their faith.

Just because the reasoning starts from a shared truth - that Islam has something about it that makes its followers especially prone to terrorist violence - does not mean you end up in the same place, of course. So what I'm curious about is where along the line of reasoning you disagree, and on what grounds.

[Jacob]

I think in the back your mind you have an idea what to do, but you are still decent enough to know it is wrong.

I think this is being patently unfair to Berkut.

[Jacob]

more handwringing in order not to admit that the core of religion is rotten, and that it has been made impossible to criticise that core unless you have a deathwish or round-the-clock-security. Something this is apparently even impossible for certain people in the West to admit.

Okay, so the core of the religion is rotten. What next?

Expulsion of Muslims from Belgium, forbidding wearing symbols - direct or indirect - of Islam, closing the doors to Muslim refugees? Something else?

[Martinus]

more handwringing in order not to admit that the core of religion is rotten, and that it has been made impossible to criticise that core unless you have a deathwish or round-the-clock-security. Something this is apparently even impossible for certain people in the West to admit.

Okay, so the core of the religion is rotten. What next?

Expulsion of Muslims from Belgium, forbidding wearing symbols - direct or indirect - of Islam, closing the doors to Muslim refugees? Something else?

Support moderate Muslims, take a stronger stance protecting those within the Islamic countries, cut ties to the autocratic and theocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, dedicate resources to civil rights education among Muslim communities in the West, make it clear to all (including Muslims and non Muslims) that there is a certain liberal minimum that must be followed (women's rights, gay rights, ability to leave religion) and within this minimum enforce ruthlessly the right to diversity (so equally harshly punish those who would want to force a woman to wear a veil as those who would attack her for wearing one).

[crazy canuck]

Ruthlessly enforce the right to diversity.  I like that turn of phrase Marti. 

[Martinus]

Ruthlessly enforce the right to diversity.  I like that turn of phrase Marti. 

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic, but I think we should stick to our principles, but we should not mistake them for being soft. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, as some wise man once said.

And one of the main compoments of this is protecting equality under law. We should be equally ruthless in protecting the right of a muslim guy to be gay or a muslim girl to abandon her religion as we should be in protecting the right of a muslim guy to pray 5 times a day or a muslim girl to wear a head scarf.

[Jacob]

Support moderate Muslims, take a stronger stance protecting those within the Islamic countries, cut ties to the autocratic and theocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, dedicate resources to civil rights education among Muslim communities in the West.

I don't have any particular objections to these actions, at least on the face of it, but I'm not sure I see how that follows from accepting that Islam carries within in it the seeds for terroristic violence to a particular degree as that, presumably, applies to moderate Muslims as well.

On the last point, we've had long discussions here about what approaches work best for integrating Muslims - and others - into liberal societies. Personally, I think the recent (well, from this summer) Ontario incident of three sisters with the surname Mohamed who were in the news for being topless on a hot summer day in spite of illegal attempts to stop them is an illustration that the Canadian approach works