Muslims kill more Christians, this time in Pakistan

[LaCroix]

Again, it depends. If there were thousands of people dying every year as a result of Christians butchering people, then when someone asks ND Christians what they think about that, what would you expect them to say?

If ND Christians were being recruited by radical elements to go fight, then I think it would very much be completely irresponsible for ND Christian religious leaders to NOT speak out about it.

I don't understand your objection here - religious leaders speak out against things their parishioners already know full well they should not do all the time. You think every Sunday's sermon is covering fresh new moral and ethical ground the people listening have never heard before?

to your first question, the same thing that normal muslims say today: "it's awful!"

would the ND priest know his parishioners were being recruited before they left to join the fight? I don't think so. I think the ND priest, once he knew of it, would absolutely speak out against it, just as I'm sure similarly placed imams do today.

you seem to be asking that the religious leaders constantly hammer home the notion that it's bad to become a violent extremist and murder innocent people. this is different than the occasional sermon that says violence/greed/whatever is bad.

[dps]

I don't understand your objection here - religious leaders speak out against things their parishioners already know full well they should not do all the time. You think every Sunday's sermon is covering fresh new moral and ethical ground the people listening have never heard before?

The key point is that preachers generally, in my experience, speak out against things that they know or suspect that members of their congregation do even though they shouldn't, or things that they figure some of their members are tempted to do.  I've heard preachers preach against cheating on your taxes, and I've heard them speak against cheating on you spouse.  While they might not have known exactly who was dosing what, they were probably right to figure that someone in their congregation was doing one or the other, or was at least tempted (though in the UMC at least, when they preach against drinking alcohol, they tend to look directly at certain members of their flock).  OTOH, I don't recall ever hearing a preacher preach against robbing a gas station and killing the attendant, because they figure it's not likely that anyone in their congregation is going to do that, or even be particularly tempted to do so.

[Berkut]

Again, it depends. If there were thousands of people dying every year as a result of Christians butchering people, then when someone asks ND Christians what they think about that, what would you expect them to say?

If ND Christians were being recruited by radical elements to go fight, then I think it would very much be completely irresponsible for ND Christian religious leaders to NOT speak out about it.

I don't understand your objection here - religious leaders speak out against things their parishioners already know full well they should not do all the time. You think every Sunday's sermon is covering fresh new moral and ethical ground the people listening have never heard before?

to your first question, the same thing that normal muslims say today: "it's awful!"

would the ND priest know his parishioners were being recruited before they left to join the fight? I don't think so. I think the ND priest, once he knew of it, would absolutely speak out against it, just as I'm sure similarly placed imams do today.

you seem to be asking that the religious leaders constantly hammer home the notion that it's bad to become a violent extremist and murder innocent people. this is different than the occasional sermon that says violence/greed/whatever is bad.

Uhhh, where did I say that?

Maybe we are talking past one another? I don't think Muslim imams should be spending all their time speaking out about terrorism. At least, not most of them.

[Berkut]

I don't understand your objection here - religious leaders speak out against things their parishioners already know full well they should not do all the time. You think every Sunday's sermon is covering fresh new moral and ethical ground the people listening have never heard before?

The key point is that preachers generally, in my experience, speak out against things that they know or suspect that members of their congregation do even though they shouldn't, or things that they figure some of their members are tempted to do.  I've heard preachers preach against cheating on your taxes, and I've heard them speak against cheating on you spouse.  While they might not have known exactly who was dosing what, they were probably right to figure that someone in their congregation was doing one or the other, or was at least tempted (though in the UMC at least, when they preach against drinking alcohol, they tend to look directly at certain members of their flock).  OTOH, I don't recall ever hearing a preacher preach against robbing a gas station and killing the attendant, because they figure it's not likely that anyone in their congregation is going to do that, or even be particularly tempted to do so.

No argument from me. I am not sure what the topic of this little sub-debate is anymore...

[Eddie Teach]

If they relay an anecdote about a guy who robbed a gas station, they'll be sure to note how wrong that is.

[Norgy]

Liquour stores are more profitable?

[Siege]

Fascinating thread.
This is probably the most sincere discussion about Islamic terrorism I have seen.

Perhaps the advantage of not being directly under their guns?

[Valmy]

Anyway I do think it is helpful, vital even, for Islamic clerics to condemn these people claiming they are acting on behalf of Islam. I mean, you know, these people are murdering thousands and thousands of Muslims. It would be weird if they did not oppose that.

[LaCroix]

Anyway I do think it is helpful, vital even, for Islamic clerics to condemn these people claiming they are acting on behalf of Islam. I mean, you know, these people are murdering thousands and thousands of Muslims. It would be weird if they did not oppose that.

they are

[Norgy]

Fascinating thread.
This is probably the most sincere discussion about Islamic terrorism I have seen.

Perhaps the advantage of not being directly under their guns?

Well, DAESH would like us to think we do live directly under their guns.
While there's probably more than an ounce of truth in that, we can't just surrender to fear.
But several European countries might want to invest a little more in their counter-terrorism policing efforts.

Maybe I would see things more like you if I lived in a country under permanent threat of missile attacks against civilians.

[Martinus]

Why do you call them DAESH, Norgy? It's not what they call themselves - they self-identify as the Islamic State. I thought being a politically correct liberal means one respects other people's preferred designations.

[Norgy]

Why do you call them DAESH, Norgy? It's not what they call themselves - they self-identify as the Islamic State. I thought being a politically correct liberal means one respects other people's preferred designations.

I picked it up from some Kurdish friends.
I know you think me hopelessly PC, but I don't think anyone with some sense left can see the DAESH/IS/ISIL as anything but a cancer. Stealing people in their prime of life.

[Martinus]

If the Islamic State is (say) lung cancer, then Islam is smoking. I am against banning cigarettes but I am not going around saying that they are harmless for you.

[Norgy]

For a pay you would. And then stash it away in the Seychelles. 

Heck, I have done work stuff I am obviously not proud of. But I have had two principles.

1) Never do copywriting for anyone I have some affection for
2) and never do anything for companies or other parties I loathe

[grumbler]

If the Islamic State is (say) lung cancer, then Islam is smoking. I am against banning cigarettes but I am not going around saying that they are harmless for you.

This is absurd.  It is the equivalent of arguing that, "if Sexual abuse by Catholic priests is cancer, then homosexuality is smoking.   I am against banning cigarettes but I am not going around saying that they are harmless for you."

Millions and millions of Muslims are as horrified by what IS and the Islamists are doing as any non-Muslim is.  Islam has some religious verses that can be twisted to seem to advocate violence, just as other religions do.

What seems to account for the wholly disproportionate representation of Muslims in global terrorism, IMO, is that Islam appeals to the oppressed far more than many other religions do, and so Islam is prevalent in the very areas where you might expect people to be pissed off enough and desperate enough to believe that they need to resort to violence to end their current crappy conditions.

I was listening to the (Muslim) Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia Saturday (he spoke at a conference at American University that i was attending), and a couple of things struck me that bear on the discussion we are having here:
(1) he used "Islamist" and "Islamic extremist" interchangeably
(2) he used Daesh, ISIL, Islamic State, and ISIS interchangeably
(3) he claimed that Malaysia's focus on rehabilitating violent Islamists was overwhelmingly successful (he claimed a 98% success rate over six years), and that such rehabilitation focused on improving the Islamists' education and job skills, because they became terrorists due to frustration with unsuccessful lives, and
(4) he argued that Malaysia's success with defeating communist insurrections and with reforming Islamists provided the best model for how the world should deal with not just domestic terrorists, but with the various Islamist groups. 

I know too many Muslims to believe that Islam is inherently violent, but also think that the whole "the word Islam means 'peace'" narrative is too silly for words; "islam" means "submission" in Arabic.