One question, If it has nothing to do with Islam, why are IS all Muslims ? To be honest J thats a bollicks statement, a bit like the IRA had nothing to do with catholicism, the two are intrinsincly linked. No Islam no nut case extremists, same as no catholics no IRA in belfast, it really is that simple.

How they interpret/hide behind thier religion is open for conjecture, the fact that it is directly linked to thier chosen brand of sky fairy is not.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

Unfortunately the Muslim world experienced a rapid deceleration of progress and complacency during the Ottoman era where militaristic expansion ensured and became wrongly associated with the continuation of the glory of a religion. After the fall of the Empire, it created a void of power and later came anger, jealousy and a lack of competitiveness against Western countries. But, this is not to say that Islam is not a religion of peace.

In the emergence of Islam and later during the rise of the Ottoman Empire (700s-1600s), Muslim philosophers and scientists (such as Ibn-i Arabi, Ibn-i Sina, Omar Khayyam) were way ahead of their (Christian) peers, highly innovative, including an extremely peaceful variant in the form of Sufis, whose works were very well-received and endorsed for centuries.

It is also during this period that Christianity and its associated kingdoms were in a crisis that would last hundreds of years and reach a point of desperation in the form of the Crusades; which were hundreds of years of violation of sovereignty of the Muslim nations. The historical rivalry across the religions originate as early as this period and school teachings in Muslim countries are still full of the glorious defenses that Islam, the Seljuks and the Abbasids built against the Christian "barbarians" as to their interpretation.

The reason why I went deep into history was only to make the point that violence is not embedded in any religion's teaching inherently but that it depended on many other things and its openness to interpretation was manipulated by the powerful. Just as Christianity was perceived as a menace to the Muslim world in its heydays centuries ago, today the Muslim radicals are causing problems in the Christian world. Only this should be enough to show that religions are not to blame, but it is their interpreters that are to blame.

Also, any generalization of the Muslim community as extremists or even an utterance of a made up 25% is a very ignorant claim to make and very misleading. I saw in an earlier post the number, 400 million Muslim extremists - pure nonsense.

Anybody who talks in such broad statements should most certainly avoid any further discussions on the particular sects of Islam or minorities of the Middle East, as they would be clueless about their origins, their historical sources of peace and rivalry, and more importantly how they stand vis-a-vis one another in today's balance of affairs. Wikipedia will not be enough to teach this and neither will superficial Western interpretations of the crisis in the Middle East - you really need something scientific, anthropological and historically detailed.

I come from the region, went to quite a few of the countries and still do business with clients in the region on a regular basis. I've seen very harsh interpretations of Islam, which I disliked and I've seen moderate and mild interpretations where similarities with the Western world were vast.

The everyday lives of the citizens of the Arab countries are not shaped by the lenses of Al Qaida or IS - and this includes the Saudi Arabians, where interpretation of the religion is tough if you're not from there. But, I assure you that (outside the very obvious places of conflict) there is no place in the Arab world that you as a Westerner would go and be penalized for that, if you respect the local rules as they can be sensitive. Saudi Arabia is difficult but not more than that. Qatar and the UAE, same. Turkey and North African countries, the same. Lebanon and Jordan, the same.

I hope you will patiently continue to do what's harder and avoid the easy way out, which is sweeping generalizations. It is such blanketing and patronizing statements that cause further polarization. Many Muslims don't feel comfortable in their own skins in the Western world as their category of identity is continuously being diminished in value by violent idiots that they cannot control the actions of thousands of miles away. I know it's hard, but you should try to empathize with the innocent as much as you highlight the obviously guilty.

This idea that Muslims who commit atrocities are not real Muslims needs to be challenged.
I think the problem when seen through western eyes is that many have great trouble accepting that those advocating the violence actually believe what they say they believe. After all, not many Christians truly accept every word of the Bible and hide behind metaphors that escaped the Biblical scholars of the previous 1500 years and cherry pick the bits they like.
ISIS supporters and Al Queda don't have any truck with such things. They really do believe in their medieval fantasies. So lets give them credit for their opens and consistency and accept them at their word when they say they want to destroy us - and destroy them first.

Yes, I am an agent of Satan but my duties are largely ceremonial

I agree that the majority of muslims,like the majority of all humankind, are peaceloving. At least I`d like to think we are.

However since you wrote..(quote)..

"Anybody who talks in such broad statements should most certainly avoid any further discussions on the particular sects of Islam or minorities of the Middle East, as they would be clueless about their origins, their historical sources of peace and rivalry, and more importantly how they stand vis-a-vis one another in today's balance of affairs."

I must ask, do you consider yourself to not be clueless in these matters?

The reason I ask is because of the part I have highlighted.

Did not the "hundreds of years of violation of sovereignty of the Muslim Nations" ie. The Crusades take place on lands which were formerly "christian", and conquered by islamic force in the 100 years or so from c.620AD?

If you yourself are not clueless, I can`t think why you would not have mentioned it. Not to do so is equally as disingenuous as not contiuing to.."patiently continue to do what's harder and avoid the easy way out, which is sweeping generalizations".

The christian crusaders were no worse, nor better, than the 7th century muslims.

Discussions like this one only serve to reinforce my personal belief: the world would be a much better more understanding and peaceful place if there was no religion.

Edited by lankygit (06 Mar 2015 10.42pm)

Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour? [Link]

No sitdown, I don`t believe it is.
As long as any religion harbours fundamentalist zealots among its numbers,it will not be a religion of peace.

Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour? [Link]

Again though, these are largely incidents of political power that utilise a Christian message to co-opt support and appeal. The KKK isn't technically Christian, its protestant, as it persecuted Catholics as well as blacks, jews etc.

But it serves as an useful parallel, in that it was entirely an organisation with religious practices and disciplines, that was entirely geared towards economical and political manipulation and power, rather than that of faith.

Effectively the Christian terrorists of their time.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]