If you believe in Islamophobia...

[blastingcap]

So, concerning Radical Islam, or whatever term gets criticism these days, I see that making religion the center if the problem . . . . IS the problem.

No. In the secular Western world, religion is compartmentalized and you can swap religion at will. But Islam is much more deeply embedded in a state's psyche and government apparatus, such as the Islamic religious police. Also, leaving Islam is punishable by death. I encourage you to ask questions at https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim if you want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes. As one person there recently posted, the problem is that people who grew up in non-Muslim-majority countries have a certain experience with religion and think that it's the same way in Muslim-majority countries, so they don't understand.

There this this phony idea that all religions are created equal. In actuality all religions are just cults. Some cults are better than others, in terms of real-life consequences.

Also, the whole idea of respecting religions and dismissing cults is fucking stupid since they are the same thing. The only difference is popularity and longevity. I were to create a cult of personality advocating what the Quran and Mohammed did, you would call me a cult leader. (Same thing with Christianity except that if I really did walk on water and do whole fish-and-loaves thing, then you had better pay attention to me.

You have to examine the history of the Middle East since World War I. It was sliced and diced by the European powers. And they sliced it and diced it for essentially the same reason that made sure England entered WWI: The Turks were going to blockade the Suez and stop vital oil shipments.

Why were the Nazis and Rommel running around all over North Africa? Take a look at Germany's oil production today as well as then. 50,000 barrels a year doesn't fuel the Autobahn. Hitler might have won the Battle of Stalingrad if he hadn't split the Panzer divisions to take the Baku oil fields in the south.

Then, there's Iran. Most of the cornpone half-wit Americans think the '79 hostage crisis was all about our support for Israel. Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA had overthrown a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister -- Mossadegh -- and installed Shah Rezi Pahlavi around 1952. Iran was our client state. The coup was made on behalf of the British, who didn't want to pay royalties for their oil, while Iranian oil-workers were being paid $0.50 per day. As the Shah's position weakened, he created SAVAK -- a brutal secret police organization, trained at Fort Benning.

WE were told, back in the 1950s, that Mossadegh was a socialist and aligning himself with the Communist Bloc. But all Mossadegh wanted was fair compensation for oil. The Brits offered to help us with Korea in exchange for unseating Mossadegh.

So OF COURSE they hate us.

Iraq? Could never have been a nation-state by itself. It was forged after WWI with the Balfour Declarations. Why? It's STILL the third largest proven petroleum reserve in the world. They never fully embraced a national identity, but ALWAYS clung to their tribal and religious identities.


NOW. Let me ask a question.

What do Adam Lanza, Holmes of Aurora, Dylan Roof, the Clackamas killer, Christopher Dorner and several others -- seem to have in common?

Americans seem to get confused about legal standards representing the entire truth of a matter. Even if these villains would not have been found unable to stand trial for mental defect or insanity -- that's the LEGAL standard. ALL of those killers were pathologically nuts.

From bin Laden and Al Qaeda forward, you either have to say they're just plain criminal, or they're criminally insane.

What end-game do they have? What's their strategy? Their strategy is the same as Charles Manson's or Dylan Roof's! "Divide the masses; create an apocalyptic conflict."

Our misfit recruits for ISIS are more of the same human flotsam. They are either seriously disturbed and in need of psychological counseling, or ignorant -- or both. What's their idea of education? ONE BOOK. Anything other than a bomb-making manual is useless to them.

So -- while the terrorists of ISIS should be feared to some degree or a cause for concern, they are also to be derided and laughed at. Just think! A propaganda of the Truth that would boost MSNBC's loser weekend fare of "Lockup" and "Caught on Camera:" "Osama skips his meds;" "Al Zawahiri meets his shrink to discuss his progress dealing with issues about his mother and sister."

Back to "Catholic." I really like Pope Francis. I think he's a wonderful person, and a wise man. But he's made two mistakes these recent weeks that betray his flawed humanity similar to everyone else: he said "This is like World War III." And he's going to visit five African countries, offering a temptation to Boko Haram and others to perform the ultimate outrage and leave the global impression that this is "World War III."

Those lunatics never deserved the recognition of having "America at War." Should've called it a "police action" even for the same level of troop insertion and spending.

Look more closely. The terrorists have hijacked Islam with the goal of making the world THINK this is a Holy War. The Quran-burning hick preacher in Florida, Mike Huckabee and the rest of the evangelicals have all swallowed the bait. MY CAR MECHANIC has swallowed the bait! That's the war THEY (the terrorists) want us to fight.

If you define the conflict, then you have much more certainty of winning it.

So I say -- give us and the world many many weekends of "Lockup: Gitmo" and "Caught on Camera: bin Laden picks his nose." Over . . . and over again . . .

Leave our SANE Muslim brothers and sisters alone.

ADDENDUM: I forgot to ask the second question. "What do Adam Lanza, Dylan Roof, Manson and the others have in common with the Paris killers?" Not Islam. But you'd think the Paris misfits have no capability of original thought: they read the news about Sandy Hook, Aurora and South Carolina. They're a bunch of copy-cats. The detritus of history -- nothing more.

As for the rest of your post, nobody is saying that Islam is the sole source of resentment. However, your history is way off.

E.g., your "of course they hate us" bit... who is "they"? Take your interpretation of the Iranian revolution for instance. Did you know the revolution was led by multiple factions and the Islamists murdered their opponents and hijacked it to the point where many people today who don't know better, think it was an Islamic revolution against a tyrant? And that the Iranian people actually aren't THAT mad at the US/UK anymore for the coup despite decades of propaganda? The hardcore Islamic Iranian leadership is the one trying to shift the spotlight off Iran's internal problems, with tons of propaganda against Israel and the US.

Also, you need to step way back to see the forest instead of the trees with your "The terrorists have hijacked Islam" argument. It goes way farther back than that. Many people of various religions have tried to steer religious fervor for their private gains--including using religion as pretext for wars of aggression, as Muslims (and Christians, etc.) have done. Indeed the US looked the other way re: decades of Saudi Wahhabi proselytization in part due to world reliance on Saudi oil and in part because DOD thought we could use jihadis to curb Soviet influence in Afghanistan. The veterans of that war would go on to form AQ, which would in part turn into Daesh later on. You reap what you sow.

However that does not change the fact that Islam is alone among major faiths is how overzealously confident it is, and how difficult it is to secularize it. Secularization of Islam doesn't make any sense if you know how the Caliphate and Sharia law are supposed to work. Islam really is different from the other major religions whether you want to believe so or not.

As for your "leave our SANE Muslims alone" plea, I would say that a better way to phrase that is that the entire world but especially other Muslims must rise up against Wahhabism and stuff that genie back into the Saudi bottle it came from.

As for your addendum: cherrypicking non-Islamic crimes is nonsensical because nobody said Islam has a monopoly on evil, in the first place.

Also, if you are a liberal or moderate and want to understand why Islam is incompatible with secular and liberal values, see: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37859619&postcount=65

 

[BonzaiDuck]

No. In the secular Western world, religion is compartmentalized and you can swap religion at will. But Islam is much more deeply embedded in a state's psyche and government apparatus, such as the Islamic religious police. Also, leaving Islam is punishable by death. I encourage you to ask questions at https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim if you want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes. As one person there recently posted, the problem is that people who grew up in non-Muslim-majority countries have a certain experience with religion and think that it's the same way in Muslim-majority countries, so they don't understand.

There this this phony idea that all religions are created equal. In actuality all religions are just cults. Some cults are better than others, in terms of real-life consequences.

Also, the whole idea of respecting religions and dismissing cults is fucking stupid since they are the same thing. The only difference is popularity and longevity. I were to create a cult of personality advocating what the Quran and Mohammed did, you would call me a cult leader. (Same thing with Christianity except that if I really did walk on water and do whole fish-and-loaves thing, then you had better pay attention to me.



As for the rest of your post, nobody is saying that Islam is the sole source of resentment. However, your history is way off.

E.g., your "of course they hate us" bit... who is "they"? Take your interpretation of the Iranian revolution for instance. Did you know the revolution was led by multiple factions and the Islamists murdered their opponents and hijacked it to the point where many people today who don't know better, think it was an Islamic revolution against a tyrant? And that the Iranian people actually aren't THAT mad at the US/UK anymore for the coup despite decades of propaganda? The hardcore Islamic Iranian leadership is the one trying to shift the spotlight off Iran's internal problems, with tons of propaganda against Israel and the US.

Also, you need to step way back to see the forest instead of the trees with your "The terrorists have hijacked Islam" argument. It goes way farther back than that. Many people of various religions have tried to steer religious fervor for their private gains--including using religion as pretext for wars of aggression, as Muslims (and Christians, etc.) have done. Indeed the US looked the other way re: decades of Saudi Wahhabi proselytization in part due to world reliance on Saudi oil and in part because DOD thought we could use jihadis to curb Soviet influence in Afghanistan. The veterans of that war would go on to form AQ, which would in part turn into Daesh later on. You reap what you sow.

However that does not change the fact that Islam is alone among major faiths is how overzealously confident it is, and how difficult it is to secularize it. Secularization of Islam doesn't make any sense if you know how the Caliphate and Sharia law are supposed to work. Islam really is different from the other major religions whether you want to believe so or not.

As for your "leave our SANE Muslims alone" plea, I would say that a better way to phrase that is that the entire world but especially other Muslims must rise up against Wahhabism and stuff that genie back into the Saudi bottle it came from.

As for your addendum: cherrypicking non-Islamic crimes is nonsensical because nobody said Islam has a monopoly on evil, in the first place.

Also, if you are a liberal or moderate and want to understand why Islam is incompatible with secular and liberal values, see: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37859619&postcount=65

I could say I agree with much of that, but both the behavior and the ideology of the Looney-Toons is essentially an attempt to return the world to a 15th century morality and status-quo. That's why I asked "What is their end-game and strategy?"

There's nothing crazier than that, and it simply cannot succeed. Islam is spread across vast reaches of the globe, in places -- societies that accept pluralism as a concept. The repressive regimes caught in the cross-fire of Cold War manipulation kept a lid on the nonsense while facilitating a transformation to modernity. But everything the Psychos advocate is really a challenge to all of civilization.

On Iran, it was a "poor people's" revolution, and I can understand how it was hijacked by the ignorant Quran-thumping crowd. But it has a large educated middle-class.

So back to my point. Accepting this as a clash of "civilizations" is to equate the radicals with "a civilization." It follows their playbook. The Russians or the Chinese will no more accept that playbook than the EU or the Americas.

If you want to call them "evil," well -- that's what they are. Ted Kascinski was "evil." He was also certifiably nuts.

But in this case, I'm not cherrypicking "non-Islamic" mass-murders. Or the deranged strategy. Roof and Manson had an agenda; Adam Lanza and Holmes didn't.

There may have been something "innovative" in the 911 attacks: the cell-leader (forgot his name) had studied architecture in Germany and analyzed the twin-towers. But these guys? Copy-cats. Since the issue of sanity seems to cover just about any mass-murder in the US of recent years, it says something about the frailty of what we're up against with ISIS.

You have to be pretty desperate as well as deranged to follow a pattern already established as deranged.

But if we must, we can say they not only challenge civilization, but the Secular State which is now established as a mainstay of civilization. They're like disturbed children acting out in a Law and Order episode.

But again -- reacting to the situation as if we're Richard the Lionheart in the Crusades, an evangelical knee-jerk -- it validates the radicals. There's a German expression about bad wine: "It has no home." While the terrorists in Iraq and Syria are trying to establish a "caliphate" and a nation-state, there is no home for it.

It's a desperate and unrealistic end-game. Or -- as I said -- it's insane.

And sure -- cultists . . . Jim Jones or David Koresh are other examples -- all aberrations. Not that much sane about those examples, either.

 

[blastingcap]

You asked about end game. Frankly, if you're a hardcore Islamist then the universe will never be at "peace" until all humans are Muslim. Look at it from their perspective--they think they are doing non-Muslims a favor by spreading the faith... they are saving us from hell. Of course, "peace" isn't really peace. It means suppressing women, gays, etc. and even if everyone were Muslim, there would still be wars. Look at the Muslim on Muslim violence in the Middle East right now for example. It never ends.

I see where you are coming from, because it's a more realistic thing to try to get as many people against Wahhabism as possible and hope that Islam moderates and eventually goes away. In fact, I agree with you on that... it's the most realistic strategy. Unfortunately it requires Muslims themselves to push back hard against Wahhabism, and they don't seem that fervent about it, because hardcore fundies will attack them for it. Which is why I advocate for getting the entire world off oil dependence (cutting off funds for Wahhabi propaganda) and giving free, mandatory, real (not Quran-memorizing) education to Muslim girls (in the hopes they can make something of themselves instead of becoming chattel and propagating fundamentalism).

Ideally though, there would be no more religions/cults ASAP, as they can be easily hijacked--as they have proven time and time again throughout history. That goes for all religions/cults.

That doesn't mean that atheists can't commit crimes, of course, but at least atheists can't just go "well God said so" to justify actions. There is more of a chance of reason to prevail.

I'm not making that up, either. See, e.g., http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study

“Overall, our findings ... contradict the commonsense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind towards others,” said the authors of The Negative Association Between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism Across the World, published this week in Current Biology.
“More generally, they call into question whether religion is vital for moral development, supporting the idea that secularisation of moral discourse will not reduce human kindness – in fact, it will do just the opposite.”


And: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0115-zuckerman-secular-parenting-20150115-story.html

So how does the raising of upstanding, moral children work without prayers at mealtimes and morality lessons at Sunday school? Quite well, it seems.Far from being dysfunctional, nihilistic and rudderless without the security and rectitude of religion, secular households provide a sound and solid foundation for children, according to Vern Bengston, a USC professor of gerontology and sociology.

I could say I agree with much of that, but both the behavior and the ideology of the Looney-Toons is essentially an attempt to return the world to a 15th century morality and status-quo. That's why I asked "What is their end-game and strategy?"

There's nothing crazier than that, and it simply cannot succeed. Islam is spread across vast reaches of the globe, in places -- societies that accept pluralism as a concept. The repressive regimes caught in the cross-fire of Cold War manipulation kept a lid on the nonsense while facilitating a transformation to modernity. But everything the Psychos advocate is really a challenge to all of civilization.

On Iran, it was a "poor people's" revolution, and I can understand how it was hijacked by the ignorant Quran-thumping crowd. But it has a large educated middle-class.

So back to my point. Accepting this as a clash of "civilizations" is to equate the radicals with "a civilization." It follows their playbook. The Russians or the Chinese will no more accept that playbook than the EU or the Americas.

If you want to call them "evil," well -- that's what they are. Ted Kascinski was "evil." He was also certifiably nuts.

But in this case, I'm not cherrypicking "non-Islamic" mass-murders. Or the deranged strategy. Roof and Manson had an agenda; Adam Lanza and Holmes didn't.

There may have been something "innovative" in the 911 attacks: the cell-leader (forgot his name) had studied architecture in Germany and analyzed the twin-towers. But these guys? Copy-cats. Since the issue of sanity seems to cover just about any mass-murder in the US of recent years, it says something about the frailty of what we're up against with ISIS.

You have to be pretty desperate as well as deranged to follow a pattern already established as deranged.

But if we must, we can say they not only challenge civilization, but the Secular State which is now established as a mainstay of civilization. They're like disturbed children acting out in a Law and Order episode.

But again -- reacting to the situation as if we're Richard the Lionheart in the Crusades, an evangelical knee-jerk -- it validates the radicals. There's a German expression about bad wine: "It has no home." While the terrorists in Iraq and Syria are trying to establish a "caliphate" and a nation-state, there is no home for it.

It's a desperate and unrealistic end-game. Or -- as I said -- it's insane.

And sure -- cultists . . . Jim Jones or David Koresh are other examples -- all aberrations. Not that much sane about those examples, either.

 

[IGBT]

your obama is Ameriphobic..and expresses this with every utterance and action.

 

[brycejones]

your obama is Ameriphobic..and expresses this with every utterance and action.

Needs more eco kook.....-1

 

[Brian Stirling]

Needs more eco kook.....-1

IGBT has suffered too many lightening strikes!


Brian

 

[BonzaiDuck]

You asked about end game. Frankly, if you're a hardcore Islamist then the universe will never be at "peace" until all humans are Muslim. Look at it from their perspective--they think they are doing non-Muslims a favor by spreading the faith... they are saving us from hell. Of course, "peace" isn't really peace. It means suppressing women, gays, etc. and even if everyone were Muslim, there would still be wars. Look at the Muslim on Muslim violence in the Middle East right now for example. It never ends.

I see where you are coming from, because it's a more realistic thing to try to get as many people against Wahhabism as possible and hope that Islam moderates and eventually goes away. In fact, I agree with you on that... it's the most realistic strategy. Unfortunately it requires Muslims themselves to push back hard against Wahhabism, and they don't seem that fervent about it, because hardcore fundies will attack them for it. Which is why I advocate for getting the entire world off oil dependence (cutting off funds for Wahhabi propaganda) and giving free, mandatory, real (not Quran-memorizing) education to Muslim girls (in the hopes they can make something of themselves instead of becoming chattel and propagating fundamentalism).

Ideally though, there would be no more religions/cults ASAP, as they can be easily hijacked--as they have proven time and time again throughout history. That goes for all religions/cults.

That doesn't mean that atheists can't commit crimes, of course, but at least atheists can't just go "well God said so" to justify actions. There is more of a chance of reason to prevail.

I'm not making that up, either. See, e.g., http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study

“Overall, our findings ... contradict the commonsense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind towards others,” said the authors of The Negative Association Between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism Across the World, published this week in Current Biology.
“More generally, they call into question whether religion is vital for moral development, supporting the idea that secularisation of moral discourse will not reduce human kindness – in fact, it will do just the opposite.”


And: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0115-zuckerman-secular-parenting-20150115-story.html

So how does the raising of upstanding, moral children work without prayers at mealtimes and morality lessons at Sunday school? Quite well, it seems.Far from being dysfunctional, nihilistic and rudderless without the security and rectitude of religion, secular households provide a sound and solid foundation for children, according to Vern Bengston, a USC professor of gerontology and sociology.

Those had been my thoughts exactly. The underlying factor to be removed and benefit all would be oil. It's tied to war and foreign policy as well as climate change and looming resource depletion.

If it were possible to make every nation energy independent -- or go a long way toward making energy free and abundant, it would resolve much.

There is mass psychology, and too many Americans are either ignorant of their own collective behavior or deny that propaganda campaigns have been orchestrated to affect public opinion. It works primarily because we're taught the Individual is supreme, everybody is different, and pluralistic media can't be a tool of manipulation. So, if "I'm an individual; I'm smart; I'm not average," then I can't be deceived. But that conclusion just makes it more likely that we can be deceived.

At the same time, how we react to these screwballs will determine something as to how they behave in the future. They've learned how to "press our buttons."

 

[Omar F1]

I'd like to comment on few points where I might add some insight, or otherwise disagree with.

The point you seem to be missing is that Muslims in the US hold views that are non-representative of the average Muslim worldwide. Muslims in the US tend to be more secular, and more tolerant of other religions... that's great, but that's only something like 3 or 4 million people out of a worldwide Muslim population of 1.6 BILLION people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Demographics (Side note: American blacks who convert to Islam because they are pissed off that slavery existed in the US under Christianity are completely ironic morons IMHO. The slave trade in Africa flourished under Islam, the Quran's precious Prophet owned slaves himself, etc. In fact, Saudi Arabia didn't ban slavery until the 1962, almost a CENTURY LATER than in the USA and only because of international outcry, not due to a religious change of heart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline)

You'd be surprised after you travel around the Middle East region on how many American-muslims-like people you might meet. And that does also applies to Saudi Arabia, one of the most conservative countries in the world.

Banning slavery has nothing to do with religion. I never came across some official 'fatwa' (religious statement/order) that clearly bans slavery from now on.

As for the Prophet, he owned two female war-slaves but he married them immediately before being touched, as far as I know. Thus, I consider he never kept slaves under his custody.

Bear in mind, that Mohamed is the most 'Islamic iconic character' that we must follow his habits, acts and morals. By that, I personally think that sex-slaves subject is a bit over exaggerated (at early Islamic age). Honestly I don't think his first followers were eager for sexual-interaction with their slaves as the current belief going on these days.

By the way, I'm eager to know the muslims population-breakdown between the US and Europe.
Our mentality differs from region to another, with some being much more fked-up when religion hypocrisy is evolved (i.e. using religious propaganda to accomplish political goals; exactly like what is going on these days).

The problem is definitely not Ibadis... Allah bless them. It ain't the Shiites either. (Although Shia-controlled states like Iran and Syria harbored AQ for years and during the 2003 Iraqi war, they did so apparently to try to strike back at the US and Israel, and as part of their endless attempts to try to deflect attention away from their minority status and towards hating Israel and the US instead. Twelver Shia are not inherently as crazy as Sunnis because they have basically be definition already made innovations on the Quran and thus can't be as hardcore fundie.) You can strip out some other minor sects like the Ahmadiyya, too.

I'm no expert on Shiitism, but if you consider them overall more moderate, objective, open-minded or more tolerant that Sunnis then you're so mistaken in your 'early' judgment.

Lets retract that Islam has started as only one group; it's what consists Mohamed and his followers path, of which hundreds of Quran and Hadith passages existed to tell us about their life.
Different groups later on started to rise; where some times were met with brutal opposition, or otherwise Islamic scholars published the books to expose their bad notions.

It's known that Shiites is a very old group, in fact it was one of the very first Islamic-groups to derive and set itself apart from the majority of Islamic doctrine back then.
You should read the story about their uprise, back at the Ali bin Abi Taleb's time of rule. Most importantly, you read Ali's speech after losing a major battle to his rival - Mu'awiya, the first of Umayyad's rulers afterward.
(in short, they accuse Sunnis of standing by Mu'awiya and held them responsible for the murder of Ali and the end of true Islamic-ruling. Where in return, we accuse them of being the first group to crack the Islamic unity, as well as the accusation of 'fabrications' on different Islamic rules)

Shiites can't be held to a one single stance though. They differ from region to another - based mainly on their affiliated group - but still, their loyalty is being questioned these days: where their ultimate loyalty belongs; Iran or local authorities? (exactly like how you're questioning Muslims' loyalty these days; the local-residence jurisdiction, or would they rather follow the Islamic call if it comes, Jihad call - for example)

In short, we're Muslims - not Sunnis. You wanna go and invent things, then you give your group a name - but don't call us Sunnis.
Hard-liners of Shiites, like in Iraq, do pray and carry different believes than we do. Those differences wouldn't be found addressed in some ordinary article or book.

No, the single biggest problem is Sunni Islam--particularly the Wahhabi school coming out of the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia. That strain has infiltrated Sunnis worldwide.. and unfortunately Sunnis are by far the largest sect (about 85%). There are various schools of thought in Sunni Islam, ranging from the *relatively* benign (Turkey) to the hardcore fundie (Saudi Arabia, Daesh, AQ, etc.).

I was wondering actually, whether we had much more freedom during the Umayyad or Abbasid rule, than what we currently have these days.
You know; open borders, huge vast territory, many different cultures under one umbrella - you guess the answer.

Speaking the truth, neither IS nor AQ could be considered distinct 'Islamic group'.
I've enough evidence to believe that they're plainly a politically-controlled groups, topped off with Islamic crest; where it have attracted many Islamic fundamentalists, religiously ignorants, mercenaries, criminals and drug addicts.

That isn't new either, Islamic fundamentalism was used repeatedly during history to accomplish political/personal agendas.
For example, I don't believe that Yousef bin Tashfeen (Salahudin) is a true Islamic hero. He might fought the crusaders for sole desire of conquest, glory and to establish an Ayyoubi kingdom - of which he clearly succeeded.

There is also the Ottomans conquest of Constantinople, I've seen it portrayed as Jihad and 'Islamic conquest. This is a cheap propaganda by our scholars, as every one is aware of how the Ottomans were interested in creating a great empire, whereas spreading Islam was more likely a secondary objective - if it did exist at all in the first place.
(Ironically, you'd find muslims nowadays wonder why the West have done so much effort to divide them)

I encourage people to look at the Pew poll results to get an idea of what the "average Muslim" thinks, though in actuality the average Muslim is probably even harder core than what that poll says, because they didn't poll the harder-core fundie states. Furthermore, one needs to weight the polls by population so big-population countries like Pakistan and Indonesia weigh more heavily than smaller countries.

From my life experience among them, I can tell that the 'average muslim' main concern is like that of everybody else; to make a living.

But in recent years I looked into the topic myself and what I found was truly disturbing. Many Americans and the American media are clueless about what the Quran and Hadiths actually say, how the Quran be used to justify almost anything due to the schizophrenic Mecca vs. Medina books of the Quran (Mo preached love and tolerance in Mecca but as his armies grew in strength he started preaching war and intolerance against infidels as an excuse to make war and capture land/women/property, and most Islamic scholars believe in abrogation meaning that the warlike later passages override the peaceful earlier passages... but some imams try to hide this dirty laundry by trying to ignore the warlike passages as best as they can).

I find it kind of funny when Christians state their wish that our Prophet should never waged a war, but rather continued peacefully to preach and endure all the crap thrown to him by arrogant ignorant people.

Remind me, the last peaceful prophet before Mohamed, what was his end?
Don't you think the God had already tried many 'peaceful' prophets before Mohamed? What do you think the God's feeling was when the priests of the Temple abandoned the Jesus and left him to his fate.
Guess the Jews wonder why God in is so pissed off in Quran.

You can't simply pick a few points and ignore others from Mohamed's biography, you must read it all and then judge him.
You still knows nothing about the man and his life, you wouldn't find any fairness in those hatred-filled books about him or Islam, trust me in this.

 

[buckshot24]

Some cults are better than others, in terms of real-life consequences.

Based on what? Your opinion?

 

[Grooveriding]

Ideally though, there would be no more religions/cults ASAP, as they can be easily hijacked--as they have proven time and time again throughout history. That goes for all religions/cults.

That doesn't mean that atheists can't commit crimes, of course, but at least atheists can't just go "well God said so" to justify actions. There is more of a chance of reason to prevail.

I'm not making that up, either. See, e.g., http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/06/religious-children-less-altruistic-secular-kids-study

“Overall, our findings ... contradict the commonsense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind towards others,” said the authors of The Negative Association Between Religiousness and Children’s Altruism Across the World, published this week in Current Biology.
“More generally, they call into question whether religion is vital for moral development, supporting the idea that secularisation of moral discourse will not reduce human kindness – in fact, it will do just the opposite.”


And: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0115-zuckerman-secular-parenting-20150115-story.html

So how does the raising of upstanding, moral children work without prayers at mealtimes and morality lessons at Sunday school? Quite well, it seems.Far from being dysfunctional, nihilistic and rudderless without the security and rectitude of religion, secular households provide a sound and solid foundation for children, according to Vern Bengston, a USC professor of gerontology and sociology.

Not only this, but not following some religious mythology puts more responsibility on someone for the consequences and burden of their actions.

Rather than showing up every week for a confessional or closing their eyes and talking themselves saying sorry, they shoulder full culpability for their actions when they know they were wrong. Taking all the guilt, shame and onus for their actions. They don't have some mystical shedding of onus for their actions that comes from a ritualistic confessional. I think this is part of the appeal to certain religions, this supposed cleansing you get for being a shitty human being via a confessional.

 

[blastingcap]

Omar, thanks for your counterpoint, which I think is valuable for people to hear.

I am not saying there are no secularists in the Middle East, nor am I creating arbitrary groupings. I'm saying that the proportion of Secularists is smaller in the Middle East, particularly in places like Saudi Arabia. You will find some secularists even there--but with severe consequences for those who admit to being atheists, discrimination for being Shiite, etc.

Mohammed did not forbid slavery and in doing so tacitly accepted it. If Allah didn't want any slavery at all, why not make it very clear in the Quran? Slavery is seen as dehumanizing and barbaric now, even by most Muslims, but as you and I both said, that wasn't the result of some religious enlightenment.

I am not an expert in ancient Shia either, but it's my understanding that in the modern world, Shias are a small minority (15% of all Muslims). Except for Iran and eastern Iraq, Shia do not have super-majority anywhere in the world--and that means a distinct lack of ability to impose their will on others by force, and less I'm-right-and-you're-wrong fervor. Iran in particular seems to spend an absurd amount of time and money trying to put the focus on Israel, rather than to a) its internal problems (economy, corruption, etc.) and b) how Shia are a small minority in a tough neighborhood. The last thing Iran's leaders want is to see the much larger Sunni population to gang up on Shiites. There's the joke that Iran (pretends to) care more about Israel than even Palestinians care.

I understand the argument that all Sunnis can't be lumped together, and I am not claiming otherwise. I was saying that if we put people on a scale of... let's say, American-style Muslim on one end, and Daesh on the other, that judging by poll results of Sunni-majority states, most Sunnis are somewhere in-between.

We don't get a lot of poll data about Shiites, but since most Shia live in certain places like Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, etc. we can see how they are doing. And you know what, Iran's leadership is terrible, but the Iranian people themselves are not as extreme as Daesh. Iraq's leadership is incompetent and under Maliki was unapologetically sectarian and corrupt, but history moves slowly... I think it's too early to judge how Iraq will turn out in the long run. Lebanon... ok, I will say that Lebanon has major issues and I am not a fan of Hezbollah, but even Hezbollah has not acted as destructively as Daesh. (Admittedly, part of that is because Shia are a global minority and would get their butts kicked if there were a Sunni-Shia confrontation today.) And then there's Syria where Assad has been a pathetic excuse for a leader, but even under his leadership, there was not mass killings of Sunnis or other minorities.

I agree with your point that religious fundamentalism has been hijacked many times--especially in Christianity and Islam. And if the Jews were more powerful, we'd probably have seen more aggression by them too, over the centuries. Abrahamic religions seem to be more prone to violence compared to other religions... there's a lot more "us versus them" mentality.

About Mohammed, please don't confuse my criticism of Islam with others'. My problem with Mohammed is not that I think he should have been perfect and peaceful or whatever. My problem is that people have elevated him to a "perfect" role model and react very negatively whenever anyone criticizes him for anything. People don't blow up cartoonists for drawing Jesus, Buddha, etc. They do if Mohammed is drawn.

And my criticism of Quran is not that it is not 100% peaceful. My criticism is that it's self-contradictory and can be used to justify almost anything when it comes to violence, especially in conjunction with various hadiths. A book (and hadiths) that are internally inconsistent means that people can cherrypick whatever they want. Such a book is an unstable foundation for morality and ethics.

If Muslim-majority states were SERIOUS about secular democracy (no persecution of religious minorities, minority sects of Islam, atheists, etc. and no favoritism given to religious majorities), the rest of the world would not have a problem with that.

Instead, every time you get a situation like the Sinai plane, the Paris attacks, 9/11, Boko Haram, etc. you get more and more people rejecting Islam altogether. What people are saying about places like Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc. is that Islam is incompatible with democracy, that we should not even try to support democracy there, and instead we should support dictators like Assad (and Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, etc.), because at least Assad doesn't do stuff like plan Paris attacks and he would keep the jihadis under control.

The reality as you know is complicated.. regime change is often messy, and fast regime change is especially messy. It's not really fair to point to places like Libya and Iraq because many other countries would also descend into chaos if the government disappeared overnight. I think the best we can hope for is a slower, gradual change, where Muslim-majority countries become more like Turkey (before Erdogan went crazy), and less like the Taliban or Boko Haram or Daesh.

I'd like to comment on few points where I might add some insight, or otherwise disagree with.

You'd be surprised after you travel around the Middle East region on how many American-muslims-like people you might meet. And that does also applies to Saudi Arabia, one of the most conservative countries in the world.

Banning slavery has nothing to do with religion. I never came across some official 'fatwa' (religious statement/order) that clearly bans slavery from now on.

As for the Prophet, he owned two female war-slaves but he married them immediately before being touched, as far as I know. Thus, I consider he never kept slaves under his custody.

Bear in mind, that Mohamed is the most 'Islamic iconic character' that we must follow his habits, acts and morals. By that, I personally think that sex-slaves subject is a bit over exaggerated (at early Islamic age). Honestly I don't think his first followers were eager for sexual-interaction with their slaves as the current belief going on these days.

By the way, I'm eager to know the muslims population-breakdown between the US and Europe.
Our mentality differs from region to another, with some being much more fked-up when religion hypocrisy is evolved (i.e. using religious propaganda to accomplish political goals; exactly like what is going on these days).


I'm no expert on Shiitism, but if you consider them overall more moderate, objective, open-minded or more tolerant that Sunnis then you're so mistaken in your 'early' judgment.

Lets retract that Islam has started as only one group; it's what consists Mohamed and his followers path, of which hundreds of Quran and Hadith passages existed to tell us about their life.
Different groups later on started to rise; where some times were met with brutal opposition, or otherwise Islamic scholars published the books to expose their bad notions.

It's known that Shiites is a very old group, in fact it was one of the very first Islamic-groups to derive and set itself apart from the majority of Islamic doctrine back then.
You should read the story about their uprise, back at the Ali bin Abi Taleb's time of rule. Most importantly, you read Ali's speech after losing a major battle to his rival - Mu'awiya, the first of Umayyad's rulers afterward.
(in short, they accuse Sunnis of standing by Mu'awiya and held them responsible for the murder of Ali and the end of true Islamic-ruling. Where in return, we accuse them of being the first group to crack the Islamic unity, as well as the accusation of 'fabrications' on different Islamic rules)

Shiites can't be held to a one single stance though. They differ from region to another - based mainly on their affiliated group - but still, their loyalty is being questioned these days: where their ultimate loyalty belongs; Iran or local authorities? (exactly like how you're questioning Muslims' loyalty these days; the local-residence jurisdiction, or would they rather follow the Islamic call if it comes, Jihad call - for example)

In short, we're Muslims - not Sunnis. You wanna go and invent things, then you give your group a name - but don't call us Sunnis.
Hard-liners of Shiites, like in Iraq, do pray and carry different believes than we do. Those differences wouldn't be found addressed in some ordinary article or book.


I was wondering actually, whether we had much more freedom during the Umayyad or Abbasid rule, than what we currently have these days.
You know; open borders, huge vast territory, many different cultures under one umbrella - you guess the answer.

Speaking the truth, neither IS nor AQ could be considered distinct 'Islamic group'.
I've enough evidence to believe that they're plainly a politically-controlled groups, topped off with Islamic crest; where it have attracted many Islamic fundamentalists, religiously ignorants, mercenaries, criminals and drug addicts.

That isn't new either, Islamic fundamentalism was used repeatedly during history to accomplish political/personal agendas.
For example, I don't believe that Yousef bin Tashfeen (Salahudin) is a true Islamic hero. He might fought the crusaders for sole desire of conquest, glory and to establish an Ayyoubi kingdom - of which he clearly succeeded.

There is also the Ottomans conquest of Constantinople, I've seen it portrayed as Jihad and 'Islamic conquest. This is a cheap propaganda by our scholars, as every one is aware of how the Ottomans were interested in creating a great empire, whereas spreading Islam was more likely a secondary objective - if it did exist at all in the first place.
(Ironically, you'd find muslims nowadays wonder why the West have done so much effort to divide them)


From my life experience among them, I can tell that the 'average muslim' main concern is like that of everybody else; to make a living.


I find it kind of funny when Christians state their wish that our Prophet should never waged a war, but rather continued peacefully to preach and endure all the crap thrown to him by arrogant ignorant people.

Remind me, the last peaceful prophet before Mohamed, what was his end?
Don't you think the God had already tried many 'peaceful' prophets before Mohamed? What do you think the God's feeling was when the priests of the Temple abandoned the Jesus and left him to his fate.
Guess the Jews wonder why God in is so pissed off in Quran.

You can't simply pick a few points and ignore others from Mohamed's biography, you must read it all and then judge him.
You still knows nothing about the man and his life, you wouldn't find any fairness in those hatred-filled books about him or Islam, trust me in this.

 

[feralkid]

your obama is Ameriphobic..and expresses this with every utterance and action.

"I've seen the needle and the damage done"

 

[MongGrel]

your obama is Ameriphobic..and expresses this with every utterance and action.

Such a twit.

 

[MongGrel]

Based on what? Your opinion?

And your not much better Sir Broken Record.

Any thread you get into it is the same response no matter what the topic.

 

[OCNewbie]

My offering to this thread:

YouTube Counter Arguments video on Islamophobia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEeauLCOeXQ

 

[BonzaiDuck]

. . .
The reality as you know is complicated.. regime change is often messy, and fast regime change is especially messy. It's not really fair to point to places like Libya and Iraq because many other countries would also descend into chaos if the government disappeared overnight. I think the best we can hope for is a slower, gradual change, where Muslim-majority countries become more like Turkey (before Erdogan went crazy), and less like the Taliban or Boko Haram or Daesh.

I can agree with that.

I may have missed making a major point in the longer post I made earlier.

We are still sweeping up the mess of the Cold War.

Afghanistan. Iran. Iraq. Syria. I think Egypt and Libya vaguely fall into that category. The DPRK is also leftover Cold War rubbish of the worst kind.

I think Putin is beginning to realize this -- no less than any in the US who might have a wider range of historical hindsight to see it.

We'll have to wait and see how Hollande's grand coalition works out.

We had our own agenda in propping up the Shah. Now the Russians are desperately trying to keep a ship-repair facility in Syria, or they wouldn't bother as much to prop up Assad. They got stung in Afghanistan, as we got stung in Vietnam.

I have no interest in depriving them of it. But they'd heretofore shown no interest in weighing the troubles of the Assad regime against those of the Syrian population and the moderate anti-Assad groups.

And the problem everybody sees: any regime change needs something in the wings to take its place. Iraq demonstrates how this can shape up unpredictably.

In the short run, we might have been better off saving a project to unseat Saddam until the other war had been finished and the outcome favorable. And we can't just topple any dictator we don't like -- any time we like it. The battlefields is strewn with enough of those miscalculations. Either way, Syria presents a much more uncertain outcome for either side in the US/Russian equation.

It has just opened up an opportunity for the psychopathic extremists.

And I think many sane people in the Middle East would agree with the extremists in a certain resentment toward having been Cold War pawns. That resentment is rational. The desire to turn it into a cause for a 15th century form of government and barbarism in a world long ago put on a course toward secular government isn't really rational.

Also, I think the verdict is still out on Iran. They may look at the "Christian" world and see the Vatican as a nation-state, but the Vatican has no army or navy. They've hybridized certain democratic approaches with oversight by the mullahs. Yet, that was the state of affairs before the Mossadegh coup: a king, a prime minister and the religious leadership co-existed in a pattern of intrigue and power struggle.

 

[gameaddict1234]

Posting here because my own thread for it was locked for being a repeat of this thread...

Two charts in that collection of pew polls seem to be the most alarming.

1. In 9 of the 21 countries surveyed, over 40% of the Muslim population favor the death penalty for leaving Islam.

2. In 11 of the 21 countries surveyed, over half of the Muslim population favor stoning to death for adultery.

Why do so many Muslims call for death in such gruesome ways for acts that wouldn't even be illegal in Western countries? Even your far right Christians in America, as much as they rant over non-Christians, gays, adulterors, only rarely support death penalty for groups of people they don't like. Although they may discriminate against those "sinners", killing them is usually too much for all except for the craziest of the crazy bunch of right wing Christians.

Any thoughts on this?


So a few people, before the thread was locked, said that the fact that so many Muslims in the middle east subscribe to barbaric practices is due to culture. If it's really due to regional culture, are the religious minorities in the religion, like the Christians, Yazidis, etc, just as barbaric in supporting such practices as the Muslim majority? If that is the case that other religions in the Middle East believe in the same barbaric practices, and someone posts evidence for it, then I stand corrected, since I haven't heard of such cases. If not, then why is it only the Muslims in the religion who think that it's ok to stone women and kill someone for leaving their religion?

 

[Zorkorist]

As long as our Government keeps giving them money, they will think it is okay, or tolerated.

We should put our foot down.

We have all the oil we need in the United States, etc.

-John

 

[OCNewbie]

So a few people, before the thread was locked, said that the fact that so many Muslims in the middle east subscribe to barbaric practices is due to culture. If it's really due to regional culture, are the religious minorities in the religion, like the Christians, Yazidis, etc, just as barbaric in supporting such practices as the Muslim majority? If that is the case that other religions in the Middle East believe in the same barbaric practices, and someone posts evidence for it, then I stand corrected, since I haven't heard of such cases. If not, then why is it only the Muslims in the religion who think that it's ok to stone women and kill someone for leaving their religion?

It might be "culture", but what drives that culture? The religion of Islam, and its doctrines, of course.

It's kinda like saying, "The only reason the Amish are the way they are, is because of their culture." Well, yeah, but their religion is the foundation for their culture.

It's not as if the two have nothing to do with each other; they are interrelated.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

How many of those 1.5 billion ideologically support the horrific actions though?

How many Christians feel that sex slaves are okay?
How many Jews feel that its okay to kill homosexuals?
How many Buddhists believe its okay to bring down a plane full of innocent people?

The answer to all of those is far less then the average Muslim. Are all Muslims bad people, no. Does the average Muslim when polled have some scary beliefs, yes. Does the average non Muslim have scary beliefs, yes. Do Muslims commit terrorist acts at a disproportionate level, yes.

While the actions might be done by few, the ideological support is far far greater than 0.03%. If you want data, it can be found easily, so its not just talking out of my ass. The OP linked that already, but there is more.

So, if your argument is that only a few actually do the bad things, then what about all those who support them?

I will move past the debate phase with you, the OP, and all the others that share your perspective. But do want to make a few comments before making a direct inquiry about your position and views. It is difficult for any of us to be certain our research is free of confirmation bias. And some studies indicate that when we are conclusively shown we are indeed wrong, instead of accepting the new, correct, information, we dig our heels in, and defend our entrenched position even more vigorously. Something to introspect on. Because similar "I have done the research." responses are the mantra of the people that think vaccines cause autism. That pesky confirmation bias, has a way of directing our research. And when we do read opposing material on the topic, we often find a way to dismiss or marginalize the information, and thus, weight it as being far less significant than the information supporting our position.

Now my question: As you have already decided on what the problem is, what is your groups' solution to it?

I ask because reading replies in P&N, not just this thread, some of you are asserting that Islam is inherently a doctrine that instructs its adherents to dominate, convert, or kill, anyone that is not a Muslim. And that even most of the Muslims that do not actively engage in executing the agenda, or even provide some sort of material support to it, are sympathetic to the cause. So I ask again, if the problem is Islam as a whole, what is your solution to the problem? You must have an end game in mind. I am interested in knowing what it is.

 

[blastingcap]

Now my question: As you have already decided on what the problem is, what is your groups' solution to it?

I ask because reading replies in P&N, not just this thread, some of you are asserting that Islam is inherently a doctrine that instructs its adherents to dominate, convert, or kill, anyone that is not a Muslim. And that even most of the Muslims that do not actively engage in executing the agenda, or even provide some sort of material support to it, are sympathetic to the cause. So I ask again, if the problem is Islam as a whole, what is your solution to the problem? You must have an end game in mind. I am interested in knowing what it is.

People have already talked about such things in this thread. You may want to read the replies if you are serious about wanting to know more.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

your obama is Ameriphobic..and expresses this with every utterance and action.

I wish I could find that old You Tube video parodying the Ashley Todd black flag incident where a Republican supporter faked being beaten up by black Obama supporters.

"Obama...Obama is a black man!"

"And a follower of Moose-Slim."

 

[DAPUNISHER]

People have already talked about such things in this thread. You may want to read the replies if you are serious about wanting to know more.

I read the thread. Getting off of their oil is a good idea but certainly not going to submarine Wahhabism any time soon. I read the C&P WSJ article. You do not seem to agree with it, as you bolded that you do not think they want a reformation. I read the speculation about them needing to in essence, self police the radical elements out of the larger faith.

What I am asking is for one or all of you to step up and deliver. Succinctly encapsulate your solution to the problem of the religion of Islam.

Because nothing so far discussed is relevant for decades. Perhaps beyond most or all of our lifetimes. Secularism ain't happening any time soon. Abandoning the faith either. Nor are young Muslims likely to stop radicalizing when so many are attacking their faith and its tenants. Or at the very least, when that is what they perceive is happening. Is that the best you got?

I will frame this a different way, if you are still struggling with my request.

Hypothetical: You have convinced me it is not a religion of peace. Now what? Is your mission accomplished? Do I decide what to do with the new found knowledge for myself, if anything? Or do we have a plan? A way to keep ourselves and/or our posterity, from being subjected to Islams' convert or die agenda?

 

[blastingcap]

I read the thread. Getting off of their oil is a good idea but certainly not going to submarine Wahhabism any time soon. I read the C&P WSJ article. You do not seem to agree with it, as you bolded that you do not think they want a reformation. I read the speculation about them needing to in essence, self police the radical elements out of the larger faith.

What I am asking is for one or all of you to step up and deliver. Succinctly encapsulate your solution to the problem of the religion of Islam.

Because nothing so far discussed is relevant for decades. Perhaps beyond most or all of our lifetimes. Secularism ain't happening any time soon. Abandoning the faith either. Nor are young Muslims likely to stop radicalizing when so many are attacking their faith and its tenants. Or at the very least, when that is what they perceive is happening. Is that the best you got?

I will frame this a different way, if you are still struggling with my request.

Hypothetical: You have convinced me it is not a religion of peace. Now what? Is your mission accomplished? Do I decide what to do with the new found knowledge for myself, if anything? Or do we have a plan? A way to keep ourselves and/or our posterity, from being subjected to Islams' convert or die agenda?

Your tone of voice is unnecessarily condescending by implying anyone is "struggling" with your "request" (read: rude, condescending demand.) I mean, you write "Is that the best you got?" without reading everything, and expect anyone to want to answer you rather than put you on Ignore?

Since you basically just repeated yourself in this post, I'll repeat myself, too, including the parts you apparently did not read despite claiming otherwise: step off oil ASAP + mandatory, real female education to try to reduce overpopulation in problem countries and globally (more people than there are jobs). It has to be done in a tactful and careful way though, to avoid situations like Boko Haram. It sounds expensive only until you consider the $trillions it cost after 9/11. The best jihadi is not a dead jihadi, but one who was never born to begin with.

How about YOU tell us YOUR ideas?

 

[realibrad]

I read the thread. Getting off of their oil is a good idea but certainly not going to submarine Wahhabism any time soon. I read the C&P WSJ article. You do not seem to agree with it, as you bolded that you do not think they want a reformation. I read the speculation about them needing to in essence, self police the radical elements out of the larger faith.

What I am asking is for one or all of you to step up and deliver. Succinctly encapsulate your solution to the problem of the religion of Islam.

Because nothing so far discussed is relevant for decades. Perhaps beyond most or all of our lifetimes. Secularism ain't happening any time soon. Abandoning the faith either. Nor are young Muslims likely to stop radicalizing when so many are attacking their faith and its tenants. Or at the very least, when that is what they perceive is happening. Is that the best you got?

I will frame this a different way, if you are still struggling with my request.

Hypothetical: You have convinced me it is not a religion of peace. Now what? Is your mission accomplished? Do I decide what to do with the new found knowledge for myself, if anything? Or do we have a plan? A way to keep ourselves and/or our posterity, from being subjected to Islams' convert or die agenda?

The "answer" as far as I see it was given by Christians and Jews already. I'm an atheist and I also believe that the world would be better off without religion. I don't believe in forcing that, just making arguments for why it would be a benefit.

Christians went through a reformation which is to say they just started ignoring a lot of the bad parts of their religion. My GF is still very much a Catholic. She believes that some of the things that come from the Bible and only from the Bible are true, but other things are not. How she picks and chooses is simply by saying the bad parts are wrong because Christianity is about good. When I ask my mother, she says pretty much the same thing. I have found that questioning people on how they ignore the bad parts, I find that they simply say its misunderstood or was not from god but put in by someone else. You can do this type of thing to the Bible and Torah to an extent.

In Islam, to question the Quran is to usually question Muhammad. The Bible and Torah were written by many different people, but the Quran was written by one person in a way. There are many Muslims around the world that are starting to do what others have, and that is to ignore the bad parts. Its not impossible because Islam, like all major religion, has conflicting messages.

So the first step is not accepting that all beliefs are equal and admitting that some religious views are bad. Again, we did this in other religions, but we seem to have gotten away from that. Its easy to say that Christians who believe homosexuals are sinful are wrong, but we cant seem to do that type of thing to Islam right now. We need to admit that not all religions are equal, and neither are the cultures they are typically part of. Religion should be like anything else, where we can say when something is wrong.

Another thing would be for the west to let the Middle east burn a little by stepping aside. The west did nothing to help underlying issues that have been going on for a while. At best, we made things worse for the region while saving a few short term.

The main thing we need to head toward now is admitting when religion is morally wrong in its beliefs. We should do this with all religions. Right now, Islam and its religious culture has more to work on, but by no means is it the only one.