@Tom Bombadil

I think he's talking about them being allowed to commit sins before martyrdom, as martyrdom cleanses the soul of all previous sins and you go to paradise. still, it's a bad interpretation.


@croakanddagger

you're playing a dangerous game generalizing. Generalizing is not helpful. I went to school with @TrPrado and I know a few of the muslim kids he's talking about, and probably a few more form CrossCountry. One of this kids is actually MUCH more left wing than many of my friends, but he's genuinely a good guy. we've played soccer before on the same team, and i've known him since i was a little kid.

now, is my anecdote representative of all muslims? no.

But the simple fact is that many muslims are nominal muslims: they're not jihadists, they're not fundamentalists, they're not islamists, they're more of the hippy religious type: most christians are too.

now, let me reconcile with my terms

jihadist:

the person who takes islam to the extreme. they don't only support the most violent parts of the qaran and hadith, but they try to follow directly in muhammad's footsteps and use him as a guide for life, and attempt to recreate holy war.


fundamentalist:

the person who often supports jihadists, but does not commit holy war him or herself. very very religiously conservative, and will support extraordinarily anti-western beliefs especially regarding women, homosexuals, blasphemers and pagans.


islamist:

the person who does not actively support violence, but still holds many cultural beliefs that are fairly anti western: theocracy, not supporting basic human rights across the board. This is not an extreme position for them, but more of a casual indifference to human rights.


nominal:

muslim in name and only basic islamic practices. practices the religion, but can vary on a WIDE range of social issues. some will be FAR more left wing than even you or i ever will be.


the question is, what is the size of each of these groups?

Jihadists:

small, but when compared to any other religion much larger by comparison. i can't find any statistics on exact size however, ISIS has at the top estimate in iraq and syria of about 30,000, but worldwide numbers i usually find max out at 100,000. compared to other religions, this is a fairly violent number, but compared to the 1.5 billion (estimate) population that is only .0067% of all muslims.

Fundamentalists and Islamists:

disturbingly large. the differentiation between the two groups is VERY hard to reconcile.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

http://www.pewglobal.org/2006/05/23/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world/

supporting terrorism is disturbingly high, with also a VERY high rate of support for making sharia into law in their country. high numbers also believe in "single approach" of sharia, and in places like afghanistan and pakistan, it's 76% and 79% of all muslims support the death penalty for leaving islam. in egypt it's 86%, jordan it's 82%, and in bangladesh it's 44%/

for JUST Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh: population of muslims supporting the death penalty:
--------------------------------------
Pakistan 193.2 mil. population, 95% muslims, 76% support DP for leaving islam

139.49 pakistan

Afghanistan 34.66 mil. population, 99% muslim, 79% support DP for leaving islam

34.31 afghanistan

Egypt 95.69 mil. population, 90% muslim, 86% support DP for leaving islam

74.06 egypt

Bangladesh 163 mil. population, 90% muslim, 44% support DP for leaving islam

64.55 bangladesh

ALL SOURCES IN PEW LINKS ABOVE!

let's add JUST 4 COUNTRIES up:



312,410,000 muslims who support the Death Penalty for leaving Islam.


that's NOT including major places like Saudi Arabia, Niger.... Indonesia ALONE adds about 40 million to that group (225 million muslims, 18% support)




now. what percent would ACTUALLY want that enacted on their own family members if one were to leave, and are more indifferent to others being killed (islamist), and what percent ACTUALLY wants these people killed (fundamentalist)?



THIS is a big question, but there is a big problem in much of Islam.

Does that mean we should generalize like you have Croak? No. Use statistics, speaks precisely, and stop blaming the religion itself. Islam can and has changed for millions and millions of muslims. we NEED reform, not bastardization.

@" but more of a casual indifference to human rights."

There is an alternative to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which some muslims say is inherently western and based on western cultural norms, thus not as Universal as we might like...

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Islamic_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

This group may support human rights, but only as outlined in the Islamic Declaration. Which appears to support shari'a law... But i think this is worth noting.

@"supporting terrorism is disturbingly high"

I don't know what the figures are, but it is fair to say that support for 'the troops' is fairly high in the US. And i would claim that they also qualify as 'supporting terrorism' - state based terror.

Like the clearly illegal killing of a US citizen by drones; if you do support your government murdering people - who may be guilty - but without a trial. Then you don't support human rights which guarantee a fair trial. And i would say this is state terrorism... So. I mean, yeah the support for terrorism IS disturbingly high.

Especially if you mean people who feel a moral obligation to support 'our guys'. As opposed to the other reading of 'support' which is material aid to terrorist actions - and is much smaller.

@orathatic

that's a fair point on supporting your troops in battle, but all of the things i linked above were form PEW, I'll relink here


http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/

http://www.pewglobal.org/2006/05/23/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world/

the 2nd link has data showing supporters of violence against civilians as well as other stats. this is also an interesting occurrence where Gallup found many in the USA (49%) said that attacks on civilians are sometimes justified, although for each individual attack, there was Broad condemnation.

the gallup poll however food a large correlation between religious integration, and being fine with civilian casualties.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx

the problem with these polls is pollsters never ask clearly enough:
is it fine to Target civilians, to what degree are you disgusted by collateral damage... there's SOOOO much nuance that the polls leave out, however, there does seem to be a religious dogmatic element across the board

interestingly enough, USA still had high rates in the gallup poll of "sometimes justified" and linked with religion. however, thing such as high support for the death penalty for leaving islam, and imposition of sharia as the law to all people of a country... those are ridiculously high compared to any other religion i've seen EXCEPT for Vatican City when asked about Papal Law (literally the one exception)

as usual, it's VERY difficult to have a conversation about this stuff without accidentally generalizing. that's why nowadays i stick to the statistics and always have a link at hand

That's cool JY, as for Sharia, i'd like to know more; in Pakistan, Jordan, and Egypt, do the people live under a form of Sharia?

Is there are difference between those who currently live under ISIS (have first hand experiences or 'Sharia' and those who romanticise it)? Or is it the case that those who see 'Sharia' as an ideal system live under it and are largely privileged by it?

As a legal system, I think Islamic law differs great from any other religion. Christianity had centuries of conflict between kings and popes to set precedents on which powers should be held by the church and which by the state.

Islam is similar, but hasn't had a single centralised religious authority, Caliphs act as both religious and political leaders, similar to how Roman Emperors ran their 'Caesaropapism' (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesaropapism)

I think the lack of a single religious authority in Islam today has meant less conflict between church and state. That means Secular authorities/political leaders have less incentive to separate church and state - if your local imam doesn't like the way you want to interpret Sharia law, then you go out and find one who will, which weakens the local imam's position, and gives you leverage to push them into seeing things your way.

Ok, Christianity hasn't had a single religious head since the reformation and the advent of Protestantism (ignoring the East-West Schism (or Great Schism) of 1054, because it did leave two singular 'pope'-like figure heads operating in different areas, mostly not competing with each other).


So i suspect the difference is reflected in how popular Sharia is...

Not trying to make any value judgements here; and a lot of this is extrapolation. But what was the point we were discussing?

I guess an interesting side note would be to ask, why is Lebanon, Malaysia, Kazakhstan and Albania/Kosovo so much lower in their support for sharia?

What makes these states different from the states with very high levels of support?

@ora

Sharia for Sunnis applies in basically 4 schools of thought, each of which have developed in many different parts of africa and asia. i don't remember the names, but one focuses on muhammad and the qaran, one focuses on the disciples of muhammad, one focuses on the hadith and qaran, and one is intellectual and focuses on the unclear parts of the qaran. Naturally, the first and third get the most fundamentalist support, although there's also Shia radicalism which is a whole other story.

the thing that I worry about personally with sharia law (and the part i'm more well versed in) is the modern application of sharia. there are *basically* three different forms: purely cultural, where things are more observed as rituals or cultural cliches. there's some that apply in judicial systems effectively being an ACTUAL part of the law (which is what that PEW poll implied) and there's a mixture of the two.

those that want sharia as law in their country, are disturbingly high. not even official recognition of islam as the nation's religion ( a fairly understandable desire) but religious law as a theocracy.

Lebanon, Malaysia, Kazakhstan and Albania/Kosovo?

well taking them individually, Kazakhstan had heave soviet influence which was very atheistic, and so you're likely to see more nominal muslims there. nowadays i'm not sure what the demographics are. Malaysia has a heavy injection of buddhism in its culture, much of Asia does, and the far eastern muslims generally have exposure to that. Lebanon I'm not sure about... Albania/Kosovo can be explained away by european influence but perhaps Lebanon has just changed where others haven't.

I mean i'm not going to go around insulting nominal muslims, people who like western values are the ones i'm entirely for, religious or not.

Lebanon has French influence and heavy alcohol consumption.

And i don't think it is unfair that a fair number of the religious right in the US would like to see 'Christian law' applied... though that number is much smaller, and constitutional protections keep them mostly in check.

That said, the big difference is, i suspect, that 'Christian law' is less well defined than Sharia. Even though there are specific prohibitions in Leviticus, the majority of them aren't considered important.

But yes, those numbers are surprisingly high.

That said, i'm not sure exactly what the pew research question was. Whether Sharia is written by man but based on the word of god VS the revealed word of god. I mean, were there other options? Jordan has 1% missing, did they not answer, or have other options? While Malaysia has 24% missing...

What language differences would make a poll like this less accurate, and why isn't there data on Iran?

Lebanon, fyi, has a sizable Christian minority, and a power sharing agreement (the result of their civil war) so i imagine most Lebanese are happy with this secular deal as 'the law of the land' - while most Lebanese Muslims would be probably happy with Sharia applying to Muslims in Lebanon or some similar compromise if that had been an option.

I suspect their recent history has a large impact on this.

Their current system requires that the president be a Maronite Christian, the Speaker of the Parliament is a Shi'a Muslim and the Prime Minister is a Sunni Muslim.

Likewise, i suspect Albania/Kosovo are mixed religious ethnic groups, with influence from Europe are you pointed out. Malaysia looks similar, with only ~60% Islam, ~20% Buddhist (as you said) and ~10% Christian (along with 10% other, mostly made up of Hindus).

I'm predicting therefore that the countries with large majorities saying Sharia should be the law of the land are also all 60%+ Shia/Sunni.

Which i think would show that diversity and mixing of cultures leads to tolerance... (so long as you can avoid conflict?)

"So how is calling conservatives knuckle dragging racists and Americans a-holes not bigotry and as such violates forum rule number 2? "

Knew I wouldn't get an answer to that question.

LOL!

And I wonder what the support for terrorism in the US is. After all, we have forced brother and white supremacist terrorist movements that have significant support, and I don't find polls on just how many denounce violence. There was an interesting Pew poll (I think) done last year that actually showed that a very high proportion (compared to other countries) of Americans think violence can sometimes or often be justified

Violence can be justified SOmeone breaks into my home, and I put them down, that violence is justified.

in much of the country, actually it isn't. If you have an ability to retreat, or ther otherwise is not a credible threat to your bodily safety, lethal force is unjustified in much of the country. That'd be murder 1. Of course, in more violent parts of the country, you can pretty much shoot anyone on a whim and claim you were "scared" and if you're white, you'll get off.

However, I should have been clearer. In the context of terrorism, this was a survey about either the military or small groups of people intentionally targeting civilians.

Americans (lumped with Canadians) are the most supportive of the notion that intentionally targeting civilians is sometimes justified at 47% of any region in the world. In the middle east only 13% said intentional targeting of civilians was sometimes justified.

Frankly, Muslims have a LOT more to fear from Americans than the other way around.

http://news.gallup.com/poll/157067/views-violence.aspx

@Ogion

wow. I literally already linked that article and talked about it. Ogion. you are peak stupid. PEAK STUPID.

it wasn't INTENTIONALLY targeting civilians that gallup surveyed, but it left the question ambiguous. whether people interpreted it as unintended or intended was NOT specified.

BLAAAAATANT lie by Ogion.



in other news, sky is blue

@"Stressedlines
Violence can be justified SOmeone breaks into my home, and I put them down, that violence is justified.
"
I didn't say it wasn't. I said if the average criminal doesn't see a need to carry a gun, and does see it as a risk, then you can de-escalate these conflicts.

I'm not claiming that getting rid of guns will end al violence. But it can be a step towards reducing violence.

Theives in England anecdotally will break in and then take a kitchen knife out ready to use if they are disturbed.

Violence in the case is justified, not because they entered your home, but because in the US you can assume anyone illegally entering your home is armed and willing to shoot.

Not so in Ireland. If someone invades my home, my life is likely not in danger. Thus i have no justification of self-defence to kill the intruder.

Actually, in California there has to be some evidence you're in actually danger besides some trigger happy delusion. You can shoot the intruder and spend the rest of your life in one of our fine correctional facilities.

In Florida, or Texas you can more of less shoot someone on a whim and get away with it if you're white by asserting you were acted and then the prosecution has to show beyond a reasonable doubt you weren't. "Your honor I was terrified! You know what he was doing? He was being black! Terrifying!"

Ahhh yes. The great state of California where you have to be on life support before you can defend yourself.

And have a hand written note from a judge

As well as permission from the criminal bashing your brains in.

Ogion, how about people dont break into other peoples homes? Lets not blame the homeowner, If said idiot didnt break in, there is no confrontation.

Welcome to the snowflake generation where the criminals and illegal aliens have more rights and benefits than tax paying, law abiding citizens.

Btw. I thought blaming or making slurs against ethnic groups is against the rules?

Florida, where you can execute kids eating Skittles on a whim and then claim PTSD afterward and everyone still considers it justice.

sure, thats exactly how that went down....

Thpointis that someone breaking into your house, cutting you off in traffic, or eating skittles in the wrong neighborhood are zero justification for lethal violence

Of course some cultures in the US are very casual about lethal violence. That's correlated with low levels of social and economic development actually, so these attitudes are not surprisingly similar to third world countries.

One of those things is not like the others.