The violent, inhumane extremism of mainstream Islam in the Middle East

[ronburgundy]

Let me start by re-iterating my consistent position that Islam and Christianity are both similarly violent religions that promote authoritarian intolerance, which inherently promotes violence and inhuman actions. The difference lies not in the core ideas of these religions but in the % and concentration of their self-labeled adherents who sincerely practice, follow, and subscribe to their religion, and whether they are constrained within a strong secular society (as Western Christians are).

So, what follows is not about Islam being more dangerous than Christianity, but rather about the violent dangers the majority of Muslims socialized within majority Muslim countries where sincere belief in Islam is still the pervasive norm.

A couple years ago, PEW did an extensive survey of Muslims living in numerous Muslim-heavy countries throughout Asia, the Middle-East, and North Africa. In S.E.- European and central-Asian countries Muslims are rather moderate. However, in southern Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.) and the Middle-East (Palestinian territories, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, etc.) the dominant view among Muslims was one of extremist violent theocracy.

In those regions, the majority (in many cases over 80%) endorse Sharia being the official law of the country with Religious judges deciding legal issues, and held that there was only a single valid interpretation of Sharia. Among these supporters of Sharia law, the majority favor violent mutilating punishments for crimes of theft, adultery, and death to those who leave the Islamic faith.


Also, as is always true with support for religious violence, those Muslims who don't support Sharia law and such violent punishments for minor infractions are less committed in their personal faith to Islam.

Note, I do think these facts necessitate any particular policy (immigration or otherwise). Policy is about balancing competing values. But our policies and arguments about them should be made with these realities in mind, and not based upon naive notions that most of the Muslim world is moderate and reasonable, and its just the corrupt leaders of these countries who use Islam for nefarious purposes.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I am so thankful I was not born in the Middle East.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing is more violent than the religion of the modern state.

In the religion of the modern state one nation can attack another for no reason at all and the adherents of the religion will cheer and pin medals on the chests of people carrying out the worst atrocities.

The religion of the modern state blinds it's adherents to all morality and good judgements.

It is by far the most dangerous religion that exists.

 

[repoman]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Note, I do think these facts necessitate any particular policy (immigration or otherwise). Policy is about balancing competing values. But our policies and arguments about them should be made with these realities in mind, and not based upon naive notions that most of the Muslim world is moderate and reasonable, and its just the corrupt leaders of these countries who use Islam for nefarious purposes.

In general, Muslims in America aren't bombing America (WTC bombing is a major exception). In fact, American Muslims are actually quite peaceful. Killings perpetuated by whites greatly exceeds those by Muslims. Odd that 14 dead in San Bernadino leads to calls to close the borders to Muslim migration, yet more than that in elementary school children dead led to almost no calls for any action.

Then we need to approach this from an angle of real world perspective. There isn't this Muslim bloc. Islam suffers from fractures larger and more significant than Protestantism. Adherence to central authority isn't too common. So, recognizing that Muslims are individuals and not a block of people, it'd seem wise to allow Muslims to enter the US, to moderate into our culture, just as other Muslims have already done. Moderate Muslims are clearly not a threat, radicalized ones are.

The alternative is to isolate them in bastions of hate and suffering, stucked for years in refugee camps, in poverty, which can only lead to the growth of extremism.

But please, don't let pragmatism get in the way of the "At all costs" mentality and pretending that in the Internet Age we can close the border to hate and extremism.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And what to make of this?

Iran's Rouhani urges Muslims to fix Islam's global image

Addressing a conference on Islamic unity on Sunday, the Iranian president spoke of the shame of watching Muslim children make long, dangerous journeys to seek refuge in non-Islamic countries.

"It is our greatest duty today to correct the image of Islam in world public opinion," he said in the speech that was aired live on state television.

He voiced concern that damage was being done to Islam's reputation by the violence in its heartlands, and urged all Islamic nations in the region to stop the "violence, terror and massacres".

He also condemned Muslim countries for "being silent in the face of all the killing and bloodshed" in Syria, Iraq and Yemen - conflicts in which Iran plays a role.

If he's not careful he'll soon go the way of Anwar Sadat. Let's hope not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And what to make of this?

Iran's Rouhani urges Muslims to fix Islam's global image

Addressing a conference on Islamic unity on Sunday, the Iranian president spoke of the shame of watching Muslim children make long, dangerous journeys to seek refuge in non-Islamic countries.

"It is our greatest duty today to correct the image of Islam in world public opinion," he said in the speech that was aired live on state television.

He voiced concern that damage was being done to Islam's reputation by the violence in its heartlands, and urged all Islamic nations in the region to stop the "violence, terror and massacres".

He also condemned Muslim countries for "being silent in the face of all the killing and bloodshed" in Syria, Iraq and Yemen - conflicts in which Iran plays a role.

If he's not careful he'll soon go the way of Anwar Sadat. Let's hope not.

He's part of the problem.

 

[JonA]

The difference lies not in the core ideas of these religions but in the % and concentration of their self-labeled adherents who sincerely practice, follow, and subscribe to their religion, and whether they are constrained within a strong secular society (as Western Christians are).

 

[Nexus]

So, recognizing that Muslims are individuals and not a block of people, it'd seem wise to allow Muslims to enter the US, to moderate into our culture, just as other Muslims have already done.

Would you like it if there were more Mormons in the US or is Islam the only religion you would like to see rise in demographics?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So, recognizing that Muslims are individuals and not a block of people, it'd seem wise to allow Muslims to enter the US, to moderate into our culture, just as other Muslims have already done.

Would you like it if there were more Mormons in the US or is Islam the only religion you would like to see rise in demographics?

Which Mormons and which Muslims? Denominations and sects matter.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In those regions, the majority (in many cases over 80%) endorse Sharia being the official law of the country with Religious judges deciding legal issues, and held that there was only a single valid interpretation of Sharia.

This reminds me of all the polls we do here in America that ask conservatives about the individual aspects of the ACA and then ask the final question "Do you approve of Obamacare?" They say "yes" to all of its components but "no" to Obamacare.

I strongly suspect a similar thing happens with Sharia. "Is there only one valid interpretation of sharia?" is an easy question. "What is that interpretation?" not so much. And as most Muslims are learning the hard way under the Daesh.

Also, as is always true with support for religious violence, those Muslims who don't support Sharia law and such violent punishments for minor infractions are less committed in their personal faith to Islam.

Actually, I think it's quite the opposite of this: that those who strongly support Sharia are mainly stumping for their COLLECTIVE faith, as a way of imposing doctrinal authority on the community at large. Muslims who see Sharia as something that should be limited are acting in preference of personal faith; that is, they don't believe the state should be regulating the form and function of their submission to Allah, nor should the moral judgement of individual Muslims be a matter for religious judges. Ultra-conservative Muslims prefer for religion and politics to be strongly intertwined because that makes it possible for clerics and politicians to push unreasonable agendas down the throats of the rest of the community.

I think the same is probably true of Christians. True Believers™ who come out in strength against gay marriage and abortion. It has very little to do with their personal religious faith and a lot more to do with their political beliefs and worldview.

 

[iolo]

I don't know enough to talk about Islam, but if you read the New Testament, it is absolutely clear that the belief concerns pacifist socialism.

 

[ronburgundy]

Note, I do think these facts necessitate any particular policy (immigration or otherwise). Policy is about balancing competing values. But our policies and arguments about them should be made with these realities in mind, and not based upon naive notions that most of the Muslim world is moderate and reasonable, and its just the corrupt leaders of these countries who use Islam for nefarious purposes.

In general, Muslims in America aren't bombing America (WTC bombing is a major exception). In fact, American Muslims are actually quite peaceful. Killings perpetuated by whites greatly exceeds those by Muslims. Odd that 14 dead in San Bernadino leads to calls to close the borders to Muslim migration, yet more than that in elementary school children dead led to almost no calls for any action.

Then we need to approach this from an angle of real world perspective. There isn't this Muslim bloc. Islam suffers from fractures larger and more significant than Protestantism. Adherence to central authority isn't too common. So, recognizing that Muslims are individuals and not a block of people, it'd seem wise to allow Muslims to enter the US, to moderate into our culture, just as other Muslims have already done. Moderate Muslims are clearly not a threat, radicalized ones are.

The alternative is to isolate them in bastions of hate and suffering, stucked for years in refugee camps, in poverty, which can only lead to the growth of extremism.

But please, don't let pragmatism get in the way of the "At all costs" mentality and pretending that in the Internet Age we can close the border to hate and extremism.

OOps. The third word in what you quoted was supposed to be "not". I must have deleted it in editing. I do "not" think any particular policy is neccessitated by the fact that most Muslims living in Islam dominated countries endorse an inherently violent, intolerant, theocratic worldview. I merely think that any policy should be honest about this fact.

That said, what you replied about Muslims already in the US is largely irrelevant, since my OP was about Muslims living in and socialized within the context of the Islamic world. US Muslims are relevant only because they support my point about Muslims who don't hold such intolerant, theocratic views being generally less Muslim in their actual beliefs and commitments to Islam (as other research shows is true of US Muslims compared to Muslims in Islamic countries, just like US Jews are compared to those in Israel).

Moderate Muslims are clearly not a threat, radicalized ones are.

The issue is not just a threat to commit terrorism, but a threat more generally, due to rejecting modern secular values related to democracy, liberty, equality, and humane treatment of fellow citizens. Actual adherents to Islam are inherently "radical" and "extreme" in their opposition to most modern, secular moral and political values. What makes some Muslims more "moderate" in this regard is their personal belief in Islam is itself "moderate" and infused with non-Islamic secular values. They do not accept Islamic law as a valid basis for societal and governmental laws, mostly because they do not themselves sincerely practice or even have committed faith to their religion. That is one of the things the OP data shows, which confirms nearly every other study on strength of personal religiosity and support for authoritarian, theocratic politics.

What this means for allowing refugees in is more complicated. Refugees are likely to be a somewhat representative sample of the Muslims who live in their Islamic homeland. That makes them far more likely to be "radical" (i.e., sincere committed Muslims) than those born in the West or who chose to immigrate here to leave the theocratic Islam-ruled societies behind. IOW, they are are a threat in the same way that a group of indoctrinated neo-Nazis would be. If a million people with neo-Nazi beliefs in Eastern Europe came under violent attack and wanted asylum in the US, should we grant it? Perhaps, and all your same arguments about trying to "moderate" their views via acculturation rather than isolation would apply. But US Muslims didn't become magically moderate by mere fact of being on US soil. Many came here because they or their parents were moderate and wanted to be in a non-Islamic culture. It will be take generations to have this impact on refugees, and until then, they will be a threat in the general sense of not embracing the secular modern values of the West.
For example, Islam is far more a "culture of rape" than anything on any college campus in the US. Culture resides within people who spread it. Yes, the refugees are people, but for a disproportionate percentage, they are people who hold and disseminate cultural ideas and values that you spend a lot of time on these boards attacking. So whatever the policy, it should acknowledge and attempt to curb such threats. That might mean required secularization and gender-equality classes. It could also mean that their children should have to attend public schools to be exposed to the mainstream secular culture, and not be allowed to opt out in favor of private instruction.

 

[ronburgundy]

Would you like it if there were more Mormons in the US or is Islam the only religion you would like to see rise in demographics?

Which Mormons and which Muslims? Denominations and sects matter.

"Radical" ones, aka those that actually believe in and adhere to the ideas and values founational to their religion. "Sect" matters mostly because different sects differ in the importance they place on the foundational doctrines of the religion and in whether their adherents sincerely believe in those doctrines as sacred.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And what to make of this?

Iran's Rouhani urges Muslims to fix Islam's global image



If he's not careful he'll soon go the way of Anwar Sadat. Let's hope not.

He's part of the problem.

Jefferson and Madison and Washington were also part of the slavery problem.

He's obviously singling out Islam as being something special, some kind of "true" religion. Every religion ever invented is the same and always will be.

 

[dismal]

I don't know enough to talk about Islam, but if you read the New Testament, it is absolutely clear that the belief concerns pacifist socialism.

Yes, for example if you read John 3:16 in the Greek it translates roughly to:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that state ownership of the means of production shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I don't know enough to talk about Islam, but if you read the New Testament, it is absolutely clear that the belief concerns pacifist socialism.

Yes, for example if you read John 3:16 in the Greek it translates roughly to:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that state ownership of the means of production shall not perish but have eternal life.

And how much were the loaves and fishes smart boy?

 

[ronburgundy]

This reminds me of all the polls we do here in America that ask conservatives about the individual aspects of the ACA and then ask the final question "Do you approve of Obamacare?" They say "yes" to all of its components but "no" to Obamacare.

I strongly suspect a similar thing happens with Sharia. "Is there only one valid interpretation of sharia?" is an easy question. "What is that interpretation?" not so much. And as most Muslims are learning the hard way under the Daesh.

It doesn't really matter what they think the "one valid interpretation is". What matters is that they think violence and governmental force should be used to impose that one interpretation on people. Also, the fact that the "one interpretation" folks were also the "stone adulterer" and "cut of hands of thieves" folks, tells you a lot about what their interpretation.

Also, as is always true with support for religious violence, those Muslims who don't support Sharia law and such violent punishments for minor infractions are less committed in their personal faith to Islam.

Actually, I think it's quite the opposite of this:

Then you think the opposite of what all empirical facts show. For self-labeled adherents to all the Abrahamic faiths, actual personal commitment to one's religious ideas is consistently positively correlated with support for more "conservative" and authoritarian policies that impose those religious ideas upon others. Those who want to limit religion to "personal choices" not only pray less often (which was shown in the PEW data I linked in the OP), but other research shows they attend religious services less often, they report thinking about God or their religion less often, using their faith less in their daily decisions, and have more doubts about whether their own beliefs are true.

that those who strongly support Sharia are mainly stumping for their COLLECTIVE faith, as a way of imposing doctrinal authority on the community at large. Muslims who see Sharia as something that should be limited are acting in preference of personal faith; that is, they don't believe the state should be regulating the form and function of their submission to Allah, nor should the moral judgement of individual Muslims be a matter for religious judges. Ultra-conservative Muslims prefer for religion and politics to be strongly intertwined because that makes it possible for clerics and politicians to push unreasonable agendas down the throats of the rest of the community.

I think the same is probably true of Christians. True Believers™ who come out in strength against gay marriage and abortion. It has very little to do with their personal religious faith and a lot more to do with their political beliefs and worldview.

You are confusing the preference to limit religious faith to the personal level (thus keep it out of politics), with having a strong personal faith that the God of the Bible or Quran actually exists. They are actually close to the opposite of each other.
In all the monotheisms, those who support keeping faith only a "personal" and "private" matter, are those that do so because they doubt the validity of that faith in both factual and moral matters, and thus seek to limits its power to something that only impacts the person who holds it. It is nonsensical for sincere believers to hold this view.
For them, "God" is a vague abstraction meaning whatever a person needs it to mean, so of course, God is only "personal", because he doesn't exist outside a person's subjective idea of him.

Islam (and all Abrahamic monotheism) is at its very core, all about authoritarianism. Abraham's God in all its forms is an unquestionable dictator whose whims determine what is right, and who commands death to those who disagree. This is so objectively obvious and inherent to the founding documents of these faiths that anyone with any honest commitment to these faiths must also embrace that same authoritarianism, which means theocracy and in Islam, Sharia law as government law. Besides, it is psychologically implausible that anyone who sincere believed that the God of the Bible or the Quran actually existed as real as the dangers of mercury poisoning exist, would want to keep such realities private, personal, and out of the law. Those who oppose legislating environmental dangers into the law are those that don't actually believe they are real. The same is true of God.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, recognizing that Muslims are individuals and not a block of people, it'd seem wise to allow Muslims to enter the US, to moderate into our culture, just as other Muslims have already done.

Would you like it if there were more Mormons in the US or is Islam the only religion you would like to see rise in demographics?

I'm saying that moderated Muslims are no problem. So do we leave huge blocks of Muslims in refugee camps for years to increase their chance of radicalization or do we allow individuals into the nation?

As things stand, the US Constitution has done well in the last 50 years to help reduce the influence of Christianity, even when half of Republicans want to recriminalize gay sex. It can handle Islam.

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't know enough to talk about Islam, but if you read the New Testament, it is absolutely clear that the belief concerns pacifist socialism.

Jesus supported everything in the OT. He said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill," (Matt. 5:17).

Thus, the God of the NT and OT are identical, and all of the authoritarian, intolerant, infidels killing, sexual deviant stoning endorsements of the OT are foundational to Christianity as well as Judaism. Not to mention, authoritarianism is logically inherent to the very concept of a singular creator God from whom all law emanates, which is a defining feature of ever sect of all the Monotheisms that bare any remote resemblance to the religions from which they historically sprang.