Islamic State threatens to decapitate Swedish people unless they convert to Islam

originally posted by: FlySolo
CLEARLY the three sacred text of Islam are the Qu'ran, Sira (life of Muhammad) and the Hadith (traditions of Muhammad) it's Islam 101 brother. Only a poser who isn't a true Muslim would say otherwise

That is quite incorrect.

The ONLY sacred text of Islam is the Qur'an.

The hadiths are alleged TRADITIONS about what Muhammad said or did in different occasions, written by men. And the Sira is a biography of Muhammad, also written by men.

ONLY a REVELATION from GOD, in this case the Qur'an can be considered SACRED. Everything else is from men, thus fallible.


And because I do not wish to discuss this further, because it will fall on deaf ears, I will just quote this:


"And the true servants of the Most Gracious are those who walk on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say, "Peace!"" - Qur'an, 25:63

You don't even know the definition of bigot I'm afraid. Please refrain from using it loosely and I won't think you're incapable of holding a conversation. Just because I ask for a debate on Islamic reformation, it does not make me a bigot. So shame on you! Shame on you for marginalizing critical and independent thinking. Shame on you for stigmatizing intellectual discussion in favor of PC. So don't you dare lecture me.

I'm free to speak my opinions just as you are. I think your refusal to allow for any nuance when Muslims engage with you here on ATS professing to be opposed to Islamic terrorism suggests bigotry. I'm not looking for your approval. I'm openly disagreeing with you because my conscience compelled me to. You are free to say what you will, but I am free to publicly oppose you. I feel no shame for doing so.

We must be subjectively viewing different realities because I haven't known Muslims to turn in sleeper cells or rat out family members. Look, radical Imams can stand in London streets promising Sharia law and no muslim ever confronts another on their radical opinions. Not once. Go watch some debates. The only Muslims you see debating other Muslims are EX Muslims.

Muslims individually and as groups vocally condemn acts of terror routinely. I'm not sure why you think it is the duty of every peaceful Muslim to engage Muslim crazies standing on street corners saying ridiculous things. "No Muslim ever confronts another," is an assertion in the negative: it cannot be proven conclusively but can be falsified by a single example. I mean, really:

www.dailystar.com.lb...
english.alarabiya.net...
qz.com...
qz.com...

“They think they are fighting Crusaders, and they invoke the Qur’an, and quote its verses. But shedding the blood of an innocent has no justification… not in Islam or anywhere.”

A slew of Muslims openly condemning the actions of Muslim terrorists as un-Islamic doesn't count?

Look, we don't have 200,000 pro lifers, Buddhist monks or right wing christian nutters trying to create a Caliphate right now with nearly 200 million sympathizers world wide. Enough with the right wing christian/jewish terrorist analogy because that shoe does not fit. Period.

I suspect a lot of holes can be found in this "200 million" figure, but I'll certainly grant you that ISIS is unique in many ways. Our difference is that I don't think there's something inherently rotten about Islam as compared to other religions that explains this. I think ISIS would like you to believe that their interpretation of Islamic is inseparable from Islam itself, though.

Removed. Off topic.

Pcg

3 days have passed, what has happened?

nothing i assume

a reply to: sHuRuLuNi

Yeah you're the second person to tell me that. I, a novice theologian have discovered that what you said is so incredibly naive. I've already pointed out in later posts the connection of the three sacred texts and their role in Islam.

Islam has three sacred texts-the Koran, the Sira (life of Mohammed), and the Hadith (traditions of Mohammed). These are the foundations of Islam. All of Islamic religious and political doctrine are found in them.

Google it.

So when a Muslim comes and tells me that this is not true, I know they are in absolute denial about their own religion. And when they'rre in denial, there's no way, not even remotely, would they consider reformation. Islam is perfect eh? You guys sound no different than Christians. Bunch of brainwashed indoctrinated blind followers who refuse to acknowledge any imperfection.

Ok, then if Qu'ran is the ONLY sacred text, then it should be no problem to abolish the Hadith and Sira from Islam. After all, they are NOT what Islam stands for right?

Coubull#gh

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

I think your refusal to allow for any nuance when Muslims engage with you here on ATS professing to be opposed to Islamic terrorism suggests bigotry

What a bunch of nonsense. I encourage a debate from Muslims. Think I'm going to get dopamine hits arguing with people who agree with me? I want to have a discussion but you're the only one who sticks around. The others eat dust after a couple of posts and don't come back. I will call your accusation of bigotry and raise you intolerance of infidels among your respected worshipers and call the kettle black. It is you and your ilk that are bigoted. Bigoted against anyone who doesn't believe. So cut the crap thank you.

www.dailystar.com.lb...
english.alarabiya.net...
qz.com...
qz.com...

From your first link...

“The terrible position of Christians, Yezidis and other religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq demands a clear and courageous stance from religious leaders, especially Muslims,” the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue said.

Clearly, they're still demanding a stance from religious leaders. Talk is cheap ain't it?


From your second link...

Arab League Chief Nabil al-Arabi denounced Monday the “crimes against humanity” committed by ISIS militants in Iraq against the minority Yazidi sect, demanding the perpetrators be brought to justice, Agence France-Presse reported.

Al-Arabi “strongly denounced the crimes, killings, dispossession carried out by the terrorist (ISIS) against civilians and minorities in Iraq that have affected Christians in Mosul and Yazidis,” he said in a statement.

Referring to reports of hundreds of Yazidis killed in the ISIS onslaught, al-Arabi said “these terrorist crimes amount to crimes against humanity that cannot be overlooked.”

Right, a nation that still practices dark age barbaric punishments is citing "crimes against humanity"
What a laugh.
Third link...

The Saudi foreign ministry called for global cooperation to “root out this dangerous and destructive plague.”

Yes, root them out. But you can't when everyone stays silent. How about just reforming your religion and throw away that wretched hadith?

A slew of Muslims openly condemning the actions of Muslim terrorists as un-Islamic doesn't count?

Talk is cheap. Actions speak volumes. When you start throwing out Muslims from the Mosque or practice excommunication I'll be the first to stand up and clap. When you denounce the hadith, I'll tip my hat. When you turn in family and friends for even considering terrorism or even utter a breath under their lips, I will stand up and cheer. Until then, your words are all in vain.

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
I suspect a lot of holes can be found in this "200 million" figure, but I'll certainly grant you that ISIS is unique in many ways. Our difference is that I don't think there's something inherently rotten about Islam as compared to other religions that explains this.

Maybe, but it may be a bit naive. The Prophet was a warlord, after all.

It may be more susceptible, or less easily resistant, to interpretations and practices compatible with radical aggression.
By contrast, how much effort would it take to turn fundamentalist and observant Jainists into conquering armies or terrorists? No doubt, quite a bit more.

It prescribes a path of non-injury (ahimsa) towards all living beings. Practitioners believe non-violence and self-control are the means to liberation. Followers of Jainism are called Jains and must observe five major vows: ahimsa, not lying, not stealing (asteya), chastity, and non-attachment.

Why does radical jihadism have so much potency and aggression nearly worldwide today, and the Haredi Jews do not? The Haredi are backwards and insular but are not into conquest.

Today, the radical strains of Jihadism are prevalent and powerful.

One may ask similarly what was it in Roman Catholicism which made the Inquisition as much of a force as it was? It was the theological tradition of one true church passed directly from St Peter and having final authority over the religion. The structure and internal belief system of the religion really did have an effect on the political manefestation of Catholic Orthodoxy and the notion of "heresy" being so much of a crime.

And this is also a positive example---it can change.

Today, the Hapsburg armies are not ravaging the earth in service of the warrior Pope with the Inquisition at his service. It took them losing, and a few hundred years of firmly anti-religious secular, enlightenment thought in Europe for this to be brought to heel.

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
3 days have passed, what has happened?

nothing i assume

Nope... Still nothing in Swedish msm.

Here, well same same...

www.marsta.nu...

Whoever made those fliers has written random people's social security numbers on them so it looks like they were the senders according to the link above.

Nah, this had nothing to do with Isis or terrorism,looks like a bad prank. You wont read that on jihadwatch,will you ? Worthless crap blog.

What a bunch of nonsense. I encourage a debate from Muslims. Think I'm going to get dopamine hits arguing with people who agree with me? I want to have a discussion but you're the only one who sticks around. The others eat dust after a couple of posts and don't come back. I will call your accusation of bigotry and raise you intolerance of infidels among your respected worshipers and call the kettle black. It is you and your ilk that are bigoted. Bigoted against anyone who doesn't believe. So cut the crap thank you.

Why should they continue a dialog with you in which you ignorantly and abusively insist that they are either secretly hateful, violent people, or simply entirely ignorant of their own faith? I wouldn't if it were a matter so close to my heart. Not being Muslim myself, I've a more dispassionate angle.

Talk is cheap. Actions speak volumes. When you start throwing out Muslims from the Mosque or practice excommunication I'll be the first to stand up and clap. When you denounce the hadith, I'll tip my hat. When you turn in family and friends for even considering terrorism or even utter a breath under their lips, I will stand up and cheer. Until then, your words are all in vain.

I see. The goalposts will forever move: you'll say no Muslims condemn these acts and then faced with exactly that, that the Muslims in question aren't good enough because you don't like other things about them. Or the ultimate dodge! The goalposts move right off the cliff; they're all just not doing enough, no condemnation or confrontation of these acts is enough. "Talk is cheap."

There has been more violence perpetrated by Americans for other reasons; political extremism (Kaczynski and McVeigh), religious extremism (a string of murders of doctors performing abortion, attacks on Planned Parenthood), racism, or just plain crazy (the Roseburg, OR shooter) than because of radical Islamists. If you really need me to trot out statistics for you, I can. To single out Muslims and hold peaceful practitioners responsible for the behavior of the radicals is not just wrong-headed and offensive, it is counterproductive.

Lastly, I ask that you think very, very carefully about the implications of connecting the lives and attitudes of American Muslims to those of the barbarians that make up ISIS. You are enhancing ISIS and alienating American Muslims when you do this. What's more, you're conducting a fundamental exercise in bigotry. This is the same trick of thought and rhetoric that was employed to drum up fear about Jews prior to Hitler's Germany. It was thought that some invisible contract of ideology stemming from the deepest roots of Judaism bound them together, and that any evil done by any Jew in the world was tacitly endorsed and possibly supported by other Jews regardless of what they professed or where they lived. Anti-Semites thought it was an obvious and straightforward if awkward truth that this was the case, because Judaism instructs its adherents that they are God's Chosen People. How could this not fundamentally be interpreted as a position of superiority and a justification for craven attempts to seize control over world affairs? Look where that reasoning lead the world.

There be dragons down this road, my friend. Let's learn from the past here.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: JohnnyElohim
I suspect a lot of holes can be found in this "200 million" figure, but I'll certainly grant you that ISIS is unique in many ways. Our difference is that I don't think there's something inherently rotten about Islam as compared to other religions that explains this.

Maybe, but it may be a bit naive. The Prophet was a warlord, after all.

It may be more susceptible, or less easily resistant, to interpretations and practices compatible with radical aggression.
By contrast, how much effort would it take to turn fundamentalist and observant Jainists into conquering armies or terrorists? No doubt, quite a bit more.

It prescribes a path of non-injury (ahimsa) towards all living beings. Practitioners believe non-violence and self-control are the means to liberation. Followers of Jainism are called Jains and must observe five major vows: ahimsa, not lying, not stealing (asteya), chastity, and non-attachment.

Why does radical jihadism have so much potency and aggression nearly worldwide today, and the Haredi Jews do not? The Haredi are backwards and insular but are not into conquest.

Today, the radical strains of Jihadism are prevalent and powerful.

One may ask similarly what was it in Roman Catholicism which made the Inquisition as much of a force as it was? It was the theological tradition of one true church passed directly from St Peter and having final authority over the religion. The structure and internal belief system of the religion really did have an effect on the political manefestation of Catholic Orthodoxy and the notion of "heresy" being so much of a crime.

And this is also a positive example---it can change.

Today, the Hapsburg armies are not ravaging the earth in service of the warrior Pope with the Inquisition at his service. It took them losing, and a few hundred years of firmly anti-religious secular, enlightenment thought in Europe for this to be brought to heel.

Rather sober minded. I appreciate your perspective. Clearly I am of the mind that I am not naive. My judgement of the matter is that radical Islamists are a very, very serious issue, but that Western countries are drastically overestimating the threat to themselves: it's the people in Iraq and Syria who are really getting the short end of it. The fact that there are a lot of terrifying barbarians who dress up their acts as the logical consequence of a holy text is fuel for the fire of xenophobia -- a human disease we're all prone to. The idea that Islam itself is fundamentally at odds with secular Western civilization is an ignorant one. Some manifestations of it are, just as some manifestations of Christianity are. Over and over again we have seen the same thing in the march of history: access to freedom, wealth, medical care, and open dialog is a powerful moderating influence. Happy, healthy Muslims in the United States are the best antibody for radical Islamists in the United States. The hysterical shouting and finger pointing going on is a boon to ideological extremists who want moderate Muslims to feel they've no safe haven.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Why should they continue a dialog with you in which you ignorantly and abusively insist that they are either secretly hateful, violent people, or simply entirely ignorant of their own faith?

Actually, you've got me wrong on that. I'm respectable to everyone until they lose control first. I won't shy away from aggressive talk but I'm also not unreasonable. How someone wants their conversation to go with me is entirely up to them. And that goes for everyone.

I see. The goalposts will forever move: you'll say no Muslims condemn these acts and then faced with exactly that, that the Muslims in question aren't good enough because you don't like other things about them.

That's not very factual either. I support muslimsfacingtomorrow.com... and their mission statement. It's the Muslim's here thus far whom refuse to acknowledge any change and as far as I know there aren't enough religious leaders taking the helm.

There has been more violence perpetrated by Americans for other reasons; political extremism (Kaczynski and McVeigh), religious extremism (a string of murders of doctors performing abortion, attacks on Planned Parenthood), racism, or just plain crazy (the Roseburg, OR shooter) than because of radical Islamists.

Again, this is apples and oranges. Yes, no doubt and no disagreement, America is unhinged. But all of these things are mostly welfare, mental health, poverty and social problems. kkk and black panthers still exist, so do bank robbers and kids with anxiety disorders on Zoloft. We worry, but we don't worry that all of them are going to come together and force a theocracy down our throats with planned coordinated multiple attacks globally. I just don't see the comparison.

Lastly, I ask that you think very, very carefully about the implications of connecting the lives and attitudes of American Muslims to those of the barbarians that make up ISIS. You are enhancing ISIS and alienating American Muslims when you do this. What's more, you're conducting a fundamental exercise in bigotry. This is the same trick of thought and rhetoric that was employed to drum up fear about Jews prior to Hitler's Germany.

I need to make clear that I have been saying all along the reason why this issue is so contentious is because no one fully understands what it is exactly they're standing for. It's not the same ball of wax people think they can debate with one blanket solution. Islam from 3rd world countries is NOT the same as western groomed Islam so therefore I do not connect the lives and attitudes with American Muslims. However, with that said, I would connect the lives of European Muslims with 3rd world ones. There are some very serious integration problems going on there and you can watch in the news how extreme right views are shifting. America is not like Europe. Yet. I would pay close attention to just how things are working out for them with they decide to mix theocracy with secular democracy.

And to equate my concerns to be akin to hitler is rather disturbing. I am quite aware of the atrocities of ww2 and am a bit of a war buff. You really seem to have a high opinion of yourself seeing your stuck only on one gear. Everyone's a bigot if they don't agree with you. I'm not right nor am I left, I'm probably more balanced than you politically speaking. Any leaning political view that's too far right or left is not a good thing. I'm not a bigot, just pragmatic. But I wonder, would you call a Muslim who says the exact same things as me a bigot? Think about it.

Actually, you've got me wrong on that. I'm respectable to everyone until they lose control first. I won't shy away from aggressive talk but I'm also not unreasonable. How someone wants their conversation to go with me is entirely up to them. And that goes for everyone.

Telling practitioners of Islam that their interpretation of their own faith is wrong because it doesn't align with your extreme and paranoia-inducing version of same is not very nice. Are you a Christian? Have you ever encountered one of those irritatingly self-confident atheists who tell you how horrible your beliefs are by quoting passages of the bible you are quite familiar with but would never accept as part of your practice?

That's not very factual either. I support muslimsfacingtomorrow.com... and their mission statement. It's the Muslim's here thus far whom refuse to acknowledge any change and as far as I know there aren't enough religious leaders taking the helm.

It certainly is accurate. Each time I have given examples of your generalizations being incorrect, you've waved your hands and excused them, moving on the next item. No True Muslim and all that. The father of one of the Paris attackers said he would have killed his own son had he known what he had intended to do. Still too milquetoast though, right? Or he's just not a real Muslim? Not enough real action?

Again, this is apples and oranges. Yes, no doubt and no disagreement, America is unhinged. But all of these things are mostly welfare, mental health, poverty and social problems. kkk and black panthers still exist, so do bank robbers and kids with anxiety disorders on Zoloft. We worry, but we don't worry that all of them are going to come together and force a theocracy down our throats with planned coordinated multiple attacks globally. I just don't see the comparison.

You declare it Apples and Oranges because you want one category for all of the extremism and violence perpetrated by non-Muslims and another for the Muslims. I don't live in fear of a theocracy being shoved down my throat by Muslims. I certainly worry about the Christians in the US, though. It's easy for reasonable eyes to see that a woman's right to end a pregnancy is at risk of being jeopardized by an interest group clamoring for a theocratic governmental practice while Sharia is not on the menu. Muslims are ~1% of the US population. And yet! I do not believe we have a unique "Christian Problem" in this country. I accept that some Christians are crazy and others are wonderful. The fact that they find comfort and guidance in a book that is only a historical curiosity to me doesn't make them bad people or good people. They're just people doing what people do, sometimes to an unfortunate end and usually not.

I need to make clear that I have been saying all along the reason why this issue is so contentious is because no one fully understands what it is exactly they're standing for. It's not the same ball of wax people think they can debate with one blanket solution. Islam from 3rd world countries is NOT the same as western groomed Islam so therefore I do not connect the lives and attitudes with American Muslims. However, with that said, I would connect the lives of European Muslims with 3rd world ones. There are some very serious integration problems going on there and you can watch in the news how extreme right views are shifting. America is not like Europe. Yet. I would pay close attention to just how things are working out for them with they decide to mix theocracy with secular democracy.

And to equate my concerns to be akin to hitler is rather disturbing. I am quite aware of the atrocities of ww2 and am a bit of a war buff. You really seem to have a high opinion of yourself seeing your stuck only on one gear. Everyone's a bigot if they don't agree with you. I'm not right nor am I left, I'm probably more balanced than you politically speaking. Any leaning political view that's too far right or left is not a good thing. I'm not a bigot, just pragmatic. But I wonder, would you call a Muslim who says the exact same things as me a bigot? Think about it.

I'm not comparing your position to Hitler, but I am pointing out that the current anti-Muslim hate-fest has some very uncomfortable similarities with pre-Nazi anti-Semitism. You do realize that everyone was talking about cutting off Jewish immigration because "Jews don't integrate", right? That the was the theme. Because they were "God's Chosen People" and their communities remained insular, it was thought a foregone conclusion that their loyalties were questionable. And I do realize that you think the comparison invalid, because to you it is a foregone conclusion that all evils done by all Muslims stem from the same basic flaw in their underlying beliefs. But the thing is, that's what they always say. All evils of the demonized group are collective evils and unavoidable byproducts of their unique corruption. Their goods are a byproduct of the host culture. When a Muslim-American does a good thing, it is because he is an American. When he does a bad thing, it is because he is a Muslim. And so on.

This thing is a pattern in history. An incredibly unhealthy one. And pretty much every time societies have done this, it has been a point of shame and regret further on down the line.

a reply to: JohnnyElohim

Telling practitioners of Islam that their interpretation of their own faith is wrong because it doesn't align with your extreme and paranoia-inducing version of same is not very nice.

Just what in god's name are you going on about? I merely pointed out in the beginning the contradiction between what Charliespeirs said about apostasy and the importance of the Hadith. Am I not allowed to question it? Is that what you are asking me to do? It's called being objective. I saw a discrepancy and I called it.

Are you a Christian? Have you ever encountered one of those irritatingly self-confident atheists who tell you how horrible your beliefs are by quoting passages of the bible you are quite familiar with but would never accept as part of your practice?

Same answer as above. I see nothing wrong with an Atheist debating a Christian. Do you?

It certainly is accurate. Each time I have given examples of your generalizations being incorrect, you've waved your hands and excused them, moving on the next item. No True Muslim and all that.

What's accurate? And what examples? I've already conceded to the No true muslim bit , but you do know as well as I, that Muslims are the #1 victim of terrorist attacks from other Muslims. Your drinking Muslim friends may not exactly bode well for other Muslims in the ME. They would be accused of Haram that's for sure. So what points have I flailed my hands about and ignored?

The father of one of the Paris attackers said he would have killed his own son had he known what he had intended to do. Still too milquetoast though, right? Or he's just not a real Muslim? Not enough real action?

Wow. You're suggesting that I would want that eh? Mature. And you say I have a paranoid perception. I love the hyperbole.
Did you even bother to read the link I posted? What they're suggesting is what I'm suggesting.

You declare it Apples and Oranges because you want one category for all of the extremism and violence perpetrated by non-Muslims and another for the Muslims

I would never trust you to accurately track trends. Is the Paris shooting the same thing as the lone white male school shootings? Was the Lee Rigby decapitation the same as the PP shooting? Is there a connection with the Aurora theater shooting and an abortion clinic bombing in 1984? Islam is the one common denominator for Muslims killing other Muslims including infidels and non-believers. The right wing nuts don't kill other right wing nuts and there aren't millions of them. Islam is a religious and political system. Your logic is terribly flawed and dangerous to think we can systemically blanket all social problems as the same. Just what would you plan on doing with a radical extremist if it was up to you? Send him to a therapist? No that would be too un-PC. You would probably just rather work within the confines of his ideology and probably stop eating bacon.

I certainly worry about the Christians in the US, though. It's easy for reasonable eyes to see that a woman's right to end a pregnancy is at risk of being jeopardized by an interest group clamoring for a theocratic governmental practice while Sharia is not on the menu.

I don't believe Sharia law is of any concern. It would be virtually impossible this early in the game. 50 to 100 years is another story because anything can happen. Could be Chinese for all we know. But make no mistake, I would rather be under a Christian theocracy than a Muslim one. And I'm not Christian btw.

And yet! I do not believe we have a unique "Christian Problem" in this country. I accept that some Christians are crazy and others are wonderful. The fact that they find comfort and guidance in a book that is only a historical curiosity to me doesn't make them bad people or good people. They're just people doing what people do, sometimes to an unfortunate end and usually not.

That's because Christianity has already reformed. Islam hasn't.

When a Muslim-American does a good thing, it is because he is an American. When he does a bad thing, it is because he is a Muslim. And so on.

Hold on, there you go making strawman arguments. We don't get angry at Muslims for doing "bad things" we get angry when they try to KILL us. Geez man. I don't care if a Muslim cheats on his taxes or skips out on a taxi or other "bad things". Depends on the motive don't you think?

Here, watch this.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: JohnnyElohim
Just what in god's name are you going on about? I merely pointed out in the beginning the contradiction between what Charliespeirs said about apostasy and the importance of the Hadith. Am I not allowed to question it? Is that what you are asking me to do? It's called being objective. I saw a discrepancy and I called it.

You know precisely what I am talking about. You're not a Muslim. You are arguing with self-professed Muslims, insisting that their practice of their faith is wrong because it does not lead inexorably to horror. You're not being objective, you're being uncivil, unreasonable, and bigoted when you insist that your interpretation of Islam -- an interpretation that conveniently justifies hatred -- is more legitimate than the interpretation of actual practitioners.

Same answer as above. I see nothing wrong with an Atheist debating a Christian. Do you?

Sigh. You're kidding, right? I said that in order to make a point about arrogance, ignorance, and lack of civility.

What's accurate? And what examples? I've already conceded to the No true muslim bit , but you do know as well as I, that Muslims are the #1 victim of terrorist attacks from other Muslims. Your drinking Muslim friends may not exactly bode well for other Muslims in the ME. They would be accused of Haram that's for sure. So what points have I flailed my hands about and ignored?

Here I am primarily concerned with your insinuation and outright declaration that moderate Muslims don't engage meaningfully with the matters at hand.

Wow. You're suggesting that I would want that eh? Mature. And you say I have a paranoid perception. I love the hyperbole.
Did you even bother to read the link I posted? What they're suggesting is what I'm suggesting.

This continuous misdirection is exhausting and the holidays approach, so I'll be plain. I don't care whether you would want it. I point it out because it undermines your continuing insinuation that moderate Muslims are part of the problem because they do not do enough to fight against extremism. It is yet another example undermining the narrative that extremism is inseparable from Islam generally (and that is what you were saying when I engaged you).

I would never trust you to accurately track trends. Is the Paris shooting the same thing as the lone white male school shootings? Was the Lee Rigby decapitation the same as the PP shooting? Is there a connection with the Aurora theater shooting and an abortion clinic bombing in 1984? Islam is the one common denominator for Muslims killing other Muslims including infidels and non-believers. The right wing nuts don't kill other right wing nuts and there aren't millions of them. Islam is a religious and political system. Your logic is terribly flawed and dangerous to think we can systemically blanket all social problems as the same. Just what would you plan on doing with a radical extremist if it was up to you? Send him to a therapist? No that would be too un-PC. You would probably just rather work within the confines of his ideology and probably stop eating bacon.

I was wondering when you'd say my thinking was dangerous. There's some value in categorizing but you drastically overplay it. A radical who has committed a crime is a criminal. I would deal with them as a criminal. Creating a magical bucket for Islamic radicals versus the myriad other kinds who can can and do perpetrate violence (and who do so more frequently in the United States) is counterproductive.

I don't believe Sharia law is of any concern. It would be virtually impossible this early in the game. 50 to 100 years is another story because anything can happen. Could be Chinese for all we know. But make no mistake, I would rather be under a Christian theocracy than a Muslim one. And I'm not Christian btw.

That rather depends on the era in question. But just a couple of posts back, you were saying that Islamic radicals are different because we don't worry about other kinds of radicals taking over our countries and enforcing Sharia law, right? It seemed you were concerned then.

That's because Christianity has already reformed. Islam hasn't.

Clearly not true. There remain crazy Christians justifying their craziness with their Christianness. But we've been down this road.

Hold on, there you go making strawman arguments. We don't get angry at Muslims for doing "bad things" we get angry when they try to KILL us. Geez man. I don't care if a Muslim cheats on his taxes or skips out on a taxi or other "bad things". Depends on the motive don't you think?

Here, watch this.

The point as I am sure you are aware is that your attribution of cause is selective. I've got holidays to enjoy and I've made my points clear. I wish you the best regardless of our loggerheads. I don't expect to persuade you of anything, but hopefully our discussion has contributed something useful to the river of conversation. I suspect you'd agree that we've milked the exchange of any productive value at this point -- I doubt either of us has the time to watch Youtube videos and respond to the positions articulated therein, so I'll leave that be. I bid happy holidays to you and yours.