that's 72% of Muslims not 72% of Indonesians. Muslim makes up 87% of Indonesia's population, and Sharia courts are already practiced across the country, but compliment traditional state courts for non muslims, state courts take precedence. Indonesia is a relatively Moderate Muslim country despite already practicing Sharia.
The point Aslan is making is that the reason these countries have backwards values is because of all sorts of other factors.
Exactly, not exclusively because of their religion. Which is exactly what many people are saying in this thread (my Aslan point wasn't aimed exclusively at you)
I think you miss my point if you think I'm generalising Muslims. When I say Islam has bad ideas I'm not criticising every Muslim in the same way that smoking is bad for you is not criticising every smoker. Every point I make is backed up by statistics from reputable organisations like Pew.
Even if the large majority of terrorists have psychological problems (which I have never seen proven by anyone)
I said psychological profile, and of course it does as any militants make up does.
I'm not missing your point, you're saying these people would only be fanatical because of their religion, i'm saying that's not true and that it's the gateway they needed.
I don't think you can discount religion.
But you can't generalise about that whole religion and all practitioners of that religion - and THAT'S the point.
If you have an extremist Buddhist then they are more likely to set themselves on fire. A radicalised Confucian would be awesome to be around. Religion gives people a justification for their actions. These guys would not be blowing themselves up if they were subscribers to any other faith. This is because suicide bombing isn't justifiable if you don't have a religion which believes in rewarding those who die in holy war. It is incredibly easy to use the Quran as a justification to commit acts of terror.
Suicide bombings have been part of guerrilla warfare through out history, it is not exclusive to Islam as a religion, it was prevalent in Vietnam for example - the point is how a fanatic interprets the religion, not the religion.
Again i repeat I'm not missing your point, you're saying these people would only be fanatical because of their religion, i'm saying that's not true and that it's the gateway they needed and that they very well may have radicalised under a different banner - politics or something else.
It's the individual not the religion.
When we talk about the terrorists we call them Islamic fundamentalists. We don't call them Islamic deviants. People say that Osama Bin Laden has a literal interpretation of the Quran. I have never heard someone say that Osama Bin Laden is wrong in his interpretation. Having read the Quran I find it difficult to disagree with Bin Laden or anything.
what? Many Muslims the world over have denounced his actions, which by virtue denounces his interpretation of the Quran
I don't really see how you can not judge some of these countries on their religion when they live under religious law. I'm never saying religion is the only factor but it's a factor some people like to ignore. Islam is just an idea and like all ideas must be open to criticism.
Of course it must be open to criticism, but extremist are Minorities within the religion.
In exactly the same way Anders Behring Breivik was just a Christian mentalist who decided the time was right to slaughter 80 innocent people – do we hold Christianity responsible for his actions or is he just a mentalist?
As a religion Islam is reasonably new, it's about 700 years behind Christianity in its formation (right?), so if you think back to what Christians were doing at around the same period of the religions development and that was laying waste to the middle east.
Yes, the world has move on but a lot of the countries that have extremist elements within are former colonies of western countries that were left underdeveloped when we gave up and shipped out, and as Aslan said Religion often fills a void so the growth of Islam isn't unusual, additionally these regions are also regions steeped in warrior culture so again the religion fills the void and adopts the local cultural differences.
You misunderstood me. I acknowledged that most Muslims are not violent, and I didn't say that the religion was violent in and of itself - what I said is that as a whole Islam has turned a blind eye to the violence. By not condemning it in the strongest way possible Islam is, in effect, condoning the violence. The only way to combat the violent actions of a few radicals is for the faith itself to take a worldwide stance against it. It hasn't yet. (The call to action was addressed by Obama at his recent speech to the UN, in which he said - if effect - that it's time for Islamic nations to take action against radical clerics and their followers.)
And as far as the two world wars - no disputing Christianity's dirty hand it both wars. Christ was doing one huge facepalm during the first half of the 20th century, certain sure.
das
A couple of points with this.
(feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) Islam doesn't have a central religious leader like the catholic (and by connection) Christian church has the Pope, so it's very difficult to make a religious statement denouncing these acts.
Having said that many moderate and conservative high profile Muslims absolutely HAVE denounced the acts... Many Muslim heads of state, including the hypocritical Saudis have denounced the acts and made statements and gestures that staunchly oppose what is happening within Islamic Fundamentalism.
