2020 French Terrorist Beheadings and Attacks Thread

[Insaanistan]

Let me clarify: It was directly talking about the Makkans, but at the same time is an example of how to deal with anyone who does something similar.

It's like you're on the edge of a major realization, but are scared to step over.

Keep following that line of thought to the conclusion.

I’m not exactly sure what you’re getting at: I’ve already acknowledged terrorists use verses like this to justify their actions. As for violence against America, that wouldn’t be allowed, since while these were bad things, they occurred in war, and were not really endorsed by the US Govt (War crimes, I mean).

[Pan Evropa]

May I ask the people talking about a civil war in France: where are you from? We Europeans are not bloodthirsty people. We have no interest in conflict. This talk of civil war and genocide is scaremongering nonsense and you should stop at once.

*looks at European history*

Yeah, Europe’s always been so quiet and peaceful

Never said it was... but I don't think Europe was more violent than other places in the world. Its just that we recorded our violence more than others. But today, Europe is one of the most peaceful and safest places on earth. Much to the dismay of Erdogan and his terrorist friends.

[-Astoria-]

*sigh* If someone hasn't already conflated the atrocities to be fully representative of millions of people that want everyone unlike them dear, I'll be surprised.

But in a more serious note, brutally murdering innocent people over stupid drawings is just inexcusable; one could indeed choose not to look at them.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

*looks at European history*

Yeah, Europe’s always been so quiet and peaceful

Never said it was... but I don't think Europe was more violent than other places in the world. Its just that we recorded our violence more than others. But today, Europe is one of the most peaceful and safest places on earth. Much to the dismay of Erdogan and his terrorist friends.

To be fair, France, the UK and Russia have nuclear bombs. Europe can't afford to have a continent wide war now because otherwise it would result in everyone getting turned to ash.

Also outside of western europe which is indeed peaceful, Eastern Europe is still rather dangerous in many areas. I think there's still a war going on between the Ukraine and Russia and the Balkans are a powder keg waiting to blow, and even on a good day the homicide rate in Albania is...concerning. but yes, France is for the most part a safe country.

[Ostroeuropa]

Compare the constant slippery slope arguments about white people, their history, and culture and how even the slightest possibility of something leading to something leading to something that leads to fascism, with the treatment of Islam.

We don't tend to see people saying "No you can't have a mosque or anything Islamic being tolerated because terrorism is the unavoidable inevitable consequence, why do you want gay people beheaded, women raped, and massacres in churches?".

Our governments and institutions are at war with the native population.

[Insaanistan]

Compare the constant slippery slope arguments about white people, their history, and culture and how even the slightest possibility of something leading to something leading to something that leads to fascism, with the treatment of Islam.

We don't tend to see people saying "No you can't have a mosque or anything Islamic being tolerated because terrorism is the unavoidable inevitable consequence, why do you want gay people beheaded, women raped, and massacres in churches?".

Our governments and institutions are at war with the native population.

That’s terrorists, not Muslims. Islam makes it clear all of those are HUGE no-nos.

[Ostroeuropa]

Compare the constant slippery slope arguments about white people, their history, and culture and how even the slightest possibility of something leading to something leading to something that leads to fascism, with the treatment of Islam.

We don't tend to see people saying "No you can't have a mosque or anything Islamic being tolerated because terrorism is the unavoidable inevitable consequence, why do you want gay people beheaded, women raped, and massacres in churches?".

Our governments and institutions are at war with the native population.

That’s terrorists, not Muslims. Islam makes it clear all of those are HUGE no-nos.

"They're nazis, not pro-white racists.".

The ideology of Islam being normalized instead of deconstructed, marginalized, and made unacceptable makes this inevitable. Let's also not forget the attitudes surveys that show things like zero Muslims in the UK thinking homosexuality is acceptable, and over half supporting violence against gay people.

The point of my comparison was to show how lopsided our handling of these issues are. We seem to view Islamism as some separate thing rather than a product of Islam.

We tend not to examine how Islam produces Islamism because of the fundamentally insular nature of the ideology, but we're more than happy to examine society and note how various things are examples of white privilege and tie them to minorities being mistreated.

The solution is fairly clear; begin to examine and deconstruct Islam and reform it to adjust to its critics demands, while treating those who do not agree to those criticisms as hostile to society and marginalizing them. Fire them from their jobs, do not buy from their businesses, break up their organizations, censor their political activity, arrest them for hate speech if they fall too far behind the curve, and so on.

This is, supposedly, how we have decided to deal with hate movements that produce violence in society.

Islam is to Islamism as White Racism/Privilege is to Fascism.

A culture of heavily normalized white privilege and pro-white racism might denounce racist violence as unacceptable, but it doesn't take a genius to see how it's an inevitable consequence of it.
But there has been essentially no examination of the insular and anti-pluralistic norms of Islamic communities, Islamic ideology, and so on like there has for White cultures.

As an example; If you went around openly saying that White people shouldn't marry non-whites, that's an incredibly fringe opinion because it has been opposed, deconstructed, and its adherents have been punished for supporting that view.

Compare Islam. Under Islamic Law, Muslim men are permitted to marry only members of the Kitabiyya and Muslim women are not permitted to marry non-Muslims.

Because Islam is a set of religious laws, it is apt to compare adherents of it to adherents of Jim Crow.

As I said;

"White supremacists aren't the problem, Neo-Nazis are" is a baffling take.

It is inherent in Islamic ideology and doctrine and the only way that will change is to change the doctrine. Since they are religious, that is essentially impossible, so Islam must instead be marginalized from society and made unacceptable.

When someone says they are a Muslim they should be made to clarify. If they support elements of Islam that are counter to egalitarian and secular societies (I.E, if they admit Islam is what it actually is and agree with it anyway), they should be fired from their jobs and ostracized like we would to someone going around spouting nonsense about securing the purity of white blood through avoiding miscegenation.

Again, that is only one example.

[Insaanistan]

That’s terrorists, not Muslims. Islam makes it clear all of those are HUGE no-nos.

"They're nazis, not pro-white racists.".

The ideology of Islam being normalized instead of deconstructed, marginalized, and made unacceptable makes this inevitable. Let's also not forget the attitudes surveys that show things like zero Muslims in the UK thinking homosexuality is acceptable, and over half supporting violence against gay people.

The point of my comparison was to show how lopsided our handling of these issues are. We seem to view Islamism as some separate thing rather than a product of Islam.

We tend not to examine how Islam produces Islamism because of the fundamentally insular nature of the ideology, but we're more than happy to examine society and note how various things are examples of white privilege and tie them to minorities being mistreated.

The solution is fairly clear; begin to examine and deconstruct Islam and reform it to adjust to its critics demands, while treating those who do not agree to those criticisms as hostile to society and marginalizing them. Fire them from their jobs, do not buy from their businesses, arrest them for hate speech if they fall too far behind the curve, and so on.

This is, supposedly, how we have decided to deal with hate movements.

I’m sorry, could you leave your fantasy world where white people are oppressed and Muslims are all fanatics so we can actually talk about this?

Islamism isn’t a product of Islam. It IS a product of several factors (which can vary from place to place), including the misinterpretation of Islam.
What you are suggesting is essentially what Nazis did with Jews. It’s so sad that six million Jews and several millions of other died in the Shoah, and yet all so many people learned was “We can’t do it to Moshe, but Musa over there is fair game.”

[Ostroeuropa]

"They're nazis, not pro-white racists.".

The ideology of Islam being normalized instead of deconstructed, marginalized, and made unacceptable makes this inevitable. Let's also not forget the attitudes surveys that show things like zero Muslims in the UK thinking homosexuality is acceptable, and over half supporting violence against gay people.

The point of my comparison was to show how lopsided our handling of these issues are. We seem to view Islamism as some separate thing rather than a product of Islam.

We tend not to examine how Islam produces Islamism because of the fundamentally insular nature of the ideology, but we're more than happy to examine society and note how various things are examples of white privilege and tie them to minorities being mistreated.

The solution is fairly clear; begin to examine and deconstruct Islam and reform it to adjust to its critics demands, while treating those who do not agree to those criticisms as hostile to society and marginalizing them. Fire them from their jobs, do not buy from their businesses, arrest them for hate speech if they fall too far behind the curve, and so on.

This is, supposedly, how we have decided to deal with hate movements.

I’m sorry, could you leave your fantasy world where white people are oppressed and Muslims are all fanatics so we can actually talk about this?

Islamism isn’t a product of Islam. It IS a product of several factors (which can vary from place to place), including the misinterpretation of Islam.
What you are suggesting is essentially what Nazis did with Jews. It’s so sad that six million Jews and several millions of other died in the Shoah, and yet all so many people learned was “We can’t do it to Moshe, but Musa over there is fair game.”

Islam is to Islamism as White Racism/Privilege is to Fascism.

A culture of heavily normalized white privilege and pro-white racism might denounce racist violence as unacceptable, but it doesn't take a genius to see how it's an inevitable consequence of it.
But there has been essentially no examination of the insular and anti-pluralistic norms of Islamic communities, Islamic ideology, and so on like there has for White cultures.

As an example; If you went around openly saying that White people shouldn't marry non-whites, that's an incredibly fringe opinion because it has been opposed, deconstructed, and its adherents have been punished for supporting that view.

Compare Islam. Under Islamic Law, Muslim men are permitted to marry only members of the Kitabiyya and Muslim women are not permitted to marry non-Muslims.

Because Islam is a set of religious laws, it is apt to compare adherents of it to adherents of Jim Crow and anti-race mixing laws. There is nothing magic about race that makes that different in practice to what Islam demands, especially in terms of impact on societal harmony.

As I said;

"White supremacists aren't the problem, Neo-Nazis are" is a baffling take.

It is inherent in Islamic ideology and doctrine and the only way that will change is to change the doctrine. Since they are religious, that is essentially impossible, so Islam must instead be marginalized from society and made unacceptable.

When someone says they are a Muslim they should be made to clarify. If they support elements of Islam that are counter to egalitarian and secular societies (I.E, if they admit Islam is what it actually is and agree with it anyway), they should be fired from their jobs and ostracized like we would to someone going around spouting nonsense about securing the purity of white blood through avoiding miscegenation.

Again, that is only one example of the inherent problems with Islam, how Islam is an insular doctrine and set of legal requirements (regardless of the interpretations, you can only stretch a meaning so far), and so on.

A community that believes such sectarian things producing violent sectarians is not some seperate event, it is an inevitable consequence of the ideologies and culture they have. Same for jim crow producing the klan.

"I'm a member of the Klan, but one of the majority of them that don't support lynchings. I just believe in anti-miscegenation laws and campaigning to keep them." (See the history of the Klan and how 15% of the population were members at some point) is a nonsense take and we've known it to be nonsense for decades. These are not seperate phemomanae.

Again. This is an examination of *one* policy of Islam, and it's already evident how the ideology itself is the problem.

[Pan Evropa]

Compare the constant slippery slope arguments about white people, their history, and culture and how even the slightest possibility of something leading to something leading to something that leads to fascism, with the treatment of Islam.

We don't tend to see people saying "No you can't have a mosque or anything Islamic being tolerated because terrorism is the unavoidable inevitable consequence, why do you want gay people beheaded, women raped, and massacres in churches?".

Our governments and institutions are at war with the native population.

That’s terrorists, not Muslims. Islam makes it clear all of those are HUGE no-nos.

If it was as clear as you think it is, then it wouldn't be happening. Gay people are executed in multiple Islamic countries, most notably by Iran - though they're rawafidh so I don't know if you consider them to be Muslims or mushrikeen. As for rape, historically most ulama are fine with marital rape.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

Erdogan is batshit insane

Did I mention that already?

[Pan Evropa]

Islamism isn’t a product of Islam. It IS a product of several factors (which can vary from place to place), including the misinterpretation of Islam.

This is an absurd take and one that does frustrate me when it comes to religious discussions... why is YOUR interpretation of Islam correct, but the interpretation of Islamists - whose core ideas seem to be pretty in line with historic interpretations in Islam - are wrong? We must remember what Islamism is. It is the belief that Islam has been revealed to be true, and that man must be governed by what is true. Islamism is not an innovation but a modern adaption of historic views towards Islam and politics. I am not saying it is the exclusive, authentic interpretation of Islam, but it has origins in historically prevalent positions within the Islamic world.

[Insaanistan]

I’m sorry, could you leave your fantasy world where white people are oppressed and Muslims are all fanatics so we can actually talk about this?

Islamism isn’t a product of Islam. It IS a product of several factors (which can vary from place to place), including the misinterpretation of Islam.
What you are suggesting is essentially what Nazis did with Jews. It’s so sad that six million Jews and several millions of other died in the Shoah, and yet all so many people learned was “We can’t do it to Moshe, but Musa over there is fair game.”

Islam is to Islamism as White Racism/Privilege is to Fascism.

A culture of heavily normalized white privilege and pro-white racism might denounce racist violence as unacceptable, but it doesn't take a genius to see how it's an inevitable consequence of it.
But there has been essentially no examination of the insular and anti-pluralistic norms of Islamic communities, Islamic ideology, and so on like there has for White cultures.

As an example; If you went around openly saying that White people shouldn't marry non-whites, that's an incredibly fringe opinion because it has been opposed, deconstructed, and its adherents have been punished for supporting that view.

Compare Islam. Under Islamic Law, Muslim men are permitted to marry only members of the Kitabiyya and Muslim women are not permitted to marry non-Muslims.

Because Islam is a set of religious laws, it is apt to compare adherents of it to adherents of Jim Crow.

As I said;

"White supremacists aren't the problem, Neo-Nazis are" is a baffling take.

It is inherent in Islamic ideology and doctrine and the only way that will change is to change the doctrine. Since they are religious, that is essentially impossible, so Islam must instead be marginalized from society and made unacceptable.

When someone says they are a Muslim they should be made to clarify. If they support elements of Islam that are counter to egalitarian and secular societies (I.E, if they admit Islam is what it actually is and agree with it anyway), they should be fired from their jobs and ostracized like we would to someone going around spouting nonsense about securing the purity of white blood through avoiding miscegenation.

Again, that is only one example.

I’m sorry, it’s hard to take this seriously! Are you for real? I mean, really?!
Islam, the religion that advocates for racial and gender equality and brotherhood with Jews, is like Nazism? Seriously, just pick up a Qur’ân. Matter of fact, I will gladly tell you the name of the English translation I read! But please, educate yourself.

[Ostroeuropa]

Islam is to Islamism as White Racism/Privilege is to Fascism.

A culture of heavily normalized white privilege and pro-white racism might denounce racist violence as unacceptable, but it doesn't take a genius to see how it's an inevitable consequence of it.
But there has been essentially no examination of the insular and anti-pluralistic norms of Islamic communities, Islamic ideology, and so on like there has for White cultures.

As an example; If you went around openly saying that White people shouldn't marry non-whites, that's an incredibly fringe opinion because it has been opposed, deconstructed, and its adherents have been punished for supporting that view.

Compare Islam. Under Islamic Law, Muslim men are permitted to marry only members of the Kitabiyya and Muslim women are not permitted to marry non-Muslims.

Because Islam is a set of religious laws, it is apt to compare adherents of it to adherents of Jim Crow.

As I said;

"White supremacists aren't the problem, Neo-Nazis are" is a baffling take.

It is inherent in Islamic ideology and doctrine and the only way that will change is to change the doctrine. Since they are religious, that is essentially impossible, so Islam must instead be marginalized from society and made unacceptable.

When someone says they are a Muslim they should be made to clarify. If they support elements of Islam that are counter to egalitarian and secular societies (I.E, if they admit Islam is what it actually is and agree with it anyway), they should be fired from their jobs and ostracized like we would to someone going around spouting nonsense about securing the purity of white blood through avoiding miscegenation.

Again, that is only one example.

I’m sorry, it’s hard to take this seriously! Are you for real? I mean, really?!
Islam, the religion that advocates for racial and gender equality and brotherhood with Jews, is like Nazism? Seriously, just pick up a Qur’ân. Matter of fact, I will gladly tell you the name of the English translation I read! But please, educate yourself.

So you've not actually addressed the point. I compared *Islamism* to Naziism, and Islam to a more generalized white supremacy, and I used a specific part of Islamic law to bolster that case. Why not address the point?

Do you deny it is against Islamic law for a Muslim women to marry a non-muslim man? Or for muslim men to marry atheists, for example? That is the religious equivalent of Jim Crow and pro-segregation mentality. A community that believes such things are acceptable views to hold producing violent extremists is not rocket science.

Islam is not an egalitarian ideology. It is a segregationist one.

[Insaanistan]

Islamism isn’t a product of Islam. It IS a product of several factors (which can vary from place to place), including the misinterpretation of Islam.

This is an absurd take and one that does frustrate me when it comes to religious discussions... why is YOUR interpretation of Islam correct, but the interpretation of Islamists - whose core ideas seem to be pretty in line with historic interpretations in Islam - are wrong? We must remember what Islamism is. It is the belief that Islam has been revealed to be true, and that man must be governed by what is true. Islamism is not an innovation but a modern adaption of historic views towards Islam and politics. I am not saying it is the exclusive, authentic interpretation of Islam, but it has origins in historically prevalent positions within the Islamic world.

Actually, there interpretations come into conflict with most historical interpretations of Islam. Islamism is a dangerous political ideology based on the misunderstanding of Islam. While it may take inspiration from terrible “Muslim” leaders, it’s, in its current form, a modern innovation. That isn’t to say “Islamic” extremists didn’t exist before; some of them even tried to kill Salahuddin. But for most of Islamic history, you would not gain any popularity preaching that in most places.

[Insaanistan]

I’m sorry, it’s hard to take this seriously! Are you for real? I mean, really?!
Islam, the religion that advocates for racial and gender equality and brotherhood with Jews, is like Nazism? Seriously, just pick up a Qur’ân. Matter of fact, I will gladly tell you the name of the English translation I read! But please, educate yourself.

So you've not actually addressed the point. I compared *Islamism* to Naziism, and Islam to a more generalized white supremacy, and I used a specific part of Islamic law to bolster that case. Why not address the point?

Do you deny it is against Islamic law for a Muslim women to marry a non-muslim man? Or for muslim men to marry atheists, for example? That is the religious equivalent of Jim Crow and pro-segregation mentality. A community that believes such things are acceptable views to hold producing violent extremists is not rocket science.

Islam is not an egalitarian ideology. It is a segregationist one.

Jim Crow did so because of racism and “wanting to keep white people pure”. Islam says so because, as you’ve noticed, most societies are patrilineal, so children of Muslim mothers but non-Muslim fathers generally were non-Muslim. Even today that’s true even when the religions are flipped (most of my uncles and aunts are not very devout Muslims or Christians because their mom or mom’s family are Christian).

It’d be a lot more confusing for a child when they ask “Are you going to hell, or is daddy going to hell?” instead of “Why do you and daddy look different.”

By the way: I’m black.

[Insaanistan]

That’s terrorists, not Muslims. Islam makes it clear all of those are HUGE no-nos.

If it was as clear as you think it is, then it wouldn't be happening. Gay people are executed in multiple Islamic countries, most notably by Iran - though they're rawafidh so I don't know if you consider them to be Muslims or mushrikeen. As for rape, historically most ulama are fine with marital rape.

I consider Shiās Muslim, but not Iran’s government. Also, what? The law makes it clear murder is illegal, but murders keep happening. Does every country secretly support murder?

Fine with it? No. Didn’t really talk or even think about it? Yeah.

[Ostroeuropa]

Jim Crow did so because of racism and “wanting to keep white people pure”. Islam says so because, as you’ve noticed, most societies are patrilineal, so children of Muslim mothers but non-Muslim fathers generally were non-Muslim. Even today that’s true even when the religions are flipped (most of my uncles and aunts are not very devout Muslims or Christians because their mom or mom’s family are Christian).

It’d be a lot more confusing for a child when they ask “Are you going to hell, or is daddy going to hell?” instead of “Why do you and daddy look different.”

By the way: I’m black.

This is largely irrelevant in terms of impact on societal integration and harmony, and it bolsters an otherizing view of the group being segregated against. As I said, there is nothing magic about race that makes behaving this way on race produce more societal issues than behaving so based on religion. It is also only one example of the problem with Islam and how it consistently otherizes non-muslims and treats them as lesser.

Either you believe racism is different and matters more morally, in which case why should we care about "discriminating" against Muslims, or you have an argument for why Sectarianism causes less damage than Racism, in which case, crack a history book.

[Pan Evropa]

If it was as clear as you think it is, then it wouldn't be happening. Gay people are executed in multiple Islamic countries, most notably by Iran - though they're rawafidh so I don't know if you consider them to be Muslims or mushrikeen. As for rape, historically most ulama are fine with marital rape.

I consider Shiās Muslim, but not Iran’s government. Also, what? The law makes it clear murder is illegal, but murders keep happening. Does every country secretly support murder?

Fine with it? No. Didn’t really talk or even think about it? Yeah.

Incredibly disingenuous. Al-Hidayah states, and is affirmed by other Hanafi scholars at the time, that it is totally okay to force your wife to have sex with you if she doesn't have a legitimate reason to say no. Medieval Islamic scholars did not consider marital rape to be ightisab, and this is the most prevalent position amongst contemporary ulama.

Actually, there interpretations come into conflict with most historical interpretations of Islam. Islamism is a dangerous political ideology based on the misunderstanding of Islam. While it may take inspiration from terrible “Muslim” leaders, it’s, in its current form, a modern innovation. That isn’t to say “Islamic” extremists didn’t exist before; some of them even tried to kill Salahuddin. But for most of Islamic history, you would not gain any popularity preaching that in most places.

The AP stylebook defines Islamism as "An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam". Much of what famous Islamists advocate is not Bid'ah, but prevalent beliefs that are found throughout Islamic history. Islamism is of course a broad tent and can encompass traditionalist Salafis to just more hardline conservative Muslims like Erdogan. I think it is disingenuous to say that they're misinterpreting Islam when you refuse to explain how, because I think they would say the same about you.

[Insaanistan]

Jim Crow did so because of racism and “wanting to keep white people pure”. Islam says so because, as you’ve noticed, most societies are patrilineal, so children of Muslim mothers but non-Muslim fathers generally were non-Muslim. Even today that’s true even when the religions are flipped (most of my uncles and aunts are not very devout Muslims or Christians because their mom or mom’s family are Christian).

It’d be a lot more confusing for a child when they ask “Are you going to hell, or is daddy going to hell?” instead of “Why do you and daddy look different.”

By the way: I’m black.

This is largely irrelevant in terms of impact on societal integration and harmony, and it bolsters an otherizing view of the group being segregated against. As I said, there is nothing magic about race that makes behaving this way on race produce more societal issues than behaving so based on religion. It is also only one example of the problem with Islam and how it consistently otherizes non-muslims and treats them as lesser.

Either you believe racism is different and matters more morally, in which case why should we care about "discriminating" against Muslims, or you have an argument for why Sectarianism causes less damage than Racism, in which case, crack a history book.

Jim Crow was focused not even primarily on keeping the people from marrying, but keeping them apart altogether, and keeping those like me of the darker hue down. It doesn’t treat non-Muslims as lesser, and encourages Muslims to be on good terms with them and be kind with them one Hadith goes,

A funeral procession was passing, and Muhammad (pbuh) stood up in respect. We said to him, “But the man is Jewish!” He looked at us and said, “Is he not a human being?”

Another story talks about Muhammad (pbuh)’s neighbor, who also was Jewish. Now, most of Muhammad (pbuh)’s Jewish neighbors he had amazingly good terms with. Back then that was big, because being neighbors made you family not by choice. But this one hated Muhammad (pbuh), so he threw trash in front of Muhammad (pbuh)’s door. Muhammad (pbuh) always sighed and picked it up. One day, it was missing, so he asked around to see if they neighbor had left town or something, and he learned the neighbor was sick. So, to the neighbor’s amazement, Muhammad (pbuh) want to the neighbor’s house to care for him.

It doesn’t place people as other religions as lesser at all. Rulers along the years sure have.

[Insaanistan]

I consider Shiās Muslim, but not Iran’s government. Also, what? The law makes it clear murder is illegal, but murders keep happening. Does every country secretly support murder?

Fine with it? No. Didn’t really talk or even think about it? Yeah.

Incredibly disingenuous. Al-Hidayah states, and is affirmed by other Hanafi scholars at the time, that it is totally okay to force your wife to have sex with you if she doesn't have a legitimate reason to say no. Medieval Islamic scholars did not consider marital rape to be ightisab, and this is the most prevalent position amongst contemporary ulama.

Actually, there interpretations come into conflict with most historical interpretations of Islam. Islamism is a dangerous political ideology based on the misunderstanding of Islam. While it may take inspiration from terrible “Muslim” leaders, it’s, in its current form, a modern innovation. That isn’t to say “Islamic” extremists didn’t exist before; some of them even tried to kill Salahuddin. But for most of Islamic history, you would not gain any popularity preaching that in most places.

The AP stylebook defines Islamism as "An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam". Much of what famous Islamists advocate is not Bid'ah, but prevalent beliefs that are found throughout Islamic history. Islamism is of course a broad tent and can encompass traditionalist Salafis to just more hardline conservative Muslims like Erdogan. I think it is disingenuous to say that they're misinterpreting Islam when you refuse to explain how, because I think they would say the same about you.

I’ve explained many, MANY times how they misinterpret it. I can TG you about it or discuss in the IDT.

[Ostroeuropa]

I consider Shiās Muslim, but not Iran’s government. Also, what? The law makes it clear murder is illegal, but murders keep happening. Does every country secretly support murder?

Fine with it? No. Didn’t really talk or even think about it? Yeah.

Incredibly disingenuous. Al-Hidayah states, and is affirmed by other Hanafi scholars at the time, that it is totally okay to force your wife to have sex with you if she doesn't have a legitimate reason to say no. Medieval Islamic scholars did not consider marital rape to be ightisab, and this is the most prevalent position amongst contemporary ulama.

Actually, there interpretations come into conflict with most historical interpretations of Islam. Islamism is a dangerous political ideology based on the misunderstanding of Islam. While it may take inspiration from terrible “Muslim” leaders, it’s, in its current form, a modern innovation. That isn’t to say “Islamic” extremists didn’t exist before; some of them even tried to kill Salahuddin. But for most of Islamic history, you would not gain any popularity preaching that in most places.

The AP stylebook defines Islamism as "An advocate or supporter of a political movement that favors reordering government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam". Much of what famous Islamists advocate is not Bid'ah, but prevalent beliefs that are found throughout Islamic history. Islamism is of course a broad tent and can encompass traditionalist Salafis to just more hardline conservative Muslims like Erdogan. I think it is disingenuous to say that they're misinterpreting Islam when you refuse to explain how, because I think they would say the same about you.

The penalty for apostasy is also worth noting, as well as public attitudes on it, as is the fact that the Islamic world (And ONLY the Islamic world) is so fundamentally hostile to human rights *even in concept* that they had to make their own version of the universal declaration of human rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Dec ... s_in_Islam

They are not merely incompatible with the west, but have openly declared themselves incompatible with the rest of human civilization. This is because it is not a problem with the west, it is a problem with Islam. (As others have noted; Islam has bloody borders).

[-Astoria-]

Incredibly disingenuous. Al-Hidayah states, and is affirmed by other Hanafi scholars at the time, that it is totally okay to force your wife to have sex with you if she doesn't have a legitimate reason to say no. Medieval Islamic scholars did not consider marital rape to be ightisab, and this is the most prevalent position amongst contemporary ulama.

I dunno about you, but I'm pretty sure there's more than one Islamic school of thought.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is largely irrelevant in terms of impact on societal integration and harmony, and it bolsters an otherizing view of the group being segregated against. As I said, there is nothing magic about race that makes behaving this way on race produce more societal issues than behaving so based on religion. It is also only one example of the problem with Islam and how it consistently otherizes non-muslims and treats them as lesser.

Either you believe racism is different and matters more morally, in which case why should we care about "discriminating" against Muslims, or you have an argument for why Sectarianism causes less damage than Racism, in which case, crack a history book.

Jim Crow was focused not even primarily on keeping the people from marrying, but keeping them apart altogether, and keeping those like me of the darker hue down. It doesn’t treat non-Muslims as lesser, and encourages Muslims to be on good terms with them and be kind with them one Hadith goes,

A funeral procession was passing, and Muhammad (pbuh) stood up in respect. We said to him, “But the man is Jewish!” He looked at us and said, “Is he not a human being?”

Another story talks about Muhammad (pbuh)’s neighbor, who also was Jewish. Now, most of Muhammad (pbuh)’s Jewish neighbors he had amazingly good terms with. Back then that was big, because being neighbors made you family not by choice. But this one hated Muhammad (pbuh), so he threw trash in front of Muhammad (pbuh)’s door. Muhammad (pbuh) always sighed and picked it up. One day, it was missing, so he asked around to see if they neighbor had left town or something, and he learned the neighbor was sick. So, to the neighbor’s amazement, Muhammad (pbuh) want to the neighbor’s house to care for him.

It doesn’t place people as other religions as lesser at all. Rulers along the years sure have.

If you're going to pretend that Islam doesn't present other religions as lesser, then why is there also a penalty for apostasy?

[Insaanistan]

Jim Crow was focused not even primarily on keeping the people from marrying, but keeping them apart altogether, and keeping those like me of the darker hue down. It doesn’t treat non-Muslims as lesser, and encourages Muslims to be on good terms with them and be kind with them one Hadith goes,


Another story talks about Muhammad (pbuh)’s neighbor, who also was Jewish. Now, most of Muhammad (pbuh)’s Jewish neighbors he had amazingly good terms with. Back then that was big, because being neighbors made you family not by choice. But this one hated Muhammad (pbuh), so he threw trash in front of Muhammad (pbuh)’s door. Muhammad (pbuh) always sighed and picked it up. One day, it was missing, so he asked around to see if they neighbor had left town or something, and he learned the neighbor was sick. So, to the neighbor’s amazement, Muhammad (pbuh) want to the neighbor’s house to care for him.

It doesn’t place people as other religions as lesser at all. Rulers along the years sure have.

If you're going to pretend that Islam doesn't present other religions as lesser, then why is there also a penalty for apostasy?

Wanna know a secret: there isn’t! There is none. Many empires have punished people for apostasy, but there actually is no punishment for it. Many leaders throughout the centuries (and terrorists in the modern era along with leaders) have used a Hadith of virtually no possible validity to justify punishing apostates.