<p>I looked at the CIA world factbook. Literacy was “read and write.”</p>
<p>Also interesting that Sisters in Islam is open and going but is controversial.</p>
<p>Regarding freedom of religion, here are some indices that may be of interest (these are as of mid-2009):</p>
<p>Government restrictions: [Rising</a> Restrictions on Religion - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life](<a href=“http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Rising-Restrictions-on-Religion-GRI.aspx]Rising”>Government Restrictions Index | Pew Research Center)
Social hostilities: [Rising</a> Restrictions on Religion - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life](<a href=“http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Rising-Restrictions-on-Religion-SHI.aspx]Rising”>Social Hostilities Index | Pew Research Center)
Details: [Rising</a> Restrictions on Religion - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life](<a href=“http://www.pewforum.org/Government/Rising-Restrictions-on-Religion(9).aspx]Rising”>Results by Country | Pew Research Center)</p>
<p>I think we would all agree that there is a difference between the winds coming as part of a hurricane and the winds as part of a summer breeze. Suggesting that radical islam and radical christianity are the same by presenting examples of isolated christian bad behavior (westboro baptist church) is the same as saying there is no difference between hurricane winds and regular winds. If you think of terrorism in terms of the wind, radical islam is the hurricane and radical christianity is a minor wind. Christians openly condemn and do not follow the nuts with the westboro baptist church. Significant portions of muslim populations approve of suicide bombing in the name of islam.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed!</p>
<p>Just my own opinion/observation, but I think there are few of the mindset that all Muslims are terrorists (or of a terrorist-friendly stance). I think the more common generalization is that while not all Muslims are terrorists, all terrorists are Muslim. Not true, of course, but I don’t personally know anyone who thinks that Islam is an inherently evil religion. Most people are intuitive enough to realize that terrorists are without question fanatics and radical outliers.</p>
<p>Deadly Catholic attack in Britain</p>
<p>Now that’s a headline I never saw, even when the IRA was blowing stuff up left and right in Great Britain.</p>
<p>And what about those fun-loving Christian (88%) Rwandans? (see Christianity and Genocide in Rwanda by Longman). Ironically enough, in the context of this thread, the Muslim faith has gained many converts in Rwanda while the Catholic church has lost many, due to Muslims protecting Hutus and Tutsis during the genocide).</p>
<p>Or the Sri Lankan’s Buddhism (!) and Hinduism. Probably more terrorism along with that war than in the entire Middle East. Much of it straight-out religious based (Tamil Buddhists started by pushing out the Muslims).</p>
<p>Of course that little kerfluffle with Germany was long ago, so it doesn’t count.</p>
<p>Plenty of slaughter to go around.</p>
<p>As a Buddhist monk wrote (and I dare you to bring this one up at your next Yoga group):</p>
<p>The sword is pulled from the [scabbard], it is</p>
<p>Not put back unless smeared with blood.</p>
<p>I turned by blood to milk to make you grow</p>
<p>Not for myself but for the country</p>
<p>My brave, brilliant soldier son</p>
<p>Leaving [home] to defend the motherland</p>
<p>That act of merit is enough</p>
<p>To reach Nirvāna in a future birth.
(Translated by Seneviratne, The Work of Kings, pp. 274, 272.)</p>
<p>I’m apalled by some of things that have been said on this thread. It is truly sad.</p>
<p>
The only difference is that you’re exposed to and live in a society where a large portion of people are moderate, friendly Christians, and you live in a country where many people are nice, friendly Christians while you only see Christian terrorists on the news once in a while, and therefore see them as rare, isolated events. While you don’t know many Muslims, have not lived in moderate, majority Muslim societies, and you’re only exposure to Islam is when the media tells you about terrorist attacks. Muslims openly condemn terrorism and don’t follow the nuts with terrorist groups.
You’re metaphor is false, and if you actually knew Muslims and have been in Muslim majority societies, you wouldn’t make such a claim.
And if you actually knew anything about Islam, you would know that suicide bombings are completely contradictory to the teachings of the religion. You could ask, well if that’s truly the case, how can so many Muslims believe that suicide bombings are perfectly allowed? I would answer: in the same way so many people think Islam is inherently violent when it’s not. When people are angry or paranoid or feel threatened, they don’t bother checking their facts. They’ll believe what they want to believe.</p>
<p>A nice little related article: [Newsweek</a> #MuslimRage protests: what you may have missed | Avaaz](<a href=“Avaaz - The World in Action”>Avaaz - The World in Action)</p>
<p>Just to be clear, however, not all salafists are fanatic, though many are.</p>
<p>I think there are far more Muslims who take the archaic parts of their faith literally, and that’s the difference. There are parts in the Quran that say something to the effect of either convert or kill any non Muslims, and there are more Muslims who believe that than we would like to admit. Get on youtube and watch some of the rural towns in Iran stone a woman to death for adultery. A month ago I watched a t.v. show from somewhere that had 10-12 years olds singing a children’s song about killing infidels. There isn’t a lot of the peaceful Muslims standing up and condemning the radicals, and making sure that they separate themselves from the extremist either. Those of you who can’t admit that when there is a terrorist attack in the U.S. nine times out of ten it’s a Muslim should be ashamed. You’re enabling an unrealistic image of what is really happening.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s spin like this that truly illustrates the amount of denial of reality. The thing to realize is that everyone doesn’t have to be a terrorist for a group to be so. It’s irrelevant that some Muslims condemn terrorism - more telling is the significant fraction, over 10% in some societies, who openly espouse it. You ought to listen to leaders like Choudary who are much more open about their agenda.</p>
<p>When 9/11 took place, the popularity of “Osama” as a baby’s name dramatically increased:
[BBC</a> News | AFRICA | Osama baby craze hits Nigeria](<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1741171.stm]BBC”>BBC News | AFRICA | Osama baby craze hits Nigeria)
Similarly after the Bali bombing, the villagers among the bombers took to the streets in large numbers supporting them. It is grossly unrealistic to expect that when these same people immigrate to the West, they’ll somehow set aside their beliefs.</p>
<p>I don’t find statements like this by stressedoutt to be helpful or particularly sensible:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problems are:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I can provide numerous examples of Muslim religious authorities declaring that suicide bombings are absolutely allowed in the religion and as many saying that the perpetrators are martyrs of the faith. I can also find just as many examples of Muslim religious authorities saying that civilians - Westerners in general, very often Jews in general - are absolutely legitimate “targets” for killing. These clerics are often high-ranking. They have more standing in Islam than any poster here.</p></li>
<li><p>I see the argument made a lot by Muslims that other Muslims are either misled or intimidated by the West (or Israel or Jews or immoral culture or whatever) into believing that violence is necessary and proper. The idea seems to be that Muslims aren’t responsible for their actions, that they’re just responding to provocation, or that they’re misled and again it really isn’t their fault. Absolute illogical nonsense. You are responsible for your choices. Blaming others for your choices is pathetic. If you disagree with what other Muslims do, fine. But you can’t make their choices to commit horrendous crime go away.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d like to see a confidential, anonymous survey of Americans to learn what their views really are. My guess is that at LEAST 10% of the population would say some things that would be considered very intolerant of others’ way of life and that, in some cases, support violence.</p>
<p>^^ I’ll probably agree with that, except it is more of a reaction. Islamic societies have generally used very strong means to ensure that those who disagree with them or would harm them are not given a free reign and don’t have an opportunity to do so. The reverse hasn’t happened, and we’re paying for it.</p>
<p>This thread has turned silly…I guess some won’t realize this threat until a dirty bomb hits their town or city. This problem is worldwide and it’s in the name of one religion…it is what it is.</p>
<p>Of course there is intolerance. A lot of people would even say they would like to use violence on the Westboro Baptist Church, but how often are people ACTUALLY TRYING to kill them? The difference is that their intolerance puts people in the ground. We need to bring ALL troops home and publicly declare peace with all Muslims. At the same time, announce a zero tolerance policy for terrorism anywhere, and vow to declare war on any nation that enables terrorism against us, both directly and indirectly. I have ZERO problem with peaceful Muslims, and I do believe the vast majority are that.</p>
<p>People immediately jumping in with nonsense about the Crusades is providing the rationale for these radical Muslims.
People claiming “all religions are equally bad” are providing providing the rationale for these radical Muslims. </p>
<p>These nutty college professors promoting conspiracy theories that the US Government was behind 9/11 were a proximate cause of the Boston Bombing deaths.</p>
<p>If you cannot agree that your religion is not perfect then you are part of the problem (Extremist or not). Propagating such beliefs will eventually lead to extremism and the erroneous belief in that what is done in the name of perfection, cannot be wrong, including carving a man to death in front of women.</p>
<p>No one is defending the actions radical Islamic terrorists. What I believe many people are simply saying is that you can’t condemn a whole religion as intolerant or violent when, number one, there are parts of every Abrahamic religious text that are archaic and oppresive, and that’s just a fact. Similarly, you can’t condemn a religion for being violent based on the(again, intolerable, indefensible, and evil) actions of a minority in this particular demographic .</p>
<p>It is important to define who the enemy is here, which is not Islam, but radical Islam. I think the reason some put the blame on all of Islam is because it gives them a clear idea of who is their enemy. But in this era, it isn’t as simple as having an enemy that is a country or group of people and taking action against them. Jihadist groups and radical Islam are the enemy, but they aren’t a clearly defined group.</p>
<p>The post 9/11 world is a much different place, and it will take a while to get used to it.</p>
<p>Why is the thread titled specifically using the word “Islamist”? Couldn’t “Deadly Attack on Soldier in Britain” have made just as nice a title?</p>
<p>^^ I guess it could have been titled a lot of things. It’s current title however, is descriptive and factually correct. Which…makes it a good title.</p>
<p>Wow…why is this thread on CC again? And also, the views some of you have on Muslims are so unbelievably ridiculous. I don’t think wives should worship their husbands and I don’t care about converting non-Muslims.</p>