You've already agreed that most Muslims revere and are frequently exposed to the Quran, correct? It's those Muslims that I'm talking about.
"Those Muslims" as in... the ones who revere their holy book and are "frequently exposed" to it? Just how much more unremarkable could this get? You seem intent on making it sound like merely being an observant Muslim is some sort of indictment.
And it wouldn't matter what the message was. That level of repeated exposure to a small set of ideas over time largely constitutes propaganda.
Then that applies to almost literally all recurrent ideas in life. Campaigns to raise awareness using factual information about a virus or disease? Propaganda. Billboard ads about the importance of seat belts? Propaganda. Some pacifist Buddhists practicing meditation and being "frequently exposed to" ideas about nonviolence? Propaganda.
Given the threshold your own arguments set forth, I think it could easily be said by that logic that almost everyone is engulfed in propaganda, which again means that Muslims are neither unique nor more susceptible to it than other groups.
It seems you're doubling down on your ignorance here, am I missing something?
Yes, you are. You're missing that since you have so far only been posting speculation and pet theories about Muslims, whatever qualification you have or think you have is beside the point. You would still need to back up your assertions with reliable evidence for them to hold water.
Sure, there has been a lot of unfair anti-Islamic propaganda. But I think my concerns are more well considered and nuanced than that.
I haven't seen much nuance here, especially when overgeneralizing about the vast majority of Muslims as in the part I responded to at the beginning of this post.
Again, with jazz hands, we must make a distinction between terrorists and Islamists. I don't think Islamists are abnormally violent, but I also think they should not be allowed many rights to immigrate, as their beliefs run counter to secular society.
... and then your definition of "Islamism" is apparently so broad as to include most Muslims. The result if such a thought-policing idea were ever implemented (which I thankfully doubt it would be in any remotely free country)? Most Muslims would be banned from immigration.
Ok, what's your definition?
Islamism is a set of ideologies and movements that subscribe to the belief that Islamic law should influence political systems, including state law. It is unequivocally and diametrically opposed to the separation of religion and state.
I'll refine mine a bit: Sharia means Islamic law, and hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world want to live where Sharia - to varying extents - is the law of the land. One implication of that is that holy men would sometimes or always act as judges in legal matters.
First, you have provided no evidence that "hundreds of millions of Muslims" want that. Certainly, there are millions of Muslims who do, but that
hundreds of millions do is a far bigger claim and, proportionally, also far more difficult to back up.
Second, if Muslims want to apply Shari'a only to themselves rather than non-Muslims or ex-Muslims, that's different from wanting to apply it to all of society or the entire law of the land.
Third, millions of Christians who already live in secular countries want to make their religion the law of the land, as is the case with the Christian dominionists who want to undermine the separation of religion and state. Should those also be banned from immigrating to any secular country? Unlike the vast majority of Muslims living in the West, they're actually making tangible, large-scale attempts to impose their beliefs on modern-day Western democracies, like the US. Should secular countries screen the beliefs of immigrants from the US to make sure they pose no threat to secularism?
In any case, I have already posted most of what I wanted to say in this thread, so I doubt there will be a point in responding here further, since I would most likely just be repeating my points.
