Islamophobia

[Augustus]

Anybody that has an axe to grind can be reasonably knowledgeable on a subject matter especially if they choose to cherry pick Quranic verses along with other aspects of Islam to suit their own biases. I'd be more impressed considering his antics that he were an Islamic scholar who held anti-Muslim views.

Motivation doesn't matter when discerning between who is knowledgeable and who isn't. And being knowledgeable doesn't mean one is fair or acting in good faith. On the contrary, more knowledge better enables you to construct a biased polemic.

He's certainly not a genuine scholar striving for truth and veracity, but he is familiar with a wide range of classical Islamic sources.

Have you actually read any of his books?

Quite the contrary especially if one cherry picks without the substantial knowledge and command of the Arabic language in conjunction to the contextual history to which Quranic verses were made. Many people make this mistake online all the time.

How much do you believe classical Islam differs from modern humanistic Western liberalism?

How hard do you think it is to find genuine classical Islamic sources that say things which are incongruent with secular liberal values?

Also, you don't need Arabic to have a good knowledge of historical Islamic theology as there is much translated (obviously there is much that is not also), but he is not engaging in scriptural exegesis, he's generally reporting what other people have said.

It's not particularly difficult to find bias or errors in his scholarship, but most criticisms of him tend to be generic or ad hom rather than actually making a case with recourse to his actual writings.

As I understand it, there is not one Muslim community here in Southern California that enforces Shari'ah Law. Most Muslims live by secular law. For example one may divorce in accordance to Islamic tradition but one still has to go by the state government to divorce. There is no advertisements to any "Qadi" on television nor am I aware of any Islamic courts in California. Hence is why I mentioned countries that enforce them. Here in the United States, banning aside there are no indications here that the Muslim community is practicing Shari'ah Law.

That wan't my point.

Sharia is not limited to 'the law of the land', but also covers religious obligations, ethics, rituals, personal conduct, family, etc.

 

[Cooky]

Yes, in a free society, a person has the right to be a jerk. When Serano immersed a crucifix in urine, Christians got bent out of shape. They claimed it was sacrilege. When 'The Last Temptation of Christ' came out, Christians around the world were appalled. There were protests at theaters and the showing was occasionally cancelled.

But guess what? Those artists had the right to do exactly what they did. And the people against them had the right to *peacefully* protest.

But what those in opposition do NOT have the right to do is make death threats. They do NOT have the right to kill others because they are 'offended'. THAT is how things work in a free society.



Quite right. And we need to focus more on *Christian* fundamentalist terrorism. I will grant you that.



The obvious solution is to get rid of the hornets. And this is NOT saying that we shoudl get rid of Moslems. The vast majority of Moslems, like the vast majority of Christians, and the vast majority of people are good, law abiding people who just want good lives. But, in all camps, there are hornets. And those hornets need to be removed.



I am against theocracy, whether it be Islamic, Christian, Jewish, or any other type.

Amen brother! I consider you my brother more than anyone who gets too worked up over nothing. I like your style.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Looking at the history of religious "extremists", perhaps it is the level of cultural/industrial/economic/societal/governmental development of majority-Muslim nations that causes Islamic extremism to take on such a dastardly and deadly flavor?

Comparable extremism in Christianity, as an example, might be the witch trials - which occurred in the U.S. when it was far less advanced as a secular, multicultural society. Time, experience and development have seen that sort of deadly adherence to religious ideas wane quite a bit. We still have things like abortion-clinic arson and bombing - so extremism that leads to violence isn't completely "gone." But obviously it is nowhere near on the same level as Islamic extremism, which sees even killing of apostates in modern times - something that I don't think is done within Christianity at all - I am honestly not sure about the prevalence of that sort of thing in Christianity's past.

And to add onto that, could it be that the sort of advancement of society that has seen majority-Christian nations see less and less violent extremism, is lacking within majority-Muslim nations because Islam itself, or at least the adherents and leaders of Islam, discourage the sorts of critical thinking and freedoms that have fostered societal advancement in other nations? To be sure, the Middle-eastern area of the world was at one time a flourishing haven for educational, philosophical and scientific pursuits. And as has been pointed out time and time again, it was the advent of the Islamic religion taking greater hold of the people's minds and government that saw that one-time oasis of prosperity reach a relatively abrupt end.

In any case, one can't help but wonder the effect Islam itself, as a teaching and as a belief system, is having on those nations where adherence to this religion is the norm. When the majority of those nations are not seeing significant societal developments across their populations, and reports are consistent that some form of religious-related violence or another (whether that be against those considered "apostates" or extremists taking their rage onto foreign soil in the form of terrorism, or nations battling one another over religious ideology) is being perpetrated. How many other religions do you know of that see their people so upset over the content of a CARTOON that they are willing to commit multiple murders in "defense" of their faith? Is anyone really willing to say that this kind of behavior (unique to Islam, as far as I know) has NOTHING to do with aspects of the religion itself?

 

[Raymann]

IIRC, Lauren Southern harassed people outside of a British mosque and then was denied entry the next time she tried to enter the UK.

You called that harassment?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

And if someone commits assault (hitting with a fist) or intended murder (shooting), they should be brought to trial and convicted under the laws.

Well violence through dissension has been a part of human development through progression for a long time now, and whether the intent of speech is through vitriol or for good, you'll always have this. How many were never taken to justice here in the United States when MLK marched peacefully? Fact is MLK knew the consequences of free speech, speech that would challenge the social norms that would also challenge the society at the time. Similarly hate speech that challenges the peace and balance we believe is a part of our progressive society. You'll always have people reacting violently but people are cognizant of this and knowingly do this anyway.

Yes, and one of the *major* rules is that you don't threaten to kill others.

Nor like the bigoted anti-Muslims you should not incite anti-Muslim or anti-Islam using violence as a medium either, it goes both ways.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

They did it specifically to defend their religion.

Then I would ask defend them from what? Every Muslim that is devout understands that "there is no compulsion in religion." Every Muslim also understands that God does not need any helper. So whatever true intentions they had indeed it was against the core principles of Islamic teachings.

That was the whole point, they were offended and killed defending their prophet. It was done by Muslim fanatics

Stop right there, that is the key phrase in this thread....They were done by fanatics. not by average everyday working Muslims. Not by the Muslims who are professional doctors, lawyers, military men and women, but by fanatics.

You don't get to decide who is a Muslim and who is not.

I never did, but I have a healthy understanding of the theological definition of Islam and what it means to be a Muslim even though I'm not one myself. I also have the privilege to personally know Muslims who exemplify the very essence of their religion through their behavior. I don't know, call me lucky but I've met some really cool Muslims who are like me and almost every single way....Except for the pre-marital sex, alcohol, and eating pork thing.

I wouldn't say he is not educated in the subject, he is just as educated as any Islamic Scholar is.

No. Being a scholar in Islam means you're placed in a unique position to not only to study kalam, Qur'an, Fiqh, classical Arabic, but also understanding Islamic law contextually and also in relation to a diverse community. Having an advance degree in Philosophy doesn't cut it. Sure, he is a philosopher by right of his academic achievements but it doesn't make him a scholar of Islam nor does it make him as knowledgeable as a scholar in Islam just because he holds a PH.D. in an entirely different field. That is like me saying someone who holds an M.D. knows everything about psychiatry even though they practice emergency department medicine as opposed to someone who practices psychiatry. You don't call an emergency doctor a psychiatrist just because they hold the same qualifications to be called doctor, they're two entirely different disciplines.

I think it is pretty unique to Islam this kind of aggressive preaching.

No it is not. If you're familiar with @Skwim postings he definitely has posted several topics of inflammatory preachers, and others who profess to be Christian but have very dangerous rhetoric. I think you only want to target Muslims for whatever personal reasons you have. One of the very reasons why I left Christianity was due to the harsh judgmental nature of contemporary Christianity I've experienced as a child.

Let me do it one more time. Based on the study of the last 30 terrorist attacks in the US. Considering that the US has 300 million habitants. 4 of 30 were done by Muslims.
4 of 30 represents 13.3%. Muslims in the US are only 1%.
1% of Muslims committed 13% of terrorist attacks in the US.
99% of Americans committed 87% of the attacks.
Is it too difficult for you to understand that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist attacks than Americans?

Domestic Terrorism Is Still a Greater Threat Than Islamic Extremism

"According to FBI data, 150 Americans were arrested for planning to engage in acts of domestic terrorism in 2017, compared to 110 international suspects; in 2018, the ratio was 120 to 100. An FBI official claims that the decrease in the arrests of potential terrorists inspired by ISIS or Al-Qaeda in 2018 can be attributed to a growing number of Americans attempting to join the Islamic State abroad.

The rise in domestic terrorism — as profiled in a captivating New York Times Magazine report from 2018 — is largely driven by an uptick in far-right extremism. Of the 263 acts of domestic terrorism that occurred between 2010 and the end of 2017, 92, around a third, were committed by Americans on the far right. “If you have politicians saying things like our nation is under attack, that there are these marauding bands of immigrants coming into the country, that plays into this right-wing narrative,” Gary LaFree, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, told the Post. “They begin to think it’s okay to use violence.”

Report: Domestic Terrorism Still a Greater Threat Than Islamic Extremism

So I can fact check your stats post a link....

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Motivation doesn't matter when discerning between who is knowledgeable and who isn't. And being knowledgeable doesn't mean one is fair or acting in good faith. On the contrary, more knowledge better enables you to construct a biased polemic.

He's certainly not a genuine scholar striving for truth and veracity, but he is familiar with a wide range of classical Islamic sources.

Ok...

Have you actually read any of his books?

No, as I have no interest in them.

How much do you believe classical Islam differs from modern humanistic Western liberalism?

Define "classical Islam"

How hard do you think it is to find genuine classical Islamic sources that say things which are incongruent with secular liberal values?

I can read the Qur'an itself and read passages that would for face value appear violent, same as the Bible, again, if I read it on face value.

Also, you don't need Arabic to have a good knowledge of historical Islamic theology as there is much translated

Actually you do at least to understand vowels, nouns, etc which is why I keep a transliteration of the Qur'an.

Sharia is not limited to 'the law of the land', but also covers religious obligations, ethics, rituals, personal conduct, family, etc.

Ok.

 

[Shad]

Again prevention means attacks didn't happen. Police foiled 3 massive shootings couple weeks ago. Doesn't change the fact that more right-wing terrorist are doing the terrorism not extremist Muslims regardless of the prevention done by FBI, CIA or military.

Wrong as you must cut off stats to the one point that put Islamic terrorism ahead of domestic. More so as per your own source an attack on US soil backed by ISIS is considered international.

 

[Polymath257]

Well violence through dissension has been a part of human development through progression for a long time now, and whether the intent of speech is through vitriol or for good, you'll always have this. How many were never taken to justice here in the United States when MLK marched peacefully? Fact is MLK knew the consequences of free speech, speech that would challenge the social norms that would also challenge the society at the time. Similarly hate speech that challenges the peace and balance we believe is a part of our progressive society. You'll always have people reacting violently but people are cognizant of this and knowingly do this anyway.

Nor like the bigoted anti-Muslims you should not incite anti-Muslim or anti-Islam using violence as a medium either, it goes both ways.

Agreed.

But, in terms of 'consequences', if I cross the street, I take of the risk of being hit by a car, including if the car is driven by someone who is drunk. That doesn't excuse the drunk. Nor does it mean i shouldn't cross the street.

It is a *good* thing to criticize the ideas and beliefs of others in a free society. That's sort of the way things are supposed to work. It is a *good* thing that cartoons are drawn of Mohamed and crucifixes are dunked in urine *because* that is how things have to be to be in a free society. Those who are offended can protest (another right), but they cannot break the law while doing so.

Hate speech is vile, disgusting, and *protected* as long as no threats are made. The Nazis *do* have the right to march in Skokie. And anyone throwing a bottle at them (while I understand the desire) is acting illegally.

So, yes, knowing some lunatics will act violently is part of the risk, just like knowing that there are drunk drivers is part of the risk of crossing the street. But that doesn't mean we should never cross the street, nor does it mean we should not make cartoons of the prophet. Let's deal with the hornets and not let them breed.

 

[Cooky]

You called that harassment?

I just hate watching those foreigners define Britain as purely "multi-cultural". Britain is not America.

...What a crying shame. I bet there are more English in America now than there are in Britain.

 

[Raymann]

(Muslims Kill defending Islam and the prophet) Then I would ask defend them from what? Every Muslim that is devout understands that "there is no compulsion in religion." Every Muslim also understands that God does not need any helper. So whatever true intentions they had indeed it was against the core principles of Islamic teachings.

How presumptuous of you!
So now you speak on behalf of all Muslims?
Now you know what EVERY Muslim knows about Islam.
ISIS Muslims are just as Muslims as your local Halal food seller but they would kill and die and expect to receive 72 virgins as a reward for their actions based on Islamic scriptures.

(Muslim Fanatics) Stop right there, that is the key phrase in this thread....They were done by fanatics. not by average everyday working Muslims. Not by the Muslims who are professional doctors, lawyers, military men and women, but by fanatics.

A Muslim is a Muslim it doesn't matter if he is a doctor or a Boko Haram warrior.
The terms "fanatic", "extremist" or "terrorist" are terms we westerners use to differentiate within the whole group of Muslims. What we call a terrorist might just be considered a Jihadist for the Muslim community. A jihadist is just doing one of the mandates of Islam. Jihad (Holy war) is part of Islam. That's what ISIS, Boko Haram, and others are doing.

(David Wood knowledge) No. Being a scholar in Islam means you're placed in a unique position to not only to study kalam, Qur'an, Fiqh, classical Arabic

You're right on this one, to call him a Scholar is a little too much but still, he has a profound understanding of Islam, as you know he studied form the most accepted Islamic historians and accepted Hadiths.

(Islamic dangerous preachers) No it is not. If you're familiar with @Skwim postings he definitely has posted several topics of inflammatory preachers, and others who profess to be Christian but have very dangerous rhetoric.

They might not be as dangerous on their teachings since there are no Christians blowing themselves up nor engaging in terrorist attacks (Islamic style).
There is no Osama Bin Laden in Christianity that I know.

Domestic Terrorism Is Still a Greater Threat Than Islamic Extremism
"According to FBI data, 150 Americans were arrested for planning to engage in acts of domestic terrorism in 2017, compared to 110 international suspects; in 2018, the ratio was 120 to 100.

Do you realize how ridiculous is that comparison?
120 American extremists out of 300 million Americans.
110 International extremists out of what, a few thousand foreigners.
By your own picked data, I would definitely say International extremists are way more dangerous than local extremists. (percentage-wise)

 

[stvdv]

Is our Giorgia an Islamophobe?

NO.

Very clear and good video

 

[stvdv]

Is our Giorgia an Islamophobe?

Who calls Giorgia an Islamophobe because of this video

I call them Muslim "Apologists"

 

[stvdv]

The fears against Islam are entirely based on facts and reliable sources.

I call it common sense

If a foreign country with another belief claims that their religion is the best and belittles your faith, then anyone with a little common sense knows that you should restrict this religion to the maximum in your country (Putin gave a great example I saw on youtube how to handle this).

It is just this simple. Arrogant religious humans (claiming my way is the highway) are most dangerous and predictable unpredictable. They are time bombs that can go off any moment (if their God tells them to do this and that).

Bible and Koran are full of violence. That Bible has twice as much violence does not make "Islam the Religion of Peace".

Only when a religion drops her arrogance "my way is the only highway" this religion might become "Religion of Peace"

Too many Muslims still believe and declare that Islam is better than Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Humanism, Atheism etc. (and Muslims are not the only ones with this religious arrogance)

Very simple to me. Best to keep them far apart until they all follow love instead of arrogance. Best for all.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Wrong as you must cut off stats to the one point that put Islamic terrorism ahead of domestic. More so as per your own source an attack on US soil backed by ISIS is considered international.

Ok, whatever you say

 

[Wandering Monk]

Wrong. There is a significant different between a healthy critique, and mimicking bigoted rhetoric that portrays itself as based on facts. Most online discussions "criticizing" Islam tend to ballet dance in the realm of bigotry and confirmation bias not discourse.



Let's see here Pamala Gellar is a political activist known for her anti-Muslim views. Most notably she reprinted the cartoon of the prophet Muhammad. She stirs controversy by also buying anti-Muslim ads for public transit.

Robert Spencer, also referred to himself as the "good kind of Islamaphobe," is also self-described anti-Muslim and despite his lack of academic knowledge on Islam, continues to blog using anti-Muslim rhetoric. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center:

"A career anti-Muslim figure, Spencer has devoted much of his life to writing books, countless articles, and producing other content all with the goal of vilifying and maligning Muslims and the Islamic faith,"

See:Robert Spencer

David Sharpe Wood (oh the irony of the middle and last name) is an evangelist that is an avid speaker against Islam and atheism. Ironically he was atheist himself who also stated that he was psychotic.

Marine Le Pen is a far-right French politician known for her anti-Islamic rhetoric was also investigated by the French government for her inflammatory tweets as well as ordered to take a psychiatric exam.

Geert Wilders a far-right Dutch politician known for his inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric whose rhetoric was so inflammatory even Twitter blocked him.



See above because from what little I posted, their behavior is quite illogical and irrational.



No. In the United States more terrorism is domestic as opposed to international.



Terrorism affects everyone, nothing religious about it.



What's problematic is you have a baseless argument thus far which is rather sad cause I was looking for a challenge.



Yes because they decided to throw rocks at a hornets nest.



Not all of them....



Blame is all around. Some from them, some from the terrorist.



Of course.



Nope.



Nope.



WTH is "Islamic rules?" you mean Islamic law? That only applies to countries that enforce them.



Actually some of the people you listed are facing issues because their speech was inflammatory which incites violence (See Marine Le Pen).



Many of the espoused rhetoric goes beyond "free speech" a lot of what they say is sensationalism which is meant to stoke anger which most undoubtedly leads to violence.

Wow, you managed to tick all the boxes in this vid:

 

[Epic Beard Man]

It is a *good* thing that cartoons are drawn of Mohamed and crucifixes are dunked in urine *because* that is how things have to be to be in a free society.

Well, are we doing these things to have a dialogue or we doing these things for purpose of creating anger and resentment? As far as I'm concerned for me, it's not okay for anyone to show up at an NAACP chapter with a stuffed animal monkey tied to a noose. It's not okay to show up at a Gay pride parade yelling out homophobic slurs. It is not okay to show up in front of a mosque with a plate of bacon and a huge fire to burn copies of the Holy Qur'an with. These things despite examples of "free speech" are not okay because they're disruptive and stoke emotions that are sensitive. I know you all hate me bringing up race but I'll use this as an example:

Do you think it's okay that a bunch of disgruntled white men show up on an HBCU campus to yell out racial slurs all in the interest of so-called "Free Speech?" No. It's disruptive and the intent is not dialogue, the intent for all what its worth is to troll people and cause disruption and anger. This is what I see when people want to "draw Muhammad" or "put a crucifix in urine." Most rational people who have a sincere critique of a religious faith have dialogue not poke the bear. This really isn't about speech. This really isn't about the need to openly disagree, this is ultimately about pissing people off and then telling them "hey I have free speech what are you going to do about it?" This is why I'm glad there are laws in place to curb this nonsense.

Hate speech is vile, disgusting, and *protected* as long as no threats are made.

But hate speech is not protected.....Hate speech does not protect you from being attacked, it's a law that is it. But laws aren't materialized like police officers when hate is conducted. If a cop isn't there to mitigate danger what do you think is going to happen when a bunch of white supremacist go up to a Nation of Islam rally without police protection? You see, when things like this occur it's not about speech anymore it's looking for a fight. I think where people fail in understanding is knowing the difference between speech and antagonizing people.

I shouldn't sit there in a space and allow you to antagonize me and use slurs against me because you feel it's your right to. But all of this eventually goes back to cultural privilege. Most historically disenfranchised groups understand and respect the need for free speech.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

How presumptuous of you!

No, it's called learning doctrine and the basic tenants of faith.

So now you speak on behalf of all Muslims?

Nope just my opinion. But I'm willing to bet at least 99.999999% of any Muslim would agree with me on that notion.

ISIS Muslims are just as Muslims as your local Halal food seller

False equivalence. ISIS or Daeshe is a terrorist organization that kills both military personnel and innocent civilians who are Muslim they are not the same as someone who is a halal food seller.

A Muslim is a Muslim

Apparently you're unfamiliar with forms of unbelief. However being Muslim by name does not mean one is Muslim by belief:

"Whenever they kindle a fire to start a war, Allah puts it out. They strive to create disorder in the land and Allah loves not those who create disorder." (5.65)

The terms "fanatic", "extremist" or "terrorist" are terms we westerners use to differentiate within the whole group of Muslims.

Fanaticism is not a foreign concept to Islam nor is it a "western term."

A jihadist is just doing one of the mandates of Islam.

Holy War is conducted (properly) if one is expelled from their home (the lesser Jihad) and military conflict is imminent and lawful. The Greater Jihad is within oneself who deals with everyday life and abstain fro sins and transgression. According to Muslim scholars this is a gross misunderstanding by terrorist.

Jihad (Holy war) is part of Islam.

As I've already said the greatest Jihad is the spiritual battle of oneself:

"The lesser jihad is not restricted to battlefronts, for this would narrow its horizon considerably. In fact, the lesser jihad has such a broad meaning and application that sometimes a word or silence, a frown or a smile, leaving or entering an assembly—in short, everything done for God's sake—and regulating love and anger according to His approval is included. In this way, all efforts made to reform society and people are part of jihad, as is every effort made for your family, relatives, neighbors, and region.

In a sense, the lesser jihad is material. The greater jihad, however, is conducted on the spiritual front, for it is our struggle with our inner world and carnal soul (nafs). When both of these jihads have been carried out successfully, the desired balance is established. If one is missing, the balance is destroyed."

Source:Lesser and greater jihad - Fethullah Gülen's Official Web Site

They might not be as dangerous on their teachings since there are no Christians blowing themselves up nor engaging in terrorist attacks (Islamic style).

Right, they only use AR-15's like the one did in Christchurch in New Zealand. Murder is murder, killing is killing regardless of the method or weapon of choice.

120 American extremists out of 300 million Americans.
110 International extremists out of what, a few thousand foreigners.
By your own picked data, I would definitely say International extremists are way more dangerous than local extremists. (percentage-wise)

Do you know math? It's looking at ratios

 

[Ponder This]

www.merriam-webster.com
Definition of Islamophobia
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam
Muslims "Apologists" seem to add to that definition, everyone who criticizes Islam or Muslims no matter if the reasons are based on facts and on reliable sources.
Under the Apologists consensus, people like Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer, David Wood, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and many others fall under the category of "Islamophobes".
The problem is that nothing that they say is actually irrational nor discriminatory against Muslims.
The fears against Islam are entirely based on facts and reliable sources.
These problems affect not only Muslims but most countries around the world are now affected by the Islamic turmoil.
What the "Apologists" accomplish by claiming these people are "Islamophobes" is to deter them from denouncing the problems that the religion faces.
Many of them are already facing death threats and are not able to live normal lives.
They live in hiding and under 24/7 security protection.
Who is to blame for this?
Muslims extremists?
Muslims in general?
Islam?
Islamic rules? (blasphemy and freedom of speech)
The UK has banned many of these people from entering the country.
Isn't that crazy?
A western country is afraid of freedom of speech.
A few years ago two female journalists (Lauren Southern and Brittany Pettibone) were not allowed to enter the UK for some similar reasons, fear they would speak badly against Islam.
What do we accomplish by silencing the ones making us aware of what is coming?
Is it better to walk blindly towards the danger zone without any warning?
We'll see.

In general, I've found that when people accuse others of being (whatever)-phobes, it's because they are unable to win (or unwilling to engage in) purely rational argument and therefore seek other means to discredit their opposition without engaging in rational arguments.

Step 1: Accuse your opposition of having a mental disorder.
Step 2: Dismiss your opposition's arguments as products of an irrational mind.​

 

[Raymann]

(ISIS Muslims are just as Muslims as your local Halal food seller)
False equivalence. ISIS or Daeshe is a terrorist organization that kills both military personnel and innocent civilians who are Muslim they are not the same as someone who is a halal food seller.

ISIS or Daesh don't consider themselves terrorists, they believe they are doing "Jihad".
They believe they are fighting infidels who have attacked them first and as it is established in the Quran they have the right to defend themselves and fight back.
As you can see they are more Muslim than the lazy moderate Muslims who don't pray five times, drink alcohol and listen to music. Again you're getting into a gray area when you try to decide who is a true Muslim and who is not.

Apparently you're unfamiliar with forms of unbelief. However being Muslim by name does not mean one is Muslim by belief:

See what I mean? So who is to determine who is a Muslim by name and who is a Muslim by belief?
You?

Fanaticism is not a foreign concept to Islam nor is it a "western term."

Pay attention when you read. I never said "fanaticism is exclusively a "western" term, I said that is a word we westerners use to differentiate some Muslims from the rest.

According to Muslim scholars this (Jihad meaning) is a gross misunderstanding by terrorist.

Not according to their own Scholars. Their Scholars believe that all the other Scholars are the one's misunderstanding.

Do you know math? It's looking at ratios

No, it is not talking about ratios even if the word ratio is there.
Here is the quote again:
Epic Beard Man said: ↑
Domestic Terrorism Is Still a Greater Threat Than Islamic Extremism
"According to FBI data, 150 Americans were arrested for planning to engage in acts of domestic terrorism in 2017, compared to 110 international suspects; in 2018, the ratio was 120 to 100.
In the first line says 150 Americans were arrested .....
Those are exact numbers, not percentages nor ratios.