What is 'Islamophobia'?

[Shadow Wolf]

If I come to repair your refrigerator, and you ask me to pray to the god bony maroni with you before I begin so that the repair will be successful, I can refuse and if you insist, I can walk out the door, that is my right to do because of religious conviction.

The customer has no right to force someone they hire to do such a thing. If it is that important to them, they can find someone who will go along with it. They have no right to force someone to pray to a god they don't believe in.

If I own a flower shop and you want to buy a bunch of flowers, so be it, but don't ask me to go to a venue and plan and place flowers for one of these weddings, that is participation and I won't do it.

If you serve the public, you don't get to pick and choose who you will serve. If Elton John can perform at Rush Limbaugh's wedding, I think Christians will be ok to cater or plan a gay wedding.

 

[shmogie]

Yes there are changers in the new testament, but every Christian I have known still keeps the old, I was a Christian for many years so I do know. I think some Christians are becoming embarrassed about what is in the OT, and are only making up excuses to hind from that fact.

I am not embarrassed by the OT, why should I be ? If you have friends who "keep the OT", I assume they sacrifice sheep and cattle on a regular basis and burn the carcasses. They must also keep about 300 different rules, from not eating pork and a lot of seafood, to declaring menstruating women unclean till they finish their time, to going to a priest because you have a skin infection. No, they don't "keep" the OT, they most likely believe it is a document that relates how God related to a particular people at a particular time, for very particular reasons. All of that no longer applies, The NT is now the sole way for all mankind to come to peace with God. Christ is the way and his teachings and those of the Apostles are the road map to find that way. There MAY be one exception to this. The Jews were given certain ironclad promises by God. How he deals with them is his to decide, alone.

 

[psychoslice]

I am not embarrassed by the OT, why should I be ? If you have friends who "keep the OT", I assume they sacrifice sheep and cattle on a regular basis and burn the carcasses. They must also keep about 300 different rules, from not eating pork and a lot of seafood, to declaring menstruating women unclean till they finish their time, to going to a priest because you have a skin infection. No, they don't "keep" the OT, they most likely believe it is a document that relates how God related to a particular people at a particular time, for very particular reasons. All of that no longer applies, The NT is now the sole way for all mankind to come to peace with God. Christ is the way and his teachings and those of the Apostles are the road map to find that way. There MAY be one exception to this. The Jews were given certain ironclad promises by God. How he deals with them is his to decide, alone.

I still think your making excuses, of course there is no more sacrificing animals, Jesus did that, and that part was finished, but there is a hell of a lot more in the Old, the bible say's that God never changes, read your bible.

 

[shmogie]

The customer has no right to force someone they hire to do such a thing. If it is that important to them, they can find someone who will go along with it. They have no right to force someone to pray to a god they don't believe in.

If you serve the public, you don't get to pick and choose who you will serve. If Elton John can perform at Rush Limbaugh's wedding, I think Christians will be ok to cater or plan a gay wedding.

Absolutely not. Look at you response re the refrigerator repairman, you say " the customer has no right to force someone to do such a thing, If it is important to them, they can find someone who will go along with them " Then you say EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE regarding a homosexual wedding. A customer can't force me to pray to a pagan god, but he can force me to participate in a pagan ceremony ? I certainly can pick and choose whom I will serve if it requires me to participate in a rite I find to be totally contrary to my religious beliefs, that right is granted me by the US Constitution. Christians, not you decide if it will be OK to participate in a homosexual wedding.

 

[shmogie]

I still think your making excuses, of course there is no more sacrificing animals, Jesus did that, and that part was finished, but there is a hell of a lot more in the Old, the bible say's that God never changes, read your bible.

Young lady, I have many times. You have produced no evidence to support your contentions. God never changes, but his way of relating to mankind has, else there would have been no reason for Christ.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Absolutely not. Look at you response re the refrigerator repairman, you say " the customer has no right to force someone to do such a thing,

They can't require a hired hand pray to a god they don't believe in.

but he can force me to participate in a pagan ceremony ?

If you offer your services to weddings, you aren't being forced because you offered your services to the public. You don't get to pick and choose who you will serve when you choose to serve the public.

I certainly can pick and choose whom I will serve if it requires me to participate in a rite I find to be totally contrary to my religious beliefs, that right is granted me by the US Constitution. Christians, not you decide if it will be OK to participate in a homosexual wedding.

Even if religion is your excuse, you cannot refuse to hire or promote women, you cannot refuse to serve black people, you cannot hang a sign that says "No Mexicans Allowed," and you cannot refuse housing to someone who is or is not a veteran or is disabled.

 

[psychoslice]

Young lady, I have many times. You have produced no evidence to support your contentions. God never changes, but his way of relating to mankind has, else there would have been no reason for Christ.

So God was cruel, in one state of mind, and in the other he magically became all nice, no, God was a maniac, more people throughout the bible were killed because of their God, he killed more than Satan ever did, and this is your God ?. Oh, I am a man not a women lol.

 

[shmogie]

They can't require a hired hand pray to a god they don't believe in.

If you offer your services to weddings, you aren't being forced because you offered your services to the public. You don't get to pick and choose who you will serve when you choose to serve the public.

Even if religion is your excuse, you cannot refuse to hire or promote women, you cannot refuse to serve black people, you cannot hang a sign that says "No Mexicans Allowed," and you cannot refuse housing to someone who is or is not a veteran or is disabled.

Your last paragraph is perfectly correct, and add homosexuals to your list. You REFUSE to see the difference in the issues's. You are talking about basic human respect, I am talking about forcing someone to ACT in an a manner that violates THEIR rights. When you open a business, you don't surrender your unalienable rights. Actually what is wanted is the elimination of those rights for Christians. Once again, it is think and do as we want, or we will do everything possible to eradicate your thoughts and rights. Happily that liberal, fascist boat has sailed.

 

[Rival]

I am not embarrassed by the OT, why should I be ? If you have friends who "keep the OT", I assume they sacrifice sheep and cattle on a regular basis and burn the carcasses. They must also keep about 300 different rules, from not eating pork and a lot of seafood, to declaring menstruating women unclean till they finish their time, to going to a priest because you have a skin infection. No, they don't "keep" the OT, they most likely believe it is a document that relates how God related to a particular people at a particular time, for very particular reasons. All of that no longer applies, The NT is now the sole way for all mankind to come to peace with God. Christ is the way and his teachings and those of the Apostles are the road map to find that way. There MAY be one exception to this. The Jews were given certain ironclad promises by God. How he deals with them is his to decide, alone.

Uh, what do you think Jewish people are doing? They keep Torah just fine.

 

[shmogie]

So God was cruel, in one state of mind, and in the other he magically became all nice, no, God was a maniac, more people throughout the bible were killed because of their God, he killed more than Satan ever did, and this is your God ?. Oh, I am a man not a women lol.

Oh, I was afraid of that, I just couldn't tell by your photo. Once again, I need specifics to answer your points. God acted in different way's for different reason's.

Uh, what do you think Jewish people are doing? They keep Torah just fine.

Agreed. However, Christians don't nor are we required to do so. The Torah, in our doctrine, was primarily a book of rules and instructions pointing forward to a time of fulfillment of the Torah. It came,.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Rival,

To answer your title's question, "What is Islamophobia?"

Islamophobia
/ˌɪzlɑːməˈfəʊbɪə/
noun
1.hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture.
Derived Forms
Islamophobic, adjective

I would add to this definition that it is fear or hatred based on common (and ignorant) perceptions of who or what all Muslims stand for, typically in the form of lumping the world's 1.7 billion Muslims into one identical category of fanatical terrorists (who in reality represent an extraordinarily tiny fraction of the total population).

And does it exist at all?

I think it obviously does. Do you honestly believe that Muslims are not feared or hated at all?

IMO it is a buzzword used to silence people who voice criticisms of Islam.

There is a difference between (a) finding reasonable fault with the tenets of a particular faith and (b) having ignorant/unreasonable fear and hatred of a particular religious community. I find much fault with the reasoning behind not only Islamic faith but Christian and Jewish faith as well. But I also have empathy and respect for all of humanity, and that includes Muslims as well as Christians and Jews. I don't have to agree with what someone believes in order to have respect for their right to believe it.

Muslims, like members of other religious traditions, should be equally respected under the law and not, for instance, banned from entering the United States, or put onto a national registry in the US. These would both be clear instances of Islamophobic reactions to a wrongly perceived problem, not to mention unconstitutional in the US.

We never hear of 'Christianiophobia' or 'Judeophobia' or 'Paganophobia' etc.

We call those who fear or hate Jews Antisemites. "Judeophobia" has indeed existed and does continue to exist, albeit by a different name. The Nazi regime is most noted for its Antisemitism for instance, among other examples from past to present.

As for fear or hatred vs. Christians or Pagans, history reveals that these indeed existed quite abundantly, and continue to exist. They may not be called "Christianiophobia" or "Paganophobia," but the lack of terms specifically ending in "phobia" does not indicate a lack of fear or hatred towards those groups.

 

[Acim]

It's common knowledge that they didn't find what they tricked everyone into believing was there.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Report concludes no WMD in Iraq

From the article:

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barhem Saleh, said anyone who doubted that Saddam Hussein had WMDs only needed to visit Halabja - where the former Iraq dictator had gassed thousands of Kurds.

Also, just ignore all those quotes from Bill Clinton in the 1990's about Iraq's program of WMD's, because Clinton was a known liar. When he bombed Iraq, it was always for the wrong reasons. Iraq was apparently a peaceful nation that never did anything to anyone.

 

[Kartari]

Hi interminable,

It's as clear as day that US exploded those building to defame Islam and put Muslims under pressure and introduce Muslims as terrorists

Well. Granted, Bush and in particular Cheney had clear motive to be involved, considering the details of Cheney's career history and Bush's familial ties. There were certainly some suspicious coincidences. I strongly believe an investigation should have been performed to ascertain their possible involvement.

But I am unaware of any evidence that's come forth which clearly links one or both to 9/11. Motive is one thing, evidence of involvement is another.

In any event, clearly terrorists who consider themselves Islamic do exist and perform horrendous acts of terror in the world. Such people piloted the planes on 9/11, and others like them have continued to murder and maim to the present. The facts are the facts.

My problem, in your defense, is that too many people wrongly lump all Muslims together under the misperception that, somehow, all the 1.7 billion Muslims in the world are radical terrorists. In fact, the population of Islamic terrorists is a very tiny fraction of that amount. ISIS for instance is made up of an estimated 100,000 members, which is less than even a mere 1/100th of the world's Muslim population.

 

[Acim]

Young lady

I'm trying to enjoy a good old fashioned debate thread, and you had to go post this. Why must you invoke humor into a serious, and seriously off topic, debate thread?

 

[interminable]

Hi interminable,



Well. Granted, Bush and in particular Cheney had clear motive to be involved, considering the details of Cheney's career history and Bush's familial ties. There were certainly some suspicious coincidences. I strongly believe an investigation should have been performed to ascertain their possible involvement.

But I am unaware of any evidence that's come forth which clearly links one or both to 9/11. Motive is one thing, evidence of involvement is another.

In any event, clearly terrorists who consider themselves Islamic do exist and perform horrendous acts of terror in the world. Such people piloted the planes on 9/11, and others like them have continued to murder and maim to the present. The facts are the facts.

My problem, in your defense, is that too many people wrongly lump all Muslims together under the misperception that, somehow, all the 1.7 billion Muslims in the world are radical terrorists. In fact, the population of Islamic terrorists is a very tiny fraction of that amount. ISIS for instance is made up of an estimated 100,000 members, which is less than even a mere 1/100th of the world's Muslim population.

Hi there
Just watch this
http://cdn.mashreghnews.ir/files/fa/news/1395/2/23/1625221_984.mp4

Besides
Isis is supported by US and actually is created by US. Eventually when US analyzed isis can't reach their goals began to create a coalition to introduce themselves as heros and show themselves against terrorists
There are lots of compelling evidences that US sent for isis food and weapons and even sometimes made cease-fire to save them.

 

[Acim]

If you offer your services to weddings, you aren't being forced because you offered your services to the public. You don't get to pick and choose who you will serve when you choose to serve the public.

Though you assume the public agrees with your basic sense of morals. If persons want to marry multiple people or underage people, you don't get to pick and choose who you will serve when you choose to serve the public? Or the current laws get to dictate who you get to serve? If you disagree with those laws (based on perception of immorality, not on the people), while willing to do your service for others, then what? I see part of 'then what' as you don't deserve to be in business, and another part of 'then what' as you deserve to pick and choose who you will serve. If you disagree, then would you serve all types of marriages, if they were locally legal? Without exception? What if not locally legal, would you then use that as basis to pick and choose who you serve, even after writing you don't get to pick and choose?

 

[shmogie]

I'm trying to enjoy a good old fashioned debate thread, and you had to go post this. Why must you invoke humor into a serious, and seriously off topic, debate thread?

Huh? I thought from his pic he was a young lady. I was neither trying to be humorous or sarcastic. It was simply an error. Blame it on poor eyesight from age

 

[shmogie]

Hi Rival,

To answer your title's question, "What is Islamophobia?"



I would add to this definition that it is fear or hatred based on common (and ignorant) perceptions of who or what all Muslims stand for, typically in the form of lumping the world's 1.7 billion Muslims into one identical category of fanatical terrorists (who in reality represent an extraordinarily tiny fraction of the total population).



I think it obviously does. Do you honestly believe that Muslims are not feared or hated at all?



There is a difference between (a) finding reasonable fault with the tenets of a particular faith and (b) having ignorant/unreasonable fear and hatred of a particular religious community. I find much fault with the reasoning behind not only Islamic faith but Christian and Jewish faith as well. But I also have empathy and respect for all of humanity, and that includes Muslims as well as Christians and Jews. I don't have to agree with what someone believes in order to have respect for their right to believe it.

Muslims, like members of other religious traditions, should be equally respected under the law and not, for instance, banned from entering the United States, or put onto a national registry in the US. These would both be clear instances of Islamophobic reactions to a wrongly perceived problem, not to mention unconstitutional in the US.



We call those who fear or hate Jews Antisemites. "Judeophobia" has indeed existed and does continue to exist, albeit by a different name. The Nazi regime is most noted for its Antisemitism for instance, among other examples from past to present.

As for fear or hatred vs. Christians or Pagans, history reveals that these indeed existed quite abundantly, and continue to exist. They may not be called "Christianiophobia" or "Paganophobia," but the lack of terms specifically ending in "phobia" does not indicate a lack of fear or hatred towards those groups.

I understand and respect your position. However, I think you are missing a very essential point that makes islam a very special case, different from other religions. It's founder was violent and aggressive. He encapsulated this in the "holy books" he wrote, books his followers consider their code for life and faith. Of course there is the treatment of women as chattel written there too, but that is only disgusting, not threatening to anyone but those women. Even more importantly within these books is the description and desire for a government system (sharia) wherever islam exists, that is, a theocratic domination. So, put together the calls for violence and the calls for a dominant government system within these books, and you have a religion unlike any other in the world. This is where our western tradition of the freedom to worship breaks down. Our founders saw religion as a spiritual belief system, happy and peaceful, within a population totally committed to the laws and Constitution of the Republic. You find this with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindu's, Taoists, Sikh's, Wiccan's,and Santeriaists. You see no holy compulsion to dominate to change the system of government. You very certainly find these things within
lslam, it's holy books, and teachings. Can they be good citizens, of course. Should the in some way be restricted and limited, no. However, we cannot put our heads in the sand and pretend they aren't the most violent people on earth regarding religion, one only needs to read the paper or hear the news every day. Nor can we pretend that once inside a nation certain preachers within their midst preach violence, and it is carried out. So in your zeal for individual liberty, you must realize that a whole group of individuals to a greater or lesser extend has been pre programmed to deny individual liberty, and attack it. So, when a truck is driven into a Christmas crowd, or during "ramadan" bombs go off murdering many, it is too late to say, well it is just a bad apple, and we should have indentified him, way too late. Europe, by it's kind hearted liberal policies allowing millions of them in is having the very fabric of it's society's ripped. Sweden is the rape capital, because they couldn't care less about Swedish law, sharia says they can rape an unescorted woman not dressed properly. So, no more wholesale importation of people totally ignorant of and not caring about our way of life. Lock down the borders of this nation so we can control who enters, and learn everything possible about someone seeking residency through legal means. Finally, watch, watch, watch, and watch and if an inciter of violence arises, or a violent cell, eliminate them. To do otherwise, to parade the liberal line about Islam in our midst is a continuing recipe for murder. I am sorry for the "good" followers who must be watched and monitored, since we cannot, nor do they assist much in winnowing out the religious thugs among them, we must pragmatically do what we have to do.

 

[Kartari]

Hi shmogie,

I understand and respect your position. However, I think you are missing a very essential point that makes islam a very special case, different from other religions. It's founder was violent and aggressive. He encapsulated this in the "holy books" he wrote, books his followers consider their code for life and faith. Of course there is the treatment of women as chattel written there too, but that is only disgusting, not threatening to anyone but those women. Even more importantly within these books is the description and desire for a government system (sharia) wherever islam exists, that is, a theocratic domination. So, put together the calls for violence and the calls for a dominant government system within these books, and you have a religion unlike any other in the world.

This is where our western tradition of the freedom to worship breaks down. Our founders saw religion as a spiritual belief system, happy and peaceful, within a population totally committed to the laws and Constitution of the Republic. You find this with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindu's, Taoists, Sikh's, Wiccan's,and Santeriaists. You see no holy compulsion to dominate to change the system of government. You very certainly find these things within lslam, it's holy books, and teachings. Can they be good citizens, of course. Should the in some way be restricted and limited, no. However, we cannot put our heads in the sand and pretend they aren't the most violent people on earth regarding religion, one only needs to read the paper or hear the news every day. Nor can we pretend that once inside a nation certain preachers within their midst preach violence, and it is carried out. So in your zeal for individual liberty, you must realize that a whole group of individuals to a greater or lesser extend has been pre programmed to deny individual liberty, and attack it. So, when a truck is driven into a Christmas crowd, or during "ramadan" bombs go off murdering many, it is too late to say, well it is just a bad apple, and we should have indentified him, way too late. Europe, by it's kind hearted liberal policies allowing millions of them in is having the very fabric of it's society's ripped. Sweden is the rape capital, because they couldn't care less about Swedish law, sharia says they can rape an unescorted woman not dressed properly. So, no more wholesale importation of people totally ignorant of and not caring about our way of life. Lock down the borders of this nation so we can control who enters, and learn everything possible about someone seeking residency through legal means. Finally, watch, watch, watch, and watch and if an inciter of violence arises, or a violent cell, eliminate them. To do otherwise, to parade the liberal line about Islam in our midst is a continuing recipe for murder. I am sorry for the "good" followers who must be watched and monitored, since we cannot, nor do they assist much in winnowing out the religious thugs among them, we must pragmatically do what we have to do.

I understand what you are getting at. But you portray a far more black and white perception than really is the case. Islam was indeed founded by a political leader who engaged in the militant conquest of others. Military excursions did indeed take place at the hands of Muslim conquerors and rulers after him, including pretty much the entire Mideast, northern Africa, much of the Iberian peninsula, south Asia, and into central Asia.

But to say that religiously-motivated conquest was exclusive to Islam is factually false. Catholics and Protestants engaged in holy wars throughout Christian history. Christians fought against Muslims, Catholics and Protestants fought each other, and a lot of blood was shed by Christian hands for both religious and political motivations. Antisemitism was very popular throughout Christian Europe, with even the founder of Protestant churches himself, Martin Luther, writing extensive treatises condemning Jews as being of Satan and so forth; indeed, Antisemitism strongly persisted well into the 20th century even in the US until Hitler, in essence, gave the already existent Antisemitism a more literal expression and thereby gave it a bad rap (though it still persists). The crusades were no more or less violent or religiously motivated than Islamic jihads. When we look at both Christianity and Islam side by side, it's truthfully very hard to distinguish any difference in terms of which was more a more violent and brutal force in the world. As for Judaism, while they've been more isolationist, protective, and cooperative for much of their history, the evidence points to a very warlike Hebrew people in ancient times. A review of Jewish (and Christian OT) scripture reveals the first concepts of God-inspired or dictated holy wars - jihad as interpreted to be a literal holy war was therefore not at all a unique concept to Islam, but a borrowed one from Jews and Christians. Take King Joshua's conquest of Canaan for instance, or King Saul's conquest of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15). These can very clearly and undeniably be described as religious-inspired acts of genocidal warfare.

I highlight the scriptural references here to emphasize the fact that just because a religion's scriptures might indicate one thing does not imply that this is what the religion as a whole stands for. Indeed, reading scriptures tends to not only be a process reliant on personal interpretation, but literal readings tend to not really reflect the general consensus at all. Many common people with any given faith tend to want to live in peace, to have a happy life with their families, whether Muslim or not.

Politically, the situations throughout the Muslim-dominant regions of the world are more complex than simply labeling Islam "bad" and other religions "good." Most of the people killed by Muslim extremists are other Muslims, often ordinary people who want nothing to do with terrorism or war (i.e. as in Syria, and elsewhere). In fact the word Islam does not refer to one monolithic religion but, as in the case of other religions, refers to a full spectrum of independent sects, each with its own unique values, ideals, and cultural norms. It's true that there has been a significant push for Islamic theocratic systems of governance in south and central Asia, in the Mideast, and in parts of Africa. Some of these have been extremely violent and brutal, as in the case of Darfur in the Sudan for instance, which reached genocidal proportions. But a careful inspection of the facts indicates this has more to do with the need for democratic reformations and modernization in those regions, rather than the religions themselves. In other words, if Christianity were dominant and all other factors the same (i.e. third-world conditions in many of these places, or at least poverty, backwards education, and a resulting large-scale ignorance), we would see a strong push for Christian theocracies and find Christian holy warriors engaging in acts of terror instead of Muslims. Just as we can find scriptural support for terrorism in the Koran, we can also find it in the Bible and in the Torah. We furthermore also do see forces mobilized to counter threats like ISIS from within Islam. For instance, one armed militia of Kurdish and Yazidi women called the PKK have been actively engaged in armed combat against ISIS in defense of their homeland (source). More broadly, the Iraqi army and other local armed forces actively fighting against ISIS are largely composed of Muslim soldiers.

Part of the problem with the belief that Islam is the most violent religion is that the news only reports what's sensational. And Islamic violence is the in-thing. Far, far more violence and murder occurs in the United States, Canada, and Europe by non-Muslims or terrorists than by the handful of terrorists actually committing these atrocities. But people tend to focus on what is talked or read about most often, giving the illusion that what is mentioned most repeatedly is the most frequent kind of event.

I could go on, but in short, claiming that Islam is uniquely and 100% bad while other religions are far better is a reflection of popular yet poorly-informed opinion based on at best partial truths and gross exaggerations. Becoming genuinely educated in the histories and modern political developments of Islam-majority regions of the world is required to combat this ignorance. It's important to recognize that many Muslims are indeed quite modernized in the US, Europe, Canada, and even in parts of Muslim-dominated regions.

If one was to assert that there's a need for reformation in at least some Islamic regions, I would most certainly agree. I'm not claiming that Islam is a totally innocent religion. It most certainly is not. But to regard it as one monolithic cesspool for terrorism and all that's evil in the world while Christians and other religious communities have been and continue to be all angels is extraordinarily misinformed, to say the least. The stereotype of the average Muslim as a terrorist and religious fanatic really has to go.

 

[shmogie]

Hi shmogie,



I understand what you are getting at. But you portray a far more black and white perception than really is the case. Islam was indeed founded by a political leader who engaged in the militant conquest of others. Military excursions did indeed take place at the hands of Muslim conquerors and rulers after him, including pretty much the entire Mideast, northern Africa, much of the Iberian peninsula, south Asia, and into central Asia.

But to say that religiously-motivated conquest was exclusive to Islam is factually false. Catholics and Protestants engaged in holy wars throughout Christian history. Christians fought against Muslims, Catholics and Protestants fought each other, and a lot of blood was shed by Christian hands for both religious and political motivations. Antisemitism was very popular throughout Christian Europe, with even the founder of Protestant churches himself, Martin Luther, writing extensive treatises condemning Jews as being of Satan and so forth; indeed, Antisemitism strongly persisted well into the 20th century even in the US until Hitler, in essence, gave the already existent Antisemitism a more literal expression and thereby gave it a bad rap (though it still persists). The crusades were no more or less violent or religiously motivated than Islamic jihads. When we look at both Christianity and Islam side by side, it's truthfully very hard to distinguish any difference in terms of which was more a more violent and brutal force in the world. As for Judaism, while they've been more isolationist, protective, and cooperative for much of their history, the evidence points to a very warlike Hebrew people in ancient times. A review of Jewish (and Christian OT) scripture reveals the first concepts of God-inspired or dictated holy wars - jihad as interpreted to be a literal holy war was therefore not at all a unique concept to Islam, but a borrowed one from Jews and Christians. Take King Joshua's conquest of Canaan for instance, or King Saul's conquest of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15). These can very clearly and undeniably be described as religious-inspired acts of genocidal warfare.

I highlight the scriptural references here to emphasize the fact that just because a religion's scriptures might indicate one thing does not imply that this is what the religion as a whole stands for. Indeed, reading scriptures tends to not only be a process reliant on personal interpretation, but literal readings tend to not really reflect the general consensus at all. Many common people with any given faith tend to want to live in peace, to have a happy life with their families, whether Muslim or not.

Politically, the situations throughout the Muslim-dominant regions of the world are more complex than simply labeling Islam "bad" and other religions "good." Most of the people killed by Muslim extremists are other Muslims, often ordinary people who want nothing to do with terrorism or war (i.e. as in Syria, and elsewhere). In fact the word Islam does not refer to one monolithic religion but, as in the case of other religions, refers to a full spectrum of independent sects, each with its own unique values, ideals, and cultural norms. It's true that there has been a significant push for Islamic theocratic systems of governance in south and central Asia, in the Mideast, and in parts of Africa. Some of these have been extremely violent and brutal, as in the case of Darfur in the Sudan for instance, which reached genocidal proportions. But a careful inspection of the facts indicates this has more to do with the need for democratic reformations and modernization in those regions, rather than the religions themselves. In other words, if Christianity were dominant and all other factors the same (i.e. third-world conditions in many of these places, or at least poverty, backwards education, and a resulting large-scale ignorance), we would see a strong push for Christian theocracies and find Christian holy warriors engaging in acts of terror instead of Muslims. Just as we can find scriptural support for terrorism in the Koran, we can also find it in the Bible and in the Torah. We furthermore also do see forces mobilized to counter threats like ISIS from within Islam. For instance, one armed militia of Kurdish and Yazidi women called the PKK have been actively engaged in armed combat against ISIS in defense of their homeland (source). More broadly, the Iraqi army and other local armed forces actively fighting against ISIS are largely composed of Muslim soldiers.

Part of the problem with the belief that Islam is the most violent religion is that the news only reports what's sensational. And Islamic violence is the in-thing. Far, far more violence and murder occurs in the United States, Canada, and Europe by non-Muslims or terrorists than by the handful of terrorists actually committing these atrocities. But people tend to focus on what is talked or read about most often, giving the illusion that what is mentioned most repeatedly is the most frequent kind of event.

I could go on, but in short, claiming that Islam is uniquely and 100% bad while other religions are far better is a reflection of popular yet poorly-informed opinion based on at best partial truths and gross exaggerations. Becoming genuinely educated in the histories and modern political developments of Islam-majority regions of the world is required to combat this ignorance. It's important to recognize that many Muslims are indeed quite modernized in the US, Europe, Canada, and even in parts of Muslim-dominated regions.

If one was to assert that there's a need for reformation in at least some Islamic regions, I would most certainly agree. I'm not claiming that Islam is a totally innocent religion. It most certainly is not. But to regard it as one monolithic cesspool for terrorism and all that's evil in the world while Christians and other religious communities have been and continue to be all angels is extraordinarily misinformed, to say the least. The stereotype of the average Muslim as a terrorist and religious fanatic really has to go.

First, I don't hold a stereotype of the average muslim. Second, I make no claim that alleged practitioners of other religions haven't committed atrocities. I do claim that the holy books of Islam, the basis for the faith, the believed word of their god for their actions, promotes violence against non believer and a continuous striving for the goal of political domination through a theocracy. I think you would have to look very hard to find these commands and instructions in another faith and from the founder/s of that faith. There certainly is a need for reformation, and in the 50's there were Islamic scholars who developed the concept of a peaceful Islam within the world structure. It was a widespread movement, but it was obliterated. Dr. Jasser, in the US, and his organization have rekindled this idea, but they are summarily rejected by most mosques and other organizations. These are simply facts. There are certainly muslims who appear to have somehow made the leap between two cultures, like those who last year slaughtered people at a Christmas party in my home town. You are right, it is very complex, but the bottom line is that innocents are slaughtered on a daily basis by muslims across the world. Instead of worrying about how they are perceived, they ought to be singularly active in proving they can assimilate into our culture. I would ask you how I, a Christian American, would be treated if I immigrated to Turkey, Egypt, et al. I find it utterly amusing that the richest islamic countries REFUSE to take in, so called refugees from muslim nations, citing security concerns. If I am told that in a swarm of African bees 5, 000 have been rendered harmless, but 500 are still capable and eager to attack in a brutal manner, I am going to be very wary of the entire swarm, and make sure the one I want to hold and examine is one of the innocuous ones before I do so. It's not the fault of the harmless ones, it is because of the nasty ones in the among them.